Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Othelos]

Not. A. Joke.

Oh it totally is I mean I can see your face right now.

creepy...

[Jumalariik]

Oh it totally is I mean I can see your face right now.

creepy...

That's what I thought. XD

[Jumalariik]

Not. A. Joke.

Oh it totally is I mean I can see your face right now.

How is asking for proof of something a joke?

[Benuty]

Oh it totally is I mean I can see your face right now.

How is asking for proof of something a joke?

When said proof comes up every time on a religious thread or thread dealing with LGBTQ(etc...).

[Jumalariik]

How is asking for proof of something a joke?

When said proof comes up every time on a religious thread or thread dealing with LGBTQ(etc...).

I'm not talking about NS christians.

[Othelos]

When said proof comes up every time on a religious thread or thread dealing with LGBTQ(etc...).

I'm not talking about NS christians.

Well, the majority of Americans support SSM, and the majority of Americans are christian.

[Benuty]

When said proof comes up every time on a religious thread or thread dealing with LGBTQ(etc...).

I'm not talking about NS christians.

Given Scientific States specifically said NSG, then why ask for proof about others when they were talking about one type specifically?

[Jumalariik]

I'm not talking about NS christians.

Well, the majority of Americans support SSM, and the majority of Americans are christian.

What's SSM?

[Jumalariik]

I'm not talking about NS christians.

Given Scientific States specifically said NSG, then why ask for proof about others when they were talking about one type specifically?

Oh, I misread then, big misunderstanding.
What I don't understand is that the majority of World and American Christians are part of anti-gay denominations, how can they be pro-gay? Then again, that applies to me too.

[Othelos]

Well, the majority of Americans support SSM, and the majority of Americans are christian.

What's SSM?

same sex marriage

[The Flood]

I disagree. Supporting legalized murder is not compatible with Christianity.

Yes it is.
What is murder? Murder is a mortal sin. Does Christianity require that all mortal sins be illegal? No. In fact, the majority of mortal sins are perfectly legal, and no one has ever suggested that they should be otherwise.
Encouraging people to actually commit mortal sins is not compatible with Christianity, but arguing that they should be legally permitted to do so IS compatible with Christianity.

Not with a crime as grave as murder.

[The Flood]

What bullshit. Cut the crap.

So the crusades and the inquisition never happened then? My mistake.

He's right in what he said. Perhaps he should have said why, but then again statements such as this hardly warrant argumentation.

The reason your argument is utterly wrong is because you're judging an institution for things it did in the Middle Ages. If you're going to do that you have to judge everything and everyone from that time period. Are we also gonna say England is terrible and evil? France? Germany? Every other country? No, to do so would be foolish, because people then had an entirely different paradigm of thought, and applying modern ideals to people 1000 years ago is incredible naive.

[The Flood]

Do you think that King Henry was right in starting the Anglican Church? Why or why not?

Of course not. A mentally ill king has no right to found a church.

[The Flood]

Now, I personally believe that abortion should be illegal (except for medical reasons), while at the same time the state should provide the greatest possible range of free health services to pregnant women and mothers, as well as efficient and discreet adoption services, and fully paid maternity leave. I am not sure about my stance regarding abortion in cases of rape - whether it should be legal, or whether it should be illegal but the mothers in question should be offered monetary compensation (and/or other forms of compensation).

However, I am open to be persuaded otherwise (I've changed my mind between pro-choice and pro-life several times, and could change it again), and I certainly don't believe that Christians are obligated to hold any particular stance on this political issue.

I mostly agree with what you have said here, except for you saying that Christians are not obligated to be pro-life. A person should ask themselves, could you honestly venture to make the claim that Jesus would be pro-choice? If He was pro-choice, then He would have been a sinner, because allowing the slaughter of unborn children and favouring its legality is certainly immoral. To claim Christ was a sinner would be blasphemy.

[Distruzio]

Not from my, or the traditional Christian, perspective. That view is an unpopular innovation. And a new one at that. Less than a century old.

