Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
Good morning!
Posts like the above are why I wonder if this thread is the best place to discuss this. This is a matter of secular politics.
If someone asked me what's the Biblical position on abortion or how do Christians understand life I'd love to go into length on it.
This however is a matter for the rulers and the authorities. The basic Christian expectation is that secular rulers keep order in society and allow for Christians to live godly quiet lives in the present age. Do I have a secular position on this issue? Yes, I'm pro-life but I think this isn't the right place for this discussion as it obscures the lines between Biblical Christianity and secular politics.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Ok fair enough, solodeogloria, you make a valid point.solodeogloria wrote: »Good morning!
Posts like the above are why I wonder if this thread is the best place to discuss this. This is a matter of secular politics.
If someone asked me what's the Biblical position on abortion or how do Christians understand life I'd love to go into length on it.
This however is a matter for the rulers and the authorities. The basic Christian expectation is that secular rulers keep order in society and allow for Christians to live godly quiet lives in the present age. Do I have a secular position on this issue? Yes, I'm pro-life but I think this isn't the right place for this discussion as it obscures the lines between Biblical Christianity and secular politics.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
Can I ask you a religion-based question then, one that I've genuinely never understood : if death is our final goal in life, coming to Jesus etc, and if the argument against contraception as well as abortion is basically a naturalistic one about life from (natural?) conception until natural death, how can one explain the fact that all sorts of hugely technological means to slow down or avoid death, such as blood transfusions, heart transplants, articificial resuscitation etc, are all apparently fine for the vast majority of Christian religions, while not even a simple physical barrier to prevent conception is acceptable to the Catholic Church?
Does it all come down to the instruction "Go forth and multiply" or is there something else I'm missing?
And thanks for being unfailingly pleasant and willing to engage, you are an advert for your form of Christianity. I mean that very seriously. I always enjoy reading your posts.0 -
Good afternoon!
This is an excellent question. I'll need some time at this with an open Bible later. I can see your question has a few logical threads involved too
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Just came across this......
Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.
Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530351/Russian-women-decide-against-having-abortion-SELL-babies-state-3-700-proposed-new-law.html
The birth rate / death rate is negative for many nations, Japan, Italy Germany etc. Russia is no exception either.
This brings many problems for tax funding of a nations finances, for example in Ireland the ratio of retirees to workers is predicted to swing from 2 retirees per 5 workers to 5 retirees per two workers by 2050 or what not ( I don't have a exact source / link for this but that is one statement I heard from one financial advisor recently)
Some nations i.e. Turkey are expected to continue strong population growth for some considerable time.
I'm not in favour of babies for sale and I believe Ireland as a signatury to The Hague convention is against payment of monies for adoption of children. Monies may be paid to cover certain costs but buying children is prohibited.
But to adopt a child you require children to be adopted and parents willing to adopt. In Ireland adoption has been effectively closed down. I believe there was one baby adopted in Leinster in 2014.
With Social Welfare provision mothers can keep their babies without having to give them up due to economic necessity etc.0 -
@ABC101. I don't think an incentive sell a Child is right. I also don't think killing it is right. So selling it is the lesser of 2 evils.
As Clinton said recently in the US, that the "unborn person" there has no rights under US law.
Well the unborn in Ireland does have rights under out constitution. Thankfully we don't make our Children into medical waste.0 -
Advertisement
-
@ABC101. I don't think an incentive sell a Child is right. I also don't think killing it is right. So selling it is the lesser of 2 evils.
As Clinton said recently in the US, that the "unborn person" there has no rights under US law.
Well the unborn in Ireland does have rights under out constitution. Thankfully we don't make our Children into medical waste.
How does our constitution stop me having an abortion and making a child into medical waste? I can travel for abortions and the constitution doesn't stop me killing any number of unborn children elsewhere.0 -
How does our constitution stop me having an abortion and making a child into medical waste? I can travel for abortions and the constitution doesn't stop me killing any number of unborn children elsewhere.
I believe alma was referring to "in Ireland" as distinct from other nations you are referring to.0 -
Ok fair enough, solodeogloria, you make a valid point.
