Disagreeing with old friends
#11
(05-12-2012, 11:57 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I would suggest explaining your position in a firm but non-belligerent manner, and an acknowledgement that radicals who throw condoms are not representative of "pro-choicers" at large.

As if that makes their detestable belief any better? That most who think baby killing is OK don't throw condoms may be an indication that they are too cheap or want to use them.

I would drop them like a hot potato. I have broken a relationship with a guy I knew from kindergarten because he decided to go on a rant about mocking devotion to, and the Blessed Virgin in front of some of my children. I tore him out a new one right in front of them.

Funny thing is, he is basically atheist. Was raised a Protestant,. And got this opinion from his ex-wife who was once a Catholic. I asked him why he would even have a problem with our devotion to the BVM when he isn't even a "good" Protestant. I did not know where this came from, and he shocked me. So he got it double barrels.

Haven't heard from him since, and I am OK with that.
Reply
#12
(05-12-2012, 02:53 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: As if that makes their detestable belief any better? That most who think baby killing is OK don't throw condoms may be an indication that they are too cheap or want to use them.

Truth is truth.

In any case, I believe it's hard to be fully pro-life (belief of life at conception) without some sort of religious conviction. Culturally, we still measure our lives by birthdays, not conception days, right? And historically, even in the height of Catholic Spain, one didn't earn the death penalty for an abortion. That by necessity means that even if penalties were levied for abortion, the law didn't treat an unborn life as equal in value to a born one. So historically, the question of when life begins, or when life is valued, seems to have been an ambiguity.

It's important to understand where other people are coming from in order to convince them of a truth.
Reply
#13
I have this same problem.
Reply
#14
Well, during the time of Moses, the penalty for abortion was death.
Reply
#15
In hindsight, I can see that I did phrase my comment so it sounded like I was saying that all pro-choicers were screaming condom-throwers.  That was wrong so I did apologize.  But this relationship has been strained ever since they became atheists and I just don't see it recovering while they remain so.  I think that James is right and I should focus on praying for their conversion.
Reply
#16
(05-12-2012, 03:17 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Well, during the time of Moses, the penalty for abortion was death.

Do you have a citation for that? I'm not aware of any death sentence for abortion in the Old Testament, though I could be wrong.

On the contrary, I do see a grave prescription in the law of Moses for inducing an abortion if a married woman has lain with a man not her husband.

Numbers 5:11-31 Wrote:[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: [12] Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: The man whose wife shall have gone astray, and contemning her husband, [13] Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses, because she was not found in the adultery: [14] If the spirit of jealousy stir up the husband against his wife, who either is defiled, or is charged with false suspicion, [15] He shall bring her to the priest, and shall offer an oblation for her, the tenth part of a measure of barley meal: he shall not pour oil thereon, nor put frankincense upon it: because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, and an oblation searching out adultery.

[16] The priest therefore shall offer it, and set it before the Lord. [17] And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it. [18] And when the woman shall stand before the Lord, he shall uncover her head, and shall, put on her hands the sacrifice of remembrance, and the oblation of jealousy: and he himself shall hold the most bitter waters, whereon he hath heaped curses with execration. [19] And he shall adjure her, and shall say: If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou be not defiled by forsaking thy husband's bed, these most bitter waters, on which I have heaped curses, shall not hurt thee. [20] But if thou hast gone aside from thy husband, and art defiled, and hast lain with another man:

[21] These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse, and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot, and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. [22] Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the woman shall answer, Amen, amen. [23] And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and shall wash them out with the most bitter waters, upon which he hath heaped the curses, [24] And he shall give them her to drink. And when she hath drunk them up, [25] The priest shall take from her hand the sacrifice of jealousy, and shall elevate it before the Lord, and shall put it upon the altar: yet so as first,

[26] To take a handful of the sacrifice of that which is offered, and burn it upon the altar: and so give the most bitter waters to the woman to drink. [27] And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. [28] But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. [29] This is the law of jealousy. If a woman hath gone aside from her husband, and be defiled, [30] And the husband stirred up by the spirit of jealousy bring her before the Lord, and the priest do to her according to all things that are here written:

[31] The husband shall be blameless, and she shall bear her iniquity.

The language is a tad vague, but it would take some serious mental gymnastics to interpret the above as anything but a literal prescription for an abortifacient to cover up the scandal of cuckoldry. Now, keep in mind you could be put to death for all sorts of things in the law of Moses, and God also specifically commanded the Israelites to kill the babies of the Canaanites, etc. The new law supercedes the old. I'm just saying that in the Old Testament law, even being in the womb was not wholly sacrosanct.
Reply
#17
It seems it was a sort of trial by ordeal.

The baby would be killed, along with the woman and the man.
Reply
#18
(05-12-2012, 08:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It seems it was a sort of trial by ordeal.

The baby would be killed, along with the woman and the man.

This.
Reply
#19
(05-12-2012, 12:25 PM)James02 Wrote: Go after the atheism first if you must.  Drop the pro-life argument.  I can't see any atheist LOGICALLY supporting the pro-life position.  If an atheist is pro-life, it is because his spiritual side is not completely walled off yet.  But it is an illogical position for them to hold.  There is no right and wrong without God.

I respectfully disagree. Confucius, Buddha, and the ancient Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, those guys) all developed complex ethical systems without a belief in God (at least not the sort of God that we believe in). And I know many atheists who are every bit as moral as the Catholics I know (more so in some cases). Murder, theft, calumny, adultery, etc. are condemned by almost all human societies, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them. And the Old Testament God sanctioned countless atrocities that would horrify just about anyone today. The bolded statement above has no basis in reality as far as I can see.
Reply
#20
(05-12-2012, 09:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 12:25 PM)James02 Wrote: Go after the atheism first if you must.  Drop the pro-life argument.  I can't see any atheist LOGICALLY supporting the pro-life position.  If an atheist is pro-life, it is because his spiritual side is not completely walled off yet.  But it is an illogical position for them to hold.  There is no right and wrong without God.

I respectfully disagree. Confucius, Buddha, and the ancient Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, those guys) all developed complex ethical systems without a belief in God (at least not the sort of God that we believe in). And I know many atheists who are every bit as moral as the Catholics I know (more so in some cases). Murder, theft, calumny, adultery, etc. are condemned by almost all human societies, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them. And the Old Testament God sanctioned countless atrocities that would horrify just about anyone today. The bolded statement above has no basis in reality as far as I can see.

Partly correct.  The philosophical "Prime Mover" is exactly the sort of God we believe in as Christians.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)