Catholic Church recommending that pro-choice

[chaosrage 0]

If my church closeted a child rapist...I would leave forever....

 

Why wouldnt you? Do you honestly believe God would rather you stay with an organized church that has caused so many heinous acts, or pray and worship elsewhere or alone?

[Guest MikeSC]

If my church closeted a child rapist...I would leave forever....

 

Why wouldnt you? Do you honestly believe God would rather you stay with an organized church that has caused so many heinous acts, or pray and worship elsewhere or alone?

Then I guess Sen. Kerry has some explaining to do.

-=Mike

[Guest Goodear]

If my church closeted a child rapist...I would leave forever....

 

What if your country killed a whole bunch of women and children?

 

What if you were related to a serial killer?

 

What if your college was the home to a bunch of hazings?

 

What if your company president belonged to a country club that didn't allow women?

 

Congratulations, you now belong to nothing. The sad nature of the world is simply that some people will always suck. They are in every section of humanity and cross every race, creed, nation, religon... etc. etc. If you somehow think that you're in a bunch of groups where there is magically no bad people in them, I salute your wise choices but question the validity of the claim. I personally refuse to quit things I find value in because a few people in the same group are complete assholes. Sorry, not going to happen...

 

Also I see some people looking for Kerry to completely seperate his religous views from his political views. This is puzzling to me. Religion is supposed to help shape your personal morality and how you can seperate that from laws that would do the same thing is beyond me. Either you don't care about your religon that much or your political desires have no conviction behind them.

[Guest MikeSC]

If my church closeted a child rapist...I would leave forever....

 

What if your country killed a whole bunch of women and children?

 

What if you were related to a serial killer?

 

What if your college was the home to a bunch of hazings?

 

What if your company president belonged to a country club that didn't allow women?

 

Congratulations, you now belong to nothing. The sad nature of the world is simply that some people will always suck. They are in every section of humanity and cross every race, creed, nation, religon... etc. etc. If you somehow think that you're in a bunch of groups where there is magically no bad people in them, I salute your wise choices but question the validity of the claim. I personally refuse to quit things I find value in because a few people in the same group are complete assholes. Sorry, not going to happen...

 

Also I see some people looking for Kerry to completely seperate his religous views from his political views. This is puzzling to me. Religion is supposed to help shape your personal morality and how you can seperate that from laws that would do the same thing is beyond me. Either you don't care about your religon that much or your political desires have no conviction behind them.

If your political views go against your religious beliefs, then what good are your religious beliefs?

-=Mike

[Guest Goodear]

Exactly.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I'd also like to point out that by saying "The Catholic Church" you're implying that every Catholic alive (Including 1 in 3 Christians in the USA) either rapes kids or allows it to happen.

It might not be condoned, but the Catholic Church didn't do much about the problem, either. Priests guilty of child molestation, regardless of their rank, should be jailed for the rest of their lives. The Church itself should be pushing for this to happen. Instead, they adopted a limp-wristed "three tykes and you're out" policy, and just transferred several repeat offenders to different districts.

 

Catholics who have a conscience should express their disapproval by leaving the church. Otherwise, tacit approval is still approval.

I have a conscience but I have no plans for leaving the church. You're basically making a blanket statement that if all Catholics don't give up on their faith because of these sickening occurances we're giving a big thumbs up for child molsetation which is ludicrous. Do Jews who stay Jews despite the ravings of Meir Kahane deserve to be slapped as bigots? Should Baptists switch churches if they don't agree with Pat Robertson saying that "The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today"? I despise the idea that many of these priests got a slap on the wrist or just transfers for what they did, but that won't mean I'm giving up on my faith because some bishops were more impotent than they should have been.

If my church closeted a child rapist...I would leave forever....

 

Why wouldnt you? Do you honestly believe God would rather you stay with an organized church that has caused so many heinous acts, or pray and worship elsewhere or alone?

Actually "the Church" did nothing.

 

A few misguided bishops believed it would be better to send the priests away, and their mistake does not taint the good the Church has done and still does. For example, there is NO organization that does more for areas like Africa than the Catholic Church.

