Obama Gaffe: “My Muslim Faith”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw
Sen. Barack Obama’s foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, “my Muslim faith.”
The three words – immediately corrected – were during an exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on This Week, when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.
Obama’s verbal slip fuels his critics
Sunday, September 7, 2008 – The Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
. . . more
Note 50. More evidence, albeit from the other direction, that the culture increasingly understands abortion kills a child.
Well, Michael, looks like the veeery long comments are still on. Often between Phil, Jim Holman and James K (still do not know if Nicholas belongs here, I did not do my homework).
Michael, what did you learned so far, from your long ‘battles’ on the internet?
James K and all are exhibiting here their ‘brains’ and taking about morality, right and wrong when they have serious moral issues.
On https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/06/25/why-were-losing-our-right-to-speak-out/
Note 71 Phil answers:
with:
You know what, it is more than “imposing”, it is giving us nausea and vomiting.
And James K story with the first wounded in the Iraq war being a homosexual…
So what? I thought that was a private matter.
Just in case you’ll sing the “democracy song”:
Democracy in America will soon be a myth! It has started already:
Mom’ and ‘Dad’ banished …
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to ‘gays’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
Can you answer this question?
How a 3% minority can impose a ban on the words mom and dad ? These words have been used for ever and by all : Christians, Arabs, Indians, Asians, etc. All of them are using these words! How is possibly, in a democratic country, for a minority to dictate to the majority?
Evolutionists are/were using these words too, and have been using them for a lot longer than us. Let me explain : when the apes started to talk, they were using for sure these words. I believe that happened about 500,000 years ago or so according to the evolution theory 🙂 (this is a joke, I do not believe in the Evolution Theory).
Nicholas asks: “How does anything we are currently do with 138,000 troops stuck in Iraq and a huge commitment to defense of foreign nations actually contributing to the well-being of Americans.”
I’ve been asking that question myself since the invasion began. I never believed the administration’s charges that danger was imminent or even likely, and I don’t think they believed it either. That being said, I think the question is to now ask, given the current reality, what is in our best interest? I’m not sure picking up and leaving is the best option, given that progress has been made. Only time will tell, of course. Things were less volatile when Saddam ruled. After the invasion (which is what it was: not “Infinite Justice” or whatever foolish moniker the admin gave it), the region was more volatile than it had been in years. To leave it that way would damage not only our international reputation more than it is already but would allow Islamic extremists to gain power over the region (which they had not had when Saddam was in power, I might note. His rule, while despotic at times, was secular).
If we eventually find that this administration deliberately deceived the public on this matter, I would find it an impeachable, almost treasonous offense, even if the outcome is to our gain. At this point, though, we may be better off to stick it out for a bit. I’m open to opposing viewpoints on this, though.
Humble me,
What have I learned? Nothing new. I do give credit to James K, he is being reasonable in his discussion. Whereas Nicholas is writing long essays without answering the essential points, at the same time raising a myriad of new and unrelated points, which only serve to muddle things up. I have no further time to waste in dealing with him.
James K.
You are arguing from ignorance, not that you are ignorant, but your argument is saying that since I cannot prove the child is alive, then their is no reason to protect it.
My refute, is that we should error on the side of life not on the side of murder or death.
Second, you put forth the following:
Women have lots of choice before becoming pregnant, such as not having sex, using protection that prevents conception, and adoption. The problem with the “awesome responsibility” argument is that it breaks down, when examined. If it is allowable to kill a child in the womb because of “awesome responsibility”, then can we use that same reason to kill a child outside of the womb? Of course not.
What make the abortion discussion so difficult is that we are discussing to primary rights, Life and Liberty. We deeply value both of them.
Can you meet with this bargain James K, that abortion for birth control, which is 96% of all of the nearly 1.5 million abortions, should be outlawed thus leaving 4% for hard case abortions, rape, incest, and life of the mother, legal?
Outlawing abortion for as a form of birth control should be acceptable to you. It will accomplish the salvation of millions of lives.
Michael,
I am just a novice here, but I learned a lot:
The abnormalities that we see happening today (ex: minority imposing to the majority) are the result of decisions that arrived by judicial fiat (same-sex marriages). These decisions were wrong “just like Kelo and most other decisions arrived by judicial fiat” (Jacobse).
This decisions should be reversed and “issue needs to go back to the people, but I hear the homosexual activists are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening” (Jacobse).
Second, it took me very little time to notice that “James and especially Phil are here to burn out our precious time with their very long (mostly pointless) comments” (humble me note 99)
Later, I came across the source mentioned in comment 29 and I was able to formulate more clear what these people are doing here:
1) Simulate discussions on message boards
2) Find useful people to promote their nonsense
3) drive away the good, well intended people
Now, regarding the topic of this debate: we won’t be able to decide which of the presidential candidates is good and which one is not good. There are so many issues that we rather need to decide which evil is lees evil. Difficult thing to do!