Can I ask you a religion-based question then, one that I've genuinely never understood : if death is our final goal in life, coming to Jesus etc, and if the argument against contraception as well as abortion is basically a naturalistic one about life from (natural?) conception until natural death, how can one explain the fact that all sorts of hugely technological means to slow down or avoid death, such as blood transfusions, heart transplants, articificial resuscitation etc, are all apparently fine for the vast majority of Christian religions, while not even a simple physical barrier to prevent conception is acceptable to the Catholic Church?
Does it all come down to the instruction "Go forth and multiply" or is there something else I'm missing?
And thanks for being unfailingly pleasant and willing to engage, you are an advert for your form of Christianity. I mean that very seriously. I always enjoy reading your posts.
Good evening all!
Let me try answer this as best as I can God willing.
To clarify some things:
I don't agree that death is our final goal in life. Not to be overly crude about it I think if that were true Christians would be involved in a death pact and there would be a lot less of us walking around. Our goal in life is to become more like God's Son by focusing on Him and His great rescue for us (Romans 12:1), and to share the truth of the gospel with others so that they too might have the life that comes in Jesus' death and resurrection.
I also don't agree that contraception should be prohibited. I disagree with the Catholics on this. From my standpoint as an evangelical Christian, the Bible doesn't prohibit it as far as I can tell. The usual proof text that Roman Catholics tend to use to state that contraceptives are prohibited is Genesis 38 when in Hebrew tradition Onan is asked to give a son to his brothers widow and then intentionally "spills his seed" on the ground so that this doesn't happen. Roman Catholics typically understand this passage to be a general principle that attempting to prevent conception is wrong. Personally I think it needs to be seen in the context of Onan intentionally not fulfilling the tradition of giving his brothers widow a child in the name of the deceased. I believe that there is a place for sex in a loving marriage even if the intention is not to have children but to deepen the relationship that a man and his wife have with one another.
In terms of contraception also, it is worth saying that Christians shouldn't expect people to live perfect lives in a world which is corrupted by sin. I wouldn't support using religion to hinder the supply of contraceptives. Even though I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, people will inevitably sleep around or have sex before marriage. In a fallen broken world, I would rather that people did that with contraception rather than did it without. In a world with the horrific scourges of AIDS and other STD's if people sin in this way I would rather they protected themselves. I also don't expect the non-Christian world to heed Christian attitudes towards sexual behaviour. All humanity is sinful, I fall short and many others do in many areas of life. The Christian should be gracious towards those who sin as Jesus Christ was gracious towards us while we were yet sinners He died for us (Romans 5:8-9).
That aside. I don't believe that my Christian understanding of life is mere naturalism. Rather it is borne from a view that God is intimately involved in bringing life into the world. Firstly God brought the first life into being at Creation (Genesis 1-2), but also we see that God knows us intimately whilst being formed in our mother's womb. The Psalmist is explaining how he knows that God cares for him and then speaks of what he knows about how God formed us.Psalm 139:13-16 ESV wrote:For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
God intimately knows us and cares about us and longs for us to come into relationship with Him as a result. We often underestimate this, I know I certainly do. Life isn't ours to give or take, but rather the Lord's. Job is one of the hardest books to read in the Bible. God agrees to allow Satan to test Job, and his family and his livelihood are taken away from Him. Job says the following:
I find this completely mind blowing. The basic truth is that God creates the life that He creates and He takes away life also.Job 1:20-22 ESV wrote:Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshipped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.
The difference between the issue of life and death and the medical procedures that you have described above is that abortion is taking the life of another person away, and it is taking the life that God has brought into the world away. Medical professionals are given to us by God. God ordains all things. He knows what advances will be made and won't be made. At the end of the day even with the best doctors in the world, God still gives life and can still take it away. It isn't as if doctors can thwart God's will. Christians aren't just waiting to die. We have lives to live now for God's glory and I think this is often overlooked by many Christians in explaining their faith. Yes, salvation and eternal life are hugely significant, but Jesus Christ is living and active and He helps us to live godly lives today, and helps us to see His goodness and His love for all people. Christianity isn't just a waiting room.
Also to add, I think there are challenges when it comes to interpreting some aspects of modern science in light of an ancient text. For example, I don't think the Bible specifically addresses the issue of IVF. In many cases what tends to happen is that the interpreter tends to find a scenario similar to the technology being described and to see if the Bible speaks into that. I think it is challenging in many ways and often more difficult than not. I think where the Bible is clearly silent and where no similar scenario can be found it is best to allow liberty for the Christian. Having said that, I find the Bible speaks into most aspects of my day to day life, from work, family, relationships, my relationship with God, my attitudes towards immigration, dealing with non-Christians and so on. God is good and kind, and He has by God's grace spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1).
