Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[zearro]

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

Well you have got me wrong! That is not my argument at all. Firstly my example had nothing to do with the fact that some Israeli neighbours had lost a battle but the fact that the man KEPT HIS VOW TO GOD. Would you like to tell me what that vow was and how he kept it?

 

[jmcrae]

Well you have got me wrong! That is not my argument at all. Firstly my example had nothing to do with the fact that some Israeli neighbours had lost a battle but the fact that the man KEPT HIS VOW TO GOD. Would you like to tell me what that vow was and how he kept it?

We all know the story. You’re acting like we are ignorant of the Old Testament - we’re not.

The story of Japheth took place before child sacrifice was completely prohibited.

Indeed, one of the reasons this story is in our Bible is to show the development of doctrine away from child sacrifice, and toward the sacrifice of animals in their place.

After all, what Japheth really wanted to sacrifice was the donkey - not his child.

 

[zearro]

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.

Not at all. I am not an egalitarian. I recognise some people are more intelligent than me etc etc. So no problem with hierarchy. My argument is that the catholics have no principles behind their morality other than obedience .

I am no longer a catholic nor a Buddhist. But I spent more than two decades in both religions. I see both truths and error in both. Buddhists would regard you to be in error and would advice you to stop before you go too far. They also appeal to authority. So which one is right and how do we choose? What are the criteria?

I try to be provocative in my assertions as I found that too diplomatic an approach sometimes meant differences were ignored. OK it will raise some peoples hackles but it gets the issues out into the open.

 

[jmcrae]

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 danger of this is not obedience to the divine will (which can only be good) but making an error about what the divine will really is - for example, mistaking my will for God’s will - how many people have you heard or read about who say, “God wanted me to get a divorce,” or “God doesn’t need me to go to Mass on Sundays,” and so on? They are legion.

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?

For that, we turn to the Old Testament, and read the book of Genesis, especially the story of Abraham, who was the first person after the Tower of Babel incident to realize that there is only one God, the Creator. Abraham began to know God, not because of moral issues, but because God sought him out, and revealed Himself to Abraham. Abraham was a man of prayer, and a man of great curiousity, so, when God revealed Himself to Abraham, Abraham reacted by worshipping Him and praying to Him. Morality in the human sense had little or nothing to do with it. Abraham was not judging God’s actions, or deciding whether God was good or evil. All Abraham knew was that God was the Creator - and thus, good, no matter what.

Not that Abraham never had his doubts - several times, he took matters into his own hands and tried to force God to give him what he wanted - and God said, “No, not yet.”

Abraham could have decided right there and then that God was evil for not keeping His promises on Abraham’s time-line. Abraham might also have decided that God was evil for not preventing him from committing serious sins against both Sarah and Hagar. But Abraham instead chose to be humbled, and to try harder to live in God’s timing, instead of his own - and in the end, things mostly worked out for him. I think he also was able to discern that the areas where things didn’t work out quite so well were of his own doing, and not really God’s fault.

From there, all we have to ask is, “Am I following the God of Abraham?” And for that, we have the Church and the rest of the Bible.

 

[estesbob]

Well you have got me wrong! That is not my argument at all. Firstly my example had nothing to do with the fact that some Israeli neighbours had lost a battle but the fact that the man KEPT HIS VOW TO GOD. Would you like to tell me what that vow was and how he kept it?

If you tell me how this has any thing whatsoever do with the topic at hand.

The Catholic Church was working hard to end abortion long before you came around and will be doing so long after you have left . I don’t think anyone has to defend the Catholic Church’s commitment to this.

 

[fierysword1920]

I agree with you on these points. I would like to see programs that educate and give financial assistance to young women who become pregnant. These programs should attempt to educate people about the awfulness of abortion and also instill a sense pride in oneself and provide monies to help these single mothers to get healthcare for themselves and babies beyond the birth and money for schooling and or college. I know many people would object to this because they say it is not their fault that people get pregnant, and they are right, it isn’t but the fact remains that a helpless human being hangs in the balance and he or she should be respected and protected at all costs. I myself am willing to pay extra taxes for programs like these. I have been speaking to my senator online about this issue and I think she agrees about having an infrastructure for young women to use for their own self betterment and ultimately society as a whole.

I understand your objection to Roe. However Roe did not start abortion. It just made abortion legal. Overturning Roe will not stop abortion, It will just force it into the back alleys again for the poor.

