Christian churches wildly disagree with each other. And why just Christian?
Ridiculous. Governments are human creations, they aren’t ordained by your nonexistent god; nor do they have any responsibility to your god or any other even if they existed. And “God’s morality” would be…what? Why should anyone take your unsupported word for what your god wants, and why should people feel any obligation to follow his alleged demands even if people could agree on what they are?
This is where this particular debate usually goes off the rails. JThunder’s point stands. The point “life begins at conception” is not rebutted by “that life is not a person.” JThunder correctly destroyed the notion that anyone who believes that life begins at conception does so purely for religious reasons. You may assert that the fact that it’s a life is not the most important (or an important) point. But he was responding to this:
And it certainly can be a religious argument. But it is not inherently so, and as JThunder points out, it is largely self-evident to biologists that the life of a new human organism begins at conception. The rights you assign to that newly formed organism is another debate that JThunder was careful not to invoke in making his point. But it is completely reasonable, and requires no religious foundation, to believe, (1) human life begins at conception, and (2) the most fundamental human right is the right to live. Not asking anyone to agree with this, and certainly many do not–just amplifying JThunder’s perfectly logical point, since it was countered by several non sequiturs. It seems to be REALLY hard in our abortion debates for people to stay on point. They’d rather argue the notions they have the most affection for, whether or not it has anything to do with the actual point being made.
As for the OP…my personal beliefs (and these are axiomatic to me) are that the government has no business legislating purely moral beliefs, other than the moral conclusion that people have the right to be left alone, to be unharmed by outsiders, and also the right to take reasonable precautions that this right is protected. (And even that right is not inviolable.) Personal liberties and “the free will God gave us” have enormous overlap. Not sure how I personally could believe in one and not the other.
So, I believe it’s a legitimate function of government to take reasonable precautions to prevent the violation of someone’s right to be unharmed, unmolested–left alone. “Thou shalt not kill” may have started as a religious guideline, but it overlaps nicely with the legitimate space for government policy. Don’t take other people’s stuff, etc., or there will be consequences. Good government policy.
An act that creates no material harm to someone else is none of my business, and it’s none of the government’s. I am free personally to believe whatever I want, my church can do the same, but I believe as far as God and the government are concerned, the rest is up to the individual. I believe certain choices are better choices (I even believe choices are more or less aligned with God’s will, and that we’re here to serve God’s purposes), but that’s up to me, for my choices. So, I agree with the OP, then, to that extent.
So, I’m a Catholic, but I believe I have no right to oppose SSM, and if God really compels me to prohibit this for others, I would see the OP’s point–then why all this free will business? It’s also where I see my church’s political positions as a bit schizophrenic. Why aren’t we lobbying for laws forcing people to go to Church on Sunday, no remarriage after divorce, condoms should be illegal, etc.? Shouldn’t they be, to at least be consistent? The RCC is certainly lobbying against SSM. I don’t believe they should. It’s nobody’s business but the two people involved, IMO. Which needn’t have anything at all to do with my own personal beliefs with regard to SSM.
Yes it is, because it only matters if the life is a person. Every cell in my body is alive, fleas are alive, a pea plant is alive, bacteria are alive. “It’s alive” is not a valid argument against abortion, we kill things all the time just by living.
No, they are just twisting the terms, playing word games.
Wrong again. Human tissue has no right to live; no rights at all. It’s people who have rights, not meat. You and JThunder are misusing the definitions of words like “life” and “human”.
And they are older than Christianity; they are not religious principles.
You are correct, but i also wonder if that wasn’t added after the council of Nicea. There are a lot of things that don’t ring true; like The one where Peter is made head of the church,rather a coincidence that he happened to be bishop of Rome and then his successors. If it was true that Jesus made Peter head of the church and they still were using Jewish laws then they weren’t converting anyone to a different religion, and it would not have been necessary for Constantine to call for a council to unite it!
Since the monks who copied the writings and were under the influence of the bishops, it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t put in a few things of their own beliefs. Many people of those years couldn’t read, so they took the word that all was as it was taught.The word of God was in reality the word of humans, who also said it was inspired by God. Yet only Peter(who had just a few chapters), Matthew,and John out of 12 disciples did any writing, yet writings of others, like Thomas were discarded!
I gues I wasn’t clear, I meant not to start a new religion but to spread the good news.