On "go forth and multiply". It's worth touching on this quickly. These two commands are given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6. After creation and after the flood. They are given when the world is unpopulated. I don't think they are commands to each and every individual person but rather a command in general to humanity. The point of Christianity isn't just to find a spouse to have sex with and produce babies. Some people will be called to loving marriages without children. Some will not be able to have children for whatever reason. Some will remain single for the rest of their lives. Some can serve the church better being single as they will have more time to spend with others sharing God's word, or caring for people in the church. I would hate to say that a Christian is deficient because they don't have a partner or because they don't have children. The world is already populated, and that isn't going to stop because some people won't be able to have children for whatever reason. Indeed some Christians may choose sacrificially to remain unmarried so they can serve the church better. I respect that greatly.
I'm sorry if I've rambled, there were lots of threads to your question. If I didn't answer anything or if I missed something please ask me the bits I missed again.
Thank you for your kind remarks. I just am trying my best. I fall short like everyone else.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
-
How does our constitution stop me having an abortion and making a child into medical waste? I can travel for abortions and the constitution doesn't stop me killing any number of unborn children elsewhere.
You can travel. What you do outside this country is your business. In THIS country we don't make our children medical waste.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
But the unborn in Ireland don't have any rights,once they're brought elsewhere. They only have rights when a girl or woman isn't able to leave the country.
Well....in fairness there are no pregnancy police at Irish ports / airports demanding / verifying women travelling are not pregnant or intending to have an abortion.
I would not agree that Irish babies are totally protected, termination of a pregnancy has no time limits now, technically could occur in the eight month in Ireland, whereas other countries do / specify a time limit.0 -
-
Well....in fairness there are no pregnancy police at Irish ports / airports demanding / verifying women travelling are not pregnant or intending to have an abortion.
I would not agree that Irish babies are totally protected, termination of a pregnancy has no time limits now, technically could occur in the eight month in Ireland, whereas other countries do / specify a time limit.
Does termination of pregnancy mean death? I understand doctors are obliged to deliver a live foetus and treat it accordingly. Of course risks to life during pregnancy aren't time specific so termination may be required at any time. I myself had pregnancies terminated at 39 and 40 weeks and have two children asleep upstairs.0 -
In Ireland they are buried, and there is a service (depending on your religion) once a year. They are not incinerated, that was what the HSE told my wife anyway,
Really? If I miscarry a foetus into my menstrual cup that's required to be buried? That's news to me. Where is the information on the burial of miscarriage remains?
I understand those services refer to Angel plots and services and aren't appropriate for non religious people as they're held in chapels.0 -
Does termination of pregnancy mean death? I understand doctors are obliged to deliver a live foetus and treat it accordingly. Of course risks to life during pregnancy aren't time specific so termination may be required at any time. I myself had pregnancies terminated at 39 and 40 weeks and have two children asleep upstairs.
Termination of a Pregnancy in Ireland does not mean death. It means ending the pregnancy. The life of the Mother under the Irish Constitution is protected, so if there is a danger the Doctor has to save her. So depending on the stage the of the pregnancy the child might not live. The intention was not to kill the child, it was to save both, which sometimes is not possible. Nobody intended to kill the child.0 -
Termination of a Pregnancy in Ireland does not mean death. It means ending the pregnancy. The life of the Mother under the Irish Constitution is protected, so if there is a danger the Doctor has to save her. So depending on the stage the of the pregnancy the child might not live. The intention was not to kill the child, it was to save both, which sometimes is not possible. Nobody intended to kill the child.
How is delivery of a foetus under the point of viability not an intention to kill a child?0 -
How is delivery of a foetus under the point of viability not an intention to kill a child?
because if you don't deliver you are letting both die. There are conditions that sometimes require the pregnancy to be terminated (Child delivered) its rare, but it happens. When a doctor is presented with this, he needs to take due care to save Mother and Child, if the pregnancy is causing the mothers health to deteriorate then sometimes it has to be delivered. The Child is not killed, the mother gives birth prematurely.
