Abortion's Religious History—Forgotten Job of Clergy Pre-Roe (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I thought this was interesting and something I did not know. 

Abortion's Religious History—Forgotten Job of Clergy Pre-Roe https://time.com/4758285/clergy-consultation-abortion/

 

[SoBeDad]

I thought this was interesting and something I did not know. 

Abortion's Religious History—Forgotten Job of Clergy Pre-Roe https://time.com/4758285/clergy-consultation-abortion/

Interesting. Protestants are not a monolith, the same goes for Jews,  Muslims, and Catholics. If the poll on this site is accurate (~30% have taken part in an abortion), there is a high probability that several of our elected officials are living by "do as I say, not as I do."

 

[BladeRunner]

Interesting. Protestants are not a monolith, the same goes for Jews,  Muslims, and Catholics. If the poll on this site is accurate (~30% have taken part in an abortion), there is a high probability that several of our elected officials are living by "do as I say, not as I do."

Several?  Wth?

How about ALL of them?

 

[Amused to Death]

Most importantly, CCS clergy emphasized that no single religion had a right to impose its religious values upon others. For these clergy, freedom of religion had to include freedom from those religious groups that sought to place restrictions on abortions.

 

[whoknew]

I thought this was interesting and something I did not know. 

Abortion's Religious History—Forgotten Job of Clergy Pre-Roe https://time.com/4758285/clergy-consultation-abortion/

That's interesting. And it helps remind me that I shouldn't automatically assume that just because someone is religious, that person is pro-life. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I thought this was interesting and something I did not know. 

Abortion's Religious History—Forgotten Job of Clergy Pre-Roe https://time.com/4758285/clergy-consultation-abortion/

its been over 50 years ... all the things that pro-choice people use to say abortion is needed ... why hasn't all that been fixed ? like that article said ... the older married woman, a young woman who had been raped or a high-school girl ......... why do we still have all those things happening resulting in unwanted pregnancies? 

seems to me its been 50 years to fix it, and it hasn't 

 

[pinkham13]

Many clergy men do things against Gods will. There is no such thing as the right to kill another human being. Reproductive rights sound like the right to produce which is an oxymoron in this case. Catholic clergy is rife with child molesters. It doesn’t make pedophilia right. 

I see why so many have turned away from organized religion. It is just another corrupted institution like so many others in this country. I see tons of prosperity gospel preachers on TV and that’s all they are about. Money and private jets. They have no conscience and will be held accountable.

The “he who throws the first stone” quote the time magazine author uses is not applied correctly.  That was about a gal who was loose not about a gal who killed her unborn child. The lesson was to let God be the judge because we are all sinners. It wasn’t to condone her adulterous behavior. This was also another example of Gods mercy. They would have pelted her to death with stones but God said to her “go and sin no more”. Time magazine gets the context and the lessons all wrong when they try to use scripture to defend their wrong position.

Doctors making money killing babies would be more of a “ live by the sword, die by the sword “ lesson in the Bible. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-does-it-mean-to-live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword.html

A more apt comparison to abortion on demand today in the Bible would be sacrificing children to Moloch. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moloch-ancient-god . I hear so many justify the abortion because the child might grow up poor. Or it might be a burden for what ever reason. It just sounds like sacrificing children on the altar of money. Money can be a God worshipped like Moloch was. This makes it the more apt biblical comparison. 

Spilling the blood of defenseless, innocent, unborn children would definitely not be defended by Jesus. That’s something Herod would do not our Savior. Having mercy on the guilty sinner (all of us) even though we don’t deserve it is his modus operandi though. We can all be thankful for that. Hallelujah!

 

[Godsbrother]

There is no such thing as the right to kill another human being.

Not to get into a big thing but the definition of kill "to cause a death".   Do you also view capital punishment, self-defense and soldiers at war as immoral?

 

[The Z Machine]

why do we still have all those things happening resulting in unwanted pregnancies? 

Because people like having sex with each other.  Like you say, "It's Biology".

 

[pinkham13]

Not to get into a big thing but the definition of kill "to cause a death".   Do you also view capital punishment, self-defense and soldiers at war as immoral?

Capital punishment is basically what Jesus received. Without it we would have no Savior. I don’t like the idea of capital punishment but recognize that the state does execute people. God himself didn’t fight against the government’s right to condemn why should I? If a murderer is convicted and gets the death penalty I see it as justice served. Self defense is allowed in the Bible while turning the other cheek is preferred. Killing your brother in a fit of envy and rage is not ok. Soldiers? What are they fighting for? Did they rape and kill Indians on the trail of tears? 

