Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

Sea Filly

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is, and certainly joining the gang laughing at it while not knowing what the laughing is about is ignorant.

Whether you think it's just sex or sex outside of marriage, it was a stupid statement and she can't even claim it was an off-the-cuff comment, as her speech seemed very prepared. You're latching onto one little detail of my first response to this thread and ignoring the rest.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

TDs personal beliefs are all over the Dail. They even join into political parties with like minded people with similar personal beliefs. They put personal beliefs on little cards and posters at election time. Until such time as we can elect an actual robot devoid of all personal belief then public representative's personal beliefs will inform their thinking.

They probably are, but they shouldn't be. This is no different.

Anyway, I'm done interacting with you on this thread, back and forth on threads is tedious for everyone else involved. If you want to think I'm ignorant, go ahead, that's your right. Laters.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

vicwatson wrote: »

I dunno, I think they suit her really.

Hey Michelle , the TITANIC called , it wants its bridge back.

I Heart Internet

Sea Filly wrote: »

Whether you think it's just sex or sex outside of marriage, it was a stupid statement and she can't even claim it was an off-the-cuff comment, as her speech seemed very prepared. You're latching onto one little detail of my first response to this thread and ignoring the rest.

You're changing the subject. You're first thread included ONLY you're commentary about laughing at it at work and not knowing what the word meant - oh and something about smoking.

There was little else to "latch onto". If you're gonna post be prepared to be called on what you post.

Sea Filly wrote: »

They probably are, but they shouldn't be. This is no different.

Why would you want to elect anyone without an independent thought in their head?

Sea Filly wrote: »

Anyway, I'm done interacting with you on this thread, back and forth on threads is tedious for everyone else involved. If you want to think I'm ignorant, go ahead, that's your right. Laters.

As I said above - if you're gonna post, be preapred for people to comment, sometimes critically, on what you've posted. 'Tis the AH way I believe.

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is, and certainly joining the gang laughing at it while not knowing what the laughing is about is ignorant.

..............

....if we're talking about "ignorant" I would have thought putting sex between consenting adults, (regardless of their marital status) on the same level as murder rather won the ignorance championship.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why would you want to elect anyone without an independent thought in their head?

Going on an archaic reading of scripture is "independent thought" now?

mikom

vicwatson wrote: »

I dunno, I think they suit her really.

Scott Summers?

Min

Nodin wrote: »

....if we're talking about "ignorant" I would have thought putting sex between consenting adults, (regardless of their marital status) on the same level as murder rather won the ignorance championship.



Going on an archaic reading of scripture is "independent thought" now?

She didn't put them on the same level, she said from a scriptural point of view they are sins and made a point they don't legislate for all sins like fornication, greed or hate. Though I would disagree with the hate bit to a point as there are laws as far as I am aware against incitement to hate.

You could read a book and agree with the points it makes, this doesn't mean one is somehow not independent of thought.
I remember all the people agreeing with Richard Dawkinsbecause they don't believe in an existence of a God, because they agree with a book, does it mean these people too lacked independent thought?

I Heart Internet

Nodin wrote: »

....if we're talking about "ignorant" I would have thought putting sex between consenting adults, (regardless of their marital status) on the same level as murder rather won the ignorance championship.

By all means, if that's what she said. But that doesn't wipe away the ignorance of the poster's comments.

Nodin wrote: »

Going on an archaic reading of scripture is "independent thought" now?

Anything that upsets Ray D'arcy this much is independent thought.

Unindependent thought is just going along with any fashionable consensus and not trying to say what you actually think.

Pherekydes

Min wrote: »

She didn't put them on the same level...

Here, once again (sigh), is the quote:

"Abortion, as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don't legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication, the latter, being fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country," she said.

The part I've bolded should make it clear, that yes, indeed, she does put them on the same level, and no amount of prevarication or obfuscation or spin will make it go away.

shopaholic01

philologos wrote: »

Jesus also said that He came to die so that we might be rescued from our sin if we believe and trust in Him. Indeed, Christians are told by Jesus that they should go throughout the world telling people that God loved them so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die in their place, so that they might be dead to sin, and rise to life, so that people might be born again through Him.

Personally, I'm not going to be judging anything. Firstly, yes, I've sinned against God, I'm not saying otherwise. I've repented and I'm trying to live step by step as God wants me to in the world. Part of this naturally means that Christians are told to stand up for what is good, and reject what is evil.

So yes, you're correct that Christians are told to give people mercy and forgiveness. I.E - Forgive wrongdoing in order to bring people to God. It doesn't mean ignore wrongdoing, it doesn't mean accept wrongdoing as acceptable. That's both in our own lives, and in the world around us. You're incorrect to suggest that that means that Christians shouldn't stand up for what is right.

