Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[zearro]

I disagree that the logic is, as you say, “impeccable”. God wills that we all repent and believe. It is our free will that undermines this. We can CHOOSE to defy and deny him.
**The logic **that I should murder a child so he can go to heaven is as warped as murdering a doctor who performs abortions in order to save the lives of the children he has not yet murdered.

I don’t deny that the conclusion is replusive to natural morality but the logic is still impeccable (but then I m an ex catholic and doubt the existence of paradise). I say that based on catholic teaching, the logic leading to the conclusion to kill children whilst their salvation is assured is logically consistent. It is also logically consistant to say that killing an abortionist will save lives. (It just happens to be against the law). In both cases you pay a high price. In both cases if you defy the God or the law you still get what you hold important - the childs’ salvation or the child’s life.

If you read my points again you will note that I am speaking of children that have not reached the age of reason i.e free will. They can obtain salvation without free will so long as they have been baptised. Free will is limited to those over the age of 7 apparently.

What I am saying is that a person has the free will to kill or not to kill the child. By killing the baptised child he will go to hell but assures that the child goes to heaven (Guaranteed by the Pope, see my quote from the Papal Bull). Sacrificing his own salvation for another. After all what is more important for a catholic life in this world or paradise with God in the next?. If you let a child live to the point that it has free will who knows what mortal sins it will commit. Kill it before then and its salvation is assured. Why give it an opportunity to damn itself? You just have to look at the prison figures to see how many baptised catholics salvation is in jeopardy because their parents selfishly put their own salvation before that of their children by letting them live beyond the age of reason.

A serious point by the way this. God will let your children suffer in hell for all eternity if they live to commit mortal sin and die unrepentant. So who do you put first? Yourself or your children?.

I am not saying kill your children in fact the opposite. I am just saying that if you take catholic teaching to its logical conclusion and want to guarantee your child goes to heaven, killing your child before the age of reason is the way to go about it. But remember to baptise it first. and remember to get your relatives to dress you in fireproof clothing when you die.

 

[zearro]

Buddhists (real Buddhists, that is, not American libertine “Buddhists”) are not only pro-life, but completely with the Catholic Church on issues like contraception as well.

**Indeed but for very different reasons **and logically consistant ones at that. From the Buddhist point of view.iIf you kill the child it may feel ill will to its murderer and increase the child’s bad karma to be worked through in the next life. Let it live and it has less bad karma to work through. You may not believe in karma and rebirth but the reasoning is consistent. Buddhism is not about getting to heaven.

Catholicism, however, is. Like Buddhism it says that the consequences for killing a child are dire. YOU WILL SuFFER FOR IT probably for very long time and in catholicism’s case forever if you haven’t repented. From the Buddhist perspective there is nothing to be gained from killing a child. However, there is in the case of catholicism where the person who kills a baptised child before the age of reason. The child’s salvation is assured. There is papal bull that says children who die before the age of reason and have been baptised are guaranteed paradise.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I don’t deny that the conclusion is replusive to natural morality but the logic is still impeccable
A serious point by the way this. God will let your children suffer in hell for all eternity if they live to commit mortal sin and die unrepentant. So who do you put first? Yourself or your children?.

I am not saying kill your children in fact the opposite. I am just saying that if you take catholic teaching to its logical conclusion and want to guarantee your child goes to heaven, killing your child before the age of reason is the way to go about it. But remember to baptise it first. and remember to get your relatives to dress you in fireproof clothing when you die.

Your logic is flawed.

Whom is the catholic supposed to love above all? God.

How do you prove your love to God by murdering His child (your child) and damning another of his children (you) to eternity away from His presence?

 

[jmcrae]

But how do you know whether the God you worship is divine or a demon? By what criteria do you differentiate?

That’s why we need to get to know God, first, which means that we have to be people of prayer, and we have to be sincere seekers after Truth.

We have to be like scientists, looking for what God actually is, rather than trying to fit Him into our preconceived ideas, or tell Him what He ought to be. In order to do that, we have to read history, read the Bible, listen to the Saints, and listen to the Church - we can’t rely on our own wishful thinking.

 

[zearro]

Your logic is flawed.