Just because it isn't centuries old doesn't make it wrong. Although I do agree that any non-trinitarian view of Christ is erroneous.

Actually, it does make it wrong.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Just because it isn't centuries old doesn't make it wrong. Although I do agree that any non-trinitarian view of Christ is erroneous.

Actually, it does make it wrong.

It's a newer idea, so therefore it's automatically wrong?

I smell chronological snobbery.

[The Union of the West]

Actually, it does make it wrong.

It's a newer idea, so therefore it's automatically wrong?

I smell chronological snobbery.

If an idea being old makes it true, then the only true religion is the totemism and animal worship that the Neanderthals practiced.

[Sun Wukong]

So the crusades and the inquisition never happened then? My mistake.

He's right in what he said. Perhaps he should have said why, but then again statements such as this hardly warrant argumentation.

The reason your argument is utterly wrong is because you're judging an institution for things it did in the Middle Ages. If you're going to do that you have to judge everything and everyone from that time period. Are we also gonna say England is terrible and evil? France? Germany? Every other country? No, to do so would be foolish, because people then had an entirely different paradigm of thought, and applying modern ideals to people 1000 years ago is incredible naive.

Did the Church turn it's infallibility off in the middle ages or something?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If the Church didn't know better then anyone else, then what's it for?

[Constantinopolis]

Yes it is.
What is murder? Murder is a mortal sin. Does Christianity require that all mortal sins be illegal? No. In fact, the majority of mortal sins are perfectly legal, and no one has ever suggested that they should be otherwise.
Encouraging people to actually commit mortal sins is not compatible with Christianity, but arguing that they should be legally permitted to do so IS compatible with Christianity.

Not with a crime as grave as murder.

When you kill someone in self-defence, the Church considers that murder. It is a very grave sin. But in many places, the state does not consider it murder, and it is legal.

The Church's definition of murder and the legal definition of murder are different in most countries. Yet there is no movement to bring the legal definition perfectly in line with the Church's definition.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not with a crime as grave as murder.

When you kill someone in self-defence, the Church considers that murder. It is a very grave sin. But in many places, the state does not consider it murder, and it is legal.

The Church's definition of murder and the legal definition of murder are different in most countries. Yet there is no movement to bring the legal definition perfectly in line with the Church's definition.

This.

I personally am pro-choice politically because, as much as I am against abortions from a moral point, I also believe that banning abortions would be worse in the long run. It's not that I want to see people get abortions left and right, that isn't my point; but I also don't want to bear the burden of a cross that's stained with the bloods of many women who will be desperate when they can't get an abortion legally and they'll resort to measures that will put their lives in danger.

As such, even though I am morally against it, I still think it should be legal because it benefits more than what it costs me to accept it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes it is.

What is murder? Murder is a mortal sin. Does Christianity require that all mortal sins be illegal? No. In fact, the majority of mortal sins are perfectly legal, and no one has ever suggested that they should be otherwise.

Encouraging people to actually commit mortal sins is not compatible with Christianity, but arguing that they should be legally permitted to do so IS compatible with Christianity.

I don't think these mortal sins are legal because the Church wants them to be legal. In fact, I'm positive the Church wants them to be illegal. It is incompatible.

Allowing it to happen legally is conveying the message that it is okay, otherwise, it would be illegal, for example, we see that with murder (because murder is not okay) or with being drunk in public. Believe it or not, laws have a gigantic, very significant influence on society and culture. The opposite is also true. The absence of laws have an effect on society. There are no laws in our society that ban caffeine or alcohol, and nearly all of society accepts them as being okay to consume and sell and purchase and so on. Whether that is good or bad is something else. My point is that the presence and the absence of a law has a gigantic effect on society and culture.

Your ethics are not the same as the law though.

Arguing that the laws should be changed because the ethics of the Church prohibits such a thing makes the invalid assumption that the world is Christian or that every person even agrees nominally with the church's teachings.

The law only makes it easier for everyone, regardless of association, to get along with one another. That is the purpose of the law.

