"Non-Believers" View of Bible-Believing Christians

[BadenP 93]

It always amuses me to see a bunch of old dotty male scouters preach their holier than thou attitudes and then can not seem to understand why others view them negatively. Why are we not hearing from the female scouters on this issue?

 

My response is because not one male here, myself included, can really understand this issue because we can not get pregnant or will ever carry a child to term. This is a personal issue between a woman, her doctor and God. You can quote and misquote the Bible all you want to justify your opinions but that is all they are, they are not facts nor are they the law of the land. Some of you people need to learn to read the Bible from a contextual instead of a literal basis. The attitudes of cultures 2,000 to 6,000 years ago do not directly apply to our culture today. Cultures and belief systems do not exsist in a vacumm but are constantly evolving and changing over time. Just as you would not use a medical text from the 1800's to treat a patients illness today you have to be very careful how you use the Bible to answer the morality of todays culture, otherwise you will come across as bigoted and unChristian who doesn't really understand what you read in the Bible.

[Hunt 11]

A heartbeat is indicative of the presence of life, but it's not necessarily dispositive. For example, a brain-dead person may have a heartbeat, but it is a matter of definition whether that person is "alive" or not. When I was in high school, we dissected a live frog, removing its heart and putting the heart into saline solution. The heart kept on beating, but I am fairly confident that the frog was no longer alive.

This disagreement is really just a matter of loose terminology, because we aren't really talking about when "life" begins, because obviously sperm, eggs, fertilized eggs, and fetuses at all stages of development are "alive" in a basic sense. What we're talking about is the question of at what stage of development should (or must) we ascribe the status of "personhood" to the developing fetus. This is not an easy question, whether you believe in the soul or not.

To try to bring this back on topic a bit more, this issue is a prime example of an inevitable collision between religious and secular views. People with certain religious views believe that the unborn baby is an individual person with a soul and with God-given rights. As such, they simply cannot accept an argument that some other person can have the right to kill that person. Thus, it's not that they are trying to cram their religious beliefs down somebody's throat, but rather that those religious beliefs have implications for what the law should be with respect to the effect of actions on innocent third parties. (As distinguished from a ban on gay marriage, which probably is more fairly defined as cramming.)

[Eagledad 2777]

>>This is a personal issue between a woman, her doctor and God.This is a personal issue between a woman, her doctor and God.

[Rooster7 11]

Fuzzy Bear,

 

I challenge you to identify a single law, any law that does not have a moral premise. Eventually, all laws come down to beliefs in "right and wrong", a.k.a. morality. In this country, where one gets those beliefs should not matter. What should matter is - what moral truth does the majority want to embrace.

 

BadenP,

 

You claim to embrace Christ, but you are very quick to make venomous statements, especially against fellow believers. While Christ was quick to rebuke the Pharisees and the Sadducees, He knew their hearts. That is to say, it was not their strict adherence to the law that angered Jesus, but the attitude in their hearts and minds towards others. You do not know the hearts of others only God can make that discernment with any kind of certainty. So please refrain from labeling folks as having a holier than thou attitude.

 

In the end, you are right. God will hold us accountable for whatever misdeeds or misrepresentations we make in His name. However, in the meantime, I plan to follow His teachings as His Word and Spirit directs my heart, mind, and spirit. I am confident that abortion is a practice that He detests and I intend to use my talents and time to help others see the same.

 

Hunt,

 

Again, I find myself agreeing with your post. However, I would argue that the same moral convictions that some have against abortion, could be extended to homosexuality. Obviously the sexual practice of others is not murder, but such practices affect the moral standards of a community. For example, if we had no laws against animal cruelty and people were allowed to freely abuse animals even if one did not object on behalf of the animal, one could argue that its unhindered open practice will contribute to the unraveling of the communitys moral fabric.

[evmori 11]

Prairie,

And those same states probably allow abortion of that same fetus! What's the difference if a fetus is killed when it's mother is murdered or aborted? One is a medical procedure. Both are murder.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[BadenP 93]

Barry

In most abortion cases the so called father is little more than a sperm donor from a one night stand, a rape, or a party gone bad who has no interest in the needs of the child or the mom. We have become a society of sexually irresponsible and immoral people. Most TV shows, movies, and music use sex to tempt our youth and make it seem okay to be loose and easy. Statistics show that over 80% of abortions are performed on girls under the age of 21, most of them having sex as early as 11 or 12 right under their parent(s) noses. This is a serious internal societal problem, not a religious one.

 

Rooster

As always a man of real conviction, I agree with you that abortion is wrong but it will take more than the Bible to correct it. We as a nation must stand as one Christian, Jew, etc. and demand an accountability from our government, the press, movie and tv industries to stop pandering to lowest immoral denominator. Then it must become a global issue in a world where all human life seems to have little value anymore. You see it is not a matter of whether you believe the same faith or not, it is a matter of learning to treat all human beings with the respect and dignity they deserve. Until that day comes the attrocities will continue and we will continue to become less as a people.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Rooster7 writes:

What if the law served two masters? That is, suppose there was a valid secular reason for the law, but the law was also agreeable to others for religious reasons.

 

That's true of a whole host of laws, and lots of religions. Murder, for example. As long as there are valid secular reasons, it's irrelevant (and not surprising) if religions also advocate it.

 

That being casewhat if, elected representatives passed a law banning abortion Or, better yet, what if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade Would you view these possibilities as the state establishing a religion?

 

No.

 

Would you argue against the law or the courts decision?

 

Yes.

 

But Id like to take this debate one step further. Give me a law any law, and I bet I can show a religious motivation and a secular argument for its existence - or why it shouldnt exist, as the case may be.