I don't believe you're "already damned". At least nobody has to be. The fundamental reason why Jesus came into this world as man was that we might be rescued, and forgiven of our sin and be able to begin to put that behind us to live for the living God.

I hope that makes sense, I'm more than happy to give you more of an insight into this. Personally, I never could praise or condone abortion because it is taking someone else's life away. If it didn't take away human life, I'd be much more receptive of it.

You're right, there's nobody who hasn't sinned. That's very clearly what the Bible says (Romans 3:23, Psalm 14). However, it also says that Jesus came to pay the price for sin so that we might live for God rather than for ourselves and our selfish interests. I.E - Forgiveness comes through His name.

Well now, that's extremely handy isn't it? So I can happily go through life committing all manner of sins, repent on my death bed and wipe the slate clean.

Must be a kick in the teeth for those who tried not to commit sin. Imagine a life of following 'the rules', only to spend eternity with murderers, rapists etc, who found god and repented.

Reminds me of being a child coming up to Christmas. Being told if you did something that santa would not bring you presents. Chances are you did it anyway, but then you paniced. So you apologied to your parents hoping that would do the trick. Lo and behold Christmas morning you got your presents!

Probably explains why as an adult I have as much faith in santa as I do in god ..............

Seriously, consensual sex between two adults cannot be classed as a sin. Libido is an evolutionary tactic to ensure the survival of the species. Without it none of us would be here.

Sea Filly

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Well now, that's extremely handy isn't it? So I can happily go through life committing all manner of sins, repent on my death bed and wipe the slate clean.

Must be a kick in the teeth for those who tried not to commit sin. Imagine a life of following 'the rules', only to spend etenity with murderers, rapist etc, who found god and repented.

Reminds me of being a child coming up to Christmas. Being told if you did something that santa would not bring you presents. Chances are you did it anyway, but then you paniced. So you apologied to your parents hoping that would do the trick. Lo and behold Christmas morning you got your presents!

Probably explains why as an adult I have as much faith in santa as I do in god ..............

Seriously, consenual sex between two adults cannot be classed as a sin. Libido is an evolutionary tactic to ensure the survival of the species. Without it none of us would be here.

+1 :cool:

vetinari

Pherekydes wrote: »

Here, once again (sigh), is the quote:

"Abortion, as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument,is no more sinful , from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don't legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication, the latter, being fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country," she said.

The part I've bolded should make it clear, that yes, indeed, she does put them on the same level, and no amount of prevarication or obfuscation or spin will make it go away.

You're putting your own spin on that.
She doesn't attach a weightiness level to the different sins. You did that yourself. Besides the main thrust of the argument is that there are sins (in the religious sense) that aren't recognized as crimes by the state. Read the entire sentence and don't try to infer such meaning from 4 words in that sentence.

Irishwolff

I think abortion should be allowed, there would be nothing worse for a child to grow up in a home where it was not wanted or viewed as a mistake or an extra burden or unloved. But also I think women have alot of responsibility, if they have an abortion they might feel very guilty and depressed about it in later life. The best time for a woman to have a child is up until her thirties... and usually in this part of life we are out getting degrees, setting career goals, building relationships... so there might be a certain pressure on a woman to have an abortion then because having a child maybe too much responsibility. I think it should be allowed but each individual case for abortion is different. At the end of the day its the womans body so its her choice

Min

Pherekydes wrote: »

Here, once again (sigh), is the quote:



The part I've bolded should make it clear, that yes, indeed, she does put them on the same level, and no amount of prevarication or obfuscation or spin will make it go away.

..and another way of explaining it.

It is against the law to kill someone, it is no more or less against the law not to pay your taxes, rob a loaf of bread from your local supermarket or rape someone.
That doesn't mean some are seen and viewed as more serious, but on a base level, all would be breaking the law and that is the only equality between the crimes.
This is the point Michelle Mulherne was making in regards to sin, she was talking about the starting point of a sin being a sin and it doesn't matter if it is murder, greed, hate or fornication, they are all equally sins according to the scriptures, this doesn't mean the sin itself is equal to another sin.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

..and another way of explaining it.

It is against the law to kill someone, it is no more or less against the law not to pay your taxes, rob a loaf of bread from your local supermarket or rape someone.
That doesn't mean some are seen and viewed as more serious, but on a base level, all would be breaking the law and that is the only equality between the crimes.
This is the point Michelle Mulherne was making in regards to sin, she was talking about the starting point of a sin being a sin and it doesn't matter if it is murder, greed, hate or fornication, they are all equally sins according to the scriptures, this doesn't mean the sin itself is equal to another sin.

We'll try that again........

"Abortion, as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don't legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication

I heart internet wrote:

Anything that upsets Ray D'arcy this much is independent thought..

