[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What has more opinions about life and death issues than religion?
[/quote]
Government?
20 something European “liberals” who have the whole world figured out and love pointing such out on internet message boards?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/planned-parenthood-facing-investigations-over-abhorrent-video-on-body-part/?intcmp=latestnews
Absolutely fucking disgusting. [/quote]
Why let aborted dead Fetus’s go to waste when they can go to research labs to try and further our ability to understand and combat and cure disease, cancers etc that affect not currently dead people? What should be done with them? Should they be individually buried in tiny coffins serving no use to anybody ?
This isn’t disgusting, just like donating my body to other people or science when I die is not absolutely fucking disgusting but the obvious thing to do. Even if someone if pro-life surely they are not against medical research ?[/quote]
Chopping up defenseless babies and selling them is fucking disgusting. I am an organ donor, it is a completely different thing altogether.
Life > curing cancer in my book. [/quote]
How is it though? How is it any different than a regular donor situation? [/quote]
In a regular donor situation the donee makes the decision to be a donor. The baby has no choice. It’s killed, chopped up, and then sold. It’s completely different.
[quote]
These foetuses have already been killed, [/quote]
Against their will.
[quote]
they are dead, so why throw them in the waste bin instead of using them for transplant and research that can save kids who are alive? [/quote]
These kids would also be alive if we didn’t allow them to be killed in the first place
They shouldn’t be dead and they should not be sold for profit, ever.
[quote]
Where is this drama coming from? In the civilised world abortion is a woman’s right. [/quote]
Civilized, lol…
[quote]
That will never revert, so there will be lots of dead foetuses and we might as well put them to good use.[/quote]
I believe it will. I whole heartily believe future generations will look at us the same way we look at former slave owners.[/quote]
A murder victim is killed against his will. That does not mean using body parts for transplant and medical research is disgusting and an outrage. [/quote]
Selling those body parts for profit most certainly is.
[quote]
Whether or not you agree with abortion is irrelevant. [/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
I don’t even know where to begin with this utterly absurd statement. [/quote]
Can I ask why you are so incensed by the killing of the unborn yet you have marine corps initials as your username which have killed thousands of foreign babies in and out of the womb.
If the killing of innocents is murder and abortion is murder are marines murderers? I would take the religious stuff more seriously if supposedly Christian people actually followed their religious teaching and understood that being an American or being patriotic or fighting in the armed forces of of man is 100% incompatible with Christianity and the heart of its teachings.
This merging of nationalism and warped religion in the U.S is a mirror image of political Islam in the middle east. Support an army of man who inevitably kill civilians while claiming to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You are zealous in upholding the right of the unborn but quite flakes on everything Christ said ever.
He’s back… lmao.
It’s musashi92 again. Same shit arguments, different screen name.
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
Can I ask why you are so incensed by the killing of the unborn yet you have marine corps initials as your username which have killed thousands of foreign babies in and out of the womb.
If the killing of innocents is murder and abortion is murder are marines murderers? I would take the religious stuff more seriously if supposedly Christian people actually followed their religious teaching and understood that being an American or being patriotic or fighting in the armed forces of of man is 100% incompatible with Christianity and the heart of its teachings.
[/quote]
Uh oh.
This ought to be fun.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Go back and actually read the whole post. You’ll find it. I promise.
[/quote]
How do you define ‘innocent’?[/quote]
Without guilt. Free of iniquity and depravity.
How do you define it?
[/quote]
That’s fine religious description, in a religious context I would agree. But you are not a religious person that puts a damper on the whole iniquity and depravity thing for you are arguing for something you technically do not believe exists. Hence it muddies the waters regarding the facts on the table.
In other words, I think you are trying to trip up Christians regarding their beliefs on sin rather than dealing with the facts in hand.
My goal is far simpler. I want to know if a person acknowledges the act of abortion for what it is, the willful taking of a human life.
If you agree that it’s the willful taking of a human life, but think it’s a-ok to take human lives willy-nilly, I got no argument. That is something you’ll have to justify for yourself. In other words whether or not you value human life is up to you. My beef primarily is with those who refuse to acknowledge what the facts are, that a fetus is every bit a human being as any other human being living in whatever stage of development they happen to be in.