Nobody intended the Child to die. This is not abortion, its doing everything possible to save mother and Child, which on rare occasions is not possible. You can't let a pregnant Mother die.0 -
because if you don't deliver you are letting both die. There are conditions that sometimes require the pregnancy to be terminated (Child delivered) its rare, but it happens. When a doctor is presented with this, he needs to take due care to save Mother and Child, if the pregnancy is causing the mothers health to deteriorate then sometimes it has to be delivered. The Child is not killed, the mother gives birth prematurely.
Nobody intended the Child to die. This is not abortion, its doing everything possible to save mother and Child, which on rare occasions is not possible. You can't let a pregnant Mother die.
So in certain circumstances it's ok to prioritize a girl or woman over a foetus. So one life is more important.
I also assume not all doctors are male. My female consultant terminated my pregnancies.
Eta you do know in Ireland health risks are irrelevant. My health doesn't matter if I'm pregnant.0 -
So in certain circumstances it's ok to prioritize a girl or woman over a foetus. So one life is more important.
I also assume not all doctors are male. My female consultant terminated my pregnancies.
Eta you do know in Ireland health risks are irrelevant. My health doesn't matter if I'm pregnant.
We should follow the constitution, Where mother and Child have an equal right to life, you try and save both if medically possible.
I have 4 kids.. and I have seen the attention health risks are given with weekly scans and daily followup from hospital. Its not a matter of priority, its a matter of respecting the Child and Mother. There are rare occasions when sadly a doctor will say to a Mother that he has done everything medically possible, but that he needs to deliver the Child to ensure the life of the Mother.
I've seen first hand when Irish doctors detect a risk they ensure that everything is done to contain it.
Doctors are not letting pregnant mothers die in Ireland (the media would say otherwise) but the reality is they are dealing with the risks of pregnancy every day and ensuring that Mother and Child are ok.0 -
Advertisement
-
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening all!
Let me try answer this as best as I can God willing.
To clarify some things:
I don't agree that death is our final goal in life. Not to be overly crude about it I think if that were true Christians would be involved in a death pact and there would be a lot less of us walking around. Our goal in life is to become more like God's Son by focusing on Him and His great rescue for us (Romans 12:1), and to share the truth of the gospel with others so that they too might have the life that comes in Jesus' death and resurrection.
I also don't agree that contraception should be prohibited. I disagree with the Catholics on this. From my standpoint as an evangelical Christian, the Bible doesn't prohibit it as far as I can tell. The usual proof text that Roman Catholics tend to use to state that contraceptives are prohibited is Genesis 38 when in Hebrew tradition Onan is asked to give a son to his brothers widow and then intentionally "spills his seed" on the ground so that this doesn't happen. Roman Catholics typically understand this passage to be a general principle that attempting to prevent conception is wrong. Personally I think it needs to be seen in the context of Onan intentionally not fulfilling the tradition of giving his brothers widow a child in the name of the deceased. I believe that there is a place for sex in a loving marriage even if the intention is not to have children but to deepen the relationship that a man and his wife have with one another.
In terms of contraception also, it is worth saying that Christians shouldn't expect people to live perfect lives in a world which is corrupted by sin. I wouldn't support using religion to hinder the supply of contraceptives. Even though I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, people will inevitably sleep around or have sex before marriage. In a fallen broken world, I would rather that people did that with contraception rather than did it without. In a world with the horrific scourges of AIDS and other STD's if people sin in this way I would rather they protected themselves. I also don't expect the non-Christian world to heed Christian attitudes towards sexual behaviour. All humanity is sinful, I fall short and many others do in many areas of life. The Christian should be gracious towards those who sin as Jesus Christ was gracious towards us while we were yet sinners He died for us (Romans 5:8-9).
That aside. I don't believe that my Christian understanding of life is mere naturalism. Rather it is borne from a view that God is intimately involved in bringing life into the world. Firstly God brought the first life into being at Creation (Genesis 1-2), but also we see that God knows us intimately whilst being formed in our mother's womb. The Psalmist is explaining how he knows that God cares for him and then speaks of what he knows about how God formed us.
God intimately knows us and cares about us and longs for us to come into relationship with Him as a result. We often underestimate this, I know I certainly do. Life isn't ours to give or take, but rather the Lord's. Job is one of the hardest books to read in the Bible. God agrees to allow Satan to test Job, and his family and his livelihood are taken away from Him. Job says the following:
I find this completely mind blowing. The basic truth is that God creates the life that He creates and He takes away life also.