You may be suprised about this, but I wouldn't hold the opinions of Ray Darcy as a measure of what constitutes anything.

marty1985

Nodin, I'm just trying to be helpful here, but I think you should put the emphasis on the "from a scriptural point of view" part, because according to some Christian traditions there is no hierarchy of sin - they are all equally sins. However, I think the Catholic teaching is that there is a hierarchy of sin, therefore, the Catholic perspective would agree with you AFAIK. Is she a Catholic - I don't know. Her Facebook says Christian. So she may only be speaking consistently with a Protestant viewpoint, but I am open to correction on this.

Pherekydes

marty1985 wrote: »

Nodin, I'm just trying to be helpful here, but I think you should put the emphasis on the "from a scriptural point of view" part, because according to some Christian traditions there is no hierarchy of sin - they are all equally sins. However, I think the Catholic teaching is that there is a hierarchy of sin, therefore, the Catholic perspective would agree with you AFAIK. Is she a Catholic - I don't know. Her Facebook says Christian. So she may only be speaking consistently with a Protestant viewpoint, but I am open to correction on this.

The point I'm making is that having sex outside marriage may be a sin for believing Christians, but for those who are non believers it isn't, and a public representative has no right to bring it up as a sin.

If there is no hierarchy of sins then they are equal; you will go to hell for fornication, just as surely as you will murder.

Pherekydes

vetinari wrote: »

She doesn't attach a weightiness level to the different sins. You did that yourself.

Nope, she did that by using those four words.

Napper Hawkins

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Just catching up on this thread.

The level of ignorance - freely admitted - by some is tragic.

Someone who tells us that their whole office had a great laugh over this but then tells us that they (the poster) didn't actually know that fornication wasn't just all sex.

And another poster who is amazed at the sight of a full church on a sunday morning. Others claiming 35% of people don't really atttend sunday mass because, presumably, none of their buddies do so it couldn't possibly be true.

Seriously people, open a book and step out from behind the computer and speak to people who don't hold the same views as you. Might learn something. God forbid, even sit at the back of a chuch on a Sunday morning and see what actually goes on there.

You'll find that most people who were raised in this country know exactly what goes on in a church. Which is exactly why most of us don't go back.

marty1985

Pherekydes wrote: »

The point I'm making is that having sex outside marriage may be a sin for believing Christians, but for those who are non believers it isn't, and a public representative has no right to bring it up as a sin.

If there is no hierarchy of sins then they are equal; you will go to hell for fornication, just as surely as you will murder.

Ok. I think she deliberately used a word loaded with religious connotations, to provoke. I don't think it was a wise move, but she may have a right to make a point in religious terms, however inappropriate we think it is. I'm not sure what law has been broken.

By saying "from a scriptural point of view" she is technically correct I think. Strictly scriptural Christians would believe so, Catholics would differ (AFAIK, I'm no expert). I think this point is causing some outrage in this thread somewhat unnecessarily.

Your last point is, I think, a theological one suited to a Catholic v Protestant debate in the Christianity forum perhaps. Your Catholicism is strong. (Just kidding.)

philologos

IT-Guy wrote: »

It is complicated when pro-lifers use inflammatory language such as the above bolded bit. Neither your nor mine or anyone else's right to life is being trampled upon. Sense of entitlement much, clearly?

The liberty of the unborn child to life is being trampled upon. It isn't really entitlement to insist that human rights are safeguarded. I don't believe it's inflammatory at all actually considering what we're dealing with.

IT-Guy wrote: »

Having been involved in the other abortion thread in the christianity forum I think we need a term to differentiate between living people and potential people in the womb. You recognize it as a life, I don't, how does referring to it as a zygote/fetus suit? Would you say it's common-sense to acknowledge a zygote/fetus in this stage of development is vastly different to you and I at every level?

Biologically, the embryo is alive, in so far as it is exhibiting growth and development in the womb. The same biological entity goes through birth, childhood, adulthood and ultimately death. To claim that the embryo and foetus is not alive seems absurd to me. Simply what people are saying is because it is less developed we can do whatever we like. Extend that logic into childhood, and try it. A three year old is less developed as its mother, if its mother finds the child to be an inconvenience it should have the right to kill it? Or is that when people start to claim that it is barbaric?

Personally, as I've said before, and one poster expressed confusion at this. I would have zero issue with terminating a pregnancy if one was able to do so without killing the unborn. I.E if scientific research led to a solution where we could remove the child from the womb to grow and develop ex-utero rather than in-utero.

IT-Guy wrote: »

Absolutely it's an extremely serious issue but of greater concern to me are the rights of the mother. If a woman wants an abortion then she should be entitled to have one without neither having to travel to another country to get one nor being pressured into alternatives that she has already considered and passed up. It's shameful that a modern society feels it has a right to have any say in what a woman does with her body.