In the context of a human being taking the life of another human being, I am much broader with the definition of ‘innocent’. In the context of deciding to end a human’s life, I defer to the threat that life poses to another’s life. If the existence of a human being does not pose the risk of death to another human being, you have no right to take that life.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Let’s start with a couple of very simple questions, rather.
Do you believe killing human beings, who pose no threat to your life or the life of somebody you love, is wrong?[/quote]
Yes. If you aren’t gonna eat it, then don’t kill it, I say.
[quote]Do you believe that the being that grows in the uterus of a female human being is a human being? If not, then what?
[/quote]
Of course it’s human. It wouldn’t be growing inside of a human uterus otherwise.
This is fun. Ask me another.
[/quote]
Okay.
Does gestational age or particular stage of human development affect the ‘value’ of that particular being? [/quote]
Not as far as I know. Unless one is talking about its “street value” per gram.[/quote]
lol!
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
You are zealous in upholding the right of the unborn but quite flakes on everything Christ said ever.
[/quote]
What does Christ say regarding military service, specifically?
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Nice to see you Cortez.
Aragorn, this may make you feel a little bit better. There’s a lot of good out there.
I got to see a miracle this weekend.
A little girl I evaluated was born with a very large cyst in her brain. This cyst was visible on ultrasound before birth, and if you can picture, it took up about 1/3 of her brain area. It’s inoperable. It looked like her occipital lobe was almost completely obliterated, along with some of the surrounding structures.
So, her parents knew when she was still in the womb that this baby was very likely going to have some profound challenges. We expected blindness at the least, and very likely profound physical and mental disability. Of course, we all wondered if she would survive and if she’d ever walk or talk.
I evaluated her at about 15 months, and she could see! She was doing quite well, but wasn’t yet walking or talking. It was one of those, “we’ll have to wait and see” situations, which is really a hard place for a parent to be. Shortly afterward, the family moved to another state.
Flash forward. I got to see her again last weekend. She’s now about 4 years old. She not only has good vision, but she’s running around and talking much like any child her age. As I walked up, she said, “Shhh! (holding her index finger to her lips) Be quiet! The baby is sleeping.” I’m still just completely in awe. It will go down as one of the most beautiful moments in my life.
The human brain is an incredibly plastic and adaptable thing. I will never think about this without feeling immense gratitude that I got to meet that amazing little person and her lovely parents. And I guess now I can be grateful that that woman from Planned Parenthood never got her hands on her.
That’s all I’m going to say about that.
[/quote]
That is a beautiful story. But how many of those cases turn out like that? Does this one case mean women should not be able to have access to abortions?
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/planned-parenthood-facing-investigations-over-abhorrent-video-on-body-part/?intcmp=latestnews
Absolutely fucking disgusting. [/quote]
Why let aborted dead Fetus’s go to waste when they can go to research labs to try and further our ability to understand and combat and cure disease, cancers etc that affect not currently dead people? What should be done with them? Should they be individually buried in tiny coffins serving no use to anybody ?
This isn’t disgusting, just like donating my body to other people or science when I die is not absolutely fucking disgusting but the obvious thing to do. Even if someone if pro-life surely they are not against medical research ?[/quote]
Chopping up defenseless babies and selling them is fucking disgusting. I am an organ donor, it is a completely different thing altogether.
Life > curing cancer in my book. [/quote]
How is it though? How is it any different than a regular donor situation? [/quote]
In a regular donor situation the donee makes the decision to be a donor. The baby has no choice. It’s killed, chopped up, and then sold. It’s completely different.
[quote]
These foetuses have already been killed, [/quote]
Against their will.
[quote]
they are dead, so why throw them in the waste bin instead of using them for transplant and research that can save kids who are alive? [/quote]
These kids would also be alive if we didn’t allow them to be killed in the first place
They shouldn’t be dead and they should not be sold for profit, ever.
[quote]
Where is this drama coming from? In the civilised world abortion is a woman’s right. [/quote]
Civilized, lol…
[quote]
That will never revert, so there will be lots of dead foetuses and we might as well put them to good use.[/quote]
I believe it will. I whole heartily believe future generations will look at us the same way we look at former slave owners.[/quote]
A murder victim is killed against his will. That does not mean using body parts for transplant and medical research is disgusting and an outrage. [/quote]
Selling those body parts for profit most certainly is.