[Guest SP-1]

I did a little research, chaos, and found that the Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is endorsed by one of the most respected seminaries out there (Dallas Theological Seminary), goes back to the original texts and cultural/historical aspects and walks away with the exact opposite meaning of the passage.

 

21:22-25  If . . . a pregnant woman delivered her child prematurely as a result of a blow, but both were otherwise uninjured, the guilty party was to pay compensation determined by the woman's husband and the court.  However, if there was injury to the expectant mother or her child, then the assailant was to be penalized in proportion to the nature of severity of the injury.  While unintentional life-taking was usually not a capital offense (cf. vv. 12-13), here it clearly was.  Also the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the [death] of a fetus was considered murder.  A person's physical loss by unjury was to be punished by a similar loss to the offender (vv. 24-25), the law of retaliation (cf. Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21).  This law was designed to restrict the exacting of punishment to what was equitable.

--Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, IL

 

Unfortunately, people like to use scripture to say something to prove their point when scripture generally says the opposite. Jesus ran into this with the Pharisees more often than not. Sorry, chaos. Once you really dig into it and study it, it just doesn't say what you took it to say. It actually says that the unborn child is very important. In fact, the opening of the book of Jeremiah further illustrates the importance of an unborn child to God.

 

The Word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

-- Jeremiah 1:4-5

 

 

There is zero scriptural evidence to support a view that says that an unborn fetus is not a life and/or has no importance.

Edited April 27, 2004 by SpiderPoet

[NoCalMike 0]

I wish people who didn't believe their own religion, would just do away with it, instead of using the "the questions I have only make my faith stronger" nonsense.

[Guest SP-1]

How is that nonsense?

[NoCalMike 0]

How is that nonsense?

well, not in every case of course. I was indeed making a generalization. Sorry. But honestly, it aint that hard to pick out the people who are full of shit, or just trying to look good for some alterior motive.

[chaosrage 0]

Unfortunately, people like to use scripture to say something to prove their point when scripture generally says the opposite.  Jesus ran into this with the Pharisees more often than not.  Sorry, chaos.  Once you really dig into it and study it, it just doesn't say what you took it to say.  It actually says that the unborn child is very important.

First, prove it. Just quoting someone that says what you want them to say is not proof. The King James version doesn't say prematurely. The RSV doesn't say prematurely. It says miscarriage. How are they wrong?

 

Second, IF it was born prematurely, just how long do you think it would live in those days?

 

In fact, the opening of the book of Jeremiah further illustrates the importance of an unborn child to God. 

 

TheWord of the Lord came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb Iknew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as aprophet to the nations."

-- Jeremiah 1:4-5

 

It says he knew him before he was born. I'm not sure how you got that to mean every fetus is important.

 

We know abortion existed at the time the OT was written, but for some reason there's no law on it in the bible. Even if you take Exodus somehow as a premature birth, it only says it's a punishment if someone hits her. The OT has hundreds of laws dealing with everything from wearing two types of cloth to picking up sticks on Sunday, yet a woman having an abortion was so unimportant that it didn't get mentioned.

 

Anyway, I find it kinda weird that you think God would care about unborn children when he murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent children in a flood, killed all the Egyptian children to punish the Pharaoh, tortured David's infant son to punish David, and told his followers to go to cities and kill everything that breathed. But whatever.

 

There is zero scriptural evidence to support a view that says that an unborn fetus is not a life and/or has no importance.

 

Oh? Maybe you missed it.

Ex 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Ex 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Ex 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Ex 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[Guest SP-1]

1. The King James is NOT the authority. In any way, shape, or form. It's generally a very good translation. Yet, it IS a translation of a translation. Thus, I consider most modern translations to be closer to the mark as they go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as well as take into account the cultural and historical aspects. I quoted who I quoted because they are respected scholars who know their stuff. Who pursue truth in scripture, not simple meaningless translations that say what they want them to say. I went to people who have been studying scripture on it's original levels for alot longer than I, and to a school that is one of the most respected theological institutions on the face of the planet. If you're going to shoot that down simply because it doesn't say what YOU want it to say, then I cannot, in good conscience, admit ignorance on MY part.

 

2. The hebrew must be taken into account. The Hebrew word that is translated as 'prematurely' in the text you are reading can also be validly translated as 'miscarriage'. The base literal translation is 'cause the child to come out of the woman'.