Michael,
I said I’ve learned a lot. What I wrote in my previous message does not look like a lot. Here is more, I’ll start from general lessons and then going to particular findings:
I learned to ‘read diagonally’. What is this? Looking at a long comment like this: “start from the upper left corner and going down diagonally, scanning the text, until you reach the down, right corner. After you do that, you get an idea if the comment (you can apply this to any other literature on the internet) is worth reading”.
I learned that by browsing different blogs you can get extremely useful information. Some people are saying very interesting things. When you learn to find this interesting things and put them together, you know more then the people who individually post interesting tings.
Remember the discussion about archbishop Lazar? You were right about him! I mean the part that you do not trust him ( I am sure that he is not going to end up on an icon next to Fr. Seraphim Rose.
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1983
Father Michael very much supported Fr.*Panteleimon’s views and those of Lev Puhalo, now Archbishop Lazar, who was defrocked because of his heretical teachings on the soul after death.
Sorry, DavidS if this upsets you. You are a bright, honest person, I do not mean to upset you.
Somebody, a lay person, was criticizing Abp. Lazar’s comment (posted on a blog) about ” the neurotic myth” (these were Lazar’s words regarding the toll houses) . The lay person was saying that the toll houses are teaching of the Holy Fathers.
A ‘puppet’ popped up and said ” Bless, Master!” and then to the lay person “who are you to criticize an Abp?” (these are not the exact words, but this was the idea).
Then, I remembered what James K said about Archbishop Puhalo :
Who is this priest? rather who is behind him? Is that all they had to say about the colossal work of Fr. Seraphim Rose?
This “some”, tells me a lot.
Lesser of the available evils – which still leaves you with evil.
Ever wonder why the rest of the world tries to so hard to placate Muslims?
Because they won’t accept anything less than total victory.
Neither would the early church, of course. I can see the great Fathers of the Church now, “Join Caesar’s army! Serve in Caesar’s government. Do all that, because he is less evil than the barbarians. Serve him well, work from the inside to effect change. Only compromise a little, because we can eventually get some Christian tribunes who will make a real difference.”
Christians did join Caesar’s army, after her bowed to Christ.
Keep compromising and choosing the lesser of two evils. It’s working swimmingly for us, so far.
Humble me,
Well, maybe, regardless of their intent, it is our duty to behave and respond accordingly. If you scan the shear number of unfounded premises that Nicholas raises, you can quickly see that he is using what I call the “shotgun” attack. Instead of dealing with points made, he just raises a massive wave of “talking points” that he feels the other side must deal with in order to be credible in his eyes, as if he has any reason to be taken as credible in the first place.
It is a very effective rhetorical device until you expose it, and ignore it. Anyone who uses this device is not at all interested in dialog but monologue.
James K. on the other hand, when called out, he corrected his behavior and did rightly deal with the points raised, most commendable.
So in the end I do not mind, in fact embrace, debate in order to test my beliefs.
Michael asks “Can you meet with this bargain James K, that abortion for birth control, which is 96% of all of the nearly 1.5 million abortions, should be outlawed thus leaving 4% for hard case abortions, rape, incest, and life of the mother, legal?”
The problem with allowing it for rape and incest is this: how are you going to disprove that a conception didn’t occur in this manner? I can guarantee you that if this were the only legal window, there will be thousands upon thousands of accusations of “rape” from an “unknown assailant”. Besides, what difference does it make in terms of the manner in which the child was conceived? They had no say either way.
In terms of the life of the mother, this must be available. There are instances of this, just as on occasions, conjoined twins must be separated to spare the life of one. There is no medical or ethical dilemma over this.
I think partial birth abortion should not be legal (with the 1 in a million exception of the mother’s life in danger, and even then, must involve humane treatments). Abortion in the last trimester should not be legal. Beyond that, I’m not sure.
I’ll tell you why: have you ever heard of “fetus in fetu”? It’s a condition where a twin is taken up into the other twin’s body and remains there, sometimes alive, sometimes not. This has actually occurred in several instances. Now, is the person required to have that twin remain there if there is any sign of life? If so, what signs would you look for to determine whether that fetus is alive or not? A heartbeat? A brain stem or brain activity? What if it’s so early in its development that it is still just a pre-developed fetus with some signs of cell replication?
See, the uncomprising right-to-lifer insists that none of these need be present. One need not have a brain stem or a pulse or even a head. One need only be a lump of cells with the potential of being a human. So, to be consistent, that twin is morally (and legally) bound to leave the fetus there, to develop (or not develop) as it will if it cannot be surgically removed and left to develop within incubation.
So, if you’re going to suggest that a group of cells is a living person, we need to be consistent and treat every lump of cells in the same manner, whether it be a fetus in week one within a mother, or a parasitic twin living within the abdomen of another. Every “potential human” is deserving of the same protection.
So to answer your question, I’m comfortable with suggesting that if there is no pulse, no brain activity (or no brain) and no head, I don’t think we can extend civil protections to that … entity. Otherwise, we may as well never declare anyone “dead” because these are the only ways in which we are currently able to discern if someone is alive or not.
Realize, though, that these signs are often visible relatively early within the pregnancy. You can take that as you will.
The words Holy Fathers caught my attention in comment 58.