Whom is the catholic supposed to love above all? God.

How do you prove your love to God by murdering His child (your child) and damning another of his children (you) to eternity away from His presence?

You don’t. Of course, the Catholic requirement is to love God before everything else. And of course, this act will be seen by God as an act of defiance according to catholic theology. Still if you wanted to assure your child of salvation - baptise them and kill them before they reach the age of reason. Based on the papal bull I quoted the conclusion is logical. Conclusion:I]**Your child will be saved **that conclusion is correct

Although Paul was not thinking of killing children to assure their salvation, he did see it as noble to sacrifice one’s salvation for others, if this were possible. So you could think of yourself as making a noble sacrifice

There is also scriptural evidence that God approves of the sacrifice of children. So you could offer your child to God as a sacrifice.

*"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites.  And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. ** I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering**."  



"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory.  He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites.  When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, **his daughter **– his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy.  When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish.  "My daughter!" he cried out.  "My heart is breaking!  What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. **For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back**."  And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD.  You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites.  But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin."  "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months.  She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children.  **When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin.  **So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter."   (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)*

Leviticus 3:5
Then Aaron’s sons are to burn it on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is on the burning wood, as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD

 

[estesbob]

You don’t. Of course, the Catholic requirement is to love God before everything else. And of course, this act will be seen by God as an act of defiance according to catholic theology. Still if you wanted to assure your child of salvation - baptise them and kill them before they reach the age of reason. Based on the papal bull I quoted the conclusion is logical. Conclusion:I]**Your child will be saved **

that conclusion is correct

Although Paul was not thinking of killing children to assure their salvation, he did see it as noble to sacrifice one’s salvation for others, if this were possible. So you could think of yourself as making a noble sacrifice

There is also scriptural evidence that God approves of the sacrifice of children. So you could offer your child to God as a sacrifice.

*"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” *

*"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, **his daughter **– his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. “My daughter!” he cried out. “My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back.” And she said, “Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.” “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. **When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. *So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

Leviticus 3:5
Then Aaron’s sons are to burn it on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is on the burning wood, as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD

Thats it!!! The best argument you can give for killing our Children is your personal interpretation of events that took place 4,000 years ago? Events recounted in a book you don’t beleive in? Tell me it aint so!

BTW-who were you in your previosu incarnation in these forums? You sound awfully familar but I cant put a name to who you used to post under.

 

[zearro]

Thats it!!! The best argument you can give for killing our Children is your personal interpretation of events that took place 4,000 years ago? Events recounted in a book you don’t beleive in? Tell me it aint so!

BTW-who were you in your previosu incarnation in these forums? You sound awfully familar but I cant put a name to who you used to post under.

First time posting here so don’t get excited.

The accounts in the Bible speak for themself. They don’t need much intelligence to understand them. Also you have to remember that the early church based its authority on the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the authority that authenticates the New Testament. Check out the Gospel of Matthew and see how often he uses the Old Testament to back up the claims he makes about Jesus. So as a catholic you can’t just dismiss the old testment without falling into the heresy of Marcionism. The catholic church still teaches that the OT is the inspired word of God. newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

By the way I am not arguing that you should kill your children. I also agree that the catholic church would not argue that. I am just pointing out that **using catholic thinking **including the papal bull I quoted, if you wanted to ensure your children are not damned to eternal damnation where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth such is the terrible suffering they will go through for ever and ever then there is one way to ensure that. Baptise them and kill them before the age of reason. Then nobly accept their damnation as your own.

Just think how many catholics live in sin, fornicate, use contraception, get drunk, have gay sex and think nothing of it not to mention the few that end up in prison for thieving and murdering. If they die unrepentant they will be damned. It could be your child.

However, the catholic church maybe wrong. Maybe God still likes burnt offerings of children and he will bless you for it… Who are we to say that God was wrong then?

In the old days people were prepared to make the difficult sacrifice of offering their children to God. Nowdays they are so selfish that doing withot food for an hour before communion is hardship. They also get terribly upset when God takes away their children through natural causes. You would think they would be happy especially for a baptised child below the age of reason whose salvation is assured. But no they make such fuss that you would think that they doubted the very existence of heaven.