 

So, let's break down the text, chaos. And remember, the Bible is not some philosphical book that you can interpret as you please. It must be broken down, studied carefully, and cultural/historical aspects must be taken into account. Let's do so, using the science of biblical study known as hermeneutics.

 

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman . . . "

-- To begin, if the text was focused solely on the woman, the fact that she is pregnant would not be mentioned. This puts a spotlight on the fact that she carries a fetus in her womb, which is in some stage of development.

 

22 (cont.) " . . . and she gives birth prematurely*"

-- The passage is written in a specific order, just like anything else is written. In scripture, the order is there for a reason. Regardless of the passage. Regardless of what it says. It says what it says in the order and way it is said for a reason and must be interpreted that way. Now, here, we see that this is building upon the instance that two men are fighting. A pregnant woman is hit and she gives birth. The NIV (which is translated from Hebrew texts and is thus what I, as a biblical languages major, must take as more trustworthy for intense study than the KJV, which is translated from a LATIN translation of other texts) has a footnote saying that another translation for the Hebrew term is "miscarriage" or "she has a miscarriage". The most basic translation of the Hebrew, which must take importance, is, "and the child comes out of her". Now, why is this important? Because the child was not ready to be born. It is still considered a fetus. It is premature. And it is forced out before it is ready.

 

22 (cont.) " . . . but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

-- Now, let's look at what this section is building upon. First, two men are fighting. Then, a pregnant woman is hit and the child is forced out in some fashion. The fetus is, for lack of a better term at the moment I write this, in play. What comes after that event applies to the fetus because it is now part of the events that are taking place. So. The fetus is forced out. If both woman and child, since what follows applies to both, are not seriously injured (read: not terminally hurt), then the offender must answer for the offense monetarily. Interestingly enough, the amount is not solely up to the husband, but the court must give its seal of approval on the transaction to maintain fairness.

 

v.23:  "But if there is serious injury . . . "

-- This applies to the "in play" child that has been forced out prematurely as well as the mother. If either of them are seriously injured/terminally injured (which, in that era those two were generally the same thing considering the level of medical technology).

 

23 (cont.)-24 :  " . . . you are to take life for life, tooth for tooth . . . [etc.]"

-- Contrary to popular opinion, the "Eye for Eye" set of penalties were not intended for barbarism. They were intended for control. Only exact in retaliation what was offended in the first place. No more. The option was there to forgive and let go as well. This was justice.

 

The argument that this dictates that a fetus was not considered important doesn't hold up because of how the situation is treated. If the verse concentrated on the woman, there was no need to include the pregnancy or the forced "birth" of the child. That she was pregnant, and that a stage of development is not specified, tends to give the opposite impression. If harm comes to a child that should still be in development but is forced out due to a violent act, justice must was demanded. The fetus, the in-development child, is the spotlight of this passage and thus demands respect and importance. It was certainly demanded back then.

 

 

 

As for your argument about the Israelite wars, that is a different scenario. At that point in history, Israel was moving into the promised land, or was defending herself from oppressors. It must also be remembered that any who were killed were still very much in their sin. God is a God of justice as well as Grace. God doesn't have to protect anyone. Sin demands death and that he allowed anyone to live until the flood, and allowed anyone to survive it for what would come later, that he set up a system with ANY nation, that he set a plan in motion that would produce a way for ALL to have salvation available and escape the judgement of sin . . . that He did any of that is the biggest and most unrestrained kind of mercy. Ever. He had every right to wipe Adam and Eve out. But instead God HIMSELF got involved and set a plan in motion from Genesis 3 that would lead to Christ who would handle the problem of Sin for all who would would let Him do so. God doesn't care? Hardly. God cares more than he ever needs to, and more than we can begin to understand.

Edited April 27, 2004 by SpiderPoet

[Dr. Tom 0]

Actually "the Church" did nothing.

Precisely, and that's the problem. They could have done something about the problem. They could have turned the molestor-priests over to the proper authorities and had them arrested and tried for their crimes. They could have excommunicated them in the process. Instead, a few forms were filled out, and children in a different district now get to hear Father Johnny Badtoucher say, "Come sit on my lap, little Timmy." What was really accomplished? Moving a problem around doesn't solve it. These no-good fuckups should have been tarred and feathered, and instead they got slapped on the wrist.

