Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Herskerstad]

I wonder if possible to become in communion without reconciling theological differences. They are so petty, and have very little to do with the basis of faith.

Unless it's between the Protestants and Catholics. Sadly, that'd be a handful too much to handle...

Oh yeah, I mean, the last three popes prior to the current one all had various ecumenical efforts. Two of them even directly praising Martin Luther's acts on certain core issues and things seemed ripe to go to the table to annul the excommunication of Martin Luther. At some points I even heard whispers of a canonization which would be historically hilarious just for the sheer irony that would pose.

But even if that was to happen, and I do think his excommunication will eventually get lifted because the Catholic church is becoming gradually more universalist by the day. It is and has been for some time in their ecumenical interest to expand, integrate, accept, ect ect. See the current pope's proposal on homosexuals which barely failed to go through. Whereas the protestant faith which is far more dependent on the scriptures and their core useage cannot indulge in such matters, and don't get me wrong. There would be plenty of protestant sects that would jump at a concept of some reunification as even many of the pastors have a fairly limited idea of what being reformed actually means anymore, but the more theologically firm reformed sects would probably reject that unless the dogmatic practices and multiple other aspects get redressed to their favor, which will not happen.

But as far as this pope goes. All I know is that he presented a quite reformed theological view on salvation and damnation in one of his books even though it is by a limited quote. Saying he would not say an atheist is condemned because he has no right to pass judgement. Now on that quote alone he probably would get two thumbs up from Calvin. However, as far as Martin Luther is concerned.... it has been early quiet which is a big change from the last three popes. HOWEVER, he has urged Christian unity in general for a long time and annulling the excommunication of Luther would likely spark a huge change in the ecumenical efforts. Though, I'd not be surprised if he has some good old-fashioned Argentinian anti-reformism in himself so we'll see.

But again, I very much doubt it will change much other than tone. When it gets down to the pen on paper there are some gigantic theological differences between protestantism and Catholicism and as long as there is some adherence to the various creeds laid out in the reformation, it will be a schism that will last.

[The Union of the West]

NSG Christians, I want to ask for your opinions.

I have always found a way to reconcile my religious beliefs (as a Catholic) with my political beliefs. For example: I believe we should focus on reducing the amount of abortions that occur by providing comprehensive social welfare, having well-funded and maintained orphanages, etc. This, combined with sexual education, would drop the rates of abortion without outlawing it, maintaining a civil right to choose. Also, it would be beneficial to poor families in need.

However, I have not been able to do this with LGBT marriage. My beliefs in personal freedom and love have always led me to support these unions. I see nothing wrong with the practice. I can't seem to reconcile my values and compassion with my Catholic adherence. What advice do you guys have?

The Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance.

[Lalaki]

NSG Christians, I want to ask for your opinions.

I have always found a way to reconcile my religious beliefs (as a Catholic) with my political beliefs. For example: I believe we should focus on reducing the amount of abortions that occur by providing comprehensive social welfare, having well-funded and maintained orphanages, etc. This, combined with sexual education, would drop the rates of abortion without outlawing it, maintaining a civil right to choose. Also, it would be beneficial to poor families in need.

However, I have not been able to do this with LGBT marriage. My beliefs in personal freedom and love have always led me to support these unions. I see nothing wrong with the practice. I can't seem to reconcile my values and compassion with my Catholic adherence. What advice do you guys have?

The Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance.

Exactly. The teachings appeal to my worldview, especially with regards to humility and charity for the poor.

I simply have a disagreement with my faith that cannot be reconciled.

[Margno]

The Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance.

Exactly. The teachings appeal to my worldview, especially with regards to humility and charity for the poor.

I simply have a disagreement with my faith that cannot be reconciled.

If you accept the initial premise but find yourself rejecting the conclusion, perhaps you're of the position that the conclusions don't actually follow from the premises. You don't actually have to accept positions that aren't canon, right?
There are many many many Christians who contest the reading of the bible that sees it as opposing homosexuality as it exists in our society today. Even theologically orthodox ones and biblical literalists, like me.

[Lalaki]

Exactly. The teachings appeal to my worldview, especially with regards to humility and charity for the poor.

I simply have a disagreement with my faith that cannot be reconciled.

If you accept the initial premise but find yourself rejecting the conclusion, perhaps you're of the position that the conclusions don't actually follow from the premises. You don't actually have to accept positions that aren't canon, right?
There are many many many Christians who contest the reading of the bible that sees it as opposing homosexuality as it exists in our society today. Even theologically orthodox ones and biblical literalists, like me.

I understand that, but Catholic doctrine is specific on the matter of LGBT marriage. I know other denominations have different positions, such as the Episcopalian Church.

[Herskerstad]

NSG Christians, I want to ask for your opinions.

I have always found a way to reconcile my religious beliefs (as a Catholic) with my political beliefs. For example: I believe we should focus on reducing the amount of abortions that occur by providing comprehensive social welfare, having well-funded and maintained orphanages, etc. This, combined with sexual education, would drop the rates of abortion without outlawing it, maintaining a civil right to choose. Also, it would be beneficial to poor families in need.

However, I have not been able to do this with LGBT marriage. My beliefs in personal freedom and love have always led me to support these unions. I see nothing wrong with the practice. I can't seem to reconcile my values and compassion with my Catholic adherence. What advice do you guys have?

If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

As far as the homosexual situation is concerned. You see nothing wrong with the practice whereas Paul certainly did. The Jews saw it as abominable and Jesus preached on the laws of marriage from the books of Moses. I mean, it is one thing to desire them not to be outcast from a community if they accept that they are in sin with their actions and give the care, time and support that will be needed to nurture them away from such, but it is another thing to say that you see nothing wrong with in when it has always been considered in the Judean/Christian history to be abominable. So part of me want to say read up on that and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

Another part of me however would want you to consider where your soul belongs. Does it belong on the earth where you can throw the bible to the shelf each time it does not correlate with your desires, or do your soul belong in heaven where you instead of attempting to mutate God to your own image, will try to conform yourself to his?

[Constantinopolis]

seeing that the Patriarch and the Pope are on kissing terms!

*Ecumenical Patriarch. Or "Patriarch of Constantinople".

Calling him just "the Patriarch" is too vague. There are nine Orthodox Patriarchs. He is only one of them.

[Lalaki]

NSG Christians, I want to ask for your opinions.