The persecution of Christians by Romans was a prominent feature of early Christian life until the early 4th century. The total number of Christians martyred in the early church is unknown. They faced scourging and fire, others the swords or lions and won their crowns. Three centuries of persecution! People who did not see Christ, willing to go to death, just for the sake of the TRUTH! Constantine ended all persecution in his territories, even providing for restitution.
Were do you “see the great Fathers of the Church now, Join Caesar’s army” ?
What great Fathers of the Church? The Pope? Yeah, right … the one who kissed the Koran? and was signed by a Hindu priestess with the sign of Shiva?
What barbarians are you taking about here? We were the barbarians!
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/remember-kosovo/
Who is pushing us into all kind of wars? Are the Russians barbarians?
McCain: ‘We are all Georgians’
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/12/1261994.aspx
I’m not sure what your point is in this post, humble me. I asked the question on another thread, “Why do you keep insisting that giving people an option is “imposing” it on them?” and you answered that “it is more than imposing”…? Huh?
That seems like a non sequitur. Are you just trolling, or was there some reasonable and sane argument that I didn’t see there?
Michael –
Good grief. It’s not a ‘shotgun’ attack or anything of the kind. I’m asking you to think.
The major issue with people who consider themselves conservatives, traditionalists, right-wingers, whatever you call themselves is this:
the hold simultaneously contradictory ideas in their heads, and avoid facing it.
Case in point – you said you believed in the United States as envisioned by the founders. The founders included men who had diametrically opposed views of government. In fact, post Revolution, many of the men were enemies, some even opposed the Constitution.
So which side of the great debates are you on? You speak in platitudes, and I’m asking you to make a deeper dive. Don’t feel bad, most Americans are right there with you.
Or you claim that modern warfare means that distances have shrunk and we have to have forward projection of power.
Again, I ask what does that mean? ICBMs can’t be blocked by basing troops in 100 countries.
It’s like asking how you combat Islamic terrorism by going head-to-head with Russia, or founding a Muslim state in Kosovo.
The fact is that most conservatives proclaim a devotion to limited government, while turning a blind eye as a Republican Administration nationalizes the financial sector. Or the fact that conservatives trumpet American sovereignty, but then want to make our defense hostage to the nation of Georgia by expanding NATO. Or that conservatives claim to be in favor of civil liberties, but will tolerate any government intrusion as long as it furthers the drug war or the war on terrorism.
To be a conservative at this stage in history is to be cognitively dissonant. The easiest way to start someone suffering from this is to keep peppering them with questions. As they start to answer them, they start to contort themselves into knots.
This wasn’t always the case, of course. Kirk, Taft, Calhoun, etc. were are all consistent thinkers. Modern conservatism is a mismash of incoherence that treats Roosevelt (Teddy and FDR), Truman, Kennedy, and Wilson as heroes while treating Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, the America First Committee, Robert Taft, and other traditional conservatives (past and present) as pariahs.
Zippy over at “What’s Wrong With the World” has some interesting articles about this dilemma:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/09/murder_perfection_and_telling.html
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/09/the_parable_of_the_dollar_auct.html
Michael,
Yes, a valid argument! But, be careful : you do not need to test one o your beliefs. This particular one is your faith in the Risen Christ! We need to strengthen it by reading the Bible, the Holy Fathers, and through prayers (maybe this one goes first).
Good thing that James K “corrected his behavior and did rightly deal with the points raised”. He has a very long way to go: needs to take Christian Orthodoxy very seriously! Why? Because our ultimate goal is the salvation of our souls and to get “a pass to Heaven” , the eternal life with God, praising God.
Nicholas raised an interesting point in comment 58, let us see if he has more of this kind. And see how concise he was!
Michael writes: “Therefore, Pro-Choice must offer some reason to say the fetus has no soul, and when does the soul enter the fetus, and how do you know that. Other wise we must error on the side of caution since we are discussing murder.” [Emphasis mine]
Michael again: “My refute, is that we should error on the side of life not on the side of murder or death.”
DavidS writes: “So why don’t you “spineless” pro-choicers “fess up” and admit abortion is murder? Or would that harsh reality be too much for you to swallow?”
So here is an interesting situation. One pro-life person wants me to admit that abortion is murder. Another says that we really don’t know if it’s murder, so we must err on the side of caution.
Michael appeals to the concept of the soul but doesn’t know when the fetus has one. But in the realm of public policy appealing to “the soul” is a difficult argument to make. There are all sorts of views of when a fetus has a soul, ranging from the entire time to later in development to people who don’t believe in the existence of a soul at all. To base public policy and law on a religious concept held only by some would constitute a kind of establishment of religion, in which the doctrinal view of one group became the law of the land for all.
Michael says that “Therefore, Pro-Choice must offer some reason to say the fetus has no soul.” But the burden of proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim. If someone wants both to assert the existence of the soul, and then claim that fertilized eggs have souls, that’s great. But where is the proof, or even the evidence, or even the criterion by which we would know that fertilized eggs have souls?