 

A few misguided bishops believed it would be better to send the priests away, and their mistake does not taint the good the Church has done and still does.

Rubbish. You can't just look at the good and ignore the bad. Does the Church do a lot of good around the world? Yes, and that's not in question. They've also done a lot of damage and ruined a lot of lives, and no one seems terribly interested in doing anything consequential about it.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

What country do you live in?

[chaosrage 0]

1.  The King James is NOT the authority.  In any way, shape, or form.  It's generally a very good translation.  Yet, it IS a translation of a translation.  Thus, I consider most modern translations to be closer to the mark as they go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as well as take into account the cultural and historical aspects.  I quoted who I quoted because they are respected scholars who know their stuff.  Who pursue truth in scripture, not simple meaningless translations that say what they want them to say.  I went to people who have been studying scripture on it's original levels for alot longer than I, and to a school that is one of the most respected theological institutions on the face of the planet.  If you're going to shoot that down simply because it doesn't say what YOU want it to say, then I cannot, in good conscience, admit ignorance on MY part.

You know I could quote pro-choice bible scholars that say the translation is miscarriage, right? That's why I'm shooting it down.

 

-- The passage is written in a specific order, just like anything else is written. In scripture, the order is there for a reason. Regardless of the passage. Regardless of what it says. It says what it says in the order and way it is said for a reason and must be interpreted that way. Now, here, we see that this is building upon the instance that two men are fighting. A pregnant woman is hit and she gives birth. The NIV (which is translated from Hebrew texts and is thus what I, as a biblical languages major, must take as more trustworthy for intense study than the KJV, which is translated from a LATIN translation of other texts) has a footnote saying that another translation for the Hebrew term is "miscarriage" or "she has a miscarriage". The most basic translation of the Hebrew, which must take importance, is, "and the child comes out of her". Now, why is this important? Because the child was not ready to be born. It is still considered a fetus. It is premature. And it is forced out before it is ready.

 

Nowhere does it say that it lived though.

 

-- Now, let's look at what this section is building upon. First, two men are fighting. Then, a pregnant woman is hit and the child is forced out in some fashion. The fetus is, for lack of a better term at the moment I write this, in play. What comes after that event applies to the fetus because it is now part of the events that are taking place. So. The fetus is forced out. If both woman and child, since what follows applies to both, are not seriously injured (read: not terminally hurt), then the offender must answer for the offense monetarily. Interestingly enough, the amount is not solely up to the husband, but the court must give its seal of approval on the transaction to maintain fairness.

 

Where do you get it "applies to both" from? And how do you figure a baby born premature WASN'T seriously injured? In those days, a premature baby was a dead baby. That should be the first clue that the lines right below it are talking about the woman only.

 

The argument that this dictates that a fetus was not considered important doesn't hold up because of how the situation is treated. If the verse concentrated on the woman, there was no need to include the pregnancy or the forced "birth" of the child.

 

Yes, because a woman made to lose her baby needed to be compensated.

 

The fetus, the in-development child, is the spotlight of this passage and thus demands respect and importance. It was certainly demanded back then.

 

But again, why isn't there a law against a woman having an abortion? Just a law for someone making her lose her baby?

 

As for your argument about the Israelite wars, that is a different scenario. At that point in history, Israel was moving into the promised land, or was defending herself from oppressors.

 

Because when you defend yourself, you utterly destroy everything that breathes and "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

 

It must also be remembered that any who were killed were still very much in their sin. God is a God of justice as well as Grace. God doesn't have to protect anyone.

 

He also didn't have to kill them in a flood either. Or torture babies to punish their parents. But according to the Bible, he did.

 

Sin demands death and that he allowed anyone to live until the flood, and allowed anyone to survive it for what would come later, that he set up a system with ANY nation, that he set a plan in motion that would produce a way for ALL to have salvation available and escape the judgement of sin . . . that He did any of that is the biggest and most unrestrained kind of mercy. Ever. He had every right to wipe Adam and Eve out. But instead God HIMSELF got involved and set a plan in motion from Genesis 3 that would lead to Christ who would handle the problem of Sin for all who would would let Him do so.