I have always found a way to reconcile my religious beliefs (as a Catholic) with my political beliefs. For example: I believe we should focus on reducing the amount of abortions that occur by providing comprehensive social welfare, having well-funded and maintained orphanages, etc. This, combined with sexual education, would drop the rates of abortion without outlawing it, maintaining a civil right to choose. Also, it would be beneficial to poor families in need.

However, I have not been able to do this with LGBT marriage. My beliefs in personal freedom and love have always led me to support these unions. I see nothing wrong with the practice. I can't seem to reconcile my values and compassion with my Catholic adherence. What advice do you guys have?

(1) If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

As far as the homosexual situation is concerned. You see nothing wrong with the practice whereas Paul certainly did. The Jews saw it as abominable and Jesus preached on the laws of marriage from the books of Moses. I mean, it is one thing to desire them not to be outcast from a community if they accept that they are in sin with their actions and give the care, time and support that will be needed to nurture them away from such, but it is another thing to say that you see nothing wrong with in when it has always been considered in the Judean/Christian history to be abominable. So part of me want to say read up on that and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

Another part of me however would want you to consider where your soul belongs. Does it belong on the earth where you can throw the bible to the shelf each time it does not correlate with your desires, or do your soul belong in heaven where you instead of attempting to mutate God to your own image, will try to conform yourself to his?

1) My goal is to eventually remove the need of abortions (through social welfare, a change in mentality, and sexual education) without outlawing the practice. This is a compromise between my political and religious beliefs.

2) Why would LGBT marriage be considered something to be avoided by doctrine? Catholicism has always appealed to me because it advocates justice for those in need (the poor and those living in unfortunate situations). This position is something I have trouble reconciling with.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

NSG Christians, I want to ask for your opinions.

I have always found a way to reconcile my religious beliefs (as a Catholic) with my political beliefs. For example: I believe we should focus on reducing the amount of abortions that occur by providing comprehensive social welfare, having well-funded and maintained orphanages, etc. This, combined with sexual education, would drop the rates of abortion without outlawing it, maintaining a civil right to choose. Also, it would be beneficial to poor families in need.

However, I have not been able to do this with LGBT marriage. My beliefs in personal freedom and love have always led me to support these unions. I see nothing wrong with the practice. I can't seem to reconcile my values and compassion with my Catholic adherence. What advice do you guys have?

If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

As far as the homosexual situation is concerned. You see nothing wrong with the practice whereas Paul certainly did. The Jews saw it as abominable and Jesus preached on the laws of marriage from the books of Moses. I mean, it is one thing to desire them not to be outcast from a community if they accept that they are in sin with their actions and give the care, time and support that will be needed to nurture them away from such, but it is another thing to say that you see nothing wrong with in when it has always been considered in the Judean/Christian history to be abominable. So part of me want to say read up on that and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

Another part of me however would want you to consider where your soul belongs. Does it belong on the earth where you can throw the bible to the shelf each time it does not correlate with your desires, or do your soul belong in heaven where you instead of attempting to mutate God to your own image, will try to conform yourself to his?

In the case of pro-choice and LGBT marriage I just take it as such:

It matters to me as a Christian because I am a Christian and I should follow Christian values.

Other people however can do what they wish. If they are not in the church that falls solely in the category of "not my problem unless they seek advice from me".

Abortion would be nice to shift away the mentality that abortion is acceptable to one that is more in line with what medical abortions are supposed to be: a medical procedure for certain cases. However, as a Christian, I cannot force pro-life legalism into a country's laws or force people who are not Christian to believe the same way I do, that's not how it works.

Same with LGBT issues. I cannot force my worldview that homosexuality, to me, feels wrong and I wouldn't engage in homosexual activities to other people. That's not what I'm supposed to be doing.

[Constantinopolis]

If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

Things that are illegal still happen. Pirating software is illegal, but I doubt there is a single person in NSG who hasn't pirated something at some point.

So, if abortion is a great evil - and I hope we can all agree that it is - that does not necessarily mean that it should simply be made illegal, case closed. It means that we should seek to minimize the number of abortions that happen. Making it illegal and doing nothing else is one way of attempting to make sure abortions don't happen, but what if it's not the best way? What if, in fact, keeping abortion legal and combining this with a number of social welfare policies designed to help mothers is more effective at reducing abortions than simply banning the practice?

Then you've got a Christian case for keeping abortion legal.

[Benuty]

seeing that the Patriarch and the Pope are on kissing terms!

*Ecumenical Patriarch. Or "Patriarch of Constantinople".

Calling him just "the Patriarch" is too vague. There are nine Orthodox Patriarchs. He is only one of them.

The Patriarch of Mt.Athos *nods*.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

Things that are illegal still happen. Pirating software is illegal, but I doubt there is a single person in NSG who hasn't pirated something at some point.

So, if abortion is a great evil - and I hope we can all agree that it is - that does not necessarily mean that it should simply be made illegal, case closed. It means that we should seek to minimize the number of abortions that happen. Making it illegal and doing nothing else is one way of attempting to make sure abortions don't happen, but what if it's not the best way? What if, in fact, keeping abortion legal and combining this with a number of social welfare policies designed to help mothers is more effective at reducing abortions than simply banning the practice?

Then you've got a Christian case for keeping abortion legal.

Well, for one, simply banning abortions will do nothing as all abortions will just go underground.

Great job, you just created a black market of clandestine abortions (in accordance to the principle that for every ban in something in a country you are creating an underground market for the same thing or the potential to have one) where women end up dead and maternal mortality rates rise in the country. So much for that Christian "all lives matter" deal. It's one of the cases against banning abortions: all lives matter, we don't want to just save infant lives as Christians, but also maternal lives because hey, women matter and their lives too if we believe God gave us life, and creating a black market for clandestine abortions and exposing women to lose their lives kind of runs counter to that.

[The Archregimancy]

Aren't already both churches in "communion" or some such?

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches? No, absolutely not.

However, we do have very friendly relations, and representatives from one Church are routinely invited to every important celebration organized by the other Church. That doesn't mean we've stopped having major disagreements, though. It just means we've stopped acting cranky about them.

Selectively.

Opinions towards Catholicism differ greatly across the Orthodox Church as a whole, from the warm relations enjoyed between Constantinople and Rome, to the arms-length suspicion that Moscow feels about Rome, to the outright hostility towards Rome held by much of Mount Athos.

And while I wouldn't denigrate the relationship between Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis - their warm personal relationship has many positives - despite his status as first among equals, demographically speaking Bartholomew leads a fairly small sub-group of the Orthodox Church. Roughly 40% of Orthodox Christians live in Russia, and the chances of a meeting between Francis and Patriarch Kyrill are not currently high.