Jesus died a Jew and the first apostles still were following the Jewish laws,until Paul,then they went to the gentiles to convert them.
That is true, but the making of all nations was not necessarily the starting of a new religion. Jesus died a Jew, and until Paul started taking it to the gentiles the apostles seemed to still follow the Jewish laws. That is why by the 300’s the church was so divided. Peter and Paul didn’t agree on a lot of things. Peter had the so called vision to be able to eat what they wanted etc., then there were many divisions in the church. I find it strange that only Matthew, John, and a few chapters of Peter’s were excepted by the Council of Nicea when there were 12 Apostles,and the writings of Thomas, and Judas were discarded.
Since the Monks of the church copied the writings etc. It causes me to wonder if maybe they didn’t slip in a few words of their own, or what the Bishops wanted in to back their teachings. Many (if not most) people could not read and just took the word of the teachers.
Sorry about the last post, I didn’t see that it had gone through, so forgive my repeating…Please?
Sorry about my last post, I didn’t see the quotes go through. Please forgive my impatience?
So are a sperm and ovum. Clearly, the point of the statement “life begins at conception” is that a new life begins from conception, distinct from its host.
This raises an extremely germane point: there is very little in the Bible that supports the majority Christian view that an embryo is a human life. In fact, there are very strong indications that it is not:
[QUOTE=Exodus 21:22-23]
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.
[/QUOTE]
One hardly need point out that a fine is utterly inconsistent with the penalty for murder laid out in the Old Testament.
In post #5, Shakes said that the only arguments ever offered against abortion or gay marriage were based on Christianity. He did not say or in any way imply that this statement was limited to any country, so the reasonable assumption was that he claimed the statement to be true everywhere. After all, he addressed it to readers of this message board, who come from all over the world.
Needless to say, he was wrong, and not in a minor way, and so were you when you tried to defend his statement.
Nah, the question is whether or not pregnancy can be regarded as one of those circumstances where a person can kill another person (if one chooses to define an embryo/fetus in this fashion - if not, the question is moot) and simple observation of human nature and societal consequences strongly indicates it should.
Archeologist have found many skeletons by the houses of ill repute and figured some of the women who got pregnant aborted. So there must have been abortions during Jesus time and he never spoke against it. He also took the attitude that who ever was without sin to cast the first stone. Pro-birhers, don’t seem to care much about the already born.and claiming life began at conception is not a fact, life began eons ago and is a passed on thing. Notice the neo-Conservaitists don’t want to have taxes raised to keep up a lot of social programs, and I recently read a letter to the editor of our paper that there had been 39 thousand or nore abortions in the USA, but didn’t mention the fact that that could mean that many more mouths to feed with out help, nor the fact that they also disaprove of birth control or the morning after pill, which some of the Republicans running for office in 2012 mentioned they don’t aprove of the pill. Seems like they would have women have children they can’t care for and no public money to help the one’s who can’t afford to raise a child to adulthood and we could be like South Africa with 4 or 5 children(already born die a slow death by starvation and the lack of even the most basic necessities.
They call Obama the wefare president, but do not seem to have any solutions just talk!
Nonsense. This is a majority American board, and most of the time when politics come up they are assumed to be being discussed in an American context unless people specify otherwise. Happens all the time with terms like conservative and liberal for example; they doesn’t mean elsewhere what it does in America, but American usage is normally assumed.
I have never heard an explaination of weither or not the soul of a frozen embryo was frozen too, or if it hung around waitning for the embryo to thaw, or if the soul jumped in when it thawed. I once wrote to a priest that had a TV show, and he never answered. I also asked where did life go at death, if the soul lives on, then is soul and life the same thing?
I would like you to look at a fertile egg and show me the picture of an infant,(or any other animal’s fertil egg. Biologicaly it can’t be recogmized as such. do you look at a petri dish and say," oh what a cute little baby!
We have no record of him speaking against it. Which makes sense; abortion was already a violation of Jewish law, so silence would seem to support the status quo. You can’t really make a good argument from silence either way though.
Cite?
This is true, but sometimes silence gives consent.
What are you asking a cite for? That Jewish law forbid homosexuality? That we have no record of Jesus addressing the issue?
But he also said that he upheld the law in its entirety, and also spoke about those who teach it falsely and the consequences. Which means in this case that Jesus’ silence on a particular issue if covered by the law can’t be taken as consent to violation of the law.