The difference between the issue of life and death and the medical procedures that you have described above is that abortion is taking the life of another person away, and it is taking the life that God has brought into the world away. Medical professionals are given to us by God. God ordains all things. He knows what advances will be made and won't be made. At the end of the day even with the best doctors in the world, God still gives life and can still take it away. It isn't as if doctors can thwart God's will. Christians aren't just waiting to die. We have lives to live now for God's glory and I think this is often overlooked by many Christians in explaining their faith. Yes, salvation and eternal life are hugely significant, but Jesus Christ is living and active and He helps us to live godly lives today, and helps us to see His goodness and His love for all people. Christianity isn't just a waiting room.
Also to add, I think there are challenges when it comes to interpreting some aspects of modern science in light of an ancient text. For example, I don't think the Bible specifically addresses the issue of IVF. In many cases what tends to happen is that the interpreter tends to find a scenario similar to the technology being described and to see if the Bible speaks into that. I think it is challenging in many ways and often more difficult than not. I think where the Bible is clearly silent and where no similar scenario can be found it is best to allow liberty for the Christian. Having said that, I find the Bible speaks into most aspects of my day to day life, from work, family, relationships, my relationship with God, my attitudes towards immigration, dealing with non-Christians and so on. God is good and kind, and He has by God's grace spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1).
On "go forth and multiply". It's worth touching on this quickly. These two commands are given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6. After creation and after the flood. They are given when the world is unpopulated. I don't think they are commands to each and every individual person but rather a command in general to humanity. The point of Christianity isn't just to find a spouse to have sex with and produce babies. Some people will be called to loving marriages without children. Some will not be able to have children for whatever reason. Some will remain single for the rest of their lives. Some can serve the church better being single as they will have more time to spend with others sharing God's word, or caring for people in the church. I would hate to say that a Christian is deficient because they don't have a partner or because they don't have children. The world is already populated, and that isn't going to stop because some people won't be able to have children for whatever reason. Indeed some Christians may choose sacrificially to remain unmarried so they can serve the church better. I respect that greatly.
I'm sorry if I've rambled, there were lots of threads to your question. If I didn't answer anything or if I missed something please ask me the bits I missed again.
Thank you for your kind remarks. I just am trying my best. I fall short like everyone else.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
Thanks for that, deoGloria, I've just read it quickly for lack of time, but I'll read it more carefully tomorrow and get back to you. There's a good deal in it, so I'll need to think about it first.0 -
Does termination of pregnancy mean death? I understand doctors are obliged to deliver a live foetus and treat it accordingly. Of course risks to life during pregnancy aren't time specific so termination may be required at any time. I myself had pregnancies terminated at 39 and 40 weeks and have two children asleep upstairs.
IMO yes....it is death for the foetus / fetus / baby. Termination of life at any stage (unborn or born) does mean death for that respective person / entity.
Thank you for your honesty WRT your personal circumstances. I am delighted to know you have two healthy children upstairs, yet I am very saddened to learn you had to have / had to have two terminations ( for whatever reason / reasons).0 -
Ok fair enough, solodeogloria, you make a valid point.
Can I ask you a religion-based question then, one that I've genuinely never understood : if death is our final goal in life, coming to Jesus etc, and if the argument against contraception as well as abortion is basically a naturalistic one about life from (natural?) conception until natural death, how can one explain the fact that all sorts of hugely technological means to slow down or avoid death, such as blood transfusions, heart transplants, articificial resuscitation etc, are all apparently fine for the vast majority of Christian religions, while not even a simple physical barrier to prevent conception is acceptable to the Catholic Church?
Does it all come down to the instruction "Go forth and multiply" or is there something else I'm missing?
And thanks for being unfailingly pleasant and willing to engage, you are an advert for your form of Christianity. I mean that very seriously. I always enjoy reading your posts.
From a RC perspective I would also agree with Solodeglria, Death is not the final goal.
Yes.....all humans are mortal. All humans will eventually die and bodies return to dust.
However for Christians the goal is to unite with God in Heaven. That is the ultimate aim.
WRT your argument about conception / contraception and prolonging life I think you are approaching the argument from the wrong angle.
Conception is about the creation of life. In addition prolonging a persons life or intervening in a manner to extend their life (I.e. Organ transplant / emergency operation etc) is again all about sustaining an existing life.