One of the problems that Catholics often have with positing hypothetical scenarios about the future of Orthodox-Catholic relations is that they frequently start from the assumption that bridging the gap is largely in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch. There's often a failure to recognise that all 14 to 15 autocephalous churches have to be equal partners in the process; that our side can't even agree on how many autocephalous churches there are admittedly complicates the process.

[Constantinopolis]

I simply have a disagreement with my faith that cannot be reconciled.

Well, that's really the wrong way to go about it. When Church doctrine (not merely the opinion of some clergy, or even most clergy, but actual official doctrine) conflicts with one of your views, then the correct thing to do is to change your view to fit the doctrine. That's what it means to be in the Church. We have to take obedience seriously. We can't put our own judgment above the official doctrinal pronouncements of the Church of Christ.

It's a lot like democratic centralism, actually.

I grew more socially conservative after becoming Orthodox, because some of my previous socially liberal views were clearly not in line with Church doctrine, and had to be changed.

Having said that, Church doctrine is typically about morality, not directly about politics. So, for example, Church doctrine clearly states that abortion is murder (morally speaking). But does that mean that abortion should therefore be illegal (politically speaking)? Not necessarily - see my previous post.

A similar situation applies to same-sex marriage. It is clearly morally wrong, and goes firmly against Church doctrine...

...but so does marrying a person you've just met at a drunken party in Las Vegas, yet no one proposes to make that illegal. Just because something is immoral, that does not necessarily mean that it should be against the law. All sorts of sexual sins are perfectly legal, and for good reason (usually because any law against them would be impossible to enforce, and would just create opportunities for abuses of power by corrupt cops).

Morality and law are related (contrary to the views of some misguided liberals), but they are merely related - they are by no means one and the same thing.

[Herskerstad]

If you think that holding a position of accepting abortions. Which in the wast majority of cases has no major health issue tied in with it and just seeking to minimize it's usage is a Christian position, then you are sorely mistaken. Painfully so even. If it was an acceptable thing then there would be no reason to attempt to minimize it's impact which you seem to be doing, so part of you must know the great evil it is propagating going both even against your church in the wast majority of cases and several early church fathers, then you're making a concession to the devil, not one to God by holding a pro-choice stance. I mean Christ was pretty adamant on what people who lead children into sin should do, how do you think he would respond to someone who'd enable death unto them?

As far as the homosexual situation is concerned. You see nothing wrong with the practice whereas Paul certainly did. The Jews saw it as abominable and Jesus preached on the laws of marriage from the books of Moses. I mean, it is one thing to desire them not to be outcast from a community if they accept that they are in sin with their actions and give the care, time and support that will be needed to nurture them away from such, but it is another thing to say that you see nothing wrong with in when it has always been considered in the Judean/Christian history to be abominable. So part of me want to say read up on that and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

Another part of me however would want you to consider where your soul belongs. Does it belong on the earth where you can throw the bible to the shelf each time it does not correlate with your desires, or do your soul belong in heaven where you instead of attempting to mutate God to your own image, will try to conform yourself to his?

In the case of pro-choice and LGBT marriage I just take it as such:

It matters to me as a Christian because I am a Christian and I should follow Christian values.

Other people however can do what they wish. If they are not in the church that falls solely in the category of "not my problem unless they seek advice from me".

Abortion would be nice to shift away the mentality that abortion is acceptable to one that is more in line with what medical abortions are supposed to be: a medical procedure for certain cases. However, as a Christian, I cannot force pro-life legalism into a country's laws or force people who are not Christian to believe the same way I do, that's not how it works.

Same with LGBT issues. I cannot force my worldview that homosexuality, to me, feels wrong and I wouldn't engage in homosexual activities to other people. That's not what I'm supposed to be doing.

What an utterly arbitrary way to phrase a question. Firstly, he defined it as a civil right to choose which is a definition I utterly reject on any given ground, secondly, when it comes to abortion, then it is a question of life and death of an individual, so you can be certain that any Christian can in good conscience do whatever is needed on a political level to minimize, and if possible, prohibit the practice. It is true that others will seek to still do the practice and that will be on their souls, but a great many less would seek to do so which would translate into God's work going uninterrupted more often. I would much rather see +/- nine months of suffering than the 840+/- months in question extinguished. Now, that's not to say that the Christian has not done a good job of formulating a strong alternative, and give the care, counseling and such needed to prevent the loss of life for laughable big government claims, but this is not a lesser or greater evil question. It is a question of life and death in the wast majority of cases, and if a Christian cannot defend life or God's work, then he has learned nothing from the scriptures.

LGBT aspects is an entirely different situation as here you have two consenting individuals willingly making themselves appear abominable before God. Now seeing how consent is key in such a regard, which an individual cannot do in the womb in regards to their own existence ensures an entirely different set of parameters as far as it is concerned. I do not think it wise to legislate most immoral behavior when it comes in regards one or consenting individuals. That's not to say that a Christian cannot defend marriage as defined in the books of Moses as several nations adopted a separate, but equal adaptation towards homosexual couples. Receiving the same benefits ect in a union.

[Lalaki]

I simply have a disagreement with my faith that cannot be reconciled.

Well, that's really the wrong way to go about it. When Church doctrine (not merely the opinion of some clergy, or even most clergy, but actual official doctrine) conflicts with one of your views, then the correct thing to do is to change your view to fit the doctrine. That's what it means to be in the Church. We have to take obedience seriously. We can't put our own judgment above the official doctrinal pronouncements of the Church of Christ.

It's a lot like democratic centralism, actually.

I grew more socially conservative after becoming Orthodox, because some of my previous socially liberal views were clearly not in line with Church doctrine, and had to be changed.

Having said that, Church doctrine is typically about morality, not directly about politics. So, for example, Church doctrine clearly states that abortion is murder (morally speaking). But does that mean that abortion should therefore be illegal (politically speaking)? Not necessarily - see my previous post.

A similar situation applies to same-sex marriage. It is clearly morally wrong, and goes firmly against Church doctrine...

...but so does marrying a person you've just met at a drunken party in Las Vegas, yet no one proposes to make that illegal. Just because something is immoral, that does not necessarily mean that it should be against the law. All sorts of sexual sins are perfectly legal, and for good reason (usually because any law against them would be impossible to enforce, and would just create opportunities for abuses of power by corrupt cops).

Morality and law are related (contrary to the views of some misguided liberals), but they are merely related - they are by no means one and the same thing.

This is a very well thought-out response. Thank you. I will consider.

[Herskerstad]

Things that are illegal still happen. Pirating software is illegal, but I doubt there is a single person in NSG who hasn't pirated something at some point.

So, if abortion is a great evil - and I hope we can all agree that it is - that does not necessarily mean that it should simply be made illegal, case closed. It means that we should seek to minimize the number of abortions that happen. Making it illegal and doing nothing else is one way of attempting to make sure abortions don't happen, but what if it's not the best way? What if, in fact, keeping abortion legal and combining this with a number of social welfare policies designed to help mothers is more effective at reducing abortions than simply banning the practice?

Then you've got a Christian case for keeping abortion legal.

Well, for one, simply banning abortions will do nothing as all abortions will just go underground.

Great job, you just created a black market of clandestine abortions (in accordance to the principle that for every ban in something in a country you are creating an underground market for the same thing or the potential to have one) where women end up dead and maternal mortality rates rise in the country. So much for that Christian "all lives matter" deal. It's one of the cases against banning abortions: all lives matter, we don't want to just save infant lives as Christians, but also maternal lives because hey, women matter and their lives too if we believe God gave us life, and creating a black market for clandestine abortions and exposing women to lose their lives kind of runs counter to that.

I utterly reject the false dilemma of somehow having the majority of women, who'd otherwise abort, go underground for the procedures. It did not turn out as such for Ireland, and I doubt it would do so for the US. There might be more protests, wailing and despair, all of which stands worth it for the lives in question which seemingly does not carry much consideration in your rationale. Does extreme situations exist? Yes, but they are by any standards an exception and not a rule which also can be to varying degrees policed. There are also things to do for those who experience an unwanted pregnancy which does not entail one or both losing the life and those options should be proceeded wholeheartedly even if it involves sending the child to an orphanage, but to somehow throw infants under the bus on the exchange is inexcusable as far as morality is concerned and pandering to extremes on the hypothetical is not a strong argument to it's favor.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the case of pro-choice and LGBT marriage I just take it as such:

It matters to me as a Christian because I am a Christian and I should follow Christian values.

Other people however can do what they wish. If they are not in the church that falls solely in the category of "not my problem unless they seek advice from me".

Abortion would be nice to shift away the mentality that abortion is acceptable to one that is more in line with what medical abortions are supposed to be: a medical procedure for certain cases. However, as a Christian, I cannot force pro-life legalism into a country's laws or force people who are not Christian to believe the same way I do, that's not how it works.

Same with LGBT issues. I cannot force my worldview that homosexuality, to me, feels wrong and I wouldn't engage in homosexual activities to other people. That's not what I'm supposed to be doing.

What an utterly arbitrary way to phrase a question. Firstly, he defined it as a civil right to choose which is a definition I utterly reject on any given ground, secondly, when it comes to abortion, then it is a question of life and death of an individual, so you can be certain that any Christian can in good conscience do whatever is needed on a political level to minimize, and if possible, prohibit the practice. It is true that others will seek to still do the practice and that will be on their souls, but a great many less would seek to do so which would translate into God's work going uninterrupted more often. I would much rather see +/- nine months of suffering than the 840+/- months in question extinguished. Now, that's not to say that the Christian has not done a good job of formulating a strong alternative, and give the care, counseling and such needed to prevent the loss of life for laughable big government claims, but this is not a lesser or greater evil question. It is a question of life and death in the wast majority of cases, and if a Christian cannot defend life or God's work, then he has learned nothing from the scriptures.

LGBT aspects is an entirely different situation as here you have two consenting individuals willingly making themselves appear abominable before God. Now seeing how consent is key in such a regard, which an individual cannot do in the womb in regards to their own existence ensures an entirely different set of parameters as far as it is concerned. I do not think it wise to legislate most immoral behavior when it comes in regards one or consenting individuals. That's not to say that a Christian cannot defend marriage as defined in the books of Moses as several nations adopted a separate, but equal adaptation towards homosexual couples. Receiving the same benefits ect in a union.

That's not to say abortion can be legislated just because it is immoral to kill a life.

When it come to life and death, I am not anybody's counselor nor am I with the time or will to change the world to my thinking. That's one thing you must understand: that those that want to be saved will be saved at this point. We're not in the age of pilgrimages anymore. Anyone who has access to modern society knows Christianity and the impact it has even at a nominal level in their society. To say that we MUST defend God's work when other people do not believe in God is not only fanatical, but also wrong.

I personally would like to see women wanting to have babies rather than have tons of kids in loveless homes and given away to orphanages like expendable materials. If you believe that life is important it is also important to note that it isn't only the right to life of the baby that we should care about,but also to prevent them from having a low quality of life under an unwanted parenthood. It also makes sense that from a Christian perspective Christians are commanded to follow God and what we think is their will, but not others, because just because you think that God wants small governments and end abortions doesn't mean I do or that others do. You can't force a Hindu or an Atheist to consider abortion under your terms, that's ridiculous.

Also, you're wrong, it is a matter of life and death in ALL cases, the difference is which life is more important, the mother's, the child's or both? If you think one is more valuable than the other then you can't claim to be pro-life. Pro-life thinking should be that of all lives matter, not just the lives I want. As such thinking "oh well, the mother can suffer, fuck her" is hypocritical. Yes, hypocritical as a Christian, because you're devaluing her life at the stake of the creature inside her womb. You can't say "fuck her, she can suffer" while saying "all lives matter, we want to save as many lives as possible" and forcing women to have clandestine abortions. That kind of goes counter to the whole "pro-life" position and Christian pro-life philosophy.

Also, the book of Moses? The only people who are supposed to follow the Books of Moses, and that's because they are supposed to follow them, are Jewish people. We're not held to follow the Books of Moses because, if you believe in Pauline Christianity and its foundations (which all denominations have) then you're doing a disservice to Christianity by following books you 1) do not understand and 2) you're not supposed to follow because Paul said so.

[Constantinopolis]

I utterly reject the false dilemma of somehow having the majority of women, who'd otherwise abort, go underground for the procedures. It did not turn out as such for Ireland, and I doubt it would do so for the US.

Of course banning abortion would reduce the number of abortions, to a certain extent.

That does not necessarily mean that it is the most effective method of reducing the number of abortions, with the best results.

To use an analogy, everyone agrees that the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the US is a horribly bad thing. But some people insist that the best solution does not include banning guns.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, for one, simply banning abortions will do nothing as all abortions will just go underground.