The problem is the that pro-life position tends to assume the central points that are in dispute. People who don’t share those assumptions — in other words, who do not come from that religious tradition — are seen as heartless supporters of murder. But the assumptions are never really argued for in a way that most people outside the religious tradition find convincing.
Humble me,
I am not offended. I realize that none of us really know the truth about what happened between Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Deacon Lev, now Archbishop Lazar. Let me say this however, this is really off-topic on this thread. But I would like to discuss the problem “Toll Houses” creates in the Christian message of salvation with you privately. My e-mail is davidsanders@thetruefaith.org.
Nicholas,
Actually anyone you vote for will be the “lesser” evil. Take Bob Barr for instance. He was opposed to legalization of illegal narcotics until he started running for president as a libertarian. So he’s willing to change his stance in order to obtain public office?
I personally like Alan Keyes, who is running on the American Independent ticket. However, he was “carpetbagging” when he ran for senator against Barack Obama.
They all have some aspect of evil. We live in a fallen world.
Also, Christians did serve in the non-Christian Roman army: St. George, St. Demetrios, St. Marcellus and the Theban legion.
I do agree with you howevrer about the muslims. And we need to be prepared to fight them on our own turf.
DavidS,
You brought up an excellent point:
Yes, but all of them went to martyrdom! They did not bow to the demons like
The Pontiff assured the satanic servants assembled together that, “We have in common worship of the one true God.”
http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/otherbibleteachings/demons.asp
The Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians:
http://www.st-demetrios.org/stdemetrios.htm
Diocletian was left with no choice but to execute him. Before the execution George gave his wealth to the poor and prepared himself. After various tortures, including laceration on a wheel of swords, in which he was miraculously resuscitated three times, George was executed by decapitation before Nicomedia’s city wall, on April 23, 303. A witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom.
http://www.st-demetrios.org/stdemetrios.htm
With the blessing of Saint Demetrios, Nestoras fought and killed Leo. Enraged at the loss of his favorite gladiator, the emperor commanded that Nestoras be beheaded on the spot. Recognizing that Saint Demetrios was the inspiring power behind Nestoras, the emperor ordered that Saint Demetrios be executed by spear on October 26, 306 AD Christians buried the body of Saint Demetrios at the place of his execution and because of the beautiful scent that emanated from his tomb, he was named Mirovlitis or “The Myrrh Gusher”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Marcellus_the_Centurion
He is said to have been a centurion stationed at Tingis (modern Tangiers) who refused to participate in the general birthday celebrations of Emperor Maximian, which would have entailed sacrifice to the Roman gods. Throwing off his military belt, weapons, and vine-branch -the insignia of his rank- Marcellus was soon brought before a judge named Fortunatus. The judge remanded the saint to lay his case before Maximian and Constantius; the latter was friendly to Christians. However, Marcellus was taken to the deputy Praetorian prefect Aurelius Agricolan instead. Marcellus pleaded guilty to repudiating his allegiance to an earthly leader. He was martyred with a sword by the deputy Praetorian prefect.
Michael,
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach, that a child is alive from the moment of conception. It is at this moment that a human being is created. This human being is a separate, unique human individual. We know that the newly fertilized ovary cell (embryo) is a little person, and is a more mature person as the ovary cell grows larger. Thus, from this point of view, each artificial pregnancy termination is a murder, as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach.
Jim Holman writes:
Very bad for them, they are going to hell while believing that they are educated, modern people.
http://www.godsmercyandgrace.com/indexm4.htm
People can rethink a stance. Whether taking narcotics is moral or not is a different question from whether or not the drug war is good policy. The Church has usually not campaigned to make private vices public policy, at least not in the East.
The deal is this kind of trade off, “Sure, McCain is a bad-tempered, command-and-control kind of psuedo-socialist. He’s weak on pro-life and other issues, but he is better than Obama, so I have to vote for McCain because Obama is worse.” If you genuinely like a candidate, but that candidate has some flaws, then that is to be expected.
It’s when you intentionally vote a loser you despise because you despise the loser more he is running against that you have a real issue. That is how we got trapped in this to begin with.
You mean this Marcellus:
Prior to the conversion of Constantine, the church actively discouraged, in some cases forbade, members to serve in the Legion. This was exactly because of what happened to men like Marcellus. If you had to worship Caesar to be a soldier, then you couldn’t be a soldier and live as a Christian. If you converted as a soldier, there wasn’t much to be done, but if you were a civilian then staying out of the Legion was a necessity.
The fact is that the early Church lived under a monarchy, which is probably why the Church was so effective. The Church had no role in politics, and so focused on building a parallel civil society that filled in the gaps where the state failed. The Roman state did not provide old age homes, help for the poor, help for widows, etc. – the Church did. And for the most part, the Church kept its distance from Caesar, rather than throwing herself at his feet begging for scraps.
Eventually, the Church changed Caesar, because Caesar could not change the church.
Our dynamic is different. Because we have, officially, an elected form of government, Christians get routed into political participation. This has been, of course, stunningly ineffective. Caesar has not changed, but he has changed us. Christians accept things today that earlier generations of Christians would have rather gone to the lions than accept.