Even if a person is resuscitated hundreds of times, has hundreds of blood transfusions and hundreds or organ transplants they will still eventually die. Medical intervention only holds off the rainy day, but can never eradicate it completely.
For R.C.'s contraception is not allowed due to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual Union is then removed. Sexual Union is pleasurable / fun for many people, but it does have a natural function ( creation of a new person).
With contraception the natural function is now not possible, it is just now a pleasurable activity for the couple.
This is viewed as a selfish / unnatural / abnormal activity by the RC Church, I.e sex where the natural function is prohibited but the pleasurable function is still present.
In addition R.C. Do not only follow what s in the Bible, but they also have the instructions from the Bishop of Rome (Pope). As it says in the Gospels, I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, what you bind on Earth is considered bound in Heaven and vice a versa. Therefore for R.C's they are guided by not only what is in the Gospels / Bible but also guided by what is decided by the Pope ( who is St Peters descendent).0 -
From a RC perspective I would also agree with Solodeglria, Death is not the final goal.
Yes.....all humans are mortal. All humans will eventually die and bodies return to dust.
However for Christians the goal is to unite with God in Heaven. That is the ultimate aim.
WRT your argument about conception / contraception and prolonging life I think you are approaching the argument from the wrong angle.
Conception is about the creation of life. In addition prolonging a persons life or intervening in a manner to extend their life (I.e. Organ transplant / emergency operation etc) is again all about sustaining an existing life.
Even if a person is resuscitated hundreds of times, has hundreds of blood transfusions and hundreds or organ transplants they will still eventually die. Medical intervention only holds off the rainy day, but can never eradicate it completely.
For R.C.'s contraception is not allowed due to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual Union is then removed. Sexual Union is pleasurable / fun for many people, but it does have a natural function ( creation of a new person).
With contraception the natural function is now not possible, it is just now a pleasurable activity for the couple.
This is viewed as a selfish / unnatural / abnormal activity by the RC Church, I.e sex where the natural function is prohibited but the pleasurable function is still present.
In addition R.C. Do not only follow what s in the Bible, but they also have the instructions from the Bishop of Rome (Pope). As it says in the Gospels, I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, what you bind on Earth is considered bound in Heaven and vice a versa. Therefore for R.C's they are guided by not only what is in the Gospels / Bible but also guided by what is decided by the Pope ( who is St Peters descendent).
Thanks for posting. Do you know why sex for pleasure is seen in such a negative way?0 -
Thanks for posting. Do you know why sex for pleasure is seen in such a negative way?
From my understanding having pleasurable intercourse is not seen as a negative by the R.C.C.
What is seen as negative ( by the RC Church) is the separation of the natural objective, ie using sex for pleasure only.
If we take the example of a motor car, whose purpose is transportation from a to b.
However if a driver is to just use a car for speeding, dangerous overtaking, aggressive driving, cutting other road users up etc only then that would be considered a negative by law enforcement.
Other examples could be alcohol, where the misuse / abuse of the item leads to negative consequences, but used properly is considered a positive.
In short the RCC sees sex for pleasure only as a negative, because it defeats the natural purpose.0 -
IMO yes....it is death for the foetus / fetus / baby. Termination of life at any stage (unborn or born) does mean death for that respective person / entity.
Thank you for your honesty WRT your personal circumstances. I am delighted to know you have two healthy children upstairs, yet I am very saddened to learn you had to have / had to have two terminations ( for whatever reason / reasons).
I think you may have missed the point. one of us has anyway. 0 -
This is a lot easier to reply to than solodeogloria's post, possibly because I'm more familiar with the thinking behind it - having grown up with it, I already know I don't find it convincing, and why.From a RC perspective I would also agree with Solodeglria, Death is not the final goal.
Yes.....all humans are mortal. All humans will eventually die and bodies return to dust.
However for Christians the goal is to unite with God in Heaven. That is the ultimate aim.
WRT your argument about conception / contraception and prolonging life I think you are approaching the argument from the wrong angle.
Conception is about the creation of life. In addition prolonging a persons life or intervening in a manner to extend their life (I.e. Organ transplant / emergency operation etc) is again all about sustaining an existing life.
