Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What I am saying is that if the churches hadn't started to stop doing it, the government wouldn't have stepped in.

Did the Churches stop doing it or did the government take on that duty to itself first? We have only ever seen the expansion of governmental power as a result of the amount of programs it seeks to implement to fix society. Be it the New Deal or war against poverty. The Churches as far as I know did not just unilaterally stop providing care. Rather they were outcompeted by a far more powerful institution.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But your ideal is forcing people to practice your religion. Not letting them make that choice for themselves. That ... says everything.

I think I'm done with this conversation.

When did I say I would force anyone to follow my religion? I might make laws which which were inspired by Christianity, such as forbidding no fault divorce and in that way non-Christians in said state would be subject to a Christian standard. That doesn't mean they would have to follow Christianity. In as much as I don't have to be a liberal democrat in the West.

 

[Isilwen]

Did the Churches stop doing it or did the government take on that duty to itself first?

The way I saw it is churches had stopped doing it.

 

[Desk trauma]

Again you're basing your definition of murder on US law and not on what Jesus views as taking a life.

The alleged views of Jesus carry zero weight in US law.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The way I saw it is churches had stopped doing it.

When did the Churches unliterally decide to stop helping people?

 

[Isilwen]

When did I say I would force anyone to follow my religion? I might make laws which which were inspired by Christianity, such as forbidding no fault divorce and in that way non-Christians in said state would be subject to a Christian standard. That doesn't mean they would have to follow Christianity. In as much as I don't have to be a liberal democrat in the West.

Maybe the above is a typo, but if you would make laws that were inspired by Christianity and non-Christians would be subject to those laws, that is basically forcing a non-Christian to follow Christian laws. In essence, following Christianity. You would force Christian morals on a population that is not part of your religion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Maybe the above is a typo, but if you would make laws that were inspired by Christianity and non-Christians would be subject to those laws, that is basically forcing a non-Christian to follow Christian laws. In essence, following Christianity. You would force Christian morals on a population that is not part of your religion.

Well yeah.

 

[Isilwen]

When did the Churches unliterally decide to stop helping people?

I didn't say all churches. However, there are many that do not help. I will admit that some of this could be the result of the explosion of denominations or non-denominational churches that are pop-up churches.

I cannot give you an exact time.

 

[Isilwen]

Well yeah.

So, she is indeed right. You would be forcing Christian law on non-Christians and in essence forcing them to practice your religion.

As a Christian myself I am 100% against this! People have the right to choose and even God gives people a choice.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I didn't say all churches. However, there are many that do not help. I will admit that some of this could be the result of the explosion of denominations or non-denominational churches that are pop-up churches.

I cannot give you an exact time.

Let's say you have a small local Church which does have a program to help some of it's less fortunate members. Then we put that local Church against the power of the state which adopts the same program, gets rid of any requirements the Church has to receive it's aid and has a thousand times the resources. Who will win in the long term?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So, she is indeed right. You would be forcing Christian law on non-Christians and in essence forcing them to practice your religion.

As a Christian myself I am 100% against this! People have the right to choose and even God gives people a choice.

As a 21st century Christian you are against it but Christians before you were not. In fact did you know most Christians throughout history were not liberal secular progressives?

But I disagree with the characterization. The initial comment implied I would compel Muslims to not be Muslims. I would not. Mind you, secular law compels Muslims to disregard their own understanding of polygamy by outlawing it. Muslims cannot be completely recognized in western society at this moment because polygamy is not recognized.

 

[Isilwen]

Let's say you have a small local Church which does have a program to help some of it's less fortunate members. Then we put that local Church against the power of the state which adopts the same program, gets rid of any requirements the Church has to receive it's aid and has a thousand times the resources. Who will win in the long term?

The government, but that doesn't mean that the church cannot continue doing it.

 

[Isilwen]

As a 21st century Christian you are against it but Christians before you were not. In fact did you know most Christians throughout history were not liberal secular progressives?

There are many things that as a 21st century Christian we are for, but others were not as we have gained a better understanding of what God wants. This is a good thing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The government, but that doesn't mean that the church cannot continue doing it.

Churches have continued doing it and yet it doesn't help solve the decline of Christianity. This is because as I said the state has assumed the function a Church once had in the past and need for a Church has been eroded by the modern democratic state. I don't consider this a good thing.

 

[Isilwen]

Churches have continued doing it and yet it doesn't help solve the decline of Christianity. This is because as I said the state has assumed the function a Church once had in the past and need for a Church has been eroded by the modern democratic state. I don't consider this a good thing.

We will agree to disagree then.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There are many things that as a 21st century Christian we are for, but others were not as we have gained a better understanding of what God wants. This is a good thing.

I don't think we have. Is it a coincidence that the Churches which follow your line of reasoning most explicitly are the ones which die the fastest? like the Episcopalian Church USA? By neglecting the wisdom of the past and how Christians navigated power we have done ourselves a disservice which doesn't end to our benefit.

 

[Isilwen]

I don't think we have. Is it a coincidence that the Churches which follow your line of reasoning most explicitly are the ones which die the fastest? like the Episcopalian Church USA? By neglecting the wisdom of the past and how Christians navigated power we have done ourselves a disservice which doesn't end to our benefit.

That's funny considering I am an Episcopalian. I was Catholic, but I no longer consider myself Catholic. The Episcopal church I belong to is not dying by any means.

I will have to research if as a whole the Episcopal church is.

 

[BNR32FAN]

OK .... so don't have an abortion yourself. No one is making you have an abortion.

I won’t, but don’t expect me to sit by idol without doing whatever I can do to put a stop to it. When I vote I’ll vote pro life.

 

[Isilwen]

I won’t, but don’t expect me to sit by idol without doing whatever I can do to put a stop to it. When I vote I’ll vote pro life.

Whereas I will vote for more than one issue.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If it's the label you don't like, what would you call someone who takes the life of a child?

If you are talking about a born child,; of course that person is a murderer.

If you are talking about someone killing an unborn human being, I will just treat the mother with kindness so she knows I care about her pain.