Maybe it was because of people’s understandable attachment to their own children that the priests stopped requesting that people offer them in sacrifice. And it was a real sacrifice for them in those days as it was not taught that the child went to heaven unlike nowadays.

• 18 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ** ; man has no advantage over the animal**. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 **Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward **and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?”

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.*

 

[zearro]

The church has never taught that an unbaptised child **definately **will go to heaven. In the past limbo was where they were said to go. I was also listening to a radio program a while back where a mother was upset because her unbaptised child would be in Limbo whilst she was in heaven and thus they would never meet again. Nowdays they hint that the unbaptised child may go to heaven but can’t guarantee it. We just have to remember that God is good.

So I thought in order to minimise the suffering of mothers whose child dies in the womb wouldn’t it be a good idea if the mother got the child baptised as soon as she knew she was pregnant. Why wait until the child is born? The priest could pour Holy water over the pregnant mother’s stomache and this would constitute baptism for the child. This would remove all anxiety for the mother that she would not see her child in paradise.

Why has the church never done this?. Seems a simple solution…

 

[jmcrae]

Why has the church never done this?. Seems a simple solution…

Because first we have to emerge from the waters of the womb and be born the first time, before we can be bathed in the waters of the second birth.

By the way, I am sure you have heard or read the theory that Abraham’s non-sacrifice of Isaac was the first time human beings were made aware that animals could be used in substitution for their children, when making a sacrifice to God - but the first was laid down so that the second would have greater meaning - it’s not that big a deal to see Daddy sacrificing a lamb, until he tells you, “This lamb is being sacrificed in your place.” Then, suddenly, the ritual is not quite so boring any more.

The unbloody sacrifice of the Mass re-presents Christ’s sacrifice, who took the lamb’s place, who was taking your place - that bread and wine, which is the Real Presence of Christ, is for you - with the dual meaning of, not only is it for you to receive, it is also for you in the sense of being in your stead.

 

[tptram]

And you see no difference between the absence of a mind (my point)

the presence of a mind defines a person. does fertilized eggs have a mind? does very young embryos have a mind? I am 100% sure that the answer to those are NO & NO.

.

This is a fallacy.
If a person is in a comatose, does this mean he is no longer a person?
When a person sleep under influence of drug - ie. no REM sleep, no brain wave, is he no longer a person?

There is more to a person than just the physiological aspects.

Tak

 

[zearro]

Because first we have to emerge from the waters of the womb and be born the first time, before we can be bathed in the waters of the second birth.

But why?

 

[estesbob]

First time posting here so don’t get excited.

The accounts in the Bible speak for themself. They don’t need much intelligence to understand them. Also you have to remember that the early church based its authority on the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the authority that authenticates the New Testament. Check out the Gospel of Matthew and see how often he uses the Old Testament to back up the claims he makes about Jesus. So as a catholic you can’t just dismiss the old testment without falling into the heresy of Marcionism. The catholic church still teaches that the OT is the inspired word of God. newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

By the way I am not arguing that you should kill your children. I also agree that the catholic church would not argue that. I am just pointing out that **using catholic thinking **including the papal bull I quoted, if you wanted to ensure your children are not damned to eternal damnation where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth such is the terrible suffering they will go through for ever and ever then there is one way to ensure that. Baptise them and kill them before the age of reason. Then nobly accept their damnation as your own.

Just think how many catholics live in sin, fornicate, use contraception, get drunk, have gay sex and think nothing of it not to mention the few that end up in prison for thieving and murdering. If they die unrepentant they will be damned. It could be your child.

However, the catholic church maybe wrong. Maybe God still likes burnt offerings of children and he will bless you for it… Who are we to say that God was wrong then?

In the old days people were prepared to make the difficult sacrifice of offering their children to God. Nowdays they are so selfish that doing withot food for an hour before communion is hardship. They also get terribly upset when God takes away their children through natural causes. You would think they would be happy especially for a baptised child below the age of reason whose salvation is assured. But no they make such fuss that you would think that they doubted the very existence of heaven.

Maybe it was because of people’s understandable attachment to their own children that the priests stopped requesting that people offer them in sacrifice. And it was a real sacrifice for them in those days as it was not taught that the child went to heaven unlike nowadays.