Why? Because Christian leaders tell them, “Just live with this. If you are in the military, do your duty. Serve the state, do what you are told, and we can change things over time.” That is why Christian cops keep abortion clinics open, despite state law to the contrary. This is why pro-family leader embrace McCain to preserve “access.” This is why Christian soldiers participate in killing Serbs. We feel the state is ours because we can vote. We owe allegiance to it. We worship it, and forget our higher allegiance to Christ.
The Fathers of the Church in the early centuries would not have been so duped. We get a handful of promises from a few politicians and on that basis we act as if all is well. Never has a few generations of Christians been bought so cheaply.
Humble writes: “The Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach, that a child is alive from the moment of conception. ”
Okay, given the church’s certain and uncompromising stance on when life begins, certainly there must be a like stance on when it ends, no? So when does the moment of death occur, according to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and how are we to ascertain that the soul has indeed “passed on”? Yes, it happens when God calls the soul to be with Him in paradise or the soul wakes up in Hell, but how do we determine either reality here on earth?
What tools or methods does one use to determine this?
James K
Hi, James your question is quite logical, as you are quite right the reverse must be equally true. However the there is a great differance in the two states. After a person is dead the only reversal is raising them from the dead. This seems to be able to occur a least four days after death.
No commmandment, or moral exists that condems raising people from the dead. Whereas it does exist for making them dead, i.e. abortion kills a developing child. The child is just as alive as any other living organism.
Secondly, if we argue to the reverse, from the time limit of being raised from the dead, we could say the soul exists four days before conception and is bonded to its new body at the moment of conception. Just as it departs at the moment of death.
Cheers!
Michael
Nicholas,
I agree with your assessment of the reality of the situation we live in. However, we also must realize that this is not heaven. We all strive to follow Christ’s teachings but fall short. I do not know anyone who can actually hold a public office and remain “clean.” I’m not saying it is impossible, just extremely difficult.
I agree with you that we should not be “empire building.” This has damaged the respectability what the idea of the American Republic stands for. Robert E. Lee, of blessed memory, warned of this in his letter to Lord Acton right before he died.
You say you are pro-South, as am I. But the Confederate government(not even taking slavery into account) is nowhere close to what the Fathers would have approved of either. It is Calvinistic and legalistic to the core.
I don’t condemn American patriotism. I say we should watch out for extremes. And yes they exist. But most Americans are not extremists.
Michael,
I believe that the soul exits the body in a short period of time, like a fraction of a second. Well, there is plenty of mystery here. People who have seen a dying person often say that there is a sort of sigh after which they know the person has died (which is the same as the soul is out of the body). This might answer:
After this, the soul has an incredible easiness in moving around. It is said that the soul can go around the Earth in a blink of an eye. The soul can go back in the body and make it a living organism again.
The soul does not have to stay in the vicinity of the body for four days. It may go very far away and come back (when God directs that). This is actually how we know about the Toll Houses, trough revelation.
BTW, Michael you are right about James K, he is doing well. Hi James! We are going to have you on ‘probation’ for 6 months. If everything goes well we’ll take you off the list (Phil & all).
Notes 73, 75: Over time, my questions have been taken as some sort of attack or threat. I’m not sure why, but remember that tone is not always as easily conveyed over print. Generally, I try to avoid sarcasm – but I do use questions as a roundabout way of framing my point or because I really do want to know,
In Michael’s case, I don’t think I was clear enough. You did reference death as a concrete reality, but my question is how we are able to say “Mr. X is indeed dead” or “Mr. X is still alive”. If I were asked that question, I would say, “We’d check for a pulse, respiration, brain activity.” I am unaware of any instrument that can detect the presence of a soul, and I doubt any of us here give much credence to the claims of the television psychics who claim to speak to the deceased.
Are these physical signs of life foolproof? Again, no, but technology gives us something pretty close to that.
So, if most of us accept the absence of these signs of life as a signal that someone is dead, why would we not extend that to the case of the fetus in its very early stages where it, too, is lacking any of these signals of being human in our conventional terms? Yes, there is cell replication going on, but there is also that in any human solitary organ. It can be a person eventually, but not yet. If you suggest we must “error on the side of life”, then I’m not sure why we are also not morally bound to keep a person on life support indefinitely. Their soul may be ready to pass on, it might not, it may have already. We have no way of knowing.
Again, after these signs are present, I’m willing to consider the unborn as worthy of protection under the law.
Is there a “mind detector”? We should be able to detect who is thinking right, who is thinking wrong, who does not think at all …. We all believe that there is such a thing – the mind- but never seen it, never measure it.
Then when is a person? When it starts to talk, or when it will be able to punch someone in the head?
Who cares when are you willing to consider the unborn as worthy of protection under the law? The law alone cannot protect the unborn. More effective is the awareness that abortion is killing. More than this, that killing is a mortal sin which deprives us of communion with God. This can lead to eternal punishment without repentance and confession. Abortion is a double murder, or rather one murder and a ‘suicide’ (a loss of own soul in the eternal fire)!