It's not just her body though I'm afraid. If it were, I'd have no issue with what you'd be saying. However, since that is untrue, and since the child also has the right to life, I support a compromise between both sets of rights rather than blatant denial and trampling over the rights, and freedoms of other individuals.

philologos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Well now, that's extremely handy isn't it? So I can happily go through life committing all manner of sins, repent on my death bed and wipe the slate clean.

Sincerity. That's key. If God is omniscient, He'll know if you are being truthful. If it is simply out of expedience rather than a genuine conviction in the Gospel, I'd anticipate that He knew about it.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Must be a kick in the teeth for those who tried not to commit sin. Imagine a life of following 'the rules', only to spend eternity with murderers, rapists etc, who found god and repented.

Murderers, rapists etc can have their lives entirely transformed by the Gospel. People who acknowledge and know that they have done wrong, and seek to genuinely repent and live their lives differently will earn my respect and that only. I wouldn't consider it a kick in the teeth, indeed I would hope to call such people my brothers and sisters in Christ like anyone else.

People who refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing before God no matter how small are a different kettle of fish.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Reminds me of being a child coming up to Christmas. Being told if you did something that santa would not bring you presents. Chances are you did it anyway, but then you paniced. So you apologied to your parents hoping that would do the trick. Lo and behold Christmas morning you got your presents!

Not at all, it's not so much about what you do. It's about what you believe and trust in. There's no way we can pay the price of sin. We need to be rescued.

It's nothing like Santa. In so far as it is very real. All one has to do is simply open a newspaper and sin will be everywhere to bigger or lesser degrees. Thieving, lying, murder, sexual assault, corruption of every kind. In our own lives, we know that we've clearly done what is wrong rather than what is good. It is simply logical that we should make restitution, both in respect to those around us, and indeed to our Creator. If we are guilty of sin, we are guilty. As a result, Jesus took our sin upon Himself, meaning that we were made innocent in God's sight through Him. Meaning that we can start a new relationship with Him before it is too late to put it right.

If it wasn't as evident as it was, I'd agree with you, it would be unfounded and ludicrous. Since it is, then I would have to question why one would even entertain the idea of comparing it to Santa.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Seriously, consensual sex between two adults cannot be classed as a sin. Libido is an evolutionary tactic to ensure the survival of the species. Without it none of us would be here.

There's plenty of reasons some of which I've already mentioned which make marriages a better context for sexual expression than other contexts, in terms of raising children, in terms of dealing with unplanned pregnancy and in terms of reducing STD's by limiting the number of sexual partners.

There are clear advantages to this approach over the approach that society has largely adopted. Is it any wonder why more families are broken in our society than in societies previous? - To me, its no surprise that this has coincided with a change in how popular philosophy regarded sexuality.

Doc Ruby: In the absence of a desire to entertain in a respectful discussion, you're more keen in making horrible comments about other people. Bravo. I've only come into this discussion to engage in a stimulating discussion on the topic, and perhaps offer a different opinion. If you're not up for that, that's fine. I'm not going to stoop to that level.

IT-Guy

philologos wrote: »

The liberty of the unborn child to life is being trampled upon. It isn't really entitlement to insist that human rights are safeguarded. I don't believe it's inflammatory at all actually considering what we're dealing with.

There is no such liberty I'm afraid as the fetus isn't a child. It doesn't impinge on the rights of anyone else bar the mother if the state denies her right to have the fetus terminated. Deal with the living, don't worry about the unborn or the dead. Once the baby is born then all the rights of humanity are conferred on him/her.

Biologically, the embryo is alive, in so far as it is exhibiting growth and development in the womb. The same biological entity goes through birth, childhood, adulthood and ultimately death. To claim that the embryo and foetus is not alive seems absurd to me. Simply what people are saying is because it is less developed we can do whatever we like. Extend that logic into childhood, and try it. A three year old is less developed as its mother, if its mother finds the child to be an inconvenience it should have the right to kill it? Or is that when people start to claim that it is barbaric?

The fetus will obviously develop if allowed to, no denying that. What we're talking about is preventing the fetus from developing fully, terminating the pregnancy/fetus and removing it from the mother's womb. Plotting out the life cycle from embryo to death is rather pointless outside of attempted emotional one-upmanship.

And yes because the fetus is less developed it can be removed, I see no problem with that if that's what the mother chooses. It's narrow minded to assume that if women are denied the choice of an abortion here they won't get an abortion elsewhere. All that's being asked is to allow for a medical procedure be performed that will occur anyway if the mother wants it, anything else is oppressive.

Your logical extension is flawed as once a child is born then we're dealing with a baby that was wanted. If at any point after birth the mother regrets having a baby and no longer want to care for it then adoption would be an option for her at that point. Of course it's barbaric to kill a child that has been brought into the world with the love and consent of the mother. If consent is removed before the fetus is born then there should be the option of an abortion if the mother so wishes.