 

Nevermind that he could have snapped his fingers and removed sin without using a human sacrifice. But allright. So he saves people that worship and praise him. If they don't, he throws them in hell and tortures them. Therefore he is merciful? Sounds like he's just an egotistical spoiled brat. If he was really merciful, he would save everyone and get rid of hell. And God created evil, sin, and death, but let's go ahead and praise him anyway.

[Guest SP-1]

Show me scriptural evidence to back your claims up. My breakdown of the passage is proper and there's no more I can say there. Whether you choose to believe someone who knows what they're talking about or not is up to you.

 

God did not create sin. There's nothing in scripture to back that up. But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws. Humanity didn't. There are consequnces for our actions. Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions. They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually. Wiping them out and starting over was certainly an option. But instead, God allowed for the consequences of their actions because it was the just thing within the boundaries of His ORDERED and created world that He had made for them. And he also began a process to restore man spiritually and, ultimately, physically into rightness with Him through Jesus Christ. Could He have snapped His fingers? He's God, so I'm pretty tempted to lean towards yes. But that wouldn't have been just. And it wouldn't have been love. Now we see the consequences of stepping outside of the good and ordered boundaries that He had set up. And we know our need for Him all the more. And soon, those who acknowledge the good, perfect, and ordered plan that He set up and place our faith in His power to save us will be fully estored and sin will no longer be an issue. We still have an option. He is still just. He's not a puppetmaster. He's a good and just God of Grace and yet Discipline. And he has every right to be.

[NoCalMike 0]

God did not create sin.  There's nothing in scripture to back that up.  But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws.  Humanity didn't.  There are consequnces for our actions.  Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions.  They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually.

Why should they have died physically? It's not like God made it a point that certain death would result in eating the apple. Also, wouldn't God have known ahead of time that Adam & Eve were going to eat the apple? Why tempt them in the first place? Why not make the Apple Tree so high up that they couldn't even get an apple in the first place. Where did the serpent come from that tempted Eve and why did God not strike the serpent down before it ever had the chance to talk to Eve? Did Adam & Eve even understand the concept of sin in the first place? I mean did God do any explaining to them before he decided to lay down the law and kick them out? I understand that they did something they were supposed to do, but reading the story, it didn't seem like they grasped the level in what they were doing.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

God did not create sin

 

This makes no sense. What happened to god creating everything?

[Guest SP-1]

God did not create sin.  There's nothing in scripture to back that up.  But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws.  Humanity didn't.  There are consequnces for our actions.  Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions.  They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually.

Why should they have died physically? It's not like God made it a point that certain death would result in eating the apple. Also, wouldn't God have known ahead of time that Adam & Eve were going to eat the apple? Why tempt them in the first place? Why not make the Apple Tree so high up that they couldn't even get an apple in the first place. Where did the serpent come from that tempted Eve and why did God not strike the serpent down before it ever had the chance to talk to Eve?

Justice. Fairness. Adam and Eve were given the choice. Anything less than making the choice available would result in a dictator-God with an iron fist. Which is not who God is.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm not sure which irritates me more, the simplistic (though often justified) attacks on Christianity or the circle-the-wagons mentality SP exemplifies. Probably the latter.

 

Could He have snapped His fingers?  He's God, so I'm pretty tempted to lean towards yes.  But that wouldn't have been just.  And it wouldn't have been love

This is nonsense. You're being overly defensive and granting an invalid point when you don't need to, and then tying yourself up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. chaosrage is just plain wrong here, and you're merely adding to the confusion.

 

No, God can't snap his fingers and eliminate sin. Sin is an inevitable consequence of free will. And if God didn't grant his creations free will, the act of creation would be meaningless. We'd all be little Gods running around the world, perfect in thought and deed, without even the capacity for error or sin, and in the final analysis God wouldn't have created anything. He'd just have extended and shaped himself in a new way. So either you can condemn the act of creation itself as cruel (arguably valid, though moot) or you can accept the fact that God couldn't have done anything differently. Omnipotence and omniscience don't transcend basic logic.

 

He's a good and just God of Grace and yet Discipline.  And he has every right to be.

And you're wrong here. This is what really gets me. God has "every right" to butcher people (including women, children, and infants) who choose not to venerate him? What a load of reeking bullshit. By his own rules no such right can exist. Ever. The Bible is flatly self-contradictory in philosophical and theological terms. I don't consider that an argument against God's existence or New Testament tenets; the world is God's creation and he can do whatever he likes with it. But I'll judge him as he judges me, and one day I'll demand an explanation. If you just meekly accept God's (admittedly alleged) evil and condemn only man's, you're a coward, and you're sacrificing your supposedly Christian principles on an altar of fear, blind faith, and stupidity. Informed faith requires us to question everything. Even God.

[NoCalMike 0]

God did not create sin.  There's nothing in scripture to back that up.  But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws.  Humanity didn't.  There are consequnces for our actions.  Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions.  They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually.

Why should they have died physically? It's not like God made it a point that certain death would result in eating the apple. Also, wouldn't God have known ahead of time that Adam & Eve were going to eat the apple? Why tempt them in the first place? Why not make the Apple Tree so high up that they couldn't even get an apple in the first place. Where did the serpent come from that tempted Eve and why did God not strike the serpent down before it ever had the chance to talk to Eve?

Justice. Fairness. Adam and Eve were given the choice. Anything less than making the choice available would result in a dictator-God with an iron fist. Which is not who God is.

You didn't answer the question though. Why would striking them down dead, seem like justice to any reasonable thinking person? Also, what about the rest of the paragraph I wrote?

[Guest SP-1]

This is what really gets me. God has "every right" to butcher people (including women, children, and infants) who choose not to venerate him? What a load of reeking bullshit. By his own rules no such right can exist. Ever. The Bible is flatly self-contradictory in philosophical and theological terms. I don't consider that an argument against God's existence or New Testament tenets; the world is God's creation and he can do whatever he likes with it. But I'll judge him as he judges me, and one day I'll demand an explanation. If you just meekly accept God's (admittedly alleged) evil and condemn only man's, you're a coward, and you're sacrificing your supposedly Christian principles on an altar of fear, blind faith, and stupidity. Informed faith requires us to question everything. Even God.

If I said He had a right to mindlessly butcher people, you'd have a valid point, Marney. That's not what I said, however. I said that God, who is purely good and who is GOD, has a right to pass judgement on a race of sinful creatures as He sees fit. His inherent and defining sense of justice demands it. And His inherent definition of Grace allows for salvation on His terms. You speak as if you're operating out of a base that man is inherently good. Which is nonsense. We have the capacity to pursue good in small doses on our own, but sin consumes us. Selfishness and pride most notably. If He was a God that randomly murdered innocent people just because He can, I'd refuse to serve Him. But that isn't who He is, and it isn't what gives Him the right to do with humanity as he chooses. Any nations that Israel destroyed were being judged for sin. And Israel didn't escape judgement either (The Babylonian Exile saw a fair number of Israel's men, women, and children destroyed in much the same manner).

 

Justice. Not Barbarism. You can judge God all you like. But on That Day, His judgement will be the final one.

[Guest SP-1]

God did not create sin.  There's nothing in scripture to back that up.  But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws.  Humanity didn't.  There are consequnces for our actions.  Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions.  They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually.

Why should they have died physically? It's not like God made it a point that certain death would result in eating the apple. Also, wouldn't God have known ahead of time that Adam & Eve were going to eat the apple? Why tempt them in the first place? Why not make the Apple Tree so high up that they couldn't even get an apple in the first place. Where did the serpent come from that tempted Eve and why did God not strike the serpent down before it ever had the chance to talk to Eve?

Justice. Fairness. Adam and Eve were given the choice. Anything less than making the choice available would result in a dictator-God with an iron fist. Which is not who God is.

You didn't answer the question though. Why would striking them down dead, seem like justice to any reasonable thinking person? Also, what about the rest of the paragraph I wrote?

Which parts would you like a proper breakdown for?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Actually "the Church" did nothing.

Precisely, and that's the problem. They could have done something about the problem. They could have turned the molestor-priests over to the proper authorities and had them arrested and tried for their crimes. They could have excommunicated them in the process. Instead, a few forms were filled out, and children in a different district now get to hear Father Johnny Badtoucher say, "Come sit on my lap, little Timmy." What was really accomplished? Moving a problem around doesn't solve it. These no-good fuckups should have been tarred and feathered, and instead they got slapped on the wrist.

 

A few misguided bishops believed it would be better to send the priests away, and their mistake does not taint the good the Church has done and still does.

Rubbish. You can't just look at the good and ignore the bad. Does the Church do a lot of good around the world? Yes, and that's not in question. They've also done a lot of damage and ruined a lot of lives, and no one seems terribly interested in doing anything consequential about it.

Wrong. The Church Hierarchy has kicked out the Priests responsible and is using commitees of lay people to look into records of priests who have been accused in the past. In my diocese alone 4 priests have been placed under investigation.

 

The clergy IS trying to make good on it's mistakes.

[Firestarter 0]

God... has a right to pass judgement on a race of sinful creatures as He sees fit

No. Sin is individual, not collective. A nation cannot sin. That's a privilege reserved for a single, solitary human being.

 

You speak as if you're operating out of a base that man is inherently good

Not at all. I'm "operating out of a base" (sic) that man has to prove himself good or evil on his own, by thought, action, and intent. A newborn infant cannot be good or evil because it lacks self-awareness, knowledge, and power. It can't make meaningful choices. Murdering such an infant is an act of evil. And according to the Bible, God has committed such evil.

 

So either the Bible is wrong or God is. The only reasonable option is to bet on God and assume the Bible has been corrupted by its innumerable writers, compilers, translators, revisers, and editors.

 

You can judge God all you like.  But on That Day, His judgement will be the final one

Oh really? You seem to be confusing judgement with power. My judgement (whatever it may be, after I hear God's side of the story) will stand regardless of what God might try to do to me. Toss me in a lake of fire? (Ooh, scare me!) Doesn't matter. If God were an evil child-murdering bastard before that, he'd still be an evil child-murdering bastard afterwards. No punishment he could inflict would change the facts.

 

Thing is, you're confusing yourself with God. Anytime I criticise him, or judge him (provisionally) you feel the need to come to his defense and shriek ever louder that He has the Final Power on That Day (hey, capitalising random words really does make an argument more compelling!) to Damn my soul To Everlasting Torment and damnation by His Divine Grace while The Holy light Of Salvation shines Upon, Envelops, And transfigures faithful Christians Like You. Presumably a couple of cherubs are going to be busy wanking you off as well.

 

Relax. I doubt God's really as insecure as you are. If he needed to resort to bullying and punishment, if he refused to explain himself and just replied "What you think doesn't matter because I'm God and I SAY SO!" whenever anyone criticised him, he'd be a pretty worthless god to follow in the first place.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: maybe God did order Saul to slaughter the Amalekites, and Joshua, the people of Ai. Maybe he killed the first-born in Egypt and maybe he didn't. Maybe he was just saddled with the blame for man's atrocities; it certainly wouldn't have been the last time and it probably wouldn't have been the first, either. But whatever the case, to defend such hypotheticals - to claim that everything's all right no matter what the facts, because he's God and if he wants to murder children that's just dandy and here, I'll hold the little bastards down while you cut their throats, Lord Jesus - is not only ignorant but corrupt, degenerate, evil, and yes, un-Christian.

[chaosrage 0]

Show me scriptural evidence to back your claims up.  My breakdown of the passage is proper and there's no more I can say there. 

You could try defending it? There's no law in the bible against abortion, period. There's a law against someone beating a woman and causing an abortion, however since premature babies died back then, the second part of the verses are obviously referring to the woman only. Not the dead baby.

 

God did not create sin. There's nothing in scripture to back that up.

 

Isaiah 45:7 "I make light and darkness, good and evil; I the Lord do these things."

 

So in effect, God created everything, including evil and sin.

 

But because He is a just God, He allowed for a choice to not obey His good commands and laws. Humanity didn't. There are consequnces for our actions. Perhaps He could have simply snapped His fingers, but when Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin of their own free will, there were good and just consequences for their actions.

