How "pro-life" is it to deny the sacrament?

Temujin

Well-known member
Oh I am not claiming to speak WITH the voice of Jesus, I just quoted what He said.
When you insist that your view of what he is alleged to have said is correct and the interpretations of other Christians are wrong, then that is exactly what you are doing. It is similar to your claim that you are right and all standard dictionaries are wrong, or that you are right and lawyers are wrong, or you are right and teachers are wrong. You have a point of view, of course, but that is all it is. When set against others with greater knowledge, understanding, experience and intelligence, your pint of view can be discounted.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Well I very much hope it would be important to you.
Jesus said to some of them that they could interpret the signs of the weather but they couldnt interpret the signs of the times. He also said the Holy Spirit guides in truth and reminds believers of all He taught. (John 14-17)
The words interpret and remind are different and of course they have different meanings.
However with the last few quotes of what Jesus said havent given you my interpretation. Would you like to hear it?
Jesus, if he lived at all, lived 2000 years ago. We have no first hand accounts from him. We have at best the recollections of some of his disciples, recounted to someone else, written down a generation later, translated and reinterpreted many times, filtered by church officials and set to poetry. Your view of what his words mean are no more interesting or relevant than the views of a Catholic, or an Anglican, or a Greek Orthodox or a Jehovah's Witness. Or indeed any other of the countless sects, cults, splinter groups and lone heretics who all claim to worship Jesus and all claim the right to dismiss all the others as mistaken. When you have stood, as I have, between two sets of Christians, each urgently trying to kill the other, then claims to know the "correct" interpretation of the words of Jesus lose their appeal. I have no wish whatever to hear your take on this alleged quote, but doubtless you will give it anyway.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Jesus, if he lived at all, lived 2000 years ago. We have no first hand accounts from him. We have at best the recollections of some of his disciples, recounted to someone else, written down a generation later, translated and reinterpreted many times, filtered by church officials and set to poetry. Your view of what his words mean are no more interesting or relevant than the views of a Catholic, or an Anglican, or a Greek Orthodox or a Jehovah's Witness. Or indeed any other of the countless sects, cults, splinter groups and lone heretics who all claim to worship Jesus and all claim the right to dismiss all the others as mistaken. When you have stood, as I have, between two sets of Christians, each urgently trying to kill the other, then claims to know the "correct" interpretation of the words of Jesus lose their appeal. I have no wish whatever to hear your take on this alleged quote, but doubtless you will give it anyway.
You have moved off the point again. Sure you may think the Bible is not reliable but if the words dont mean what they say then how can I know what you have just written means?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You have moved off the point again. Sure you may think the Bible is not reliable but if the words dont mean what they say then how can I know what you have just written means?
You can ask me for clarification. You can't do that with the Bible.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You can ask me for clarification. You can't do that with the Bible.
But how could you clarify if the words you say dont necessarily mean what they say?

There is an element of interpretation in all language of course, and also in translation. It is also crucial what the context is. But what you have done is merely question the meaning of the Biblical quotes implying they dont mean what they say to you despite meaning what they say to me.
If you dont think the Biblical quotes I gave you mean what they say, you would need to say why rather than just questioning the person who quotes them
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
But how could you clarify if the words you say dont necessarily mean what they say?

There is an element of interpretation in all language of course, and also in translation. It is also crucial what the context is. But what you have done is merely question the meaning of the Biblical quotes implying they dont mean what they say to you despite meaning what they say to me.
If you dont think the Biblical quotes I gave you would need to say why rather than just questioning the person who quotes them
No, this is not what I have done. I have pointed out that what the words mean to you are not what the words mean to other Christians . I am an atheist. Why should I believe that your version of Christianity is the "correct" one when so many Christians who frankly I respect more, disagree with you? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope are two that spring to mind, let alone Christians on this board. If your views are unpersuasive to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what makes you think that it would be persuasive to me who does not?
 