Life is so short! Like getting out of the womb and falling right in the tomb. This is the length of our life compared to eternity! In this short life we have a giant opportunity: to work to gain the eternity. Sadly, most of us are heading right trough the wide gate of the hell while believing that we are educated, logical tinkers, modern people.
James K.
We do not abort the dead and dying. Abortion stops a living being from living. No medical person will argue that the fetus is normally dead. If it was it would be stillborn. No one argues against removing a stillborn. Abortion is killing a living being with a unique identity.
Secondly, your argument is in error because when we find someone with absent of the signs of life we try to revive them, CPR, etc. Not only that we do not shove scissors into the back of the skull and suck out their brains, or suck their whole body into a garbage disposal.
Your comparison with death argument has been defeated, what other argument do you have for killing children?
Michael, I am not arguing for PBA (which I oppose and believe should be illegal).
You still keep missing my question: define “stillborn”. How do you tell it’s “alive”? What are you measuring to assert that it is either?
An infant is “stillborn” when _____
An infant is “alive” when _____
Humble Me writes: “Then when is a person? When it starts to talk, or when it will be able to punch someone in the head?”
Under that kind of thinking you’d have say that all acorns are oak trees, since we don’t know the exact moment that an acorn becomes an oak tree.
I don’t know the exact moment when a fertilized egg eventually becomes a person, but I am quite sure that a fertilized egg is not a person. It has none of the attributes we normally associate with a person. There is no brain, no nervous system, no thinking, no ability to think. These things may develop in time, but with the majority of fertilized eggs they don’t. As I mentioned before, over half of pregnancies spontaneously abort.
Speaking of which, if fertilized eggs have souls, are persons, and are really children, and if aborted children go to heaven, then most of the “people” in heaven are actually fertilized eggs, since over half of all pregnancies abort spontaneously.
But that makes for an interesting situation, in which an egg is fertilized, the soul “appears,” or something like that, and then perhaps anywhere from a few seconds to a few days later the egg spontaneously aborts. In some cases this is because the egg cell doesn’t implant. In other cases it’s because of genetic abnormalities. In those cases the egg never would have had a chance to develop at all. Nonetheless, according to your theory a soul is present in all these cases.
So to explain the number of “fertilized egg persons” in heaven, I suppose you’ll have to develop a whole new theology for how that works. Do they “grow up” in heaven? What is it like to be a “person” who had no life experiences, never had a thought or a feeling or a sensation, has no memory of anything, and never was even born?
Your experience of heaven is going to be very interesting, since most of the “people” you’ll meet there never had any life on earth other than being a fertilized egg or a multicellular blastocyst. Should make for some interesting conversations. In fact, you and people like you — people who were actually born — will be in the minority.
Humble Me: “We all believe that there is such a thing – the mind- but never seen it, never measure it.”
Surely you don’t believe that rocks have minds, right? Rice cookers and coffee makers don’t have minds, correct? In other words, however mysterious the concept of “mind” we are all pretty much in general agreement with who has a mind and who doesn’t. We might not be right all the time; we might be tricked by a computer. But in general we have a pretty good idea of what has a mind and what doesn’t. We have actual criteria for making that determination — unlike anything and everything having to do with the soul.
Holman,
I’m glad you brought that up.
Abortion, at any stage after conception, is a double murder and one ‘suicide’.
First, the unborn child is deprived of the earthly life.
Second, is deprived of the gift of the Holy Baptism, therefore can’t enter in the kingdom of God.
Third, the loss of the soul of those who commit this sin (and very likely of those who directly participate in the abortion of an unborn child).
Like everybody else, I would like to go to heaven. I cannot say with certainty that I have 30% percent chances. All I say is that I have faith in God’s mercy.
Nobody can convince a person who does not want to believe , that there is such thing as soul.
I’ll not attempt to prove to you that there is soul.
If I do not believe in the moon landings you cannot convince me no matter what proofs you bring (pictures, moon rocks, interview the astronauts)
As I told to James: you need to take Christian Orthodoxy very seriously! Why? Because our ultimate goal is the salvation of our souls and to get “a pass to Heaven” , the eternal life with God, praising God.
Not interested? That is you business, I am done.
One more thing: you say
Very likely because the body is being slowly poisoned by birth control pills.
Do us a favor – do not hold forth on your understanding of Orthodox Theology. No, really don’t.
Some poor person seeking the true church will stumble over the comment and believe that the Orthodox God is some kind of monster.
How dare you presume to know the limits of God’s grace. How dare you judge a whole class of person as unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven because being killed by their own mothers denied them an opportunity for Baptism.
A point of information, for any of the learned folk who read these posts: is that technically correct, according to Orthodox Christian Beliefs?
My understanding of Catholic theology is that the Church no longer teaches that unbaptized babies and children go to Limbo.
Although I understand that faith is not always logical, it does seem to defy common sense to believe that another person’s act can determine whether or not an individual is able to enter into the Kingdom of God.
James K. #79:
An infant is stillborn when it dies (ceases to grow). An infant is alive as long as it is growing, and this includes cell replication. The criteria for distinguishing life and death of an unborn child and an old man do not need to be identical. There is no need to be so simplistic.
