Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[Chuck Naill]

... Do you have a specific question?

What? No. I answered your question.

You wrote, " I really don't think you have to look outside of Christianity to find the familiar faces of every kind of evil ever perpetrated upon humanity." What was your point? That only Christians perpetrate evil?

No, of course not "only Christians" commit evil.

Your question that started this contained the unspoken presumption that you were not familiar with whatever "ideology" (your word) produced a policy of removing the children for adoption from a war zone. You seemed flummoxed by some "ideology" unfamiliar to you that would produce this practice. I thought about the question and the assumption and remembered that Putin is not only the leader of a country but also a professed born again Christian. The irony of this struck me so hard that I answered your question with the additional information that Putin's "ideology" is not so foreign or unfamiliar: he is a sexist, bigoted, white nationalist Christian male in one of the most powerful positions on the planet. This is actually FAMILIAR to us, no? Democracy and Christianity also both promote powerful systemic behaviors that, when they go unchecked, look just like what is happening with those children. Let's remember, for example, that the Nazis got their academic training on eugenics theory from Christian Americans in American universities.

No, evil is not "only" in Christianity. But when mixed with Christian (or any religion's) ideas of exceptionalism and with institutional power, the inherent evil of humanity is amplified and spreads.

There is no irony when compared to the message of Jesus, "rethink/reconsider what you've thought was true, the Kingdom of Heaven is right in front of your nose", my paraphrase. It is important to distinguish Christianity as a brand with discipleship/an apprenticeship with Jesus. This is his message to the early followers, and it has not changed. Someone can be a Christian, whatever that means to you, and not be a Christian. It is also probable that one could be a disciple and not a Christian. Just because someone, like Putin, performs a horrible act and then claims to be a "born again Christian", if he did, means nothing except to those unfamiliar with what Jesus taught. I mean no disrespect to your views on Putin or knowledge of Christianity, but it should not be confusing to anyone remotely familiar with what Jesus said and taught such as loving your neighbor as you love yourself and treating others as you would have them treat you. Both of these teachings would indicate that Putin has a different ideology that he is choosing to employ.

[TSherbs]

I don't think that it is very honest to reject people as Christian because they do bad things. History would record Putin as much a Christian as you, or any other Christian on this forum. The Apostles' Creed says nothing about justice, fairness, being sinless, or any such thing. It doesn't say, I hold the Golden Rule or the Sermon on the Mount above all else. It does not say that I will adhere to the 10 commandments. The traditional profession of Christian faith has nothing to do with ethics or being good or Christ-like.

[Chuck Naill]

I am being honest, but it is not what you want to hear, Ted.

Jesus told his disciples/apprentices to make disciples and teach them to do "all that I have commanded". From the same gospel he said " “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." Therefore, it is incumbent upon a disciple to know how to discern what is consistent with being his disciple. Not in a way of judgement, but to know who to listen to or follow.

Suggesting that Jesus didn't care what his disciples did or thought is inconsistent with a plain reading of the gospels. Paul restates Jesus' words in Romans 13:8-10

"8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

As Ecclesiastes reads, there is no righteous man that never sins. Sinning or missing the bulls eye is always going to be present. No one truly seeking to be a disciple of Jesus would be able to justify treating others poorly and not watching out for the well being of others. It is a process to rid oneself of our human tendancies.

Jesus followers were the nobodies, the rejected, the discouraged, the condemned, the problem child, etc. His good news was that they could get in on what he was doing and have a good life. You can't have a good life by consistantly mistreating your neighbor, lying, cheating, stealing, and coveting. He said that it was not enough to have good actions when your heart was evil. The example was adultery where it wasn't enough not to be adulteous, that lusting in your heart was just as inconsistent with the righteousness he wanted them to enjoy.

Later he said the paraclete or the one coming along side would be given to aid his disciples in living the kind of life those in the Kingdom of God would enjoy. Of course he was referring to the Holy Spirit. As Paul said, he was not operating in human strength alone, but the power of the Spirit.

All of this can be seen as an opportunity for anyone and everyone to be able to have the best life possible. If we see the law as restricting, we have missed the purpose entirely, "whom the son sets free is free in deed". If Mr. Putin would change his mind and decide to become a disciple of Jesus, the war with Ukranine would end tomorrow.

[TSherbs]

I am being honest, but it is not what you want to hear, Ted.

This is quite wrong. I don't "want" anything here. You misunderstand my disagreement with what you say as a form of "wanting" you to say something else. I don't want you to say anything other than what you think. Please don't misunderstand my disagreement with your ideas with wanting you to change them. I don't care at all whether you change your ideas or not.

Suggesting that Jesus didn't care what his disciples did or thought...

This is the kind of thing that I call dishonest. I did not suggest this. I did not mention Jesus. I referred to the Apostles' Creed, the oldest, most traditional profession of faith in Christian history. I reread it before I made my last post to be sure that I had it right (I had to memorize it as part of my confirmation process). These statements, according to the church fathers of the time, were the core values and statements that defined a Christian believer. I did not say and would never say that "Jesus did not care what his disciples did or thought." But the topic is whether it is fair or even accurate to decide that sinners, even great ones, can't be called "Christian." Again, my point was that if sinners cannot be classified as "Christian" if they commit sin, then there are no Christians at all on the planet. And that seems absurd as a founding premise of a world-wide faith.

This discussion now probably ought to be on another thread.

[TSherbs]

I moved my response over to the appropriate thread, where the discussion matches the thread title: Definition of Christian

[TSherbs]

Wyoming joined 13 other states in banning abortifacient medications sold in their states. The balkanization of America continues. As I noted before, Maine providers have reported an increase in requests for abortion services from out of state. Protecting this right in this state will likely keep democrats in power here. Moreover, there is a strong power of referendum here to make legislation, and the majority of the population supports access to abortion services.

[Chip]

Weird how the discussion veered off into a Christian cul-de-sac. But it's a fitting example of how those who call themselves Christians seek to enfold their biases in the mantle of religious belief.

[Chuck Naill]

It is possible to sooth oneself that abortion is a good thing with we could just get religion out of the way. For those who see the unborn as part of the human race, they do have medical science that can support their view and need not rely on anything religious. It is not blindness that impairs, but the inability to open one's eyes.

[TSherbs]

Weird how the discussion veered off into a Christian cul-de-sac. But it's a fitting example of how those who call themselves Christians seek to enfold their biases in the mantle of religious belief.

Sorry. That was mostly my fault.

[Chuck Naill]

Hypothetically, lets take all spirituality from the Earth. Do any of you have a way that would improve the human quality of life? If you think you have great words of wisdom, leave them here now. A friend used to say, if you don't like what I am doing, show me a better way. If you have improved upon the concept of loving your neighbor, all neighbors including those that disagree, as you love your own self, what would your recommendation be? Along with fine words must include the power to pull it off.

[TSherbs]

I'm now sticking to the topic of abortion on this thread.