BMS

Well-known member
No, this is not what I have done. I have pointed out that what the words mean to you are not what the words mean to other Christians . I am an atheist. Why should I believe that your version of Christianity is the "correct" one when so many Christians who frankly I respect more, disagree with you? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope are two that spring to mind, let alone Christians on this board. If your views are unpersuasive to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what makes you think that it would be persuasive to me who does not?
Nonsense. Why would the words mean two different things to different people? How can there be communication if we cant know what the words mean?
Its simple, the words say what they say, if some are saying the words mean what they say and others say the dont mean what they say, it is obvious who is telling the truth
 
Last edited:

BMS

Well-known member
No, this is not what I have done. I have pointed out that what the words mean to you are not what the words mean to other Christians . I am an atheist. Why should I believe that your version of Christianity is the "correct" one when so many Christians who frankly I respect more, disagree with you? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope are two that spring to mind, let alone Christians on this board. If your views are unpersuasive to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what makes you think that it would be persuasive to me who does not?
You have also mixed up two concepts here. Say for example one atheist says atheists dont beleive in God and the other says they do. Who would you believe. If you look at the dictionary definition of atheism, how would you know which atheist is telling the truth if they interpret the definition differently?
 

BMS

Well-known member
The Catholic Council of Bishops is considering making a statement saying that members who are Catholic but "pro-choice" (such as President Biden) should not be allowed to take Eucharist (Communion).

Now, I know many Christians here think Catholics aren't even Christian, so it doesn't matter what they do or say. If this is you, then just move on.

But if you think the bishops are right ... or if you think churches should "discipline" members for having pro-choice views, let me ask you this:

Do you think church elders should excommunicate members who smoke? After all, smoking kills over 8 million people around the world every year. (reference: WHO)

Do you think church elders should reject soldiers? They killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. (reference: History.com)

Do you think churches should kick out anyone who owns a gun? Gun deaths (including suicide) are the #1 killer of Americans under the age of 45. (reference: CDC)

All of these things result in death. And yet many Christians have no problem with members who smoke, members who are soldiers, and members who own guns, even though they're at least as deadly as abortion is.

A person who supports gun ownership isn't saying they think it's good to shoot people. They are saying they believe that Americans have the constitutional right to make their OWN decisions. And that sometimes, God-forbid (literally), they might actually have to protect someone or something, and they might need to use the gun, and a gun owner has the responsibility to make that decision for him or herself.

Clearly, a lot of gun owners make the wrong choices. A lot of gun owners are NOT responsible.

A lot of liberals say the answer is to take guns away from everyone. I think they're wrong. I think that's not going to stop the violence, because even if it were possible (which it isn't), people will find another way to kill each other if you don't address the route cause for the violence.

A lot of anti-abortion folk would agree with me 100% on the gun issue. Why don't they recognize that the EXACT same thing is true for abortion.

A person who supports abortion rights isn't saying they think abortion is a good thing. No woman is going out and purposely getting pregnant just so that she can get an abortion. No one does that. With very few exceptions, MOST people are pro-choice because they think parents are responsible Americans who can decide, in consultation with each other, a doctor, and hopefully a spiritual mentor (such as a pastor or rabbi) what steps to take. And that sometimes, God forbid, they might actually have to get an abortion to protect someone or something, and that they have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to make that decision for themselves. Abortion needs to remain the choice of the INDIVIDUAL and the MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, not legislated by some group of lawmakers who y'all can't even trust to elect a president.

And more importantly, even if you think a person shouldn't have the right to get an abortion if it's needed, or to own a gun, or to vote, or to practice your own religion the way you see fit, or whatever constitutional right you think a person shouldn't have....

Why on earth would you ban someone from the grace of Jesus for having that political belief?