 

Yep, Adam and Eve, the two people God set up by creating them not knowing the difference between right and wrong, then forbidding them to know the difference, and then punishing them when they got it wrong. But not just them, of course, all of their descendants. So now because they ate an apple, we have cancer and earthquakes.

 

They should have died physically on the spot and not just spiritually. Wiping them out and starting over was certainly an option. But instead, God allowed for the consequences of their actions because it was the just thing within the boundaries of His ORDERED and created world that He had made for them.

 

Well, he did hit the reset button years later with Noah. But at least we got a nice rainbow out of it.

 

Could He have snapped His fingers? He's God, so I'm pretty tempted to lean towards yes. But that wouldn't have been just. And it wouldn't have been love.

 

It wouldn't require pointless torture and bloodshed. It just wouldn't be right. I mean, where's the fun in that?

 

And soon, those who acknowledge the good, perfect, and ordered plan that He set up and place our faith in His power to save us will be fully estored and sin will no longer be an issue. We still have an option. He is still just. He's not a puppetmaster. He's a good and just God of Grace and yet Discipline. And he has every right to be.

 

If you really honestly believe that someone who sentences billions to eternal torture for not accepting him, drowns the entire population of the earth, and tortures and kills newborns is JUST and good, then you need psychological help. I'm not just saying that to flame. I'm dead serious. It's people that think everything in the bible is okay because God says it's okay that wake up one day and think they heard a sign from God, then they'll go outside and beat their kids to death with rocks.

 

Just out of curiousity. What do you think about the woman that killed her sons last week? I'm guessing you think Abraham was right. Do you think she talked to God?

[chaosrage 0]

If He was a God that randomly murdered innocent people just because Hecan, I'd refuse to serve Him. But that isn't who He is, and it isn't what gives Him the right to do with humanity as he chooses.

No, he just randomly murders innocent people who don't believe in him and then makes them burn forever. Justice.

[Guest SP-1]

The conflict here is that the base you're operating out of to judge God isn't a biblical base. There's no evidence biblically that an infant is without sin. There is evidence that the human race is infected with it. As a whole. From race, to nation, to individual. Each and every one of us. There's no biblical contradiction. And considering all of those individuals handed down one of the most exact sets of copies in history, I'd consider it trustworthy. My base is in the Bible, which isn't contradictory, which interprets itself, and which is trustworthy. ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

You can see my explaining the theological aspects of scripture and God's character as "jumping to His defense" if you like. Nobody else here will openly talk about scripture or theology from this side of the fence in any sort of educated manner. Simply because I have a view and I defend it doesn't mean I'm acting in a manner which you describe. Christians are ambassadors for Christ. We offer explanation where we can. That is simply what I'm doing. But you can continue believing what you want.

[Guest SP-1]

Isaiah 45:7 "I make light and darkness, good and evil; I the Lord do these things."

 

So in effect, God created everything, including evil and sin.

Isaiah 45:7 (NIV Translation)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

 

He's talking about His sovereignty, not sin. It's smack in the middle of an entire chapter devoted to God pointing out that He's God and there is no other.

 

It's people that think everything in the bible is okay because God says it's okay that wake up one day and think they heard a sign from God, then they'll go outside and beat their kids to death with rocks.

 

Just out of curiousity.  What do you think about the woman that killed her sons last week?  I'm guessing you think Abraham was right.  Do you think she talked to God?

 

No, I think she was either under the influence of demonic forces, or she was simply insane. or, she's looking for an insanity plea. Just from the way you've worded the event.

 

The people that do those things certainly aren't operating within the spirit of Christ. You're looking and translating the law the same way the Pharisees did. Legalistically. The point of the law wasn't to punish, it was to teach. To guide, and to show. To reveal sin. The spirit of the Law was what was important. Not the letter. Jesus took this principle and applied it by boiling the Law down into two simple commands. Love God with all you have, and love your neighbor. We aren't under the same covenant that God made with Israel. We're under the second covenant, which is born of the fulfillment of the first in Christ.

[chaosrage 0]

The people that do those things certainly aren't operating within the spirit of Christ.

Was Abraham?