Personally, as I've said before, and one poster expressed confusion at this. I would have zero issue with terminating a pregnancy if one was able to do so without killing the unborn. I.E if scientific research led to a solution where we could remove the child from the womb to grow and develop ex-utero rather than in-utero.

And if the mother didn't wish to avail of this option and still wanted a termination?

It's not just her body though I'm afraid. If it were, I'd have no issue with what you'd be saying. However, since that is untrue, and since the child also has the right to life, I support a compromise between both sets of rights rather than blatant denial and trampling over the rights, and freedoms of other individuals.

Again this is where we differ, the fetus is part of the mother's body and has no recognisable 'body' of it's own for the first few weeks and the right to be there is at the mother's consent. Whatever her circumstances I see no ethical or moral issue with her terminating the pregnancy if that's what she wants. That would be my definition of 'the rights and freedoms of other individuals'. Nobody else's business tbh

philologos

IT-Guy wrote: »

There is no such liberty I'm afraid as the fetus isn't a child. It doesn't impinge on the rights of anyone else bar the mother if the state denies her right to have the fetus terminated. Deal with the living, don't worry about the unborn or the dead. Once the baby is born then all the rights of humanity are conferred on him/her.

Nonsense. Every human has fundamental rights. You're just saying that younger humans don't have rights than older ones. I could apply that logic ex-utero and people would start being more horrified for some reason.

It impinges on the rights of the unborn child. That's why I'm strongly against it. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.

IT-Guy wrote: »

The fetus will obviously develop if allowed to, no denying that. What we're talking about is preventing the fetus from developing fully, terminating the pregnancy/fetus and removing it from the mother's womb. Plotting out the life cycle from embryo to death is rather pointless outside of attempted emotional one-upmanship.

It's not emotional at all, it's simple logic. What is emotional is the continued efforts to ignore these realities.

The fact is that the embryo is the very same biological entity. Therefore it is the same entity and deserves the same liberty as other human entities.

Termination means killing.

IT-Guy wrote: »

And yes because the fetus is less developed it can be removed, I see no problem with that if that's what the mother chooses. It's narrow minded to assume that if women are denied the choice of an abortion here they won't get an abortion elsewhere. All that's being asked is to allow for a medical procedure be performed that will occur anyway if the mother wants it, anything else is oppressive.

Your logical extension is flawed as once a child is born then we're dealing with a baby that was wanted. If at any point after birth the mother regrets having a baby and no longer want to care for it then adoption would be an option for her at that point. Of course it's barbaric to kill a child that has been brought into the world with the love and consent of the mother. If consent is removed before the fetus is born then there should be the option of an abortion if the mother so wishes.

It's not logically flawed. One could bring a child to full birth and then put it in adoption. The same possibility exists.

IT-Guy wrote: »

And if the mother didn't wish to avail of this option and still wanted a termination?

That would be surely unacceptable. If there was a possibility for the child to be removed, and to grow and develop elsewhere, killing it shouldn't be on the cards as far as I can tell.

IT-Guy wrote: »

Again this is where we differ, the fetus is part of the mother's body and has no recognisable 'body' of it's own for the first few weeks and the right to be there is at the mother's consent. Whatever her circumstances I see no ethical or moral issue with her terminating the pregnancy if that's what she wants. That would be my definition of 'the rights and freedoms of other individuals'. Nobody else's business tbh

This isn't true. The unborn child is a biologically distinct human entity with distinct DNA from the mother. Therefore it is a distinct individual from the mother.

By the by, you're also forgetting that the prospective mother and prospective father can do many things to prevent a pregnancy. I wonder are people saying yet again, that the conjugal rights of the parent supersede the right to life for the child.

By the by foetus in Latin, means young one. So using that term doesn't mean much for fobbing off a foetus as human with liberties and freedoms.

DonQuay1

token101 wrote: »

Scumbags are scumbags because, a lot of the time, not all the time, the parents didn't want kids to begin with and end up being totally sh*t parents. That has knock on effects for others in society. If people don't want children, I feel they should have the right to make that choice within a limited period before birth........

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

We're obliged to have a dog licence and if we're unfit dog owners then we can be stopped having dogs.
Why aren't we obliged to have a child licence and if we're unfit parents ..... we're not allowed to breed?!

mikom

philologos wrote: »

This isn't true. The unborn child is a biologically distinct human entity with distinct DNA from the mother. Therefore it is a distinct individual from the mother.

Ah, DNA, is there nothing it can't do....

The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today. In a paper published in the Sept. 1 issue of the journal Nature, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, which is supported in part by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), describes its landmark analysis comparing the genome of the chimp (Pan troglodytes) with that of human (Homo sapiens).
http://www.genome.gov/15515096

DonQuay1

token101 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Heart Internet View Post
I was making the point that the practical benefits of abortion - reducing crime rates - have to, as those freakonomics guys have always pointed out, be weighed with the arguments against abortion.




