God Conquers Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 I'm not discounting the history of the Church at all. Let's remember, Christianity took 500 years to be established in Rome and the western world. It took 500 years before the threat from the east was great enough to warrant a crusade. That crusade lasted 300 years. We need to stop abortion NOW. This is an irrefutable fact. We need to get off our butts and proclaim the truth. We need to save lives now. We must act to do this. We also can't expect the changes to happen immediately.
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 I just read the first post and all I can possibly think of to say is thus... [SIZE=14]LTFOL
CatholicAndFanatical Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote] So I believe enforcing the Code of Canon Law now rests with the individual bishops. [/quote] And you really think the individual Bishops are going to enforce it?? No, they are not. Why? Because they seem to think they can do whatever they want without recourse. I know there are some great Priests and Bishops out there, my diocese happens to be one of the great ones..however, my Bishop is quiet in times like this..and it just urks me to no good. My bishop and your bishop should of stood with the TWO bishops that actually spoke out in the media against Pro-death politicians and for the 'Rainbow Sash' wearing people trying to recieve Jesus..but nothing, all silent. Very irritating! [quote] MC Just, Aloysius, & Don, Since you seem to have gotten the point which have I posted... [/quote] Wha? Im not worthy of being mentioned ..CAF, thats all you had to put, three little letters..man that hurts dawg. It got me right here man *pounds on chest* - *sniff*
Iacobus Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 23 2004, 10:09 AM'] We should evangelize, but some hearts will not change. Hearts are hardened. You fail to forget the the media and hollywood have been anti-evangelizing for the last 50 years. Unless people will listen, evangelization will not work. [/quote] Thats sounds like something Osama would say. Convert to my form of Islam now and if not well lets killed the "hardened hearts." I doubt Christ would have called his followers to armed conflict if they couldn't get someone to convert. What type of message would He than protray. And in saying "Armed Resistance is close" than it can logicaly be infered that is a threat of armed resistance because you are saying that it is "nearly" the time for conflict.
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 Wasn't there some nonsense in the New Testament about turning the other cheek? If any of you have ever read the Wheel of Time, to be a good Christian it seems to me like you need to be a Tinker...
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 Considering that this topic is about armed resistance due to abortion (I think), it would appear to be nonsense in the minds of those who agree with the topic...
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 So you think abortion should be allowed? What about your "harm none" belief???
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 See, this is where my long-held personal beliefs conflict with my religious ones... Since I can't really convince myself one way or the other, I just shrug it off with "Unborn babies can't think". Thus, I don't consider them to be fully alive. And if parents want an abortion but can't get one, there's a good chance that the child will lead an unhappy life.
mmmerf Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Jul 23 2004, 01:12 PM'] And you really think the individual Bishops are going to enforce it?? No, they are not. Why? Because they seem to think they can do whatever they want without recourse. [/quote] Ahem. My bishop has stood on difficult issues before. I don't think he's been confronted directly with this one, as in Canada we have a different system of government than in the states. BUT EVEN IF HE DIDN'T, I would still recognize and respect his office, and if he put this issue back on the consciences of those concerned, I would accept his decision, and direct my questions to him rather than stepping outside the heirarchy for decisions based on faith and morals. Maybe, just maybe our bishops would be more inclined to act if they felt more catholics would support them when they did. My bishop banned general absolution after it had been the norm for 30 years, and nearly got run out of town for it. So I'm ready to accept what he has to offer and support him because I know he WILL make the right choices.
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Chris Zewe' date='Jul 23 2004, 03:21 PM'] See, this is where my long-held personal beliefs conflict with my religious ones... Since I can't really convince myself one way or the other, I just shrug it off with "Unborn babies can't think". Thus, I don't consider them to be fully alive. And if parents want an abortion but can't get one, there's a good chance that the child will lead an unhappy life. [/quote] So its ok to slaughter someone because "they can't think"??? Thats absurd. Unborn babies have as much potential and capacity for rational thought as you or I. What about newborn babies, the only difference between them and the unborn is that one is in the womb and the other is out. If newborns "can't think" can we kill them, too? Going with that logic it would be ok to kill any baby/toddler until they are fully potty trained and can feed themselves.... Absurd. There are studies done by real scientists which disprove your "not fully alive" theory. Edited July 23, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [i]So its ok to slaughter someone because "they can't think"??? Thats absurd. Unborn babies have as much potential and capacity for rational thought as you or I. What about newborn babies, the only difference between them and the unborn is that one is in the womb and the other is out. If newborns "can't think" can we kill them, too? Going with that logic it would be ok to kill any baby/toddler until they are fully potty trained and can feed themselves.... Absurd. There are studies done by real scientists which disprove your "not fully alive" theory.[/i] They do? I always assumed that being cramped in a space that small for nine months would drive one completely insane if their brain was fully functional... The baby isn't born yet and the parents may not want or be able to afford it. If they decide to keep the baby, they may suffer heavily financially, making it hell on all of them. If they put it up for adoption, there's a good chance that it will live off welfare and never amount to anything. At least that's the case around here.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 Turning the other Cheek was not a not a command to be passive on the contrary turning the other cheek was concidered a serious insult at the time sort of the 1st century equivelant of saying, "huh, is that all you got." It was an even greater insult for someone of lesser station to do it to some one of higher station so really that is not in anyway relevent to the discussion turning the other cheek was not passive, it was infact resistance to the social order, it was rebelious.
