Why a good, Bible-believing Christian can vote Democratic

[KCfromNC]

Almost no one cheers for abortion, though I admit a few extremes might.

I saw a post supporting the idea a no child policy for China.

But then again, are those people actually human?

 

[KCfromNC]

Another misnomer. Just cause something is socialist doesn't mean full fledged communism.

And many of the ideas desired by Democrats ARE socialistic ideas. I mean they themselves call it Democratic socialism. Yes MANY Democrats want socialistic ideals and ideas. A great many.

Yeah, crazy things like workplace safety laws and public schools. What will they think of next?

 

[KCfromNC]

That is partially true. The problem with that though is that you may not know when you are going to die.

The fact that there isn't a 100% perfect way to game the Christian approach has little bearing on the point I was responding to. Remember the implication was that it was non-believers who had motivation to be immoral if there's no afterlife. But what this really shows is that people who believe in the afterlife have a good reason to be the ones to actually do so, even if they have to be a bit cautious with the implementation.

Secondly, Christians should know that living God's plan will bring you the most out of this life too. Not too mention the rewards in heaven that are possible for the believer who does God's will.

Sounds like salvation through works to me.

 

[Albion]

Huh? The idea that humanity required a soul, and that likely happened after conception, was pretty common in the Catholic tradition.

and this was before he knew much about how the fetus develops.

As was mentioned before, the (Catholic) Church permitted abortions until relatively recently in the history of Christianity, but today it does not. Why is that? It's because we now know that the developing child, from quite early in the process, is not just some blob of tissues.

So even if one belongs to a denomination that is okay with abortion at any time, by anyone, under any circumstances, he knows what today's Catholics and the rest of us know about the unborn child being capable of feeling pain, how medical science can keep a preemie alive but couldn't do so only a few years back, and all of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and this was before he knew much about how the fetus develops.

As was mentioned before, the (Catholic) Church permitted abortions until relatively recently in the history of Christianity, but today it does not. Why is that? It's because we now know that the developing child, from quite early in the process, is not just some blob of tissues.

So even if one belongs to a denomination that is okay with abortion at any time, by anyone, under any circumstances, he knows what today's Catholics and the rest of us know about the unborn child being capable of feeling pain, how medical science can keep a preemie alive but couldn't do so only a few years back, and all of that.

The "medical science can keep a preemie alive" is not a valid argument. Conceivably some day we could go from fertilized egg all the way to fully developed baby in the lab. That does not mean an egg is a human in the sense of having human rights. A more objective standard must be met.

 

[Albion]

But I want you to do exactly that. Because I want to see every Evangelical who has been arguing about the abortion question without even thinking about how a "soul" must be part of the conversation to begin doing so.

Have others not already cited Bible verses that unequivocally place personhood at the beginning or at least very close to it, not at the moment of birth?

They teach that this is God's view of the matter. Perhaps if you return that favor by citing some Scriptural evidence which explains that a living, complete, physical body can exist prior to being a human, you could counter their conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have others not already cited Bible verses that unequivocally place personhood at the beginning or at least very close to it, not at the moment of birth?

They teach that this is God's view of the matter. Perhaps if you return that favor by citing some Scriptural evidence which explains that a living, complete, physical body can exist prior to being a human, you could counter their conclusions.

No, they have only cited verses that they only interpreted that way.

 

[hedrick]

As was mentioned before, the (Catholic) Church permitted abortions until relatively recently in the history of Christianity, but today it does not. Why is that? It's because we now know that the developing child, from quite early in the process, is not just some blob of tissues.

Huh? Catholics always prohibited abortion. They just didn't always consider it murder. I don't think the current moral theology has changed, though many individual Catholics have joined the political anti-abortion movement, which is based on the concept that all abortion is murder.

Knowing the way that Catholic Church works, I don't doubt that at some point they'll dogmatize this popular belief.

I've seen arguments based on Aquinas that move in both directions. Unfortunately he used terms whose intent is ambiguous. He can reasonably be understood as saying that, unlikely the "animal soul," which is present fairly early, a human soul requires a body that can support it. That can reasonably be argued to require a working cortex, which is fairly late in pregnancy. But his terms can be understood in other ways as well. It depends upon which Aquinas expert you talk to.