 

Driving on the righthand side of the road. Some countries drive on the left side, but that doesn't make it immoral. It's just a convention so driving "works". No religious motivation for that law.

 

Can you give me a valid law that only has religious reasons for existing?

[acco40 95]

To try and answer Rooster's original (loaded) question: Christianity endorses, encourages, mandates proselytizing. Many non-believers find it annoying or worse. Regardless if true or not, most don't take to kindly to being called a sinner, condemned to hell, immoral, etc. Many believers of other faiths find it blasphemous. For example, how would devout Christians like for someone to come in, explain to them that their beliefs were misguided or worse yet wrong (look at the reception Merlyn gets from many on this forum) and attempted to convert them to something else?

 

Some like me, find some (a very small minority) Christians to be self-righteous bores.

 

I am very glad that in the USA being an American doesn't predispose one to be a certain faith. For example, it is hard to differentiate or separate Polish identity from the Catholic faith. We don't have that "problem" here in America (although Merlyn and others may not agree due to our Judeo-Christian leanings).

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

While I still don't appreciate your stand against the BSA, I am beginning...(well let's not get carried away here)

 

Driving on the righthand side of the road. Some countries drive on the left side, but that doesn't make it immoral. It's just a convention so driving "works". No religious motivation for that law.

 

But what's the underlying reason...what "works"? The law is establishing guidelines so that citizens cannot inadvertently cause one another physical harm or to lose property. The moral judgment being made is this: One's freedom is secondary when one's choices can cause the harm of another person or his property. Thus, all drivers in a particular area must stay to one side of the road. Europe just happened to choose the opposite side, but their reasoning was the same. As I said, every law makes a moral judgment of some kind.

 

Explain to me why you would argue against the reversal of Roe V. Wade. Do you agree with the pretence that the beginning of life is debatable? If so, it seems to me that you'd have no motivation to take either side.

 

Can you give me a valid law that only has religious reasons for existing?

 

No. Can you provide an example of one? Or of one that was proposed? I'm afraid that we will go back to butting heads when you reply on this one.

[Bob White 20]

Note that at no time have I mentioned the religious aspect. I am addressing only the logical, measurable, evidence of the existence of a living person. This has nothing to do with the quality of life or the depth of personality of that life...simply life.

 

Hunt, to your knowledge has anyone ever knowingly taken a brain dead individual and buried or cremated them while they still had a heartbeat? Why is that? Why is it that even when brain-dead they do not pronounce the person as dead until...what happens....the heart stops beating.

 

You cannot rationally deny the existense of a heartbeat as a sign of life. Yet how often do arbortions take place even after a beating heart exists? How can you stop a heart and not accept the fact that you have stopped a life?

 

While I do not disagree that the matter of abortion is between people and God, the State has decided otherwise, and made it a public matter.

 

To say that abortion only affects the woman is myopic. There are in fact others deeply effected by this action and to ignore their involvement is an unfortunate manuever to remove their needs and values in order to simplify the approval process so that it can be done in a more time efficient manner.

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad 2777]

>>We have become a society of sexually irresponsible and immoral people.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I have an idea i know where this will end up, but in Pennsylvania, No car dealers are open on Sunday nor are the liquor stores open until noon. I think these are civil laws based on religious precepts. Now, I know you will say these arent "valid", but why havent the "blue" laws been a target of the ACLU?

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob,

You're right that the "beginning of life" thread didn't start in an exchange between you and me. I was actually responding to something Ed had said that included the comment on "the injection of the soul", and this thread was clearly about the "beginnning of life" and not about heartbeats in people in general. That is what you had originally responded to. So, in response to your questions, I'll say...

 

Living people without a heartbeat?

Well, there's the Cowardly Lion.

And then, there's my mom's old boss. She always said he didn't have a heart, so I suppose that means he didn't have a heartbeat, either.

 

The first thing I usually check in an unresponsive person is to see if it's one of my kids. They act like I'm not there most of the time, but that could just be a teenage thing.

 

So, as a heartbeat is related to a being after birth, I'd say absolutely yes, a heartbeat is a sign of life. Not the only indicator, and not a definitive indicator in and of itself, but definitely a sign. In a fetus, the heartbeat is a sign of development; at some point that development is to a point such that the fetus could be birthed and live on it's own. I've said before that once that point is reached, abortion should cease to be an option. Why I draw the line there is just a matter of personal choice; you might call it my belief.

[fgoodwin 23]

The Cowardly Lion lacked courage -- it was the Tin Man who lacked heart!

[acco40 95]

Man is a funny beast. We swat mosquitoes with glee yet get upset about the killing of baby harp seals because they look so cute. it is a good thing mosquitoes don't scream.

 

Ah yes, the age old question of when does human life begin. A gamete is not considered a "life form" by most and therefore very few try to enact legislation concerning their viability. A zygote is a slightly different matter. Some, but not most(?) don't feel too bad about their survival or destruction. Not much human resemblance resides in a single cell. However, by the time human like features begin to take shape, we become queasy. Heart cells "beat" in an embryo long before they pump any blood. How to draw the line?

 

"But now since it is culturally acceptable to kill our babies, men have nothing to fear in one night stands." STDs, child support payments, fury of a scorned woman - there is much fear to go around! Not that fear should be the motivation factor but as I've always believed, it takes two to tango.

 

Our culture is finding out the vast problems that out of wedlock births, divorces, working mothers and negligent fathers cause are immense. I don't think we are quite their with making it culturally acceptable to kill babies. I think that we (society) struggle with in the USA is our sexuality. Why does the USA have the highest teenage birth rates but not the highest teenage sexual activity?