Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[The Reformed American Republic]

He didn't deserve execution, and they avoided prosecuting him at the federal level to prevent him from possibly getting any mercy.

You guys are really missing the point here.

No, I got your point. I'm not saying you supported him being punished. I'm just clearly stating that despite the man's flaws, the execution outshines that man's mistakes.

[Tarsonis]

Okay, but again the morality of his actions is not the point. it's efficacy.

[Immortan Khan]

It was abolitionists who were willing to work with and manipulate the system that ultimately were successful at toppling slavery, not those who want to work "outside" the system.

...
This is what people are asking for from conservative Christian judges and officials when placed in power, not advocating for an armed rebellion. This is more or less what Constantine and other Christian leaders did in order to Christianize the Roman Empire.

[Tarsonis]

It was abolitionists who were willing to work with and manipulate the system that ultimately were successful at toppling slavery, not those who want to work "outside" the system.

...
This is what people are asking for from conservative Christian judges and officials when placed in power, not advocating for an armed rebellion. This is more or less what Constantine and other Christian leaders did in order to Christianize the Roman Empire.

Notice how in context we were discussing Salus' assertion about working outside the system? great.

The problem for Christian Judges, unlike for Constantine, is that the Constitution not Christianity, is the Supreme Law of the Land. Judges take oathes to uphold the Constitution, not judge according to their religious doctrine.

[Lady Victory]

How did Harper's Ferry turn out again?

not well enough, john brown did nothing wrong

Actually it worked out in the end as Brown intended, just the precise details were different. He wanted a slave revolt to kickstart a war to end slavery. The former didn't happen, but the latter did even if he didn't live to see it. His actions at Harper's Ferry pretty much cemented the inevitability of the Civil War. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

But yes, John Brown did nothing wrong.

[Salus Maior]

if i remember correctly, harper's ferry actually accelerated abolitionism by moving the schedule of the civil war up via the process of pushing everyone to the extremes
letting the slavers cast abolitionists as extremists helped speed up the process of secession-which led to abolition

That's not an unfair point. It was a step backwards, however for abolitionists who were trying to end the practice with out war.

Considering the South would simply lynch abolitionist writers, speakers, and presses that operated in slave territory I doubt there would been any real progress for pacifist abolition.

And besides, industrializing wouldn’t have necessarily stopped slavery in the South. There were certainly slavers who explored the idea of enslaved black workers.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

How did Harper's Ferry turn out again?

not well enough, john brown did nothing wrong

John brown upon seeing slavery: This is a load of shit. I'm gonna take action.

[Tarsonis]

alright let's bring that home back g
to the topic. Since you're all so gung ho to celebrate thr armed insurrection and killing slavers, how's that tra are to Christians who view abortion as a massive human rights violation in the same vein. Is that really what y'all want to see happen here?

[Sundiata]

alright let's bring that home back g
to the topic. Since you're all so gung ho to celebrate thr armed insurrection and killing slavers, how's that tra are to Christians who view abortion as a massive human rights violation in the same vein. Is that really what y'all want to see happen here?

Christians don't want to kill. We want to protect the unborn from being killed because it's the work of God. We've shown time and time again that we're not afraid to die.

[Lady Victory]

alright let's bring that home back g
to the topic. Since you're all so gung ho to celebrate thr armed insurrection and killing slavers, how's that tra are to Christians who view abortion as a massive human rights violation in the same vein. Is that really what y'all want to see happen here?

Christians don't want to kill. We want to protect the unborn from being killed because it's the work of God. We've shown time and time again that we're not afraid to die.

So you support contraceptives, then?

[Atheris]

alright let's bring that home back g
to the topic. Since you're all so gung ho to celebrate thr armed insurrection and killing slavers, how's that tra are to Christians who view abortion as a massive human rights violation in the same vein. Is that really what y'all want to see happen here?

Christians don't want to kill. We want to protect the unborn from being killed because it's the work of God. We've shown time and time again that we're not afraid to die.

I mean, you can't "kill" a fetus more than you can kill a tumor.

[Sundiata]

Christians don't want to kill. We want to protect the unborn from being killed because it's the work of God. We've shown time and time again that we're not afraid to die.

So you support contraceptives, then?

No. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception and abortion are sinful. Contraception because it deviates the purpose of sex, an act to be shared in the intimate sacrament of marriage between a husband and wife.

[Sundiata]

Christians don't want to kill. We want to protect the unborn from being killed because it's the work of God. We've shown time and time again that we're not afraid to die.

I mean, you can't "kill" a fetus more than you can kill a tumor.

You can, as life begins at conception. The Lord knew us in our mother's wombs.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So you support contraceptives, then?

No. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception and abortion are sinful. Contraception because it deviates the purpose of sex, an act to be shared in the intimate sacrament of marriage between a husband and wife.

Contraceptives stop sex from being an intimate act between a husband and wife? How?