Even if a person is resuscitated hundreds of times, has hundreds of blood transfusions and hundreds or organ transplants they will still eventually die. Medical intervention only holds off the rainy day, but can never eradicate it completely.
For R.C.'s contraception is not allowed due to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual Union is then removed. Sexual Union is pleasurable / fun for many people, but it does have a natural function ( creation of a new person).
With contraception the natural function is now not possible, it is just now a pleasurable activity for the couple.
This is viewed as a selfish / unnatural / abnormal activity by the RC Church, I.e sex where the natural function is prohibited but the pleasurable function is still present.
In addition R.C. Do not only follow what s in the Bible, but they also have the instructions from the Bishop of Rome (Pope). As it says in the Gospels, I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, what you bind on Earth is considered bound in Heaven and vice a versa. Therefore for R.C's they are guided by not only what is in the Gospels / Bible but also guided by what is decided by the Pope ( who is St Peters descendent).
First : "uniting with God in heaven" - that requires dying. I can quite see that it also requires living a good life while on earth, but not why the definition of a good life would entail making as many babies as humanly possible while artificially delaying the moment one finally does unite with God.
On contraception : again, you're simply restating the teaching, you haven't explained why, when Our Father says "Thy will be done" it's ok to thwart his will by preventing someone from dying by using science, but not ok to thwart it with science by using science in the form of contraception.
Why is it necessarily a good thing to create new life regardless of the consequences, eg of the life that person is likely to have or the effects its arrival will have on existing children?
I can see that total refusal to reproduce at all ever could be seen as a tendency to hedonism that might be incompatible with the idea of a life that would be pleasing to God when one dies and is judged, but that's not the same as the traditional Catholic teaching of reproduction at all costs.
The best explanation I can find for that is the "Go forth and multiply" one, which TBF I find positively dangerous in a world as overpopulated as ours.
I haven't mentioned abortion because that's also relevant to SDG's post, and I'm aware that I've replied to yours which came later and not to hers. I've explained why, I need to assimilate the thinking in hers first, and am quite busy this weekend. But I will do.0 -
Good afternoon!
I'm a bloke by the by
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good afternoon!
I'm a bloke by the by
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
Oops, sorry! Possibly the "Gloria" misled me! What are we going to call you then, I was thinking Gloria but now that's no good...
As for your post yesterday, in fact there's a very large part of it that I'm entirely in agreement with, or else that even if I don't necessarily accept it for myself I can quite see that others would want to.
Which is partly why I found it easier to reply to the other post - often easier to disagree, or at least to find something to react to!
I'll reply to it now, but need to have it in front of me.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't believe I just typed a big long reply to this, with numbered paragraphs and everything, and just at the end the screen went blank and it's all gone!!!solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening all!
Let me try answer this as best as I can God willing.
To clarify some things:
I don't agree that death is our final goal in life. Not to be overly crude about it I think if that were true Christians would be involved in a death pact and there would be a lot less of us walking around. Our goal in life is to become more like God's Son by focusing on Him and His great rescue for us (Romans 12:1), and to share the truth of the gospel with others so that they too might have the life that comes in Jesus' death and resurrection.
I also don't agree that contraception should be prohibited. I disagree with the Catholics on this. From my standpoint as an evangelical Christian, the Bible doesn't prohibit it as far as I can tell. The usual proof text that Roman Catholics tend to use to state that contraceptives are prohibited is Genesis 38 when in Hebrew tradition Onan is asked to give a son to his brothers widow and then intentionally "spills his seed" on the ground so that this doesn't happen. Roman Catholics typically understand this passage to be a general principle that attempting to prevent conception is wrong. Personally I think it needs to be seen in the context of Onan intentionally not fulfilling the tradition of giving his brothers widow a child in the name of the deceased. I believe that there is a place for sex in a loving marriage even if the intention is not to have children but to deepen the relationship that a man and his wife have with one another.
In terms of contraception also, it is worth saying that Christians shouldn't expect people to live perfect lives in a world which is corrupted by sin. I wouldn't support using religion to hinder the supply of contraceptives. Even though I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, people will inevitably sleep around or have sex before marriage. In a fallen broken world, I would rather that people did that with contraception rather than did it without. In a world with the horrific scourges of AIDS and other STD's if people sin in this way I would rather they protected themselves. I also don't expect the non-Christian world to heed Christian attitudes towards sexual behaviour. All humanity is sinful, I fall short and many others do in many areas of life. The Christian should be gracious towards those who sin as Jesus Christ was gracious towards us while we were yet sinners He died for us (Romans 5:8-9).