But that should be the choice of the potential mother. Not you.

Incorrect.

Crimerates are a societal matter - not just a matter for a mother. Therefore society should legislate for the benefit of all mothers - and not just for one that is incapable or too lazy to raise a child to societal norms. Raising a child that is capable of not being dangerous or disrespectful of the other people and things of the society the child is born into is the norm.

shopaholic01

philologos wrote: »

Sincerity. That's key. If God is omniscient, He'll know if you are being truthful. If it is simply out of expedience rather than a genuine conviction in the Gospel, I'd anticipate that He knew about it.


Ok, so if I am genuinely sorry I can be forgiven for a lifetime of sins. Like I said, that's extremely handy.


Murderers, rapists etc can have their lives entirely transformed by the Gospel. People who acknowledge and know that they have done wrong, and seek to genuinely repent and live their lives differently will earn my respect and that only. I wouldn't consider it a kick in the teeth, indeed I would hope to call such people my brothers and sisters in Christ like anyone else.


How very Christian.

People who refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing before God no matter how small are a different kettle of fish.

Well I will certainly refuse to acknowledge that having censentual sex with another adult outside of marriage is a sin. So I was right, I am damned.


Not at all, it's not so much about what you do. It's about what you believe and trust in. There's no way we can pay the price of sin. We need to be rescued.

From what? Ourselves?


It's nothing like Santa. In so far as it is very real. All one has to do is simply open a newspaper and sin will be everywhere to bigger or lesser degrees. Thieving, lying, murder, sexual assault, corruption of every kind. In our own lives, we know that we've clearly done what is wrong rather than what is good. It is simply logical that we should make restitution, both in respect to those around us, and indeed to our Creator. If we are guilty of sin, we are guilty. As a result, Jesus took our sin upon Himself, meaning that we were made innocent in God's sight through Him. Meaning that we can start a new relationship with Him before it is too late to put it right.

If it wasn't as evident as it was, I'd agree with you, it would be unfounded and ludicrous. Since it is, then I would have to question why one would even entertain the idea of comparing it to Santa.

I was comparing the existence of God to the existence of Santa. A very obvious comparison to my mind.



There's plenty of reasons some of which I've already mentioned which make marriages a better context for sexual expression than other contexts, in terms of raising children, in terms of dealing with unplanned pregnancy and in terms of reducing STD's by limiting the number of sexual partners.

Unplanned pregnancies are more likely to occur in a 'catholic marriage' because contraception is a sin.
Q. What do you call couples sho use natural methods of contraception?
A. Parents

STD's: Use condoms

Safe sex will prevent unplanned pregnancies and STD's.

There are clear advantages to this approach over the approach that society has largely adopted. Is it any wonder why more families are broken in our society than in societies previous? - To me, its no surprise that this has coincided with a change in how popular philosophy regarded sexuality.

People who left marriages were treated like social lepers, because of the influence of the church. Without divorce there was no way to divide marital assets and some people stayed because they could not financially afford to leave. Others stayed because they are afraid of their partner. Some men stayed (and probably still do) in marriages because family law will discriminate them - they may have concerns about the ability of the mother to be a fit parent, they may want to see their children on a daily basis etc. The reasons are very complex and are not related to a decline in 'moral values'.
Do you really believe that people should stay in an unhappy relationship?
What about all the adults who have emotional/psychological scars as a result of witnessing the unhappy/abusive relationship of their parents?

philologos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Ok, so if I am genuinely sorry I can be forgiven for a lifetime of sins. Like I said, that's extremely handy.

The last sentence, would beg a lack of sincerity. One must be convinced that one has sinned, and one must be truly sorry for what they have done, and that by His grace, Jesus took the penalty that we deserved.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Well I will certainly refuse to acknowledge that having censentual sex with another adult outside of marriage is a sin. So I was right, I am damned.

Not so, I can only hope one day that you'll truly understand, and that stubbornness that you have towards God will go away.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

From what? Ourselves?

Sin. Our sin which separates us from God, and makes us worthy of condemnation.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I was comparing the existence of God to the existence of Santa. A very obvious comparison to my mind.

And an extremely poor one as far as I can tell. Christianity clearly points to reality, the real nature of mankind. As far as I can tell, in most cases atheism runs from it, particularly in the question of sin. Clear wrongdoing. The embrace of relative morality (which couldn't be any further from the reality of how humans deal with moral action) is a means of running from this question. People can claim what they like is good, and what is evil, but ultimately there is something good and something which is evil irrespective of what people think.