Chris Zewe Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 I'm quite sure that it was to "offer the other cheek so that he might slap it too" or something...
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote] At least that's the case around here. [/quote] What strange planet are you liveing on do you know how much it cost to adopt a child, poor people cannot adopt. More than that there is a huge waiting list for babies to adopt so they wouldn't be regulated to a state facility, that is a completly BS arguement. More than that the implication that some one who grows up on welfares life is meaningless and that that person would be better off dead is so offensive I cannot even begin to respond accept by saying if you where before me I'd probably put you one your butt for saying it. That is one of the most mosterous,t Hitlerific things i have ever heard said by anyone. Finally the Fetus can think and even dream, try researching your topic before talking about it.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 Oh and Iron monk the answer to your question is No, more is the pitty.
mmmerf Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote name='Chris Zewe' date='Jul 23 2004, 02:21 PM'] See, this is where my long-held personal beliefs conflict with my religious ones... Since I can't really convince myself one way or the other, I just shrug it off with "Unborn babies can't think". Thus, I don't consider them to be fully alive. And if parents want an abortion but can't get one, there's a good chance that the child will lead an unhappy life. [/quote] Good grief. 'A good chance the child will lead an unhappy life' = reason to kill it? That would justify killing most of the pioneers who founded the US, just about anyone with AIDS in africa, and anyone suffering from clinical depression, to name only a few groups. Not to mention that neither you nor anyone else for that matter can see into the future and judge with certainty what the quality of someone's life will be. And you'd deal out life and death on the basis of 'a good chance'. You don't consider them to be fully alive? I'm certain their opinion differs from yours. There are only four factors that separate their life from yours: Size Level of development Environment Degree of dependency Size: Are short people less alive than tall people? No. Level of development: Are pre-pubescent children less alive than adults? No. Environment: Is someone indoors somehow more or less alive than someone out in the rain? No. Degree of dependency: Is a 6-month old, who is unable to feed or clothe themselves without assistance, less alive than you or I? No. If you want to attach Brain activity to that list (an utterly arbitrary distinction, but fine), then is a person who is awake more alive than someone who's asleep? No. So how can you possibly say that the preborn are less alive than you or I? But what really disturbs me about your post is your use of the term 'Shrug it off'. I find that utterly repugnant. Plenty of people 'shrugged off' Auchwitz, because who really knew what was going on there, anyways? Never mind, I'm sure the problem will go away... "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote]I'm quite sure that it was to "offer the other cheek so that he might slap it too" or something... [/quote] well that is the jist of it if not the actual scripture, and as i said that was an act which insulted the one who struck you , it was social rebellion to do it to those who where above you in social status. It was rebellious.
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote name='Chris Zewe' date='Jul 23 2004, 03:31 PM'] They do? I always assumed that being cramped in a space that small for nine months would drive one completely insane if their brain was fully functional... [/quote] The we'd all be insane wouldn't we? Clearly unborn babies don't have all the knowledge/ability to function that adults do, but as I said, they are no different from newborn babies outside the womb. The reasons you give for allowing the murder of unborn babies can be used for all sorts of people from unborns and newborns to adults and elderly. [quote]The baby isn't born yet and the parents may not want or be able to afford it. If they decide to keep the baby, they may suffer heavily financially, making it hell on all of them. [/quote] We all make sacrifices for our children. Thats part of what being a parent is about. [quote]If they put it up for adoption, there's a good chance that it will live off welfare and never amount to anything. At least that's the case around here.[/quote] Not here. Adoption is expensive, usually if they can afford to adopt they can afford to support the child.
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 On the "unhappy life" note, kids don't need money or stuff to be happy. They need LOVE. My daughter is far happier sitting on my lap sharing a glass of water with me than she is playing with her toys. She would much rather give me hugs and kisses than be delegated to a room full of toys. "Money can't buy happiness."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now