That aside. I don't believe that my Christian understanding of life is mere naturalism. Rather it is borne from a view that God is intimately involved in bringing life into the world. Firstly God brought the first life into being at Creation (Genesis 1-2), but also we see that God knows us intimately whilst being formed in our mother's womb. The Psalmist is explaining how he knows that God cares for him and then speaks of what he knows about how God formed us.
God intimately knows us and cares about us and longs for us to come into relationship with Him as a result. We often underestimate this, I know I certainly do. Life isn't ours to give or take, but rather the Lord's. Job is one of the hardest books to read in the Bible. God agrees to allow Satan to test Job, and his family and his livelihood are taken away from Him. Job says the following:
I find this completely mind blowing. The basic truth is that God creates the life that He creates and He takes away life also.
The difference between the issue of life and death and the medical procedures that you have described above is that abortion is taking the life of another person away, and it is taking the life that God has brought into the world away. Medical professionals are given to us by God. God ordains all things. He knows what advances will be made and won't be made. At the end of the day even with the best doctors in the world, God still gives life and can still take it away. It isn't as if doctors can thwart God's will. Christians aren't just waiting to die. We have lives to live now for God's glory and I think this is often overlooked by many Christians in explaining their faith. Yes, salvation and eternal life are hugely significant, but Jesus Christ is living and active and He helps us to live godly lives today, and helps us to see His goodness and His love for all people. Christianity isn't just a waiting room.
Also to add, I think there are challenges when it comes to interpreting some aspects of modern science in light of an ancient text. For example, I don't think the Bible specifically addresses the issue of IVF. In many cases what tends to happen is that the interpreter tends to find a scenario similar to the technology being described and to see if the Bible speaks into that. I think it is challenging in many ways and often more difficult than not. I think where the Bible is clearly silent and where no similar scenario can be found it is best to allow liberty for the Christian. Having said that, I find the Bible speaks into most aspects of my day to day life, from work, family, relationships, my relationship with God, my attitudes towards immigration, dealing with non-Christians and so on. God is good and kind, and He has by God's grace spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1).
On "go forth and multiply". It's worth touching on this quickly. These two commands are given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6. After creation and after the flood. They are given when the world is unpopulated. I don't think they are commands to each and every individual person but rather a command in general to humanity. The point of Christianity isn't just to find a spouse to have sex with and produce babies. Some people will be called to loving marriages without children. Some will not be able to have children for whatever reason. Some will remain single for the rest of their lives. Some can serve the church better being single as they will have more time to spend with others sharing God's word, or caring for people in the church. I would hate to say that a Christian is deficient because they don't have a partner or because they don't have children. The world is already populated, and that isn't going to stop because some people won't be able to have children for whatever reason. Indeed some Christians may choose sacrificially to remain unmarried so they can serve the church better. I respect that greatly.
I'm sorry if I've rambled, there were lots of threads to your question. If I didn't answer anything or if I missed something please ask me the bits I missed again.
Thank you for your kind remarks. I just am trying my best. I fall short like everyone else.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
God must be telling me to go and do something else!!
Seriously though, basically I said I agreed with your first three paras, and can see that the 4th and 5th are more of a philosophical approach than anything that needs or even can be, examined for "truthiness". Can t now remember for 7 and 8, but mostly agreed to some extent or else again felt that it's also somewhat about personal experience, and agree that texts written in the desert several thousand years ago can't tell us directly how to integrate new technologies or inventions. OTOH that is the problem with the literalistic interpretation of Islam that seems to be obligatory nowadays, but OTOH non literalism leads to an almost unavoidable accusation of cherry picking. (Literalism too I guess.) so not sure where that leaves us.
Number 6 was where I had a problem - I've bolded it. If we can't thwart God's will, then what happens in our everyday life? if I drink a bottle of wine and then drive, is it God's will that put that pram just where I mounted the pavement?
I don't see how doctors are doing God's will by removing someone's heart and putting a new one in any more than the drunk driver is doing so by testing God's back seat driving. Is it that we give God the credit for the things we approve of, and blame man, or the devil, for the stuff we don't like?
TBF, that's how it looks to me.0
Advertisement