If you think that's okay, you don't know Jesus.
Coming back to this. Why would you use smoking and gun ownership as analogies? Surely they are worth considering in their own right anyway. But unlike pro-choice abortion gun ownership in itself doesnt kill anyone. Smoking doesnt always kill people. But as I understand it Biden supports the woman's choice to abort. That equates to people in church encouraging smoking and encouraging people to use guns to kill people.
So if someone comes to communion supporting smoking, killing by guns and killing by abortion, would you say take communion by the grace of God?
Surely seeking forgiveness and not supporting those things is the very reason for taking communion
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You have also mixed up two concepts here. Say for example one atheist says atheists dont beleive in God and the other says they do. Who would you believe. If you look at the dictionary definition of atheism, how would you know which atheist is telling the truth if they interpret the definition differently?
Since you yourself on this very thread have denied the facts of dictionary definitions, this post of yours is another example of self-owning on your part.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Nonsense. Why would the words mean two different things to different people? How can there be communication if we cant know what the words mean?
Its simple, the words say what they say, if some are saying the words mean what they say and others say the dont mean what they say, it is obvious who is telling the truth
Are you denying that sincere Christians hold sincere views about the teachings of the Bible that differ from yours? If this is so, and it is, then clearly it is not obvious who is telling the truth. Except of course, given that on the one side we have world renowned and respected Christian leaders and on the other hand we have you, it is actually very obvious who is telling the truth.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Are you denying that sincere Christians hold sincere views about the teachings of the Bible that differ from yours? If this is so, and it is, then clearly it is not obvious who is telling the truth. Except of course, given that on the one side we have world renowned and respected Christian leaders and on the other hand we have you, it is actually very obvious who is telling the truth.
I am judging what is written means what it says. I am judging what is written, not people. On what basis are you judging the sincerity of these Christians you are referring to?

For example we have Christians with same sex attraction who believe what the scriptures say, and we have lgbt Christians who claim they interpret it differently. How do you tell who has it right?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
I am judging what is written means what it says. I am judging what is written, not people. On what basis are you judging the sincerity of these Christians you are referring to?

For example we have Christians with same sex attraction who believe what the scriptures say, and we have lgbt Christians who claim they interpret it differently. How do you tell who has it right?
I don't care. There is nothing magical or sublime about the words you are quoting. Jesus didn't speak in English iambic pentameter. What the Bible says or doesn't say is irrelevant to me. I judge by what I consider to be right according to my own conscience and morality. That is the peril of outsourcing your moral compass to a two thousand year old mystic and carpenter. Other people may well challenge your interpretation.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I don't care. There is nothing magical or sublime about the words you are quoting. Jesus didn't speak in English iambic pentameter.
If you dont care then why are you arguing about it? There obviously is something powerful about Jesus words hence 2000+ years of believers whose lives have been turned around from despair to hope, fear to love, addition to freedom.
What the Bible says or doesn't say is irrelevant to me.
Except you did tell me that it doesn't necessarily mean what it says, so you cared enough for that.

I judge by what I consider to be right according to my own conscience and morality. That is the peril of outsourcing your moral compass to a two thousand year old mystic and carpenter. Other people may well challenge your interpretation.
Ah so that is why you cared enough to tell me what I quoted doesn't necessarily mean what it says; because it doesn't fit your own thinking. It didn't used to fit mine either until I got the revelation it was true.

You might like to ask yourself how come I went from your sort of worldview to the one I have now and faith in Jesus Christ.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The Catholic Council of Bishops is considering making a statement saying that members who are Catholic but "pro-choice" (such as President Biden) should not be allowed to take Eucharist (Communion).

Now, I know many Christians here think Catholics aren't even Christian, so it doesn't matter what they do or say. If this is you, then just move on.

But if you think the bishops are right ... or if you think churches should "discipline" members for having pro-choice views, let me ask you this:

Do you think church elders should excommunicate members who smoke? After all, smoking kills over 8 million people around the world every year. (reference: WHO)

Do you think church elders should reject soldiers? They killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. (reference: History.com)

Do you think churches should kick out anyone who owns a gun? Gun deaths (including suicide) are the #1 killer of Americans under the age of 45. (reference: CDC)

All of these things result in death. And yet many Christians have no problem with members who smoke, members who are soldiers, and members who own guns, even though they're at least as deadly as abortion is.

A person who supports gun ownership isn't saying they think it's good to shoot people. They are saying they believe that Americans have the constitutional right to make their OWN decisions. And that sometimes, God-forbid (literally), they might actually have to protect someone or something, and they might need to use the gun, and a gun owner has the responsibility to make that decision for him or herself.

Clearly, a lot of gun owners make the wrong choices. A lot of gun owners are NOT responsible.

A lot of liberals say the answer is to take guns away from everyone. I think they're wrong. I think that's not going to stop the violence, because even if it were possible (which it isn't), people will find another way to kill each other if you don't address the route cause for the violence.