Great job, you just created a black market of clandestine abortions (in accordance to the principle that for every ban in something in a country you are creating an underground market for the same thing or the potential to have one) where women end up dead and maternal mortality rates rise in the country. So much for that Christian "all lives matter" deal. It's one of the cases against banning abortions: all lives matter, we don't want to just save infant lives as Christians, but also maternal lives because hey, women matter and their lives too if we believe God gave us life, and creating a black market for clandestine abortions and exposing women to lose their lives kind of runs counter to that.

I utterly reject the false dilemma of somehow having the majority of women, who'd otherwise abort, go underground for the procedures. It did not turn out as such for Ireland, and I doubt it would do so for the US. There might be more protests, wailing and despair, all of which stands worth it for the lives in question which seemingly does not carry much consideration in your rationale. Does extreme situations exist? Yes, but they are by any standards an exception and not a rule which also can be to varying degrees policed. There are also things to do for those who experience an unwanted pregnancy which does not entail one or both losing the life and those options should be proceeded wholeheartedly even if it involves sending the child to an orphanage, but to somehow throw infants under the bus on the exchange is inexcusable as far as morality is concerned and pandering to extremes on the hypothetical is not a strong argument to it's favor.

Then you do not understand the basic differences between Ireland and the United States.

Ireland had an easier transition because it is a Catholic nation. In America, across the continent, there has been a defiance towards the Church since its colonial roots because the Church held a lot of power. Even Latin American Catholics are not really Catholics by the most hard-lined standards. The United States, since its conception, has not promoted Catholicism not Protestantism. It has had a cultural impact, but it'd be borderline delusional to think that is has influenced government throughout the history of the United States. There's also the fact that American Christians are even more cray cray than our cousins across the ocean. We don't even know enough about sex and contraceptives. Women and men in Ireland and other European countries know more about it than we do here, and we're supposed to be #1.

In the United States also abortion has been a procedure which has been legal through the Supreme Court, and many people do not understand that in America, children are also starving right now. It is also appalling to see that Christians also do not care about what happens to children after they are born. "Well we should force the woman to have a child, but after that fuck 'em, I don't want anything to do with their pathetic lives, fucking bitches deserved it" is what I hear often in this side of the United States, and it is frankly both anti-Christian and anti-life to think in such a way. Will a ban lower the rate of abortions? Sure, but it's not the most effective way because you end up with a black market and maternal mortalities or the potential of it besides traveling abroad where they can get an abortion (and for many in the United States the next step is getting a passport and traveling down to Mexico, what, do you also plan to close the borders too so women cannot leave now?), and that's not what we seek, to instead of saving lives we end up with blood on our hands.

In other words, you cannot just have your cake and eat it too on this one. I know this because in El Salvador there's maternal deaths due to a ban of abortions without a support net for women even though it touts to be a Catholic nation, and if you are pro-life you should care about all lives and their quality of living, not just the ones you desire to live. See, you think only Ireland has a ban on abortions. No, El Salvador does too and is even more extensive than Ireland's to the effect that the mother cannot even get a therapeutic abortion in El Salvador. Many women have to travel out of the country to just have an abortion or do it clandestinely because fuck it. You only see one side of the coin while ignoring the others that are in your backyard and that frankly spells a bleak picture about just an outright ban of abortions without any state support.

[Herskerstad]

That's not to say abortion can be legislated just because it is immoral to kill a life.

When it come to life and death, I am not anybody's counselor nor am I with the time or will to change the world to my thinking. That's one thing you must understand: that those that want to be saved will be saved at this point. We're not in the age of pilgrimages anymore. Anyone who has access to modern society knows Christianity and the impact it has even at a nominal level in their society. To say that we MUST defend God's work when other people do not believe in God is not only fanatical, but also wrong.

There are numerous issues with the current statement. That you are not a counselor or with the time and will to change the world to your thinking is explicitly limited to your own person and thus stands quite limited as far as this great issue is concerned. The far greater issue is however is this concept that a Christian must leave their morality in the shelf to operate in this brave new world. It is something which quite explicitly can be seen rejected by central individuals to Christian history. The early church fathers did not bow to the demand of Rome, by far the most modern society of that time, to call Caesar Lord. Not doing so would be seen as divisive and illegal at their time, but they pressed on in their defiance on this issue as it was the right thing to do. The scripture is also a guidance for Christians of ALL ages, it did not start to become irrelevant the day someone decided to call the date they found themselves in modern.

I personally would like to see women wanting to have babies rather than have tons of kids in loveless homes and given away to orphanages like expendable materials. If you believe that life is important it is also important to note that it isn't only the right to life of the baby that we should care about,but also to prevent them from having a low quality of life under an unwanted parenthood. It also makes sense that from a Christian perspective Christians are commanded to follow God and what we think is their will, but not others, because just because you think that God wants small governments and end abortions doesn't mean I do or that others do. You can't force a Hindu or an Atheist to consider abortion under your terms, that's ridiculous.

The desire may be mirrored in the sense that having wanted children is preferable as situations go, but it stands no grounds to end a life one a situation fails to qualify to such. However the following statement you put out is mildly put it disturbing. There is no double jeopardy for a child which has been aborted, they are dead, nor do we have the ability to judge if a life will be miserable or good just from their beginnings. Poor people are capable of having good lives and some even manage to become quite wealthy. And I can indeed argue on the basis of life to any person of any faith or walk. The arbitrary notion that somehow I have to either hide, shelf, or stand limited to arguing based on my faith is one which again, I'd reject. You can limit yourself to that if you desire, but I can chose if I want not to follow such an odd way of life.

You can also quote me on where I said God wants small governments. Because such a quote does not exist and thus your statement stands a lie.

Also, you're wrong, it is a matter of life and death in ALL cases, the difference is which life is more important, the mother's, the child's or both? If you think one is more valuable than the other then you can't claim to be pro-life. Pro-life thinking should be that of all lives matter, not just the lives I want. As such thinking "oh well, the mother can suffer, fuck her" is hypocritical. Yes, hypocritical as a Christian, because you're devaluing her life at the stake of the creature inside her womb. You can't say "fuck her, she can suffer" while saying "all lives matter, we want to save as many lives as possible" and forcing women to have clandestine abortions. That kind of goes counter to the whole "pro-life" position and Christian pro-life philosophy.

