Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

All of this needs a lot less cutting and a lot more thought put into a response before I can even begin to comment. It's reactionary and not considered.

--Sam

Translation --- "I want to dictate the terms and have you respond on MY terms".

[Cow Poke]

There was nothing convoluted about what I said CP,

You can claim that, Jim, but the fact that we're still trying to figure it out suggests otherwise.

though your summary still misses the mark.

I'm shocked.

Rogues reply to Sam indicated Sam was describing a creampuf Christ. What Sam described however was nothing of the sort, and for the reason's I gave.

Cool.

[Mountain Man]

If your response to a Christian discussing Scripture is "Why would I listen to them about anything Scriptural when they're married to another dude, I really don't think that leaves much room to maneuver.

--Sam

Suppose you knew a Christian who was not only an unrepentant adulterer but claimed that scripture actually allowed for his behavior without condemnation. Now suppose this same guy wanted to lecture you about the finer points of Christian theology. Would you listen to him? Or would you be too busy avoiding the log in his eye to be able to pay attention?

[Sam]

The quote is there for all to see, Sam -- That's why, unlike some of your supporters, I actually use the quote function.



You could have just stayed out of the gutter in the first place.



Perhaps you should have stuck with that.



Perhaps in your twisted little world, Sam, but in mine, somebody can legitimately be a "Christian" and be either ignorant, or screwed up in the head, or simply be wrong.....

I don't play this game like your colleague, Charles, stating somebody is "not a Christian" or "not a True Believer".

Still waiting for that apology, without all the runaround.

When you called me out on something, I immediately corrected, and didn't try to justify or rationalize.

If you use the quote function responsibly, without cutting sentences or thoughts apart, you will see that I did not accuse you of anything you have not said and acknowledged on this thread. I joined two similar clauses together, as one does when constructing a grammatically-appropriate sentence. If you don't like being lumped together with the other set then I'm sorry, but it was a considered sentence and reflects how closely the sentiments are to each other.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

If you use the quote function responsibly, without cutting sentences or thoughts apart,

Sam - STOP SAYING STUPID STUFF.

you will see that I did not accuse you of anything you have not said and acknowledged on this thread.

False.

I joined two similar clauses together, as one does when constructing a grammatically-appropriate sentence. If you don't like being lumped together with the other set then I'm sorry, but it was a considered sentence and reflects how closely the sentiments are to each other.

--Sam

You made an assumption that was simply not true, and you are not man enough to admit it.

I think it's notable that Cow Poke and others can advocate for some standard of Christianity where someone like Buttigieg (or myself) can't be called Christian...

I have done no such thing.

[Sam]

Sam - STOP SAYING STUPID STUFF.



False.



You made an assumption that was simply not true, and you are not man enough to admit it.

I have done no such thing.

You used the quote you used earlier with the sentence cut off -- this time after I told you that the clause you're quoting wasn't referring to you.

First time is understandable, since you likely read that far and reacted. Using it the second time means you're not bothering to listen to the explanation.

No way to progress, if that's the case.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

You used the quote you used earlier with the sentence cut off -- this time after I told you that the clause you're quoting wasn't referring to you.

Then leave my name out of it and mind your own business, Sam.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm not sure that he has. As far as I know you're identifying 'human body' with the fetal stage. But that's not how the term is used within Science, so you're claiming a philosophical position: That there is some sort of essential difference between the blastocyst stage, and the fetal stage, without justification.

AFAICT, That is not what I'm doing. I'm identifying human body with the completed gestation, All the parts functioning together, arms, legs, head, etc. And there are significant scientific distinctions between these stages. That is how they are identified and separated. The are all human cells, but those cells undergo significant changes throughout the process. Now one could adopt the definition of 'body' to mean any and all stages of human development, but that is not the normal meaning of the word. And a blastocyst is not by any definition I am using in this discussion a 'human body'. It is a mass of undifferentiated cells that wil become a human body if it has the proper environment around it to do so.

Innocense is simply the state of not having committed any moral evil. Since a fetus is a human, it has the potential for moral actions, but has not committed any yet, ergo it is innocent.

Interesting. And before I continue, I am not saying the following to prove I'm right per se, but I'm simply presenting what I believe it s valid counter to the reasoning behind the above, so please to not feel I'm on the attack in any way, of being overly defensive. I do not mind if you show me to be wrong in this if it can be done logically and with reason.
---

So would you ascribe innocence to a jellyfish, or a rock? I don't think innocence can exist as anything but an anthropomorphism in an entity not capable of making a moral distinction.