A lot of anti-abortion folk would agree with me 100% on the gun issue. Why don't they recognize that the EXACT same thing is true for abortion.

A person who supports abortion rights isn't saying they think abortion is a good thing. No woman is going out and purposely getting pregnant just so that she can get an abortion. No one does that. With very few exceptions, MOST people are pro-choice because they think parents are responsible Americans who can decide, in consultation with each other, a doctor, and hopefully a spiritual mentor (such as a pastor or rabbi) what steps to take. And that sometimes, God forbid, they might actually have to get an abortion to protect someone or something, and that they have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to make that decision for themselves. Abortion needs to remain the choice of the INDIVIDUAL and the MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, not legislated by some group of lawmakers who y'all can't even trust to elect a president.

And more importantly, even if you think a person shouldn't have the right to get an abortion if it's needed, or to own a gun, or to vote, or to practice your own religion the way you see fit, or whatever constitutional right you think a person shouldn't have....

Why on earth would you ban someone from the grace of Jesus for having that political belief?

If you think that's okay, you don't know Jesus.
So the key bit here is that smoking and gun ownership aren't the right analogies in the first place. Neither in themselves are as likely to cause the death of any human even though smoking does. Gun ownership in itself does not cause any death, gun usage can.
However, if people come into your church and advocate smoking and killing people with guns and pro-choice abortion, you see no conflict with communion then? Because as far as I can see Biden is supporting pro-choice abortion and reproductive rights (which of course it isnt) where the woman believes she has a right simply to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy based on it being her body affected.
Or is it just that you don't see pro-choice as killing the unborn, or the best of a bad situation? In that case that is just your view of it and you probably arent in a good position to lecture the RC church on that basis.

But my point is since communion is about the forgiveness of sin, I cant see how it can be relevant if there is no repentance for the forgiveness of sin.

And what do you mean by banning someone from the grace of Jesus? Can anyone be banned from the grace of Jesus except by Jesus?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If you dont care then why are you arguing about it? There obviously is something powerful about Jesus words hence 2000+ years of believers whose lives have been turned around from despair to hope, fear to love, addition to freedom.
There are two very obvious reasons for the popularity of Christianity (now waning somewhat by the way). The first is that it is very supportive of authority. Governments controlled their populations by using Christian teaching and rituals. Downtrodden peasants were prepared to put up with their miserable lives in return for jam tomorrow in heaven. The second reason is what we are discussing. There is so much contradiction, ambiguity and vagueness in the Bible that it can be used to support any position whatever. It can be used to support both slavery and emancipation, charity to single women or burning them as witches. It is a universal panacea for the uneasy.
Ah so that is why you cared enough to tell me what I quoted doesn't necessarily mean what it says; because it doesn't fit your own thinking. It didn't used to fit mine either until I got the revelation it was true.
I don't pass on opinion on what Bible quotes mean. If genuine Christians cannot agree, then who am I to comment?

You might like to ask yourself how come I went from your sort of worldview to the one I have now and faith in Jesus Christ.
No, not really. It isn't a process I am particularly interested in. I am more concerned with the practical and ethical outcomes of such ideology.
 

BMS

Well-known member
There are two very obvious reasons for the popularity of Christianity (now waning somewhat by the way). The first is that it is very supportive of authority. Governments controlled their populations by using Christian teaching and rituals. Downtrodden peasants were prepared to put up with their miserable lives in return for jam tomorrow in heaven. The second reason is what we are discussing. There is so much contradiction, ambiguity and vagueness in the Bible that it can be used to support any position whatever. It can be used to support both slavery and emancipation, charity to single women or burning them as witches. It is a universal panacea for the uneasy. I don't pass on opinion on what Bible quotes mean. If genuine Christians cannot agree, then who am I to comment?
But seeing as you cant tell any difference between Christians, you don't know what you are talking about. What you have described is what you think and not the testimony of Christians that matches the Biblical narrative.

You claim you don't pass opinion on what Bible quotes mean but you do. You refused to accept that they say what they mean when challenged on it. You then propose a disagreement between Christians who you judge as genuine having just refused to accept which of them might be telling the truth. You have refused to be challenged on your reason for considering your judgement of Christians.
And you have also told us the reason; its because you only want to believe what you feel is right, so obviously you wont be interested in the Biblical testimony that doesn't fit you worldview. .

No, not really.
Oh that is a shame because we are interested in why you have your views. Perhaps we are just more open and loving.
It isn't a process I am particularly interested in. I am more concerned with the practical and ethical outcomes of such ideology.
So are we interested in the ethical and practical outcomes of ideologies, but to do that we need to understand how they materialise.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Why should I believe that your version of Christianity is the "correct" one when so many Christians who frankly I respect more, disagree with you? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope are two that spring to mind, let alone Christians on this board. If your views are unpersuasive to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what makes you think that it would be persuasive to me who does not?
Because you can check to see whether what you describe as the version of Christianity that I and all the fellow posters who 'like' my posts say, matches the testimony of the author of our faith says. But you refuse to do so when challenged.
Furthermore your posturing is hollow. What exactly are you assuming is the disagreement between my views and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope? Give us some examples, because most here know the beliefs of the Pope and the Archbishop are so much closer to mine than yours, that we cant even see yours because they are too far away.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Because you can check to see whether what you describe as the version of Christianity that I and all the fellow posters who 'like' my posts say, matches the testimony of the author of our faith says. But you refuse to do so when challenged.
As I say, why should I? I am not a Christian and it is not my place to say or even offer an opinion regarding the meaning of Bible quotes. I merely point out that since Christians themselves cannot agree, the meaning is hardly settled. I love how excited you are at your collosal reaction score and how proud you are of all the people who have liked your posts. Do you think that having lots of people give you favourable reactions validates what you say?
[/QUOTE]

Furthermore your posturing is hollow. What exactly are you assuming is the disagreement between my views and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Steel and the Pope? Give us some examples, because most here know the beliefs of the Pope and the Archbishop are so much closer to mine than yours, that we cant even see yours because they are too far away.
Well for one thing, Lord Steel was the architect of the Abortion Act 1966, so fairly clearly his views on the subject differ from yours. Regarding the two religious leaders, their views on homosexuality and transgender clearly differ from yours. Certainly I have not seen either of them posting cruel and demeaning ditties or claiming that the term gender doesn't exist or that trans people are delusional.
 

BMS

Well-known member
As I say, why should I? I am not a Christian and it is not my place to say or even offer an opinion regarding the meaning of Bible quotes. I merely point out that since Christians themselves cannot agree, the meaning is hardly settled. I love how excited you are at your collosal reaction score and how proud you are of all the people who have liked your posts.
Well you should because when you try to point out what different supposedly Christians say, the Biblical testimony shows you have no idea.

Do you think that having lots of people give you favourable reactions validates what you say?
Yes obviously. It validates what the Bible says, which is what I quoted and what you disputed.

Well for one thing, Lord Steel was the architect of the Abortion Act 1966, so fairly clearly his views on the subject differ from yours.
Not quite. Lord David Steele introduced the Act for abortions in certain circumstances; he didn't do it for pro-choice! I almost always precisely call it out as 'pro-choice' to exclude such things as rape. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/24/politics.topstories3
Regarding the two religious leaders, their views on homosexuality and transgender clearly differ from yours.
Not quite. They are opposite from yours, just as Lord Steele's views differ from yours. Both the ABC and the Pope think same sex relations and 'transgender' is wrong.
Certainly I have not seen either of them posting cruel and demeaning ditties or claiming that the term gender doesn't exist or that trans people are delusional.
. And of course many Christians with same sex attraction agree with me on what the Biblical testimony of God says, such as Stephen Black, Peter Ould, Sam Allbury, Beckett Cook, Christopher Yuan. how many examples do you want?

And of course many secular gay and transgender people also agree with me on transgender and disagree with you. For example Debbie Hayton, Rose of Dawn, Douglas Murray. I see these sincere atheists say one thing and you say something else. So your worldview is clearly divided on the issues.

Why do I believe these people and not you? Because I look at the evidence and see their view is primarily based in reality and not feelings.
 
Top