Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps she realizes that she is not in a position to make abortion a crime in a secular state for non-Cathlics who don't think its wrong. Making it a legal right does not make it less a sin.
Their 'own moral justification" can be applied to their own life, yes. To apply their 'own moral justification' into politics for everyone? No..!
Win or lose what? I'm not into the game of proving that AOC is not really a Christian because she's on the politica left. I'm just amused that people like you seem to need to.
What backtracking? I have no idea how she arrived at her stance on abortion and what role her faith played on it. I do see her faith at work on issues like immigration and social welfare.
It's a figure of speech. You made a claim that is not provable or disprovable one way or the other so when someone gives you pushback you can just walk back what you said (which you eventually did). For example, when it suits you, you will say "Look, AOC's policy positions are based on her faith in Christ!" and then when it doesn't suit you, you will say "Well even if she enables mortal sin doesn't mean she actually supports mortal sin". So your original statement means nothing because your backtracking set yourself up for no losing position
Hans didn't say that Christianity came from the ancient Greeks and Romans. He said the best of 'the West' did. Things like democracy, natural philosophy, law codes, religious pluralism, navigation, mathematics, architecture, aqueducts...
That is a very weird hill to die on. Influence and control are not the same thing.
I said nothing about there not being persons or groups with more or less influence, with influence of more or less durability. Other than the error in equating influence with control, you examples are just reiteration of the obvious.
No one said that some won't suffer from the influence of others. That doesn't make it "control".
No.
OK, dude. I don't pay attention to the 'freaky parts' of the university.
Oh, great, "critical theory".
What does it mean? It means that there is far more to US social change in the 20th century than the 1960s (and to some extent later.) The 1950s was not a social continuation of the first half of the 20th century because there was not simple, unchanged, social structure for the first half of the 20th century. For example the 1950s is by far the most religious decade of the entire century, since the lack of religious influence on society seem to be the main complaint.
"Engineered" what does it mean that a cultural change was "engineered"? To explain how this works use the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s/70s as your example. Who engineered it? To what purpose (if known)? (I choose this example because you clearly think it triggered a back reaction.)
I mean under the law. The law use to be aligned with biblical marriage. Its there in the vows. Or was lol. Then it was redefined around the year 2000 onwards for most western nations.
That doesn't make it morally right. Yes the State laws and policies are usually a reflection of the social norms the community supports. Thats the point. Social norms change with the times and biblical norms don't. Thats why they come into conflict.
The state has taken no position at all on the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Same sex marriage is not a new version of civil marriage, merely a reconsideration of the qualifications for it. Civil marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement, allowing couples to form a legal household with respect to the state, nothing more. No physical consummation is required, and the personal relationship between the two parties is not specified, nor are the reasons for entering into the relationship considered. There are countless examples, some known personally to me, where no emotional or intimate sexual relationship was even contemplated by the couple. For example, in the early years of the twentieth century, young women with no other prospects would marry elderly veterans of the American Civil War, to share the pension in return for services as a caregiver. Forming a civil household. provided a convenient legal arrangement. (The last Civil War widow died in 2020, 165 years after the end of the conflict). Considered as a civil contract, there is no reason to deny civil marriage to any two unrelated adult citizens. If the rights of citizenship are extended to homosexuals and homosexuality is not illegal, then it is hard to see why civil marriage should be denied them. It certainly has no effect whatever on me or my marriage.
I think you are confusing the correlation with causation. Legalization of birth control, abortion, and easier divorce all occurs in the US in a narrow window starting in the mid-1960s. I am well aware The Church (of Rome) consideres sex outside marriage to be a sin and abortion to be murder. I have heard many a homily on the subjects. That was not the point I was addressing. Rather I was addressing the false assumption that women having abortions are unmarried and not in relationships. This is not the case, then or now. Churches push this false impression all the time. Both birth control and abortions are used by married women because they don't want another child or one at the current time. Since these things have occurred, unwanted pregnancy rates are down, abortion rates have fallen and so have divorce rates. (I suspect domestic violence is also down, but I don't have recollections of reading those statistics.)
That's not what I said. I mentioned that "baby killing" was the other primary bit of propaganda used by anti-abortion Christians.
What are non-biblical Christians? If that's the kind that never read the bible, then we were definitely them.
While churches certainly hold the position that "abortion is murder" that concept does not appear in any passage of the Bible. It is constructed by stacking conclusions upon on conclusions through theology. (That's they way theology is done it seems.) Other groups using the same sacred texts do not reach the same conclusions.
No. Again, you didn't read carefully. You used two terms straight from Mao's revolution: "The Long March" and the "Cultural Revolution". Both are well known epoch in Chinese communist history and neither was relevant to your discussion from why I could tell, so I was trying to figure out why you kept using CCP terminology.
Probably because I happen to thing the outcomes of the "sexual revolution" were good things.
The US was not a "Christian nation", then or ever, nor was it "Muslim" or "pagan". It was and is *secular*. (your country may be different, but I am not prepared or inclined to discuss your country.)
In your house, perhaps, not in mine.
Covered above
and built in part on false premises
As I noted above, I agree with less influence of moralistic Christianity on sex and marriage.
This is an ongoing conflation of the mores of the 1950s with all periods before then. It just wasn't the case.
Nah, it's just evidence for an strongly anti-modernist strain of Christianity.
An extreme claim! LOL! It is a literal fact that "laws" and "social norms" are not the same things.
Not sure what that means.
I suggest you learn more of the early history of your relgion then. In the early decades what we now call Christianity (sometimes called in these contexts the "Jesus movement" or "The Way") was a sect of Judaism. Importantly for my point in inclusion is that Judaism is from outside western culture.
I am not kidding and do you really need to ask? (I know you know.)
It didn't and no one said it did. Certainly not me. What I said is that the things from ancient western culture that *I* find most valuable or important are most certainly not Christian -- democracy, mathematics, the early stages of science, as is the case for the best things of the Enlightenment.
Roman philosophers wrote on sexual morality and family without any input from Christianity. This is reality, not some "bias view".
"neither slave nor free" was about salvation through the death of Jesus -- anyone could be saved. It didn't change actual social status of anyone, slave, woman, or Jew.
It's not that you include a lot of history as background, it is about how much of that history is wrong.
As noted by others, democracies and republics are not mutually excusive. The US is both, Saudi Arabia is neither, the UK is a democracy, but definitely not a republic (unless the local peasants gave Chuck 3 a "French haircut" in the last hour.)
Natural is an old fashioned term for what is now known as science. I can assure you that we do not depend on the philosophical notion of a creator to do our work.
Not to any significant extent, particularly US law.
I would have disagreed with you when I was a Christian.
If you'd said "arts and culture (and even science)" I could have agreed at least for the Medieval and Renaissance periods, but exploration is funded by kings and princes (and later merchants) looking for power and/or wealth.
Kepler is reasonably great (don't know the other two), but I don't how his work is a product of Christianity.
I don't really care for church architecture. Too many pointless frills. I like the modern stuff: Art Deco, Prairie style, etc.
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
I have repeatedly. Perhaps in my next post I will be even more explicit.
That's quite the winding thread...
I spend an awful lot of time fighting them here, but I will not surrender secular society and government to the dominionists.
I cannot emphasize any more than this: the state does not *CONTROL* your beliefs. That is not possible. That said, it does not mean your beliefs can't be in conflict with the policy of your government. Mine are currently. But, that does not change what those beliefs are.
It's complicated.
Sometimes I am not so certain about this.
The fists are a metaphor, Steve. It only says that your rights don't extend to denying other people of their rights. The law you mention is an anti-harassment law that prohibits harassing patients. It makes no other restrictions. Protest all you like, just don't harass.
So you did, but you quickly reduce everything to two positions anyway.
That's nice.
I was talking about the 1840s/50s (the ante-bellum period). There were plenty of wars between Western nations (and before and after), so I don't get this "more united" thing. I don't know anyone had an "immigration program". Some countries, like the US, had open immigration, but it wasn't a "program". The mass migration to the US in that period was from Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. The immigrants blended in to US society so smoothly that there were literal anti-immigration parties that got seats in Congress. (And these were all immigrants from "the West".)