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ** ; man has no advantage over the animal**. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 **Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward **and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?"

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.

We have all seen those same verses posted ad nauseum a to these forums. Not being interested in discussion your personal interpreation of Scriptue can we return to the topic at hand? How do you justify the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The church has never taught that an unbaptised child **definately **will go to heaven. In the past limbo was where they were said to go. I was also listening to a radio program a while back where a mother was upset because her unbaptised child would be in Limbo whilst she was in heaven and thus they would never meet again. Nowdays they hint that the unbaptised child may go to heaven but can’t guarantee it. We just have to remember that God is good.

So I thought in order to minimise the suffering of mothers whose child dies in the womb wouldn’t it be a good idea if the mother got the child baptised as soon as she knew she was pregnant. Why wait until the child is born? The priest could pour Holy water over the pregnant mother’s stomache and this would constitute baptism for the child. This would remove all anxiety for the mother that she would not see her child in paradise.

Why has the church never done this?. Seems a simple solution…

Well, considering that the church fathers and 200 some odd popes have decided otherwise is good enough for me.

No insult really, but you me and the rest of the posters on CAF combined could not teach a single pope something they did not already know about theology!

Frankly, your thought procees that killing children being a noble cause is really more than flawed logic, it’s more a matter of a lack of knowledge OF logic.

 

[estesbob]

Well, considering that the church fathers and 200 some odd popes have decided otherwise is good enough for me.

No insult really, but you me and the rest of the posters on CAF combined could not teach a single pope something they did not already know about theology!

Frankly, your thought procees that killing children being a noble cause is really more than flawed logic, it’s more a matter of a lack of knowledge OF logic.

As for as I can tel

As far as I can tell his thought process is that 4000 years ago the Israelites did some violence against their neighbors and accordingly it’s okay to kill your children

 

[zearro]

We have all seen those same verses posted ad nauseum a to these forums. Not being interested in discussion your personal interpreation of Scriptue can we return to the topic at hand? How do you justify the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

I don’t. I m not pro abortion. My argument is that the catholic position against abortion has no moral foundation. The morality is not based on any suffering the child may endure nor is it based on people selfishly disposing of a child for their own convenience. We know this because catholics happily kill and use animals being aware that there is both suffering and selfish use.

What you are left with then is just obedience to orders which as we know from the 2nd world war is no morality at all. Having the wrong reasons for being anti abortion is matter of concern. Demanding absolute obedience to a Being means that you can declare anything as moral including killing in the name of God and this has happened. The crusades, inquisition, child, human and animal sacrifice to name but a few.

It is good that the catholic church is anti abortion but their reasons should give cause for concern.

They need a moral basis like the Buddhists have. Rather than obedience to a divine command, their morality is based on minimising suffering. This is why Buddhists are anti abortion. They are also anti abortion for other reasons such as hindering beings potential to be enlightened. At the moment catholics have no moral basis against abortion. This leads them open to charges of blind obedience and undermines the anti abortion movement. They need more clarity on morality.

Interesting that you thought I was pro abortion. I had the feeling that you hadn’t grasped my argument. Sorry mate I m anti- abortion.Now you have a problem. In one aspect we are both anti abortion on the other I am criticising the catholic church for lacking morality.So your dilemma is whether to take me as an enemy or friend LOL! Forget that approach just seek to get to the truth of the matter.

 

[jmcrae]

What is your concept of morality?

If it doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone, it’s okay? (Even if it’s against God’s law.) Or what?

We Catholics base our concept of morality on “what is pleasing to God.” Not, “what seems harmless, to me.”

 

[zearro]

Well, considering that the church fathers and 200 some odd popes have decided otherwise is good enough for me.

No insult really, but you me and the rest of the posters on CAF combined could not teach a single pope something they did not already know about theology!

Frankly, your thought procees that killing children being a noble cause is really more than flawed logic, it’s more a matter of a lack of knowledge OF logic.

I never said it was a noble cause. **I said it could be seen that way by people who agreed with the popes **that baptised children under the age of reason will go to heaven.

Now answer this question. If a baptised child dies (by natural causes or murder) and it has not reached the age of reason is its salvation assured or not? Yes or no?. Done that?