It's almost like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want abortions but then you don't want to have contraceptives that prevent pregnancy thereby lowering the number of abortions.

[Joohan]

But yes, John Brown did nothing wrong.

Didnt he execute a family in Kansas?

[Sundiata]

No. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception and abortion are sinful. Contraception because it deviates the purpose of sex, an act to be shared in the intimate sacrament of marriage between a husband and wife.

Contraceptives stop sex from being an intimate act between a husband and wife? How?

It's almost like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want abortions but then you don't want to have contraceptives that prevent pregnancy thereby lowering the number of abortions.

Do you want an honest theological answer or do you just want to argue? Marriage means something specific in traditional Christian theology.

It's a sacrament.

[Atheris]

I mean, you can't "kill" a fetus more than you can kill a tumor.

You can, as life begins at conception. The Lord knew us in our mother's wombs.

I mean, yeah, life technically begins at conception. But the fetus itself doesn't fit the definition of what would constitute sapient, or even sentient, life. It's realistically no more alive than a tumor or a skin graft.

Also, slight hitch with the Bible argument, as the Bible actually both does not call abortion murder:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.

Note that it says "if any mischief follow". It does not classify the expulsion of a fetus, be it miscarriage or abortion, as murder or "mischief". The Bible actually has numerous verses about actually killing children:

Numbers 31:17: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."
Deuteronomy 2:34: "utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones."
Deuteronomy 28:53: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
I Samuel 15:3: "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
2 Kings 8:12: "dash their children, and rip up their women with child."
2 Kings 15:16: "all the women therein that were with child he ripped up."
Isaiah 13:16: "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13:18: "They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Lamentations 2:20: "Shall the women eat their fruit, and children."
Ezekiel 9:6: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."
Hosea 9:14: "give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."
Hosea 13:16: "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

And don't forget what it says in Numbers!

And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 2And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

The bitter water is an abortifacient.

[Atheris]

But yes, John Brown did nothing wrong.

Didnt he execute a family in Kansas?

Ah, specifics. Always a fickle thing. Can you really trust them?

[Lord Dominator]

#BeatingKowani

On a somewhat related to thread note, the US Supreme Court said (more or less) that the Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia can’t be required to certify same-sex couples as potential foster parents.

Or, put more succinctly, that religious freedom trumps anti-discrimination laws (at least in so far as they protect LGBTQ+ people). Thoughts from our Catholics (on whether or not the Church should do this sort of thing), or in general others on whether this is a reasonable extension of religious freedom?

[Salus Maior]

But yes, John Brown did nothing wrong.

Didnt he execute a family in Kansas?

In the context of Bleeding Kansas, yes.

Where settlers from free and slaver states were literally and brutally fighting for control of the territory in order for it to become either free or slave once it became a state. Iirc, Brown also lost relatives in a similar way.

[Kowani]

#BeatingKowani

in my defense, i was watching C-SPAN earlier today and only recently got online

On a somewhat related to thread note, the US Supreme Court said (more or less) that the Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia can’t be required to certify same-sex couples as potential foster parents.

Or, put more succinctly, that religious freedom trumps anti-discrimination laws (at least in so far as they protect LGBTQ+ people). Thoughts from our Catholics (on whether or not the Church should do this sort of thing), or in general others on whether this is a reasonable extension of religious freedom?

what a mess of a case lmao
Roberts gets joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Brett and Coney Barrett. Barrett then writes a concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joins in full and Breyer joins (except for the first paragraph), Alito writes an opinion concurring in the judgment – if not necessarily reasoning, gets joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Gorsuch then writes his own opinion concurring in the judgment, which Thomas and Alito join.

[Tarsonis]

You can, as life begins at conception. The Lord knew us in our mother's wombs.

I mean, yeah, life technically begins at conception. But the fetus itself doesn't fit the definition of what would constitute sapient, or even sentient, life. It's realistically no more alive than a tumor or a skin graft.

That's false, at conception the fetus is already a biologically distinct organism in the first stages of its life cycle, and is rightly classified as a human being.

Tumors and skin grafts are not.

Also, slight hitch with the Bible argument, as the Bible actually both does not call abortion murder:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.

Note that it says "if any mischief follow". It does not classify the expulsion of a fetus, be it miscarriage or abortion, as murder or "mischief".

you've been reading some bad apologists there. Murder has a specific meaning under the law, specifically "lying in wait." i.e, conspiring and killing someone in an underhanded, dishonorable manner. The Law did not prohibit killing et al.

The verse here doesn't mean that under law it doesn't consider it wrong, rather that it's less severe and the penalty is the equivalent of killing a slave that belongs to someone else.

