US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024

I see I've already missed most of the debate on the GOP and Christianity. In fairness it seems to have been quite civil. I now understand where Dax is coming from though I cannot agree with him; I think as has already been stated by others my own biggest issue is the dissociation of Trump from the discussion. IMO he is entirely material to the discussion because the Republican party is, at this moment, entirely in thrall to him and so to countenance and support a leader who is seemingly at great odds with the Christian values the GOP claims to represent and uphold seems untenable to me. It's a statistical fact that many more Republican's identify as Christians than do Democrats but that in itself is irrelevant to the question of spirituality, especially if it transpires they are following a false prophet.

Belfry's explanation that some churches see him as a Cyrus the Great type figure is interesting as I hadn't heard that before. It seems implausible to me though as, to the extent that scholars can discern, Cyrus's approach to conquered people's was one of tolerance and allowing freedom of expression and retention of rights; which doesn't feel very Donald-esque, though I acknowledge Trump probably doesn't care one iota about what religion in the US looks like as long as it serves his purposes.

When we get onto the Christian position on abortion it's complex and always has been, Personally I'm not sure you can state a single position as definitive. Even the Catholic Church which has had a reputation for constancy on this subject, once you scratch the surface, has fiercely debated and at times changed it's position throughout church history with different Church Fathers having different views. Anyway that is definitely one for another thread, certainly if we are digging down into things like the Didache and Barnabas etc.
I take no part in religious debate but I am curious why, in a discussion of the catholic position on abortion, nobody has even mentioned ‘ensoulment’.The idea that ensoulment occurs on conception is relatively new. If people believe that such a foetus is a person, they must outlaw IVF, but not object to contraception.
By the same token, one has to ask why they oppose post miscarriage ‘abortion’ since there is no person extant.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that religious leaders are just conmen like Trump, making up ‘truths’ to enhance their own positions.
 
Last edited:
I take no part in religious debate but I am curious why, in a discussion of the catholic position on abortion, nobody has even mentioned ‘ensoulment’.The idea that ensoulment occurs on conception is relatively new. If people believe that such a foetus is a person, they must outlaw IVF, but not object to contraception.
By the same token, one has to ask why they oppose post miscarriage ‘abortion’ since there is no person extant.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that religious leaders are just conmen like Trump, making up ‘truths’ to enhance their own positions.
Not to mention the evangelicals...
 
At the risk of derailing this thread, assuming that hasn't already happened:

Abortion has a Christian view. That some Christians didn't seem to have an opinion on it, doesn't change that.

For the record, Catholics are Christians too. But the Christainic historical view on abortion from the early days of the church until now isnt cloudy From the Didache in the early church to the teachings of Paul, the view on Abortion is clear. Christian doctrine is against it.
It's simply not true. It has been debated amongst Christians throughout history and continues to be until this day under what circumstances abortion is allowed. And it's also worth mentioning that church's official positions on moral issues are there to act as guidance for their members, they are not necessarily something they believe should be imposed on wider society. That's why you can still buy pork and alcohol in almost all Muslim countries despite literally every Muslim scholar agreeing that consuming them is a sin. So is banning pork a "Muslim position?" No, it's a conservative position, held by people who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Even your point hints at their being a Christian view that was in opposition to what the feminist wanted, or else why would they be attacking religion?
They were attacking the Catholic (not Christian) church on a whole host of issues related to feminism, because they saw it as a threat to women's emancipation. Choice over abortion was one of these issues that they identified as an important area where the Catholic church held back, as they saw it, progress towards these ideals. Evangelicals got involved because they saw feminism as a threat to wider Christianity.

Thanks for the insight on how CT stood in 1968. But Christianity long predates CT.
The point of that post is to mention that the vehemently and vocally anti-abortion churches of today were actually very late to the party, and shared the view along with plenty of other churches Again, what you're doing is basing your view purely on who shouts the loudest, not what the huge range of churches and Christian scholars actually think, which is of course far more varied and nuanced.

The Wikipedia article Abortion and Christianity highlights the many varied and nuanced views that Christian groups take on the issue. The vast majority do not have a blanket opposition to abortion. And it's worth mentioning again that an official position of a church is there to act as guidance for its members, it is not necessarily there as an indication of the laws they want to impose on everyone else.

However, the pattern that comes up again is that conservative members of whatever particular sect of Christianity are more likely to oppose legal abortion in more circumstances. So what are you left with there? The realisation that conservative religious people are more likely to vote for the conservative political party. Well no shit. And that's why, despite him clearly not being religious in the slightest, they vote for him, because they share a far more important value with him: authoritarianism.
 
I take no part in religious debate but I am curious why, in a discussion of the catholic position on abortion, nobody has even mentioned ‘ensoulment’.The idea that ensoulment occurs on conception is relatively new. If people believe that such a foetus is a person, they must outlaw IVF, but not object to contraception.
By the same token, one has to ask why they oppose post miscarriage ‘abortion’ since there is no person extant.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that religious leaders are just conmen like Trump, making up ‘truths’ to enhance their own positions.

Yes ensoulment was one of a number of things I was thinking of but this is a huge subject. Ironically the Catholic church, in attempting to asert it's authority in relation to these matters in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, alienated a large chunk of it's own laity (and some religious) and that authority has never returned in many geographies. But we're definitely on another thread now.
 
The same folk who cherish a heartbeat and think life is sacrosanct are pro Death Penalty. Work that one out
It's easy to work out if you just listen to the people who espouse those views. One involves an "innocent" the other involves someone who has been found "guilty" after an appropriate legal process.

The person convicted of a crime has an advocate who puts forward a defence and the crimes they commit often involve the taking of a life. There is also the position they see themselves in as the advocate of the baby in the womb.
 
It's easy to work out if you just listen to the people who espouse those views. One involves an "innocent" the other involves someone who has been found "guilty" after an appropriate legal process.

The person convicted of a crime has an advocate who puts forward a defence and the crimes they commit often involve the taking of a life. There is also the position they see themselves in as the advocate of the baby in the womb.

I don't find that one so hard to understand.

All are created equal, implies it doesn't stay that way.

Funnily enough these pro-lifers don't seem to care about the child after it's birth, as they are aren't usually in favour of decent welfare payments or pro family employment rights if it means they pay more in taxes or paychecks to employees.

That doesn't seem very principled.
 
I take no part in religious debate but I am curious why, in a discussion of the catholic position on abortion, nobody has even mentioned ‘ensoulment’.The idea that ensoulment occurs on conception is relatively new. If people believe that such a foetus is a person, they must outlaw IVF, but not object to contraception.
By the same token, one has to ask why they oppose post miscarriage ‘abortion’ since there is no person extant.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that religious leaders are just conmen like Trump, making up ‘truths’ to enhance their own positions.
Fucking hell. I'm a Catholic (non practicing) and I don't know anyone who thinks we get 'injected' with a soul at birth. On the other hand I know plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception. i.e when sperm meets egg.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.