OK You have to agree with that because that is what the papal bull concludes.

OK once a child reaches the age of reason. Is it possible for the child to go to hell. Yes or no? **Well again the papal bull **only guarantees salvation for children before the age of salvation. So yes once it reaches the age of reason eternal damnation is a possibility. So you have to agree with the pope there too.

If you kill a child you will probably go to hell. Yes or no. You have to say yes because that is catholic teaching… So on all three points you will agree with me and also with the popes!.

You are not really disagreeing with me. All you are saying is that you would never disobey God and lose your own salvation. Yes or no?. Well you have to agree. Fair enough.
Conclusion: You put yourself before others. Your God approves.

.** I am not telling you to kill children. Just pointing out the absurdity of the catholic position.**

 

[Verisimilitude]

Interesting that you thought I was pro abortion. I had the feeling that you hadn’t grasped my argument. Sorry mate I m anti- abortion.Now you have a problem. In one aspect we are both anti abortion on the other I am criticising the catholic church for lacking morality.So your dilemma is whether to take me as an enemy or friend LOL! Forget that approach just seek to get to the truth of the matter.

I take it you are not a practicing Catholic. Regardless it neither makes you friend or foe, but you are misguided. Your Buddhist inclininations are further leading you in error, and you should stop before you go too far out of the fold.

The truth of the matter is human life is above all other in Creation. You might not like that, but that is how it is. That does not make God or the Chruch immoral in defining our human rights and responsibilities. Not everyone and everything is equal. The student is not greater than the teacher, the parent is not greater then the child, and the cow the gives me milk and beef- is delicious.

If your objection to the Church is because of some perceived inequality you should study what our responsibilities are as defined by the Church.

 

[PaulDupre]

Zearro,
In all your mental gymanstics, you have (intentionally?) ignored the overriding principle in Catholic morality, namely that:

An intrisically evil act can never be made good, despite the good intention of the actor.

Therefore, the intentional killing of an innocent, which is an intrinsically evil act, can never be made good, no matter how many little bits of Papal Bulls you string together.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[zearro]

What is your concept of morality?

If it doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone, it’s okay? (Even if it’s against God’s law.) Or what?

We Catholics base our concept of morality on “what is pleasing to God.” Not, “what seems harmless, to me.”

It is pleasure debating with you. You don’t react and you look at the matter objectively. We don’t always agree but our positions are clear. With some others I feel as if I have to restate my position over and over and still they misunderstand what I am trying to say.

My morality is not just a question of Is it hurting anybody but ‘is it also helping anybody’. It is not just a negative morality. It has a positive aspect. So it is not using the excuse I can’t see’ how sleeping with my friend’s wife harms anybody if he is none the wiser’ This is just shallow thinking. It doesn’t take much thinking to see how this can cause lot of pain even if the friend doesn’t find out! It also doesn’t help as it fails to promote trust; desensitises one to other people’s feelings etc. etc.* It is a bit irritating to be told that those who espouse morality based on minimising suffering really want to indulge in some unethical behaviour. Some people of course do that but actually they are still causing suffering even if they don’t see the consequences of their actions.**

Now with regard to morality based on doing what is pleasing to God with all due respect, I see dangers in basing a morality on obedience to the divine will.

The first question is how do you know that your God is good?. People believe in all sorts of gods and catholics have no trouble with considering that some of these may be evil or of mixed morality. You may have read some of the dubious actions of the likes of Zeus, Krishna seducing the cow girls etc. Why did the Israelites decide Jehovah was the god to follow and not Baal or many of the other gods? Why did they decide God was good? What was their criteria?

Now I gave a series of examples of actions and beliefs some espoused by tyrants such as Hitler; some by founders of other religions and some being actions being attributed to the God of the Bible. I didn’t say who the tyrants were or what religions had said what. I tried to keep it anonymous.

Now I asked you to look at each of these statements and tell me whether you saw evidence of a divine or demonic mind at work and it would be interesting for you to say why. You could also argue for being being both divine and demonic but I was trying to keep things simple. Now you haven’t responded to that request as yet. Do you intend to or do you have an objection?