Church's ethics on the other hand deal with only what Christians should know to live a good life. But knowing how to live a holy life by the Church and encouraging others to live by it and the law of the land do not have anything to do with one another; you act upon your ethics, but you must always abide by the law too and attempt to change it when you can, but not to benefit one worldview, but what is best for the people.

[Constantinopolis]

I personally am pro-choice politically because, as much as I am against abortions from a moral point, I also believe that banning abortions would be worse in the long run. It's not that I want to see people get abortions left and right, that isn't my point; but I also don't want to bear the burden of a cross that's stained with the bloods of many women who will be desperate when they can't get an abortion legally and they'll resort to measures that will put their lives in danger.

That is the reason why I only want abortion to be illegal IF there is at the same time strong state support for pregnant women and young mothers, so that no woman ever ends up in a desperate situation that makes her get an illegal abortion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I personally am pro-choice politically because, as much as I am against abortions from a moral point, I also believe that banning abortions would be worse in the long run. It's not that I want to see people get abortions left and right, that isn't my point; but I also don't want to bear the burden of a cross that's stained with the bloods of many women who will be desperate when they can't get an abortion legally and they'll resort to measures that will put their lives in danger.

That is the reason why I only want abortion to be illegal IF there is at the same time strong state support for pregnant women and young mothers, so that no woman ever ends up in a desperate situation that makes her get an illegal abortion.

I wouldn't go with completely illegal but to the point where at least abortions would only be legal for what they were intended for: as a therapeutic procedure to save a woman's life or to prevent severe, irreparable damage to her due to the pregnancy; which said instances are rather uncommon, but they happen; and our duty as Christians is to honor and protect human life. In those cases is a rather hard choice to make because you are dealing with two lives of two beings morally, but I feel that for medical purposes it should be a legal option.

[Constantinopolis]

That is the reason why I only want abortion to be illegal IF there is at the same time strong state support for pregnant women and young mothers, so that no woman ever ends up in a desperate situation that makes her get an illegal abortion.

I wouldn't go with completely illegal but to the point where at least abortions would only be legal for what they were intended for: as a therapeutic procedure to save a woman's life or to prevent severe, irreparable damage to her due to the pregnancy; which said instances are rather uncommon, but they happen; and our duty as Christians is to honor and protect human life. In those cases is a rather hard choice to make because you are dealing with two lives of two beings morally, but I feel that for medical purposes it should be a legal option.

Of course. I thought it is obvious that abortion should always remain an option in cases of medical necessity, so I didn't need to say it explicitly. I completely agree with your post.

[Bari]

He's right in what he said. Perhaps he should have said why, but then again statements such as this hardly warrant argumentation.

The reason your argument is utterly wrong is because you're judging an institution for things it did in the Middle Ages. If you're going to do that you have to judge everything and everyone from that time period. Are we also gonna say England is terrible and evil? France? Germany? Every other country? No, to do so would be foolish, because people then had an entirely different paradigm of thought, and applying modern ideals to people 1000 years ago is incredible naive.

Did the Church turn it's infallibility off in the middle ages or something?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If the Church didn't know better then anyone else, then what's it for?

Infallibility occurs under a very strict and specific set of circumstances. It is not incessantly infallible.

And the Inquisition was not that bad. They rarely tortured people (and, by torture, I mean legitimate torture) and, no matter what, the Inquisitors and affiliates were forbidden (by the Church officials) from drawing any blood, only around 1% of those tried were executed, and, in comparison to the other judicial systems of trying people at the time, it was very clement and much, much more progressive. In fact, people would purposely blaspheme against God in secular courts so that they could get out of them and be placed into the Inquisition's courts because they were much more lenient.
The notion that they were evil and gruesome and torturous came much later when authors would "romanticize" the Inquisition in books and so on.

The Crusades started because of Muslims invading Constantinople. Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban (I think the sixth or seventh or so) for help, and he granted the help. They got the bad reputation, mainly, from renegade Crusaders, such as many of the Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade.