Christian Discussion Thread III

[The Flood]

It is 100% clear, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human beings, and is morally equivelent to killing any other human being, objectively.

Yes, and therefore banning abortion would (probably) save some lives by reducing the abortion rate (but remember, it may not reduce it by much, since illegal things still happen). However, that does not necessarily mean that we should ban abortion.

There are many things we could do that would definitely save lives, but we don't do them because they would impose too much hardship on people.

For example, we could make it illegal for anyone to own a gun or any weapon more dangerous than a kitchen knife, and institute random searches of people's homes (especially in troubled neighborhoods) to find and confiscate all weapons. Or we could ban cars and require people to walk or take the train instead (cars kill a lot of people, and trains are much safer). These policies would save a lot of lives, probably more than banning abortion. So, should we enact them? Obviously not, they're completely unreasonable.

Are you playing devil's advocate here or something, or are you trying to tell me you're a pro-choicer?

[Constantinopolis]

You speak it well, he does not. I did not intend it as an insult, of him or you, but regardless, I am sorry.

That's okay. Apologies accepted.

Are you playing devil's advocate here or something, or are you trying to tell me you're a pro-choicer?

Actually, I am truly, honestly, undecided. I can see good arguments on both sides.

And I can argue for both sides. Currently I am arguing the pro-choice side with you because I think you went too far when you said that Christians cannot be pro-choice. Yes, they can be.

It does justify it. If even one less innocent child dies, it is justified. And it would certainly save a lot more then 1 innocent child.

Do you really apply that principle consistently? Is anything justified if it saves one innocent child from death?

There are all sorts of crazy things I could think of that would definitely save a few children from death, but which no one actually supports. As much as people like to say "if it saves one innocent life, it's worth it", I don't think anyone actually believes that.

For example: Some parents put their children in danger by refusing to vaccinate them or by doing other irresponsible things. So, should we take away their children and give them to other couples, or place them in institutional care? After all, it would save a few children's lives if we did so...

[The Flood]

You speak it well, he does not. I did not intend it as an insult, of him or you, but regardless, I am sorry.

That's okay. Apologies accepted.

Are you playing devil's advocate here or something, or are you trying to tell me you're a pro-choicer?

Actually, I am truly, honestly, undecided. I can see good arguments on both sides.
And I can argue for both sides. Currently I am arguing the pro-choice side with you because I think you went too far when you said that Christians cannot be pro-choice. Yes, they can be.

It does justify it. If even one less innocent child dies, it is justified. And it would certainly save a lot more then 1 innocent child.

Do you really apply that principle consistently? Is anything justified if it saves one innocent child from death?
There are all sorts of crazy things I could think of that would definitely save a few children from death, but which no one actually supports. As much as people like to say "if it saves one innocent life, it's worth it", I don't think anyone actually believes that.
For example: Some parents put their children in danger by refusing to vaccinate them or by doing other irresponsible things. So, should we take away their children and give them to other couples, or place them in institutional care? After all, it would save a few children's lives if we did so...

But the thing is, there is no justifiable reason for abortion to be legal; bodily autonomy does not and can never outweigh the most important human right, the right to life. The right to one's body is utterly trivial compared to the right to one's life.

[Constantinopolis]

But the thing is, there is no justifiable reason for abortion to be legal; bodily autonomy does not and can never outweigh the most important human right, the right to life. The right to one's body is utterly trivial compared to the right to one's life.

See, that argument is very persuasive - it's one of the good arguments that make me lean in the pro-life direction - but it has one major flaw.

If the right to life really does completely and absolutely trump bodily autonomy, then what about kidney transplants? Suppose a person is in hospital suffering kidney failure, and there are no kidneys currently available for transplant, so this person will die in a few days or weeks. Now suppose someone else comes into the hospital with an unrelated problem, and happens to have two healthy kidneys which are compatible with the first person's body. Should we take a kidney from the second person against his/her will in order to save the first person's life?

[The Flood]

But the thing is, there is no justifiable reason for abortion to be legal; bodily autonomy does not and can never outweigh the most important human right, the right to life. The right to one's body is utterly trivial compared to the right to one's life.

See, that argument is very persuasive - it's one of the good arguments that make me lean in the pro-life direction - but it has one major flaw.
If the right to life really does completely and absolutely trump bodily autonomy, then what about kidney transplants? Suppose a person is in hospital suffering kidney failure, and there are no kidneys currently available for transplant, so this person will die in a few days or weeks. Now suppose someone else comes into the hospital with an unrelated problem, and happens to have two healthy kidneys which are compatible with the first person's body. Should we take a kidney from the second person against his/her will in order to save the first person's life?

No, because that's a whole hell of a lot worse then pregnancy. Losing a kidney puts you at risk of dying yourself later on, it weakens your body as a whole and is very permanent. Pregnancy is temporary, and far less invasive then having an organ surgically removed.

And in case you bring up that pregnancy can be lethal, that's the one case where abortion is acceptable. Not good, mind you, but morally the lesser of 2 evils, compared to both mother and child dying instead of just the child.