Anders Brevik may have claimed that slaughtering nearly a hundred people on the island of Utoya last year was a "good" thing. But it is apparent to all that it wasn't a good thing at all. It was catastrophically evil.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

There's plenty of reasons some of which I've already mentioned which make marriages a better context for sexual expression than other contexts, in terms of raising children, in terms of dealing with unplanned pregnancy and in terms of reducing STD's by limiting the number of sexual partners.

Unplanned pregnancies are more likely to occur in a 'catholic marriage' because contraception is a sin.
Q. What do you call couples sho use natural methods of contraception?
A. Parents

STD's: Use condoms

Safe sex will prevent unplanned pregnancies and STD's.

This point is utterly irrelevant to me. I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I encourage the use of contraceptives in marriages. And if one is going to have premarital sex even if I do think it is wrong, at least wear a condom. However, the reality is that all contraceptives can and do fail. The problem would remain, albeit in a much smaller number.

The logical solution would be simply if one waited until marriage, or at least until they were financially stable and otherwise stable in their relationship before sexual expression. Then simply put one would be better capable to deal with unplanned pregnancy, there would be a lessening of STD's. Keeping to one sexual partner for life (provided both have done so) would mean little or no STD's, and stability for bringing children into the world. That's why I'm an advocate for marriage.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

People who left marriages were treated like social lepers, because of the influence of the church. Without divorce there was no way to divide marital assets and some people stayed because they could not financially afford to leave. Others stayed because they are afraid of their partner. Some men stayed (and probably still do) in marriages because family law will discriminate them - they may have concerns about the ability of the mother to be a fit parent, they may want to see their children on a daily basis etc. The reasons are very complex and are not related to a decline in 'moral values'.
Do you really believe that people should stay in an unhappy relationship?
What about all the adults who have emotional/psychological scars as a result of witnessing the unhappy/abusive relationship of their parents?

Again, I am not defending Roman Catholicism here. I have no interest in that. I am defending Biblical Christianity.

I believe people shouldn't get into unhappy relationships or at least probe into the question for long enough before committing to marriage.

I think divorce should be legal. I personally think though that divorce should be taken extremely seriously, I.E after trying everything to keep the marriage together. It can be extremely destructive for children to witness the breakup of a marriage. Working it out, and restoring the relationship can be possible and should be explored.

That's my philosophy on it. Ultimately, marriage provides a better and more stable environment for children than other environments. This has been repeatedly backed up in studies. Situations such as what you describe are tragic, but they are a tiny minority. Marriage provides a clear binding commitment.

By the by, I'm fairly sure that if a marriage breaks up, that a father who was in a marriage with the mother will receive much more favourable treatment in court than a father who wasn't due to the protections that exist in marriage law. If I'm wrong someone could perhaps correct me.

philologos

mikom wrote: »

Ah, DNA, is there nothing it can't do....

Why am I meant to be so surprised by this? - I have no issue with accepting that there is a 96% similarity between humans and chimpanzees

My point was that an unborn child is biologically distinct from its mother and is a separate human entity. It isn't a part of the mother, that's biologically inaccurate.

K-9

Gotta love the blueshirts! Great entertainment when they put their foot in it.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

..............

There are clear advantages to this approach over the approach that society has largely adopted. Is it any wonder why more families are broken in our society than in societies previous? - To me, its no surprise that this has coincided with a change in how popular philosophy regarded sexuality.
.........

Hmmmm. So I take it that where women were put into various institutions, had their children removed from them, had to give up children under duress, either to relatives or orphanages, or for adoption, or where the birth was kept secret and the child adopted by the grandparent, or where they sought terminations to avoid exclusion for society, don't count as "broken families"?

A yes or no would suffice, but feel free to expound.

Spread

smash wrote: »

Michelle needs a ride!

I think the rabbit beat you to it here ........... she obviously never has been poked. At least not by a living organism. Wimmin need min for that sort of thing.

shopaholic01

philologos wrote: »

Again, I am not defending Roman Catholicism here. I have no interest in that. I am defending Biblical Christianity.

I believe people shouldn't get into unhappy relationships or at least probe into the question for long enough before committing to marriage.

I think divorce should be legal.

Does the bible not say 'What god has joined together let no man put asunder?

What branch of christianity do you suscribe to?
The a la carte version - take the bits you agree with and live your life according to those?

So dicorce is acceptable but fornication isn't.

Should all divorced people become celibate? After all they can't remarry in a church so any civil remarriage would not count.

partyatmygaff

DonQuay1 wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

We're obliged to have a dog licence and if we're unfit dog owners then we can be stopped having dogs.
Why aren't we obliged to have a child licence and if we're unfit parents ..... we're not allowed to breed?!

Because... unlike driving a car there's no way of knowing if you'll be a good parent unless you have a child of your own.

It's not rocket science. There's a reason why popular ideas like "parent licenses" aren't taken on as reasonable suggestions. They're completely ridiculous.