The middle class will always have access to abortion because they will be able to spend the money to find a doctor willing to do a D&C. I went to high school with two girls who had D&C’s for “female problems”.

What the 60’s and 70’s brought us besides Roe was “Head Start”, free school breakfasts and lunches for the poor, Medicare, Medicade, civil rights, equal rights for women.

Now some may find these horrible programs but I remember not being able to get a job without my husband’s permission in writing. I remember not being able to get credit on my own. I remember being told frequently that I was too pretty to study science because it will drive the boys away.

I remember the “whites only” signs. I remember the fire hoses and dogs turned on college students. I remember my husband and brother going to Viet Nam and coming home changed.

Many of these things are still with us or have returned to us due to the stupidity, vanity, and greed of our leaders. But at least in the 60’s we took to the streets to protest the stupidity, vanity and greed.

 

[zearro]

We all know the story. You’re acting like we are ignorant of the Old Testament - we’re not.

Not at all I was accused of making an argument that I had not. That is why I asked him what the vow was about to put him back on track.He claimed that I argued that because the Israelis had been violent to their neighbours I was espousing infanticide. I said nothing of the sort. My argument was that scripture showed that God approved at one time of child sacrifice. The vow was my proof. So nothing to do with me assuming you (plural) are ignorant of the OT. I was simply defending myself…Fair enough?

The story of Japheth took place before child sacrifice was completely prohibited.

No doubt. I will take your word on that

Indeed, one of the reasons this story is in our Bible is to show the development of doctrine away from child sacrifice, and toward the sacrifice of animals in their place.

Again no disagreement with that. Such improvements in morality are ongoing. i.e slavery is no longer approved of by the church though it was still condoned in the NT.

After all, what Japheth really wanted to sacrifice was the donkey - not his child.

Indeed and I never said that Japheth wanted to kill his daughter./ Japheth however, knew that **he had to keep his vow to God ******and in this story God did not discourage him. So God approved. The question is why ? If God had did what he did with Abraham and told Japheth to hold his hand he would have been a happy man but God didn’t he let the sacrifice happen.

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

No it cannot be seen that way by people who agree with the pope. We who agree with the pope know that an evil act cannot be committed to bring about good. It can only be SEEN that way by folks like you who DO NOT believe.

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.**

The only absurdity is the fact that you feel that an evil act can be used to bring about good.

By your logic revenge is a good thing.

 

[estesbob]

.

By your logic revenge is a good thing.

Only when the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Oakland Raiders

 

[iamrefreshed]

My argument is that the catholics have no principles behind their morality other than obedience .

And a child does not understand all its parents tell it.

“Johnny, don’t drink that anti-freeze, it’ll kill you”.

Johnny trusts his benevolent parents and lives.

You would have Johnny drink the anti-freeze unless his parents produce scientific proof that it is poisonous.

Obedience is difficult I grant you. I struggle every day.

 

[zearro]

The danger of this is not obedience to the divine will (which can only be good) but making an error about what the divine will really is - for example, mistaking my will for God’s will - how many people have you heard or read about who say, “God wanted me to get a divorce,” or “God doesn’t need me to go to Mass on Sundays,” and so on? They are legion.

Or God wants me to have lots of wives and concubines (aka David and Solomon) or God wants me to sacrifice animals or even my daughter or God doesn’t want me to be a slave. Yes I can see people making all those excuses thinking it will make for a happier life. Point taken all silly rationalisations .

For that, we turn to the Old Testament, and read the book of Genesis, especially the story of Abraham, who was the first person after the Tower of Babel incident to realize that there is only one God, the Creator. Abraham began to know God, not because of moral issues, but because God sought him out, and revealed Himself to Abraham. Abraham was a man of prayer, and a man of great curiousity, so, when God revealed Himself to Abraham, Abraham reacted by worshipping Him and praying to Him. Morality in the human sense had little or nothing to do with it. Abraham was not judging God’s actions, or deciding whether God was good or evil. All Abraham knew was that God was the Creator - and thus, good, no matter what.

Not that Abraham never had his doubts - several times, he took matters into his own hands and tried to force God to give him what he wanted - and God said, “No, not yet.”

Abraham could have decided right there and then that God was evil for not keeping His promises on Abraham’s time-line. Abraham might also have decided that God was evil for not preventing him from committing serious sins against both Sarah and Hagar. But Abraham instead chose to be humbled, and to try harder to live in God’s timing, instead of his own - and in the end, things mostly worked out for him. I think he also was able to discern that the areas where things didn’t work out quite so well were of his own doing, and not really God’s fault.