[Constantinopolis]

If the right to life really does completely and absolutely trump bodily autonomy, then what about kidney transplants? Suppose a person is in hospital suffering kidney failure, and there are no kidneys currently available for transplant, so this person will die in a few days or weeks. Now suppose someone else comes into the hospital with an unrelated problem, and happens to have two healthy kidneys which are compatible with the first person's body. Should we take a kidney from the second person against his/her will in order to save the first person's life?

No, because that's a whole hell of a lot worse then pregnancy. Losing a kidney puts you at risk of dying yourself later on, it weakens your body as a whole and is very permanent. Pregnancy is temporary, and far less invasive then having an organ surgically removed.

Correct. But notice that now you're saying that the right to life does not completely and absolutely trump bodily autonomy after all. Instead, the right to life trumps bodily autonomy in most cases, but if we're talking about a particularly dangerous or invasive violation of bodily autonomy, then even saving a life is not enough to justify it.

So the issue becomes not a matter of absolute principle but a matter of degree. We must draw a line between the kinds of violations of bodily autonomy that are acceptable in order to save a life and those that are not acceptable.

And people can reasonably disagree about where precisely to draw that line, and whether pregnancy falls on the acceptable or unacceptable side of the line.

This is what I am trying to persuade you of: Not that you should be pro-choice, but that the pro-choice position is a legitimate view that reasonable people can have.

[Karzeghistan-]

I nearly got shot for not being a muslim today.
wow.

[The Flood]

No, because that's a whole hell of a lot worse then pregnancy. Losing a kidney puts you at risk of dying yourself later on, it weakens your body as a whole and is very permanent. Pregnancy is temporary, and far less invasive then having an organ surgically removed.

Correct. But notice that now you're saying that the right to life does not completely and absolutely trump bodily autonomy after all. Instead, the right to life trumps bodily autonomy in most cases, but if we're talking about a particularly dangerous or invasive violation of bodily autonomy, then even saving a life is not enough to justify it.
So the issue becomes not a matter of absolute principle but a matter of degree. We must draw a line between the kinds of violations of bodily autonomy that are acceptable in order to save a life and those that are not acceptable.
And people can reasonably disagree about where precisely to draw that line, and whether pregnancy falls on the acceptable or unacceptable side of the line.
This is what I am trying to persuade you of: Not that you should be pro-choice, but that the pro-choice position is a legitimate view that reasonable people can have.

I disagree, I don't think pregnancy is even close to being one of those cases, nor do I think it reasonable to think it is.

Also, take note of this, it is a pro-life argument made by a pro-life atheist:

This is true. And, likewise, under normal circumstances no one should be killed for being too young to care for themselves independently. Unfortunately, pregnancy is completely unlike any normal circumstances or normal human relationship. What happens when both a woman and her developing fetus are regarded as human beings entitled to personhood and bodily rights? Any way you cut it, their rights are always going to conflict (at least until womb transfers become a reality). So what’s the reasonable response? It could start by treating both parties at conflict as if they were equal human beings.



Human society has determined that parents have an obligation to nourish and protect their dependent offspring. The more vulnerable and dependent someone is, the more we are obligated to not abandon them. That a fetus is singularly dependent on one woman for the duration of nine months is not an argument for abortion, but against it. If an unrelated infant were abandoned on your doorstep miles from civilization with no one in a position to reach you and release you of your charge, would you not be obligated to at least provide basic life-sustaining care until such a time as care could be passed on to another person? Would this not be true even though you did not consent to the arrival of the dependent human, who was in fact forced upon you? Would you be any less obligated to try to keep this child alive if doing so was wearisome and taxing on your body, though not life-threateningly so? If this is true of one’s duty to sustain a vulnerable and dependent stranger until care can be passed on to another, how much more obligated is a woman to her own prenatal offspring?

[Constantinopolis]

I nearly got shot for not being a muslim today.
wow.

Wait, what?

Dear Lord... are you in Syria?

I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

[Karzeghistan-]

I nearly got shot for not being a muslim today.
wow.

Wait, what?

Dear Lord... are you in Syria?

I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

[Keventle]

Wait, what?

Dear Lord... are you in Syria?

I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

God Bless you. I wish you luck on your journey.

[Keventle]

Wait, what?

Dear Lord... are you in Syria?

I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

kind of off topic, but what do you think about ISIS Terrorist group?

[Karzeghistan-]

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

kind of off topic, but what do you think about ISIS Terrorist group?

Terrible.

[Constantinopolis]

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

I hope you are successful. God bless you. And I pray the war ends as soon as possible.

kind of off topic, but what do you think about ISIS Terrorist group?

You know, if my country was embroiled in civil war and I was under actual risk of death, I would imagine it should be rather obvious what I'd think about an armed group that is trying to kill me.

[The Flood]

Wait, what?
Dear Lord... are you in Syria?
I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

Syria? Shit, that's probably the last place anybody wants to be right now, I hope you're safe.