Joko

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

philologos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Does the bible not say 'What god has joined together let no man put asunder?

Here's what Jesus said about marriage:

Matthew 19:1-9 wrote:

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

shopaholic01 wrote: »

What branch of christianity do you suscribe to? The a la carte version - take the bits you agree with and live your life according to those?

I don't know on what grounds you're saying that. I've cited the exact passage where Jesus says that unfaithfulness in marriage is a ground for divorce.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

So dicorce is acceptable but fornication isn't.

In limited circumstances, as Jesus has said in the passage I've cited above.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Should all divorced people become celibate? After all they can't remarry in a church so any civil remarriage would not count.

Which church? Again, I'm presuming you're referring to the RCC. Most churches take a conservative approach about remarriage, because they regard it as serious. In situations where ones partner has been unfaithful to their marriage, there is no prohibition against remarriage from what I can tell Biblically. The same applies for people who are widowed.

Bipolar Joe

Leave the God sh!t out of the stuff that happens on Earth. Look at it this way, if people want to go off and sin or whatever, that's more time you and God get spend together without those other people bugging him. The concept of letting a religion dictate the goings on of a country is unacceptable. I will not subscribe to the dos and don'ts of a culture from thousands of years ago.

philologos

^^ Except, it isn't exactly that. Even if people leave Christianity or any other creed out of consideration. There are still gaping human rights concerns around this issue. This is why many atheists and agnostics are also pro-life. It's not exclusive to any belief system.

Bipolar Joe

Look, people aren't going to stop fucking, and some people aren't going to stop fucking without protection. Unwanted pregnancies are a burden on more than just the parents, they mightn't even be fully capable of looking after the kid, even if they had the best intentions of making it work. We live in a country that's in a massive hole economically. Think about the kid as more than a foetus, think about how sh!tty a life it mi9ght have if it's born. Either provide abortion facilities or neuter two thirds of the country.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

^^ Except, it isn't exactly that. Even if people leave Christianity or any other creed out of consideration. There are still gaping human rights concerns around this issue.

For the mothers with no choice but to visit clinics in the UK, yep.

Ellis Dee

What an insight! Sex can lead to pregnancy. I wonder did she figure that out all on her own or perhaps read it in this book

http://ia700803.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/23/items/olcovers236/olcovers236-L.zip&file=2367746-L.jpg

Jess16

Dream of Tallaaagghhht-Forrrnnnnnicaaaayshun :pac:

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Here's what .........who are widowed.

Would you mind getting back to me about
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78255196&postcount=233
?
Thanks.

keano_afc

Still a lot of posters in this this thread who havent a clue on the definition of the word fornication. Perhaps consult a dictionary before posting to avoid embarrassing yourself?

efb

Fornication is the most common form of sex- Outside Marraige, sex with a martial partner is less common and considered mostly a duty and laborious

shopaholic01

Nodin wrote: »

Would you mind getting back to me about
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78255196&postcount=233
?
Thanks.

Think you may have hit a nerve. Doubt there's a suitable passage from the bible to quote here :rolleyes:

Pherekydes

efb wrote: »

Fornication is the most common form of sex- Outside Marraige, sex with a martial partner is less common and considered mostly a duty and laborious

Married, I take it?

shopaholic01

Pherekydes wrote: »

Married, I take it?

My bet is more than 5 years:D

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmmm. So I take it that where women were put into various institutions, had their children removed from them, had to give up children under duress, either to relatives or orphanages, or for adoption, or where the birth was kept secret and the child adopted by the grandparent, or where they sought terminations to avoid exclusion for society, don't count as "broken families"?

A yes or no would suffice, but feel free to expound.

I don't see how this question is relevant to my position to be honest with you. That behaviour is perhaps the least Christlike thing I can imagine. I don't agree with very much that the RCC as an institution did in the past. I don't agree with it entirely in the present. Indeed that's probably why I'm not a Roman Catholic.

So, simply put, that does count as a broken family, but the institutions were at fault. It's not particularly relevant to the position that marriage is the best situation for children to be raised in. Or that modern Western philosophy surrounding sexuality has resulted in a huge increase in broken families.

mikom wrote: »

For the mothers with no choice but to visit clinics in the UK, yep.

The unborn children's rights here in Britain are being ignored. We're either in a situation where we consider both rights together, or we're in a situation where we ignore the rights of the child.

I believe in compromise. Ensuring that the mum has all the resources to help bring the child to full birth, and adoptive services in the case that they don't want to keep the child, and ensuring that the child is guaranteed the liberty to life. Killing isn't a genuine solution as far as I can tell.

shopaholic01

keano_afc wrote: »

Still a lot of posters in this this thread who havent a clue on the definition of the word fornication. Perhaps consult a dictionary before posting to avoid embarrassing yourself?

Perhaps read all previous posts and realise that this point has been made and addressed