From there, all we have to ask is, “Am I following the God of Abraham?” And for that, we have the Church and the rest of the Bible.

So are you saying that he worshipped God for the benefits he got from it and he wasn’t interested if God was good or not? And maybe he didn’t have the ability to tell? Correct me if I have got you wrong.

So he may as well have been worshipping powerful demon? A demon who could give him what he wanted.

How are you doing with the little test I set you?

 

[iamrefreshed]

How are you doing with the little test I set you?

You give good example of the saying that by one’s fruit they shall be known.

Us ‘absurd’ catholics treat you respectfully and yet you reply with insults and petty jibes.

You offer proof positive why obedience to God is the best way to get your morals. Obviously picking and choosing leads to one being uncharitable.

Hopefully you will see some light.

 

[zearro]

No it cannot be seen that way by people who agree with the pope. We who agree with the pope know that an evil act cannot be committed to bring about good. It can only be SEEN that way by folks like you who DO NOT believe.

It can be seen that way by catholics but they refuse to consider such an action. After all **you saw **what I was arguing!

The only absurdity is the fact that you feel that an evil act can be used to bring about good.

Well yes and no see below

By your logic revenge is a good thing.

Again I have been misunderstood . I said no such thing and have argued no such thing. Revenging what exactly? If you agree that the reward of heaven is the highest good then evil will bring about the highest good for the child but not for the murderer.** I never said it was not evil did I?** And I have said time and time again that I don’t believe in infanticide. Nor am I saying that you shouldn’t put your own salvation before that of the child. I am just pointing out how a baptised child’s salvation can be assured if you take catholic teaching to its logical conclusion. Now all you have to do is obey the churches teaching, don’t kill your children and pray that your kiddies keep on the straight and narrow. It is less certain approach but at least number one will be alright:thumbsup:

Now tell me does the baptised child who dies before the age of reason go to heaven in the end? Yes or no?

 

[zearro]

And a child does not understand all its parents tell it.

“Johnny, don’t drink that anti-freeze, it’ll kill you”.

Johnny trusts his benevolent parents and lives.

You would have Johnny drink the anti-freeze unless his parents produce scientific proof that it is poisonous.

Obedience is difficult I grant you. I struggle every day.

But you are not child. There is a vast difference between an adult and child. And according to catholic doctrine when you have reached the age of reason you have free wiil This assumes you have the ability to discriminate.Children don’t have the reason or knowledge to discriminate. So the comparison with children does not hold

 

[zearro]

You give good example of the saying that by one’s fruit they shall be known.

Us ‘absurd’ catholics treat you respectfully and yet you reply with insults and petty jibes.

You offer proof positive why obedience to God is the best way to get your morals. Obviously picking and choosing leads to one being uncharitable.

Hopefully you will see some light.

In what way have I insulted anyone? I have criticised the church’s views and people quite rightly have criticised mine . However, I have made no personal insults against anyone on this board. I have been provocative by reminding J McRae about the test I set him. Why should I let him get way with that.** I also asked him if he had any objection to the test. He didn’t reply**. Sure I ribbed him about it but I have no intention of insulting anyone. I suspected that he might have been trying to avoid the issue and I tried to pin him down. Is that a crime?

On the other hand there is more than one person claiming that I am arguing things that I have most definately not argued.

1.For example one person said that I was arguing that as the Israelis did violence to their neighbours I was argiung that this justified infanticide! **That was simply untrue **

2.When I corrected this by pointing out my real argument concerned the vow I was accused of believing that the catholics on this board did not know their old testament. Again just not true.I neither said nor implied any such thing

3.Another person claimed I was arguing that revenge was a good thing. Not sure how they came to that conclusion. But again simply not true

1. Again you insinuate that I think catholics are absurd (again not true) where it is quite obvious that what I considered to be absurd was the conclusion of two facts. 1. Baptised Babies were assured of heaven and 2 by committing a mortal sin (i.e murder) their salvation would be assured. The absurdity being that an act that assures salvation for one brings condemnation for the perpetrator. Yet if the child lives beyond the age of reason its salvation is not guaranteed. It raises a dilemma. Ensure your own salvation and obey God or disobey God and guarantee a child’s salvation. People have opted to ensure their own salvation. I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t fancy an eternity in hell.