The Bible actually has numerous verses about actually killing children:

Numbers 31:17: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."
Deuteronomy 2:34: "utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones."
Deuteronomy 28:53: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
I Samuel 15:3: "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
2 Kings 8:12: "dash their children, and rip up their women with child."
2 Kings 15:16: "all the women therein that were with child he ripped up."
Isaiah 13:16: "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13:18: "They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Lamentations 2:20: "Shall the women eat their fruit, and children."
Ezekiel 9:6: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."
Hosea 9:14: "give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."
Hosea 13:16: "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Hosea there is allegorical but the rest yes, life in the ANE was often brutal. The key think here is that God is the one commanding these things, and when God commands it, it isn't considered immoral. For all is God's to do with as He wishes.

These would not be analogous to abortion..

And don't forget what it says in Numbers!

And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 2And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

The bitter water is an abortifacient.

Mmm no. This verse describes a holy test. The components of the water are dirt, ink, and water, which is not any abortificant I'm aware of. Rather it's a ritual, if the woman has been untrue she'll be cursed by God.






Stop reading bad apologists.

[Sundiata]

You can, as life begins at conception. The Lord knew us in our mother's wombs.

I mean, yeah, life technically begins at conception. But the fetus itself doesn't fit the definition of what would constitute sapient, or even sentient, life. It's realistically no more alive than a tumor or a skin graft.

Also, slight hitch with the Bible argument, as the Bible actually both does not call abortion murder:



Note that it says "if any mischief follow". It does not classify the expulsion of a fetus, be it miscarriage or abortion, as murder or "mischief". The Bible actually has numerous verses about actually killing children:

Numbers 31:17: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."
Deuteronomy 2:34: "utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones."
Deuteronomy 28:53: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
I Samuel 15:3: "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
2 Kings 8:12: "dash their children, and rip up their women with child."
2 Kings 15:16: "all the women therein that were with child he ripped up."
Isaiah 13:16: "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13:18: "They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children."
Lamentations 2:20: "Shall the women eat their fruit, and children."
Ezekiel 9:6: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."
Hosea 9:14: "give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."
Hosea 13:16: "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

And don't forget what it says in Numbers!

The bitter water is an abortifacient.

God did not direct the violence or the evil in the Old Testament. Saint Paul describes the Deuteronomic law as a concession in Galatians 3:19 until Christ came to fulfill it. The reference to the the Israelites in numbers where the priest requests a potentially adulterous woman to drink bitter water is supposed to mitigate what a jealous husband would otherwise do were he to take matters into his own hands. The priest is the outside observer who is supposed to mitigate the situation.

In this case, the priest put the wife through the ordeal of drinking dirt that has been made holy. Dirt from the floor of the Tabernacle. It's not an abortifacient. Water with a little bit of dust is not an abortifacient. Literally, it does not say that she will miscarry for drinking the dirt-water. What it does say is that if she is innocent of adultery she will able to be healthily conceive generally. The passage does not presuppose the potentially adulterous woman is pregnant at all. You're confusing the legal customs with the ancient state of Israel with God's moral law.

As for life beginning at conception, correct. Human life is necessarily good, sapient or not. It necessarily must be preserved; it is good as God made it so. A skin graft or a tumor is not a person.

The Bible does not warrant abortion.

[Luminesa]

#BeatingKowani

in my defense, i was watching C-SPAN earlier today and only recently got online

On a somewhat related to thread note, the US Supreme Court said (more or less) that the Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia can’t be required to certify same-sex couples as potential foster parents.

Or, put more succinctly, that religious freedom trumps anti-discrimination laws (at least in so far as they protect LGBTQ+ people). Thoughts from our Catholics (on whether or not the Church should do this sort of thing), or in general others on whether this is a reasonable extension of religious freedom?

what a mess of a case lmao
Roberts gets joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Brett and Coney Barrett. Barrett then writes a concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joins in full and Breyer joins (except for the first paragraph), Alito writes an opinion concurring in the judgment – if not necessarily reasoning, gets joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Gorsuch then writes his own opinion concurring in the judgment, which Thomas and Alito join.

Roberts: “Okay ya’ll how do we wanna do this?”
Sotomayor: “I’m down.”
Kagan: “I came for snacks.”
Barrett: “WAIT DON’T VOTE YET I wrote an opinion.”
Roberts: “Wait wha-“
Alito: “ME TOO!”
Sotomayor: “Uh why do we have two-”
Gorsuch: “UNO!”
Roberts: “OH COME ON!!!”

[Luminesa]

No. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception and abortion are sinful. Contraception because it deviates the purpose of sex, an act to be shared in the intimate sacrament of marriage between a husband and wife.

Contraceptives stop sex from being an intimate act between a husband and wife? How?

It's almost like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want abortions but then you don't want to have contraceptives that prevent pregnancy thereby lowering the number of abortions.

Birth control in this sense puts a barrier of sorts on the husband and wife’s openness to childbirth, which is written into the traditional Catholic marriage liturgy. It doesn’t stop them from…well, the pleasure bit of it. But it does put part of the vow for openness to children into question.