Immigration is not "unbridialed" and our society isn't "destabilized".
Sure it can.
True, but when I read your next line...
How many wives makes a marriage biblical? 3, 6
And this is why government should be neutral on these matters.
Oh look, now you are having a problem when I say there are more than 2 positions. SMH.
I never made that assumption. That is your assumption on my thinking. Your creating an either/or. I am not placing any stipulations on why abortions happen. Only that they increased dramatically after those laws were changed. Its the combinations of all factors that led to the increase.
This is begging the question. You can be married today and not be a Christian. But if a couple are married under God as Christians then abortion is a sin. So you are conflating secular marriage with Christian marriage which is part of the problem and shows how secular norms and Christians norms are so different.
You literally just told me I was conflating correlations with causes.
Why, is it propaganda when its a biblical truth. Stating truth is not propaganda. This is a good example of how Christian beliefs are now seen as hateful and in this case propaganda or some false belief that is being pushed.
Ok Christians who reject the bible. If you can call them Christians. Christians who not only reject the bible but promote unbiblical ideas. You can't sit on both sides of the fense.
Yes this is part of the very ideology that supports progressive ideas. They have to undermine the bible to do so. By questioning the truth that abortion is wrong they open the door for abortion.
Then you don't know history. I explained this in the previous post. So perhaps you should be reading my posts more carefully.
Well the4y also have meaning in the west. You should not have assumed and I did explain this as the Long March through the Institutions. Its was a new strategy coined by Gramsci that instead of armed conflict in taking over the establishment. They could infiltrate the institutions and and take over that way.
But surely thats a subjective belief. So those who believe that it caused a lot of damage to people and society have an equal say. If a bible believing Christian tells their belief that sex outside marriage is a sin or SSM is a sin then this is not hate and wrong but just the right to express a belief by conscience. The same with those who believe sex outside marriage is good.
Then what did the Colonies base their morals on. What morals did the Federation base it morals on. Was it the majority social norms. What was the majority social norms based on.
OK so does every house have an equal say. Which house holds the truth on what is moral so that we can make a determination over which house we should use as the basis for social policies and laws.
What was the false premise. That abortion was wrong or that society was wrong about thinking abortion was wrong.
So if we have less influence from Christianity then what influence do we use instead for social norms on sex and marriage.
Its not a conflation because what the 1950s were using as their basis was the bible which was the same basis for every other time in history. Including back to the early church right up until today. It has not changed. That we can only find certain times where society aligned with those biblical truths is irrelevant as to their truth.
What is a modernist strain of Christianity. You are not even a Christian. How can you know what Christianity is fullstop.
I never said they were the same thing. I said laws are often based off social norms. How did SSM come about. It happened because society had changed and were more open to SSM.
Have you not heard the famous quote "the personal is political which was part of 2nd wave feminism and set the stage for bringing the political into the private sphere.
I have studied extensively the early churh. Yes Christianity came from basically a Jewish sect and there were a number. But the important destinction is that it became the only sect or even religion as far as Islam that opened up to non natives or sect members.
Surely this is your personal opinion and a belief. If Christ is truely the saviour of all humankind then surely this is the greatest thing. Your begging the question that what you believe is the greatest good.
I think its an assumption that these things did not actually come from Christian values. Like democracy was used in the early church that the congregation was to affirm the leaders and the leaders were servants to the people. Or that all are equal in Christ as the basis for equality and human rights.
Which is another way of saying they were intolerant of the Jews and Christians in the end.
Wrote about what moral basis for sex and family. Which set of morals were they referring to. Was it Venus. Or was this just some personal opinion of a philosopher.
Actually it means exactly what it says. This verse includes 'neither Jew or Gentile'. It was that all were equal in Christ when it came to salvation. The free were no more better than the slave or the Jew to the Gentile. The Jews were regarded as special to Judaism and the frre were seen as higher status than the slaves. But all were the same in Christ.
Well the west also brought psychodelic drugs. Maybe thats why he thought the west was the best lol.
Fair enough
I think I only posted a couple of times and it was definitely through my university account. (And about 30 years ago.) I was more of a reader than a poster.Hey, me too, on both counts. I wonder if we ever met under our real names there...