Mr. Holman #80 says:
The way I understand it is that those in heaven will have glorified bodies, and be at least as aware and functional as were Adam and Eve before the fall. Why do you think we would worry about “fertilized egg persons” in heaven any more than we would worry about dying elderly and having broken, old bodies in heaven as a result? This is ridiculous. Such concerns are common in Islam and some Native American religions, where the state of the body at death is believed to affect its state in eternity. But this is not a concern of Christians.
If one believes in heaven one necessarily believes in the miraculous, and it is no stretch after believing in heaven and the resurrection of the dead to believe that God will find a way to take care of our souls and bodies. No new theology is recessary. And to be worried that “fertilized egg persons” would be the majority, as if there is some political struggle in heaven and those who lived full lives on earth are doomed to lose all the votes, shows a complete misunderstanding of the Christian beliefs about heaven.
Humble me,
Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you write that the soul of the aborted child cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven because he was not baptized?
That was definitely either a Roman Catholic(at least until last summer when they discarded “limbo”) or Calvinistic statement. That is truly NOT an Orthodox teaching. You wrote that you cannot be sure of whther or not you’re going to heaven, that it is up to God’s mercy. And so it is with all the departed even, the aborted children who were not baptized.
Remember the thief who asked Christ to “Remember” him “in His Kingdom.” He was not baptized and Christ had mercy on him to allow him to go to heaven.
James wrote:
“I don’t know the exact moment when a fertilized egg eventually becomes a person, but I am quite sure that a fertilized egg is not a person.”
If you don’t know when a fertilized egg becomes a person, then how can you be “quite sure” that a fertilized egg is not a person?
And does “quite sure” mean there is some doubt?
And if there is “some” doubt do you still prefer to take a chance that the unbornis not a person?
You can’t prove it is a person, therefore it is justifiable to kill it.
We couldn’t prove blacks were people either, no brain waves scanners, etc, yet Christians recognized that blacks are just as human as anyone else, slavery was ended by recognizing the person hood of Blacks, same with women, and the same with the common man in 1776 being granted the right to vote.
To argue from ignorance is a logical fallacy, thus a non-argument. Dogs have brainwaves and heartbeats, yet they are not persons. So you are not arguing that brainwaves cause person hood, if that is true, then you cannot argue that lack of brainwaves are lack of person hood.
The argument from ignorance is simply a desire to justify the murder of human being. All murderers have justifications, “he stole my money”, “she cheated on me”, etc.
James K.
An infant is “stillborn” when _____
When medical science tells us it is “stillborn”, meaning development has stopped the cellular death is occurring.
An infant is “alive” when _____
When medical science tell us it is “not stillborn” or it is a healthy developmental fetus. It is devolving, cells are growing, etc.
James K, it seems reasonable to say that if the terms “stillborn” and “alive” and “developing” are mysteries to you, which are quite clear on the basic level of science, that the more difficult discussions of metaphysics will be quite beyond you. Your decent into such elementary issues only serves to undermine your apparent grasp of the issues.
My point is not that I think these terms are mysteries to you, but you are attempting to prevent the forward movement of the discussion by reducing the discussion to the overtly obvious, thereby preventing the examination of the difficult. If this is not the case, then please proceed with this line of discussion.
Humble Me writes: “First, the unborn child is deprived of the earthly life. Second, is deprived of the gift of the Holy Baptism, therefore can’t enter in the kingdom of God.”
So if it can’t enter the kingdom of God, what happens? I didn’t know that was part of Orthodox theology.
Well, regarding this statement:
This is the best of my knowledge at this point. I do not believe in changing the teachings of the Church to fit our “modernism”. Christ is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Also is true, that God is merciful and that we do not know His ways.
I can be called a scientist, but I am 100% sure that am not a theologian. I would like to know the answer to this dilemma for myself.
Let us invite a theologian to speak on this.
We do that Holy Baptism gives live, without question. We do know that the Orthodox Church teaches that Baptism is effectual upon the receiver. We do know that we not giving Holy Baptism to those who are aborted. If we believe that salvation is indeed in the gift of Baptism, then how can a Christian, justify killing a person so as to deny that same said person baptism? I believe that is the point “humble me” was attempting to make, yet, by saying “can’t” he destroys this and leaves any known Orthodox theology that I have ever seen on this subject.
Secondly, while Church doctrine is vague on the fate of murdered Children it, never states they are doomed, and many of the Church Fathers tell us of the baptism of blood of the innocent. Yet, we cannot justify abortion by saying that murdering the child is sending them to heaven. If you believe that the aborted child goes to heaven, then, you also must believe the child is a person, and is it is being murdered. Likewise, if you do not believe the child is a person, then mere flesh cannot be baptized, and again the abortion/baptism is settled. You cannot be pro-abortion and pro-baptism of the same child in question.
Though by no means a theologian, the teaching on the souls of unbaptised babies not entering the Kingdom is not of Orthodox origin. Our salvation is not dependent upon the sacraments, the sacraments are an expression of the salvic grace of our Lord, God and Savior. His love saves, His sacrifice on the Cross. There is nothing legalistic or mechanistic or magical about our salvation. If the soul of the child responds to the love and presence of the angelic host and our Lord, they are already in the Kingdom.