[Karzeghistan-]

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

Syria? Shit, that's probably the last place anybody wants to be right now, I hope you're safe.

If living near Lebanon counts then yes.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm going to change subject for a little bit because I just noticed this recent post and want to respond to it:

a. Jesus taught poverty, yet the Orthodox churches are adorned with extreme wealth while the Russian, Greek etc peoples live in poverty.

First of all, it is not true that "Orthodox churches are adorned with extreme wealth". A few big cathedrals are, of course, but the vast majority of regular parish churches are adorned only with beautiful icons and liturgical vestments worn by the clergy. Paint and cloth are cheap. To the extent that Orthodox churches contain expensive artifacts, it's usually simply because those artifacts are very old and therefore have historical value.

As for the cathedrals that have gold carvings and such things within them, again they are in most cases historical artifacts, and the extravagant decorations are the accumulated work of many generations. If you put a little bit of money aside every year for beautifying your place of worship, you're going to end up with something pretty opulent after several centuries of doing this.

Churches should be beautiful, not empty and austere. God is beauty and joy, not emptiness, and we should worship Him in an environment that reminds us of His nature.

If we want our homes to be beautiful, and buy various decorations for them, shouldn't we want the house of God to be even more beautiful still? And shouldn't we buy decorations and ornaments for it? Yes we should. Orthodox churches are the result of people doing that for many generations.

[Keventle]

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

I hope you are successful. God bless you. And I pray the war ends as soon as possible.

kind of off topic, but what do you think about ISIS Terrorist group?

You know, if my country was embroiled in civil war and I was under actual risk of death, I would imagine it should be rather obvious what I'd think about an armed group that is trying to kill me.

well of course, I was expecting more along the lines of emotion, physical & visual effects that we can't comprehend over TV or the internet.

[The Flood]

I'm going to change subject for a little bit because I just noticed this recent post and want to respond to it:

a. Jesus taught poverty, yet the Orthodox churches are adorned with extreme wealth while the Russian, Greek etc peoples live in poverty.

First of all, it is not true that "Orthodox churches are adorned with extreme wealth". A few big cathedrals are, of course, but the vast majority of regular parish churches are adorned only with beautiful icons and liturgical vestments worn by the clergy. Paint and cloth are cheap. To the extent that Orthodox churches contain expensive artifacts, it's usually simply because those artifacts are very old and therefore have historical value.
As for the cathedrals that have gold carvings and such things within them, again they are in most cases historical artifacts, and the extravagant decorations are the accumulated work of many generations. If you put a little bit of money aside every year for beautifying your place of worship, you're going to end up with something pretty opulent after several centuries of doing this.
Churches should be beautiful, not empty and austere. God is beauty and joy, not emptiness, and we should worship Him in an environment that reminds us of His nature.
If we want our homes to be beautiful, and buy various decorations for them, shouldn't we want the house of God to be even more beautiful still? And shouldn't we buy decorations and ornaments for it? Yes we should. Orthodox churches are the result of people doing that for many generations.

I agree very much. I've always find it quite ignorant when people fling hatred at the Church (be it Catholic or Orthodox) for having ornamented and beautiful Church buildings.

[Socialist Czechia]

I agree very much. I've always find it quite ignorant when people fling hatred at the Church (be it Catholic or Orthodox) for having ornamented and beautiful Church buildings.

When I see 'ornamented and beautiful' Christian building, I must spit that no one feel a shame how many people dying from starvation, while Catholic officials living amongst gold and silver.

Our own, religious Hussite Wars was about one very religious priest, who dared to say to his people, that Church should live in poverty and priests as much as bishops and Pope himself should be examples of ascetism and moderation. And that Bible and Christian compassion and love for other people in heart are only thing what truly matters, not councils or Rome's orders.
And Catholic council burned him, because he refused take his words back.

[Puerto Tyranus]

So....I feel like a bad Catholic for asking this, but...what are we supposed to actually do on a saint's feast day? They aren't Holy Days of Obligation, or else we wouldn't be out of Church ever, but is there some kind of ceremony? Do we just pray through that particular saint at the time? What?
.
.
.
Mind you, if you know the answer and aren't Catholic, that's fine.

[The Archregimancy]

Wait, what?

Dear Lord... are you in Syria?

I will pray for your safety, brother. I just wish I could do more.

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

Then why are you posting from a Telstra Internet account in Brisbane, Australia?

[Socialist Czechia]

Yes. I am a Syriac Orthodox living in Syria that is trying to go to Lebanon

Then why are you posting from a Telstra Internet account in Brisbane, Australia?

obviously because wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

silly you to even ask him

[The Archregimancy]

Then why are you posting from a Telstra Internet account in Brisbane, Australia?

obviously because wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

silly you to even ask him

Let's please not exacerbate what's already a potentially awkward situation.

Thank you.

[Distruzio]

Is this not basic Christian doctrine?

-Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
-Virgin birth of Jesus
-Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
-Bodily resurrection of Jesus
-Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

No. Not at all.