I was going to give you a serious response, but the cold hard fact is you are a complete moron and you’ve posted this same non-sense under another username before anyway, YamatoDamashii92.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
He’s back… lmao.
It’s musashi92 again. Same shit arguments, different screen name. [/quote]
Lol, yup.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
Can I ask why you are so incensed by the killing of the unborn yet you have marine corps initials as your username which have killed thousands of foreign babies in and out of the womb.
If the killing of innocents is murder and abortion is murder are marines murderers? I would take the religious stuff more seriously if supposedly Christian people actually followed their religious teaching and understood that being an American or being patriotic or fighting in the armed forces of of man is 100% incompatible with Christianity and the heart of its teachings.
[/quote]
Uh oh.
This ought to be fun.[/quote]
I’m not taking the bait. Colonel Jessup said it best, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not taking the bait. Colonel Jessup said it best, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.” [/quote]
Ha!
Great quote.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, just as a matter of general observation: play devil’s advocate long enough and you’ll discover one day you’re on a full time retainer with him.[/quote]
That was clever.
I’ll have to remember that one.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
You are zealous in upholding the right of the unborn but quite flakes on everything Christ said ever.
[/quote]
What does Christ say regarding military service, specifically?
[/quote]
“But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Jesus says it’s better to be broke and naked than unarmed.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
You are zealous in upholding the right of the unborn but quite flakes on everything Christ said ever.
[/quote]
What does Christ say regarding military service, specifically?
[/quote]
“But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Jesus says it’s better to be broke and naked than unarmed.[/quote]
Christians should not be involved in wars and affairs stirred up for political reasons. Jesus teaches us "Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. War puts us directly against what Jesus taught us when he says, “Love your enemy,” and “bless those that persecute you.”
"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5
"The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority. G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ?until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.? Harnack?s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4). After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century."6
"During its first three centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war and others forms of violence. Christian opposition to war early expanded into a denial of rightness of all coercive action on the part of the civil power. Thus arose that form of conscientious objection which has been designated as political non-participation."7
"For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession. Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."8
"During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain…that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death. These facts are indisputable: ?It is easy,? says a learned writer of the 17th century, ?to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.? Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."9
"Christ and his apostles delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct. It was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice in life. And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had been delivered? They applied them to war; they were assured that the precepts absolutely forbade it. This belief they derived from those very precepts on which we have insisted: They referred, expressly, to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear arms. A few examples from their history will show with what undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war, and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of peace."10
"Our Savior inculcated mildness and peaceableness; we have seen that the apostles imbibed his spirit, and followed his example; and the early Christians pursued the example and imbibed the spirit both. This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age, There are more quotations in the apostolical fathers, of texts, which relate to these points than any other, Christ?s sayings had struck them."11
“If it is possible, a still stronger evidence of the primitive belief is contained in the circumstance, that some of the Christian authors declared that the refusal of the Christian o bear arms, was a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. (Is 2:3; Mic 4:2) The peculiar strength of this evidence consists in this: that the fact of a refusal to bear arms is assumed as notorious and unquestioned.” [Regardless of the validity of the prophetic interpretation.]12
"A very interesting sidelight is cast on the attitude of the early Christians to war by the serious view they took of those precepts of the Mater enjoining love for all, including enemies, and forbidding retaliation upon the wrongdoer, and the close and literal way in which they endeavored to obey them. This view and this obedience of those first followers of Jesus are the best commentary we can have upon the problematic teaching in question, and the best answer we can give to those who argue that it was not meant to be practiced save in a perfect society , or that it refers only to the inner disposition of the heart and not to the outward actions, or that it concerns only personal and private and not the social and political relationship of life."13
B. Affirmation of Early Church Orders
1. THE DIDASKALIA
"The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ?from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,? etc."14
2. THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD
“The Testament of our Lord,? which dates in its present form from the middle of the fourth century or a little later, arose among the conservative Christians of Syria or southeastern Asia Minor.” It embodies a list of rules and regulations governing the "acceptance of new members into the Church and (deals) with the question of the trades and professions which it is legitimate or otherwise for Church-members to follow. It will be observed that…?The Testament of Our Lord? is consistently rigorous in refusing baptism to soldiers and magistrates except on condition of their quitting their offices, and forbidding a Christian to become a soldier on pain of rejection (from the Church):
"If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or o rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But let those rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the post of authority, and if not let them not be received. Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt."15
3. THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA
"The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and authoritatively laid I down that ?it was not fitting for Christians to bear arms.?"16
C. Writings of Early Christian Leaders
CHRISTIAN CONDEMNATION OF WAR
"The view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of Christ can have nothing to do. This sentiment was expressed, though with varying degrees of lucidity and emphasis, by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origenes, Athanasius, Cyprian, and Lactantius."17
ARISTEIDES (HE) "says of the Christians: ?They appeal to those who wrong them and make them friendly to themselves; they are eager to do good to their enemies; they are mild and conciliatory.?"18
ARNOBIUS (300 A.D.) "The treatise of Arnobius abounds in allusions tot he moral iniquity of war. Contrasting Christ with the rulers of the Roman Empire, he asks: "Did he, claiming royal power for himself, occupy the whole world with fierce legions, and, (of) nations at peace from beginning, destroy and remove some, and compel others to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him?? "?What use is it to the world that there should be…generals of the greatest experience in warfare, skilled in the capture of cities, (and) soldiers immovable and invincible in cavalry battles or in a fight on foot?? Arnobius roundly denies that it was any part of the divine purpose that men?s souls, ?forgetting that they are from one source, one parent and head, should tear up and break down the right of kinship, overturn their cities, devastate lands in enmity…hate one another… in a word, all curse, carp at, and rend one another with the biting of savage teeth.? "Addressing himself to the pagans, he says: "Since We…(christians) have received (it) from his (Christ?s) teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one?s own (blood) rather than to stain one?s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ…But if absolutely all…were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquillity, and would have come together in healthy concord…? "(HE) speaks as if abstention from warfare had been the traditional Christian policy ever since the advent of Christ."19
CLEMENT "In the third century Clement of Alexandria contrasted war-like pagans with the peaceful community of Christians.?"20 "Clement of Alexandria calls his Christian contemporaries the ?Followers of Peace,? and expressly tells us that ?the followers of peace used none of the implements of war.?"21 "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings. For (it is) not those who abstain from evil by compulsion, but those (who abstain) by choice, (that) God crowns. For it is not possible for a man to be good steadily except by his own choice."22
CYPRIANUS (250 A.D.) "Cyprianus declaims about the ?wars scattered everywhere with the bloody horror of camps. The world, ?he says, ?is wet with mutual blood (shed) :and homicide is a crime when individuals commit it, (but) it is called a virtue, when it is carried on publicly. Not the reason of innocence, but the magnitude of savagery, demands impunity for crimes.? He censures also the vanity and deceitful pomp of the military office."23
IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24
JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) “Justinus told the Emperors that the Christians were the best allies and helpers they had in promoting peace, on the ground that their belief in future punishment and in the omniscience of God provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than any laws could do.” “We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all.” "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25
JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27
LACTANTIUS (300 A.D.) "Lactantius also, in his Divine Institutes, again and again alludes to the prevalence of war as one of the greatest blots on the history and morals of humanity. Speaking of the Romans, he says: ?Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and) slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence of their crimes…If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think I right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.? "In criticizing the definition of virtue as that which puts first the advantages of one?s own country, (he says): ?All which things are certainly not virtues, but the overthrowing of virtues. For, in the first place, the connection of human society is taken away; for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder of the human race, and wherever arms glitter, she must be put to flight and banished…For how can he be just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills? And those who strive to be of advantage to their country (in this way) do all these things.? "If God alone were worshipped, there would not be dissentions and wars; for men would know that they are sons of the one God, and so joined together by the sacred and inviolable bond of divine kinship; there would be no plots, for they would know what sort of punishments God has prepared for those who kill living beings."28 "And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier-for justice itself is his military service-… And so, in this it is always wrong to kill a man whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature."29 "There cannot be a thousand exceptions to God?s commandments: Thou shalt not kill. No arm save truth should be carried by Christians."30
LUCIFER "Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, professed that the Christians should defend heir greatest possession, faith, not in killing, but in sacrificing their own lives."31
Who the heck is Christian Trump?
http://christiantrumpetsounding.com/No%20War/Christian%20View%20Bklt/No%20War%20Ch2.htm