I would not disagree with you though if you claimed that any stage of human life contains the potential of moral action, and that, I believe, is what makes it wrong to do abortion on demand. But I don't believe that prior to the development of the brain you can ascribe the capacity or even the potential (beyond a future development) for moral action. For example, a fetus that does not develop a brain due to a genetic defect. That fetus (unknown of course prior to the event) never had the potential to be a human person. And a blastocyst itself has no capability for moral action at that specific stage of development. That will come later as long as nothing stops its normal development.

[NorrinRadd]

...

Innocense is simply the state of not having committed any moral evil. Since a fetus is a human, it has the potential for moral actions, but has not committed any yet, ergo it is innocent.

I agree, but I think this may run counter to some understandings of "Original Sin."

[Cow Poke]

I agree, but I think this may run counter to some understandings of "Original Sin."

Well, yeah, then factor in the age of accountability. We can sure make a mess of this.

[oxmixmudd]

Since 2015 is the last year that we apparently have the numbers for, and there were, according to the CDC, 638,169 abortions from 49 of the 52 reporting areas, just how many of those do you think were okay?

And people in comas don't have what can be called "a fully functioning brain" and depending on what you mean by that, neither do millions of people suffering from various neurological disorders. Is it okay to euthanize them as well?

Not very many of them rogue. You are not thinking clearly. I'm not saying abortion on demand is OK. I'm saying the reason it is not ok can't be found in the idea that a fetus at 6 weeks is at that point a human person, or that a blastocyst is a human body. Making claims like that are not valid ways of arguing against the idea of abortion on demand because they are not true assessments of the realities for the developing fetus at that time.

What I am challenging are dogmas rogue, not realities. Dogmas like the world must be 6000 years old or the Bible is not God's word. Dogmas like the Earth must stand still or the Bible is not God's word. Dogmas like the Christ comes as a King and not as a suffering servant. These ideas around abortion are dogmas built up by human beings that reflect neither reality nor the scripture.

And yes, I'm challenging them. But that doesn't mean I reject the idea that a developing human life is a precious and wonderful thing that deserves the protection and respect of society. That killing, aborting a child is not something that we do because we made a mistake, or don't want our career path messed up.

But neither am I saying that the 4 week old fetus is the equivalent of a newly born baby, or that a 4 week old fetus is the equivalent of 6 months gestation. I know your dogma won't allow you to accept it, but Exodus makes it very clear, especially when you look at how it was translated into the Septuagint, that 4week old fetus == 4 week old baby equivalence is not a Biblically based equivalence.

And as Sam has pointed out, the Biblical standard for life is breath, to the point the Jewish tradition does not recognize the fetus as a human person until it takes its first breath. But the respect for life is so high in that same Jewish tradition that once the babe has seen the light, not even the imminent death of the mother can justify killing it to save her.

These are all elements that must be factored into a Christian view of abortion. And I don't believe that when they are it opens much of a door. It certainly slams shut the idea that a woman can view the baby is a part of her body she can do with what she likes. And it certainly closes the door on late term abortions except as self-defense. The only door it opens is to the idea that there are extreme circumstances that are perhaps less than the imminent threat to the life of the mother that can justify early term abortion, like perhaps rape and incest.

It may leave open the door to the idea that aborting a fetus very early is not the same as killing a child or late term abortion. And perverse minds will view that as permission. But the truth is the truth. And I would be willing to bet if we focused on the truth here and recognized that simple fact, it would open the door to defining the human person as beginning long before birth, at the point of independent brain activity. And that would stop the most heinous abortions - those of children in the womb that are viable outside it. And those that have developed to the point they are aware on some human level of what is happening to them.

So I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my words. I'm not giving license to abortion on demand. But I am challenging irrational, unBiblical dogmas surrounding the issue.

[lilpixieofterror]

Gotta love the "no need to get into it, BUT...."



After which, you get into numbers



It's OK, Sam, you've answered my question, and I'm not the least bit surprised.



And I reject your wacky notion that the PURPOSE of any immigration policy is the suffering of children. It may be "argued", but it's dumber than turtle poop, and just another liberal talking point!

By Sam’s insane logic, any law that separates a parent from a child can be considered immoral.

[oxmixmudd]

By Sam’s insane logic, any law that separates a parent from a child can be considered immoral.

Try again.

[Cow Poke]

Not very many of them rogue. You are not thinking clearly. I'm not saying abortion on demand is OK. I'm saying the reason it is not ok can't be found in the idea that a fetus at 6 weeks is at that point a human person, or that a blastocyst is a human body....

A) the "personhood" issue is a smokescreen by the pro-abortion crowd, Jim.
2) if the blastocyst is not a "human" body, what kind of body is it?

[lilpixieofterror]

Try again.

Yep, can’t refute it? I understand, but lots of laws cause suffering of children, are they immoral too?