We do not live in an age where though decisions somehow forces us to side with one ultimatum just due to the existence of a dilemma. On such rare instances it can be handled under the same principles one would conduct surgery on conjoined twins. Involving risks, methods and factors, but also the understanding that the execution of one is not an acceptable way to gain the benefit of the other. The thought process you laid out towards the mother is not one mirrored in my own understanding or I think anyone who truly seeks to find a solution on this matter that stands removed from killing the innocent and thus stands a hyperbole at best, but more likely a strawman given how you phrased it as it stands neither with me nor those who'd behave themselves properly, because granting the hypothetical abortion in such a situation due to the issue of distress, which in many cases can be lessened with care and counseling, does not stand equitable on any scale with the hundreds of months vanquished to stabilize such a mood. Not to mention many who take abortions become depressed themselves so it's not exactly a wonder-weapon in that regards either.

Also, the book of Moses? The only people who are supposed to follow the Books of Moses, and that's because they are supposed to follow them, are Jewish people. We're not held to follow the Books of Moses because, if you believe in Pauline Christianity and its foundations (which all denominations have) then you're doing a disservice to Christianity by following books you 1) do not understand and 2) you're not supposed to follow because Paul said so.

At this point I think you're just botching Paul's words in their entirty. Bordering on text-sniping and you say I have little understanding of the books of Moses? I am well aware of my western ignorance towards Judean traditions and how they interpret and have interpreted portions of scripture differently than our current sphere of thought and actively engage Jewish figures on that, as they tend to have a very accepting view on procurement of knowledge in general. However, the concept that somehow the law is abolished and that a Christian needs to not follow it is tremendously erroneous and a common error among those that do not take the time to let the scriptures speak for themselves. While part of the law As Paul also preached about the law of sin in regards to the body.

Romans 7 ESV

7 Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.[b] 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]
The Law and Sin

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I so frequently hear Christians claim that the law is no longer of importance which goes against the whole of scripture, and especially Paul's writing. Now Paul's writing may be complex at such, and even Peter recognized this.

"And bear in mind that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, exactly as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has also written to you; As he has also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things; in which are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable are twisting and distorting, as they also twist and distort the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Peter 3:15-16)

However the whole of scripture needs to be considered when taking into account Paul's position on both the law and scripture.

"Therefore, the law is indeed holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good . . . For I delight in the law of God" (Romans 7:12, 22)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; So that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."(2 Timothy 3:16)

And that still stands today. The new testament did not exist to cut the old testament from it's role or importance. The New Testament is a fulfillment of the old in which some parameters change and others do not. In Paul's epistle he constantly mentions the law. Now, we may stand commanded not to judge any others, but that does not translate to standing idle or enabling evil. If a man is about to kill another man, it is not unchristian to prevent such. It would be unchristian to say that said figure is destined to go to hell or enact divine vengeance upon said man, but not to prevent it. Nor is it unchristian to appeal to Cesar like Paul himself did once he was asked to stand before a trial in Judeah. I'll gladly appeal to Ceasar to aid in stopping the waste of life and the genocide that abortion has wrought and establish better ways to deal with the situation for those not in an ideal position and I'd encourage any other Christian to do the same. While we may not commit violent rebellion against Cesar, we can certainly appeal to him and the secular law of his, but when it comes to a dilemma between the law of man and the law of God, the law of God should always come first as the early church fathers so reverently displayed. On pain of death even, not merely on pain of comfort or perceived relevance. Call it fundamental, but that's exactly it. Going to the fundamentals of the bible as our goodwill on life does not merely extend to our own, but to the unrighteous as well just like God's rain. In both giving our life to ensuring that others are not taken, or preventing those of other convictions to take a life, we do a good deed.

Also in regards to the book in question. That came from Jesus's sermon on the mount in regards to marriage of which no Christian do any dishonor in following. That he taught on the marriage which one finds formalized in the books of Moses only re-enforces the point. Christ would be well aware of people with homosexual attractions that would like nothing more than to have their unions blessed, yet such a blessing never came. And Paul, considered by all mainline Christian denominations to be inspired expanded on the law which anyone can see takes inspiration from the levitican traditions. Homosexual acts is seen as abominable and he expands on that in fair detail. However, that does not mean he did not take people who were homosexual and helped them be reborn anew just like he did with so many other kinds of sinners.

It all ties in to the issues of individuals pursuing man-centered theology rather than adhering to a God-centered one. The man centered theology can die out due to relevance, be replaced by emotions or any other personal issue. On that level scripture just becomes word. But if one treats the scriptures as inspired and adhere to them, even when the world will hate one for doing so. Then one is doing righteous works thanks to God.

[Constantinopolis]

On another note, although the discussion has moved on, I just wanted to thank Arch for his clarifications.

I did not know that the Armenians still celebrate Christmas and Epiphany together (thus making them the only Christians who do not celebrate Christmas on 25 December on their own calendar). That's very interesting.

I knew that the earliest practice of the Church was to celebrate the Birth and Baptism of Christ together on the same day, but I thought all Christians had separated Christmas and Epiphany as distinct holy days by the 4th century, in order to avoid any hint of the heresy of adoptionism. Presumably, the Armenians were the only ones not persuaded that this separation of the two holy days was necessary.

Also, Arch, thank you for pointing out (in a later post) the diversity of Orthodox attitudes towards Catholicism. And, on that subject, this part is significant:

One of the problems that Catholics often have with positing hypothetical scenarios about the future of Orthodox-Catholic relations is that they frequently start from the assumption that bridging the gap is largely in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

It feels like the Catholics imagine the Ecumenical Patriarch to be some kind of Orthodox Pope, and act in accordance with this mistaken assumption, not realizing how little power he actually has. Patriarch Bartholomew, for his part, doesn't seem to be in any hurry to correct their misconception. Hehe.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's not to say abortion can be legislated just because it is immoral to kill a life.

When it come to life and death, I am not anybody's counselor nor am I with the time or will to change the world to my thinking. That's one thing you must understand: that those that want to be saved will be saved at this point. We're not in the age of pilgrimages anymore. Anyone who has access to modern society knows Christianity and the impact it has even at a nominal level in their society. To say that we MUST defend God's work when other people do not believe in God is not only fanatical, but also wrong.

There are numerous issues with the current statement. That you are not a counselor or with the time and will to change the world to your thinking is explicitly limited to your own person and thus stands quite limited as far as this great issue is concerned. The far greater issue is however is this concept that a Christian must leave their morality in the shelf to operate in this brave new world. It is something which quite explicitly can be seen rejected by central individuals to Christian history. The early church fathers did not bow to the demand of Rome, by far the most modern society of that time, to call Caesar Lord. Not doing so would be seen as divisive and illegal at their time, but they pressed on in their defiance on this issue as it was the right thing to do. The scripture is also a guidance for Christians of ALL ages, it did not start to become irrelevant the day someone decided to call the date they found themselves in modern.