 

[Albion]

Huh? Catholics always prohibited abortion. They just didn't always consider it murder.

Is this just a dispute over the more accurate word to use? The following may be helpful:

The Catholic Church on Abortion: Was Abortion Always Condemned?

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Another misnomer. Just cause something is socialist doesn't mean full fledged communism.

The problem here is language, not politics. There are some parallels with the John Birch Society back in the 50s and 60s fussing that America was not a “democracy” because “democracy” did not mean the same thing as “republic.” You could argue that they were technically right, but it didn’t matter; people will use the word “democracy” the way they want to use it.

It is somewhat the same with “socialism.” Technically it may be a synonym for “communism,” but that is no longer the way the word is uniformly used, especially in Europe. The classical meaning is generally intended by conservative, anti-communist people and by hard-core, old-time socialists. The more modern meaning is generally used by younger people who really don’t even know the precise definition of communism. It’s the opponents of communism who are usually the ones who can recite the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto from memory.

That web site you referenced does seem to be an old-time socialist web site. Some of the planks are definitely in line with modern communism. For example:

The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation. Yeah, that’s classic communist campaign language.

Social ownership and democratic control of productive resources. Again, that is Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto, which calls for the abolition of private ownership of property. No important Democrat is pushing for that. Not even Bernie Sanders (see below).

The Socialist Party stands for. . .focusing on production for need not profit. The abolition of the profit motive is definitely a Marxist goal. Again, no important Democrat is pushing that.

So, this site by The Socialist Party USA is pushing classical socialism/communism. But this is not what Democrats believe and practice. Let’s look at just two informative quotes:

Bill Gates: ““Socialism used to mean that the state controlled the means of production, and a lot of people who are promoting socialism aren’t using that classic definition. . .Most people really aren’t arguing against capitalism. There may be a few, but most people are just saying that the taxes should change.”

The World Socialist web site: “As a comparison of Sanders’ positions to these core conceptions of socialism makes clear, his “socialism” is a ruse to prevent the emergence of the real thing.”


The bottom line is that when the term “socialist” is used in campaign literature, it is used to scare, not inform. It is the mirror image of using “Nazi,” which is equally untrue.

 

[Albion]

The problem here is language, not politics. There are some parallels with the John Birch Society back in the 50s and 60s fussing that America was not a “democracy” because “democracy” did not mean the same thing as “republic.” You could argue that they were technically right, but it didn’t matter; people will use the word “democracy” the way they want to use it.

All right, but that example isn't applicable to everything else we say.

It is somewhat the same with “socialism.” Technically it may be a synonym for “communism,” but that is no longer the way the word is uniformly used, especially in Europe.

We do have accepted meanings for these terms, however, regardless of what has become popular usage in Europe.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Is this just a dispute over the more accurate word to use? The following may be helpful:

The Catholic Church on Abortion: Was Abortion Always Condemned?

Of course, this site is pushing a particular view, so the "spin" is obvious. Notice I said "spin," not lies. The information is fundamentally accurate. But in one place, where the article attempts to separate "ensoulment" from the morality of murder, it is weak, for the simple reason that terminating a physical structure that does not yet have a human soul is not murder, and that is an important point. It was not merely an "intellectual exercise." It was a sincere attempt to answer questions about the morality of abortion. The Catholic Church finally "answered" those questions in 1869, which was only 150 years ago.

I could say a bit more and point out that I, as a non-Catholic, am not bound to follow Catholic teaching. Nonetheless, what they did say adds useful information to the discussion. especially the part about the soul being an essential point in the discussion.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

We do have accepted meanings for these terms, however, regardless of what has become popular usage in Europe.

I beg to differ. If by "we" you mean thinking Republicans and conservatives, I will concede the point. But if you mean Americans in general, I do not. I believe that most ordinary Americans, whichever way they lean at the voting booth, really have no clear idea of what "socialism" means. Except that for some, it is some vague "bad thing" that they are against, while for others, it just means a government that takes care of its people. (And, unlike the first group, this second group is not horrified at the thought of a government that "takes care of" its people.)

 

[Albion]

Of course, this site is pushing a particular view, so the "spin" is obvious.