5 Others assumed that I was saying that catholics should kill baptised children (not true) when all I was saying was that such an action would assure the babies salvation with certainty

I wouldn’t have minded if they had backed up their assertions by quoting me but they didn’t even do that.

If anybody has reason for complaint it is me. I have been misrepresented on at least five occasions and none of these misrepresenttions show me in good light. and then you say people have treated me respectfully! I know people get excited and carried away in argument inclulding myself but I would appreciate it if people didn’t put words into my mouth! Of course that also applies to me.

 

[zearro]

In what way have I insulted you? I have criticised the church’s views and people quite rightly have criticised mine . However, I have made no personal insults against anyone on this board. I have been provocative by reminding you about the test I set you. Why should I let you get way with that.** I also asked you if you had any objection to the test. You didn’t reply**. Sure I ribbed you about it but I have no intention of insulting anyone. I suspected that you might have been trying to avoid the issue and I tried to pin you down. Is that a crime?

Apologies the person I ribbed about the test was JMcRae and not you. My sincerest apologies I got confused when you quoted from my reply to J McRae. I have now edited the reply so have done my best to right the wrong. .

 

[zearro]

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

**O I agree **but then I have never said that an evil act could be made good from the perpetrator’s point of view. But in this case the victim gets the benefit of eternal salvation - that can’t be denied. It could be argued that it is not an evil act But I for one would not take that stance.

 

[jmcrae]

But you are not child. There is a vast difference between an adult and child. And according to catholic doctrine when you have reached the age of reason you have free wiil This assumes you have the ability to discriminate.Children don’t have the reason or knowledge to discriminate. So the comparison with children does not hold

Do you think that we are equal with God, or that we can stand and reason with God?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Do you think that we are equal with God, or that we can stand and reason with God?

Most of the “intellectuals” from the Enlightenment on, if they even acknowledge the possibility of God would agree with this, I think. And many of them probably have tried to debate God. The results are the same and can best be summed up in the debate of one of them:

Nietzsche: God is dead.

God: Nietzsche is dead.

Guess who won the debate.

 

[Verisimilitude]

My argument is that the catholics have no principles behind their morality other than obedience .

That is absurd.

I am no longer a catholic nor a Buddhist. But I spent more than two decades in both religions.

Ok. I am sure most anybody with freedom of belief has pursued/avoided God in different ways/levels of enthusiasm throughout their life if they are fortunate to live long enough.

I see both truths and error in both.

The error you perceive in the God I know can be answered logically and with reason to include the moral principle of the question at hand.

Buddhists would regard you to be in error and would advice you to stop before you go too far. They also appeal to authority.

The legitimacy of who/what claims authority is long debated.

So which one is right and how do we choose? What are the criteria?

Mine are:
Does God exist? What is God? Who am I to God?

Each of those questions can have different answers to people at different times in their lives. Each question spawns new questions and the answers change or do not get answered right away if ever. It is a life long quest for many.

At some point however we must make firm decisions about those questions and simplify the answers otherwise we tend to wander like a blind man and that can be unhealthy.

I took about a year before I answered the first question definitively-Yes.

Over 15 years…the second question has become much more defined now, but its not something that a human will ever fully answer or understand. There is a lot to consider if being fair, and I want to be fair at least to myself. The simplest answer to #2 you might recognize without much debate is- I Am.

The third question is like the second but started much later and is less developed. Right now my answer is- I have been given at least 1 talent. So have you.

I try to be provocative in my assertions as I found that too diplomatic an approach sometimes meant differences were ignored. OK it will raise some peoples hackles but it gets the issues out into the open.

Diplomacy is for coming to common agreement and that is not always the desired result, as in this case. It was the principles behind the morality that convinced me I was wrong in my earlier belief regarding the unborn.

It was one of the last moral dilemas I faced before returning to the Sacraments, and it was not blind obedience that brought me to the conclusion I now hold.

I’ll answer this posed to another.

Now tell me does the baptised child who dies before the age of reason go to heaven in the end? Yes or no?

We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future.

Here is what we do know.

Luke 12:23
"For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.

I accept as authority the one who is understood to be speaking that verse. Myth would not support the reality of His impact. Man is given life. It is not ours to take.

I am not sure if you have a problem with the Church as an institution or the dogma or both, but you haven’t made your case whatever it is.