Then your knowledge is completely deficient and you should cease to spout drivel. No Orthodox Theologian will back up that claim of yours. You’ve mentioned Seraphim Rose before. He is one step removed from a damnable heretic. He had some good things to say, as did Origen, but both of them were (in the end) worthy of condemnation based on the totality of their teachings.
I believe I know a bit more on the “what happens with the non-baptized babies” issue.
They stay in a shadowy place, not being able to see the glory of God. They ask God why they are staying there, for they have no sin (except the primordial sin). They stay here until the parents repent and do not commit that sin anymore. When the parent (mother) dies they fly to heavens with her (if she repented and is in good spiritual sate). Otherwise, the babies accuse their parents when they die: ” look at what you did to us!”. But it will be too late to change anything. Just great sorrow, beyond imagination! God have mercy on those, so many, who are (or will be) in that position.
BTW, the birth control pills do not prevent pregnancies, they provoke early abortion. The uterus becomes dry, and this prevents the embryos from fixing on its walls.
Can you imagine what a priest would have to go through, if he preaches this ? Well, the truth must be preached in its fulness. The martyrs did not shy away from preaching the truth.
Nicholas,
You are more then welcome to criticize what is say.
Please, take this advice as coming out of love: you are not in the position to make judgments on Fr. Serapfim. Is very dangerous thing to do, believe me. He belongs to God. Never judge the priests, they belong to God to too.
I just learned about a story. A women was criticizing the Catholic priests, after the scandals in the church. She was saying that all the priests are bad, an a lot more. She was told to bit her tongue and stop. She did not stop, went on, even more viciously attaching them. After a while she got a strange disease, which was eating off her face and died horribly. Perhaps a coincide, but worthy to think about it.
To paraphrase St. Isaac the Syrian, ‘The only thing we can know of God’s justice is His mercy’. The Apostolic understanding of God taught by the Orthodox Church is not a god of punishment or wrath but Christ, the Bridegroom. There are many icons of Christ that depict Him in a suffering state, none of which I am aware that show Him punishing anyone. God gives only love, we condemn ourselves as we reject His love and place our own desires and ideas in its place (the essence of idolatry).
It is wholly un-Orthodox to persume to know, much less teach who is going to hell and who is saved. It is dangerous to condemn someone as a heretic without an official proclamation of the Church.** The one thing I absolutely know about God is that He forgives, if He didn’t or was capricious, there would be no point. Christ died on the Cross, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Yes, He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, but His judgement is perfect because His love is perfect.
We are commanded to love our enemies, pray for those who despitefully use us and do the things that make for peace.
I for one am far from that, I can only ask, even beg for mercy because I know the evil that is in my own heart that without Christ’s mercy would consume me. That is the state of mankind. Any teaching that denies either Christ’s mercy or the reality of sin and our individual need to repent is not the Gospel. Any ideas that distract us from such repentance toward excusing sin or condmening others to hell is not of the Gospel.
Look to the Cross.
**We are responsible for knowing the truth and conforming our lives to it as best we can. Sometimes that means confronting untrurth. However that is a far different thing than branding someone a heretic. Regardless of Fr. Seraphim’s theological mistakes, his example drew many thousands to the Church and his struggle was a throughly American struggle. It should not be discounted or marginalized simply because he made a few people angry. If he was of God, his memory and his intercessions will continue to live and grow, if not, they will wither.
Dear Nicholas, Mr. Bauman, and Humble me. All of you are walking on very thin ice and generally arguing from your own authority, not from any references. Since this is a most public forum I do encourage you to cite sources, i.e. The Church Fathers, Catechism, etc.
1. What Synod of Bishops has denounced anything Fr. Rose has said?
2. “Our salvation is not dependent upon the sacraments” this is not the teaching of the Church.
The sacraments are indeed necessary for salvation this is the teaching of the Church. Below are various sources on exactly what the Holy Orthodox Church teaches.
From The Orthodox Creed:
And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sin.
I look for the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Baptism is the source for the remission of sin and the for the union with God. Nothing in the Orthodox Church overtly teaches salvation without baptism. This in direct contradiction to the claim “Salvation is not dependent upon the sacraments.” The Church clearly teaches salvation is wrought by the sacraments.
SALVATION
SALVATION is the divine gift through which men and women are delivered from sin and death, united to Christ, and brought into His eternal kingdom. Those who heard St. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost asked what they must do to be saved. He answered, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church written by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.
ARTICLE 9. ON THE CHURCH
Q. What is the Church?
A. A Divine Institution, which continues the work of Christ for the salvation
of mankind and embraces all those who believe in Him rightly and who are
under the leadership of Canonical Pastors.
Page 44
Q. Are all the Sacraments necessary for salvation?
A. For the whole Church they are necessary; but for the individual Christian,
1. Baptism, 2. Chrism, 3. Penance, and 4. the Holy Eucharist are necessary,
and for this reason are called obligatory while the other three are spoken
of as optional.