LOL. It's a pro-life website that gives us the evidence of the Catholic Church having previously not held to its current opposition to abortions. How is that supposed to be slanted?

And did the site's owners contrive/invent the relevant quote that was given there?

 

[Albion]

I beg to differ. If by "we" you mean thinking Republicans and conservatives, I will concede the point.

These replies that bend over backwards to find any way to argue that black is white and up may actually be down, etc. are getting ridiculous.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

LOL. It's a pro-life website that gives us the evidence of the Catholic Church having previously not held to its current opposition to abortions. How is that supposed to be slanted?

And did the site's owners contrive/invent the relevant quote that was given there?

???
Is that a trick question? Does the very title of the site, "Human Life International: Pro-Life Missionaries to the World" not convey a particular point of view? I was only remarking on the obvious. Which was why I used the word "obvious."

As for the quote, I'm actually not sure which one you mean. But let's look at "Misconception #5." In that paragraph they write, "Abortion supporters allege that, in the year 1869, Pope Pius IX condemned abortion for the very first time."
Perhaps some "pro-choice" people allege that; I don't, because it isn't accurate.

It continues, "In reality, what Pope Pius did was officially remove the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law. This action dealt not with theology, but with discipline, and simply made the punishment for abortion at any stage uniform. The Pope removed the distinction in order to support the Church’s teaching that life and ensoulment both begin at conception."
Removing the distinction between "ensouled" and "pre-ensouled" is a big deal. And I happen to disagree with it, strongly. Taking at face value the assertion that the Pope merely defined that life begins at conception, I also think that was a huge mistake.

Which brings us right back to the question of conscience. It is possible that I could be wrong. It is possible that you could be wrong. In any case, almost nobody actually behaves as though a newly-fertilized egg and a baby after birth are identical, regardless of what they say they believe. With that being the case, it is best to leave the decision in the hands of the woman, and allow God to be the Judge.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

These replies that bend over backwards to find any way to argue that black is white and up may actually be down, etc. are getting ridiculous.

I'm not following your reasoning here. You said there is an accepted definition. I rebutted with the fact that this "accepted definition" is "accepted" among a particular group of people, but not among the population as a whole. That is not the same as calling white black, because everybody agrees with the definitions of white and black.
Even citing a good dictionary does not necessarily prove a point about a definition, because if the population as a whole uses a word "wrongly" for long enough, that wrong definition will eventually be accepted in some future edition of the dictionary. For example, I think "normalcy" has become a real word now; I see it often in published news articles. If it's not in the Oxford Dictionary yet, it will be in another decade or two.

 

[Albion]

I'm not following your reasoning here. You said there is an accepted definition. I rebutted with the fact that this "accepted definition" is "accepted" among a particular group of people....

Yes. That would be the people who have been schooled in the matter. The misconceptions, approximations, propaganda, personal theories, or etc. that someone may push in a debate aren't definitive.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Yes. That would be the people who have been schooled in the matter. The misconceptions, approximations, propaganda, personal theories, or etc. that someone may push in a debate aren't definitive.

Agreed. But I am distinguishing between following the rules of a proper debate, and communicating with actual people in the world.
Reminds me of an English lesson my wife recently taught to her class. It seems they keep saying "snuck," but "snuck" is not a real word. The correct word is "sneaked." And now everybody in the class knows that. But is there any doubt that they will continue to say "snuck" in their regular conversations?

Humpty Dumpty was in the wrong when he said that a word means "whatever I choose it to mean." One person cannot determine the meaning of word to suit himself. But when you have a substantial segment of the people using a word the wrong way with consistency, then it is acceptable to communicate with those people according to their own understanding.

But to get back to the main point, to attack a candidate for being a communist, by using the word "socialist" in its "accepted" sense, when the candidate is himself using that word "socialist," but is not in fact a "socialist" in the "accepted" sense, is opportunistic (and dishonest).

 

[rjs330]

Hmm, vote for the side that wants to kill babies or vote for the side that wants to kill all life on the planet (including the babies that would die when the planet dies). Choices, choices.

Who wants to kill babies or all lif on the planet
I think you are over exaggerating here.