I personally would like to see women wanting to have babies rather than have tons of kids in loveless homes and given away to orphanages like expendable materials. If you believe that life is important it is also important to note that it isn't only the right to life of the baby that we should care about,but also to prevent them from having a low quality of life under an unwanted parenthood. It also makes sense that from a Christian perspective Christians are commanded to follow God and what we think is their will, but not others, because just because you think that God wants small governments and end abortions doesn't mean I do or that others do. You can't force a Hindu or an Atheist to consider abortion under your terms, that's ridiculous.

The desire may be mirrored in the sense that having wanted children is preferable as situations go, but it stands no grounds to end a life one a situation fails to qualify to such. However the following statement you put out is mildly put it disturbing. There is no double jeopardy for a child which has been aborted, they are dead, nor do we have the ability to judge if a life will be miserable or good just from their beginnings. Poor people are capable of having good lives and some even manage to become quite wealthy. And I can indeed argue on the basis of life to any person of any faith or walk. The arbitrary notion that somehow I have to either hide, shelf, or stand limited to arguing based on my faith is one which again, I'd reject. You can limit yourself to that if you desire, but I can chose if I want not to follow such an odd way of life.

You can also quote me on where I said God wants small governments. Because such a quote does not exist and thus your statement stands a lie.

Also, you're wrong, it is a matter of life and death in ALL cases, the difference is which life is more important, the mother's, the child's or both? If you think one is more valuable than the other then you can't claim to be pro-life. Pro-life thinking should be that of all lives matter, not just the lives I want. As such thinking "oh well, the mother can suffer, fuck her" is hypocritical. Yes, hypocritical as a Christian, because you're devaluing her life at the stake of the creature inside her womb. You can't say "fuck her, she can suffer" while saying "all lives matter, we want to save as many lives as possible" and forcing women to have clandestine abortions. That kind of goes counter to the whole "pro-life" position and Christian pro-life philosophy.

We do not live in an age where though decisions somehow forces us to side with one ultimatum just due to the existence of a dilemma. On such rare instances it can be handled under the same principles one would conduct surgery on conjoined twins. Involving risks, methods and factors, but also the understanding that the execution of one is not an acceptable way to gain the benefit of the other. The thought process you laid out towards the mother is not one mirrored in my own understanding or I think anyone who truly seeks to find a solution on this matter that stands removed from killing the innocent and thus stands a hyperbole at best, but more likely a strawman given how you phrased it as it stands neither with me nor those who'd behave themselves properly, because granting the hypothetical abortion in such a situation due to the issue of distress, which in many cases can be lessened with care and counseling, does not stand equitable on any scale with the hundreds of months vanquished to stabilize such a mood. Not to mention many who take abortions become depressed themselves so it's not exactly a wonder-weapon in that regards either.

Also, the book of Moses? The only people who are supposed to follow the Books of Moses, and that's because they are supposed to follow them, are Jewish people. We're not held to follow the Books of Moses because, if you believe in Pauline Christianity and its foundations (which all denominations have) then you're doing a disservice to Christianity by following books you 1) do not understand and 2) you're not supposed to follow because Paul said so.

At this point I think you're just botching Paul's words in their entirty. Bordering on text-sniping and you say I have little understanding of the books of Moses? I am well aware of my western ignorance towards Judean traditions and how they interpret and have interpreted portions of scripture differently than our current sphere of thought and actively engage Jewish figures on that, as they tend to have a very accepting view on procurement of knowledge in general. However, the concept that somehow the law is abolished and that a Christian needs to not follow it is tremendously erroneous and a common error among those that do not take the time to let the scriptures speak for themselves. While part of the law As Paul also preached about the law of sin in regards to the body.

Romans 7 ESV

7 Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.[b] 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]
The Law and Sin

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I so frequently hear Christians claim that the law is no longer of importance which goes against the whole of scripture, and especially Paul's writing. Now Paul's writing may be complex at such, and even Peter recognized this.

"And bear in mind that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, exactly as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has also written to you; As he has also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things; in which are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable are twisting and distorting, as they also twist and distort the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Peter 3:15-16)

However the whole of scripture needs to be considered when taking into account Paul's position on both the law and scripture.

"Therefore, the law is indeed holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good . . . For I delight in the law of God" (Romans 7:12, 22)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; So that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."(2 Timothy 3:16)

And that still stands today. The new testament did not exist to cut the old testament from it's role or importance. The New Testament is a fulfillment of the old in which some parameters change and others do not. In Paul's epistle he constantly mentions the law. Now, we may stand commanded not to judge any others, but that does not translate to standing idle or enabling evil. If a man is about to kill another man, it is not unchristian to prevent such. It would be unchristian to say that said figure is destined to go to hell or enact divine vengeance upon said man, but not to prevent it. Nor is it unchristian to appeal to Cesar like Paul himself did once he was asked to stand before a trial in Judeah. I'll gladly appeal to Ceasar to aid in stopping the waste of life and the genocide that abortion has wrought and establish better ways to deal with the situation for those not in an ideal position and I'd encourage any other Christian to do the same. While we may not commit violent rebellion against Cesar, we can certainly appeal to him and the secular law of his, but when it comes to a dilemma between the law of man and the law of God, the law of God should always come first as the early church fathers so reverently displayed. On pain of death even, not merely on pain of comfort or perceived relevance. Call it fundamental, but that's exactly it. Going to the fundamentals of the bible as our goodwill on life does not merely extend to our own, but to the unrighteous as well just like God's rain. In both giving our life to ensuring that others are not taken, or preventing those of other convictions to take a life, we do a good deed.

Also in regards to the book in question. That came from Jesus's sermon on the mount in regards to marriage of which no Christian do any dishonor in following. That he taught on the marriage which one finds formalized in the books of Moses only re-enforces the point. Christ would be well aware of people with homosexual attractions that would like nothing more than to have their unions blessed, yet such a blessing never came. And Paul, considered by all mainline Christian denominations to be inspired expanded on the law which anyone can see takes inspiration from the levitican traditions. Homosexual acts is seen as abominable and he expands on that in fair detail. However, that does not mean he did not take people who were homosexual and helped them be reborn anew just like he did with so many other kinds of sinners.

It all ties in to the issues of individuals pursuing man-centered theology rather than adhering to a God-centered one. The man centered theology can die out due to relevance, be replaced by emotions or any other personal issue. On that level scripture just becomes word. But if one treats the scriptures as inspired and adhere to them, even when the world will hate one for doing so. Then one is doing righteous works thanks to God.

The problem with your first sentence is that you are taking a perspective from both tradition and history. Let me be clear and say this: Just because in the past infanticide was seen as okay that doesn't mean that infanticide should be seen as okay now. Same with this, just because Christian figures of the past tried to establish the religion and give it some life and had to adhere to certain intolerance doesn't mean we should. The Bible is guidance, not word of law, and throughout your statements it is quite clear you want the guidance to be laws, and Christianity's main purpose isn't to make new laws or to dominate the world (and mind I am using dominate in a negative connotation). We want to enrich the world, not submit it to our will.

Yes, and if you watch the news any day you will realize why I don't have such a supreme faith in people. People will always fuck up and do stupid shit. That's a fact. You can't sit here and tell me with a straight face "that's not a solution those of us with a modicum of decency want" because although you have good intetions, some of the people who are on your side are not, and they can and will do anything possible to show how much disdain they have towards human lives. The thought process as I laid it out may not be your understanding, but I've met such people, and such people are dangerous.

I never said that you cannot argue with others. You're reading, but not understanding. What I am saying is that while we as Christians can argue, we cannot force others to view the world as we do. In other words, we cannot go ahead and force people to do as we say, because they have thoughts different than you. It is the basis of tolerance and it is something that we as Christians must understand, that other people will disagree with our opinions in this day and age because the Church doesn't have any political power anymore and as such we cannot dictate other people's way of life. You can counsel them if they ask, you can argue with them, but you cannot imply that you can force them to do something. We don't operate under such principles anymore and frankly we shouldn't.

Yes, what Paul said doesn't contradict what I said either. No, we are not supposed to just stand idle. However, you're discussing things from a fundamental perspective, and I am arguing them from a more holistic perspective, in which I don't adhere to ideals about religion but about practicalities. You keep saying that we should follow God's word even if the world hates us, even if we sacrifice our lives for others not to be taken away; in practice, once you put the idealism aside, you will understand that although ideals matter, what matters in the real world are actions and practical solutions. If we actually go by your own words then we'd be a bunch of tyrannical bastards, but we are not commanded to do that in the Bible. We're commanded to love others as we love ourselves, to love one another as Jesus loved us, and to love God above all things. You can see where that applies in this context. However, what you are suggesting that I am botching the Bible is a strawman and an incapacity to comprehend what I said in my prior post that we're not supposed to follow Moses' Laws.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I utterly reject the false dilemma of somehow having the majority of women, who'd otherwise abort, go underground for the procedures. It did not turn out as such for Ireland, and I doubt it would do so for the US.

Of course banning abortion would reduce the number of abortions, to a certain extent.

That does not necessarily mean that it is the most effective method of reducing the number of abortions, with the best results.

To use an analogy, everyone agrees that the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the US is a horribly bad thing. But some people insist that the best solution does not include banning guns.

It amuses me that the most severest proponents of gun ownership, are also usually the strongest deniers of evolution. And yet what they propose is based on Darwinistic concepts.

[Constantinopolis]

And now for a real blast from the past (a few posts that I've been meaning to answer for days but never got around to it):

If the Bible was assembled by the Roman Catholic Church, as you claim, there should be no difference between what the bible says and what the Roman Catholic Church says. This is because the holy spirit cannot contradict itself.

There is no such thing as a clear, universally accepted, unambiguous list of "what the Bible says". Your own Protestant denominations disagree with each other about "what the Bible says".

Either we accept that there should be some kind of Church authority with the power to decide correct doctrine, or we accept that different people will have different ideas about "what the Bible says" and they will argue about it forever with no way to finally settle the dispute and decide who is right.

Those are your only options. Church authority, or doctrinal relativism.

Granted, upholding Church authority is not an absolute guarantee against disagreements and divisions - after all, we have the Catholic vs. Orthodox split - but the differences between Catholics and Orthodox are very small when compared to the differences between various Protestant denominations. Church authority is not a perfect solution to all disputes, but it does preserve the unity of the faith and it does result in a single universal doctrine the great majority of the time.

The Sola Scriptura approach, on the other hand, has generated so many different interpretations of the Bible that you now have an entire "non-denominational" movement that is essentially based on Protestants giving up trying to figure out what the correct doctrine is.

Because the body of "the Church" that exists today has little resemblance over the first Christian church after the death of Jesus? Especially the Catholic one.

As to your second claim, someone else has already observed that the modern Roman Catholic Church does not resemble the ancient church it claims authority from.

All ancient sources that describe the Church describe something more or less like the current Catholic and Orthodox churches. There were bishops, priests and deacons, apostolic succession was seen as essential, worship was liturgical and focused on the Eucharist, the sacraments were respected, and so on.

The bible is an anthology of books written by anonymous authors over a stretch of time. That's why there are so many contradictions. What went into the bible has been voted over by

No. Stop right there. No one ever voted on the composition of the Bible. Seriously, what's up with people repeating this ridiculous myth?

The Old Testament canon was largely borrowed from Judaism, and the New Testament canon developed organically, over a period of some 200 years or so. No officially body ever sat down to determine which books should be in the New Testament and which shouldn't. Rather, what happened was that Christians in different areas initially used different books as Scripture, but over time they discussed this issue with each other, compared and combined their lists, and gradually standardized the collection of books we call the New Testament.

So they did there best to discredit the versions of Christianity that they could not profit from, such as Gnostics (who believed in a personal direct relationship and no church)

You're somewhat right about the Church destroying other forms of early Christianity, the Gnostics were actually on par with church imo.

No. That's not even remotely accurate. The Gnostics were not time-traveling Protestants who somehow ended up in classical antiquity. The Gnostics were a collection of elitist mystery-cults that functioned like semi-secret societies with complex tiers and levels of membership, and believed that salvation is attained by the chosen few who are deemed worthy enough to learn the secret wisdom/knowledge (gnosis) supposedly hidden in the words of Christ.

Imagine Scientology, but without the part where they take all your money.

Further, many pro-life people are also extremely right-wing economically and fiscally, which compounds the issue since they show no compassion.

That is a very serious problem for the pro-life movement, especially since many of those people seem to be more interested in opposing abortion because they think women should be punished for being promiscuous, rather than because of actually caring about unborn children.

Absolutely. I'm in the same boat. It's hard to be a reactionary who attempts to walk a middle path on controversial issues.

So why be a reactionary? Come to the red side! We have cookies awesome inspirational music.