 

[Godsbrother]

Capital punishment is basically what Jesus received. Without it we would have no Savior. I don’t like the idea of capital punishment but recognize that the state does execute people. God himself didn’t fight against the government’s right to condemn why should I? If a murderer is convicted and gets the death penalty I see it as justice served. Self defense is allowed in the Bible while turning the other cheek is preferred. Killing your brother in a fit of envy and rage is not. Soldiers. What are they fighting for? 

Fair enough.  I don't agree with your point of view but I appreciate the response.

 

[pinkham13]

Fair enough.  I don't agree with your point of view but I appreciate the response.

What is the story behind your moniker? Just curious.

 

[Godsbrother]

What is the story behind your moniker? Just curious.

It is a silly story and has nothing to do with religion. 

It goes back to when my oldest son was a drummer in the high school band.  There was a kid that thought he was the next coming of Buddy Rich so the rest of the band jokingly referred to him as "god on drums".   Well at dinner time my middle son was talking about a classmate of his and I asked if I knew him and he said "yeah, it is god's brother".    We all thought it was pretty funny and it just so happened that I joined FBGs the next day and thought that was as good a name as any.   

So a funny remark led to a name that I still use 20 years later.

 

[pinkham13]

It is a silly story and has nothing to do with religion. 

It goes back to when my oldest son was a drummer in the high school band.  There was a kid that thought he was the next coming of Buddy Rich so the rest of the band jokingly referred to him as "god on drums".   Well at dinner time my middle son was talking about a classmate of his and I asked if I knew him and he said "yeah, it is god's brother".    We all thought it was pretty funny and it just so happened that I joined FBGs the next day and thought that was as good a name as any.   

So a funny remark led to a name that I still use 20 years later.

HaHAHa Glad I asked! Have a great morning!

 

[Stealthycat]

Because people like having sex with each other.  Like you say, "It's Biology".

what is the ultimate goal of this sex drive/biological drive? babies

continuing the species .... so lets follow it on through, right ?

 

[beef]

what is the ultimate goal of this sex drive/biological drive? 

Pleasure

 

[Stealthycat]

Pleasure

no

pleasure is the driver ... the goal is pregnancy/reproduction 

 

[Amused to Death]

no

pleasure is the driver ... the goal is pregnancy/reproduction 

But rarely the reason we engage in it.

 

[massraider]

Capital punishment is basically what Jesus received. Without it we would have no Savior. I don’t like the idea of capital punishment but recognize that the state does execute people. God himself didn’t fight against the government’s right to condemn why should I? If a murderer is convicted and gets the death penalty I see it as justice served. Self defense is allowed in the Bible while turning the other cheek is preferred. Killing your brother in a fit of envy and rage is not ok. Soldiers? What are they fighting for? Did they rape and kill Indians on the trail of tears? 

My bible history is rusty, but pretty sure God didn't stand in the way of this happening either. 

 

[pinkham13]

My bible history is rusty, but pretty sure God didn't stand in the way of this happening either. 

Free will is ours. Cain made the choice to kill his brother. We all choose our paths in life for better or worse. Jesus never went up against Roman government when he was on earth. That’s what I mean by not standing in the way of capital punishment. 

 

[Stealthycat]

But rarely the reason we engage in it.

the point was that we're hardwired for sex - biology, the human drive .... and the action is sex yes, but the entire goal of that action is reproduction/babies

the "reason we engage in it" ?  since the dawn of man babies are the reason, pleasure is the driver

 

[KarmaPolice]

what about BJs?

Or many other things we engage in for pleasure not babies.   

Starting to think that there are some posters around here that weren't very lucky with the ladies or very good at certain recreational activities.   

 

[PhillipPhoto]

Or many other things we engage in for pleasure not babies.   

Starting to think that there are some posters around here that weren't very lucky with the ladies or very good at certain recreational activities.   

You dont have to take the religious monte python version of every sperm is sacred to acknowledge that the primary biological and evolutionary driver for sexual pleasure is reproduction. Sorry that's just fact.  The fact that most of us are intelligent enough to outsmart that for pleasure doesnt make it any less true. 

 

[The Z Machine]

Look, there is nothing you can do to stop people from putting P in V.  No amount of education / fear / guilt / shame / punishment will stop it. That action will result in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. 

So, you ask, "why can't we do something to stop unplanned pregnancy?" 

Short answer is that you can't. 

Longer answer is that you're advocating against one way to stop (not prevent) an unplanned pregnancy. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Jesus never went up against Roman government when he was on earth.

I strongly disagree.  He never directed action - protest, insurrection, whatever against the Roman government but he attacked it pretty constantly in what he supposedly said.  Just in rather subtle ways.  

 

[dgreen]

I strongly disagree.  He never directed action - protest, insurrection, whatever against the Roman government but he attacked it pretty constantly in what he supposedly said.  Just in rather subtle ways.  

Roman government probably wasn’t a big fan of someone going around announcing the coming of a new kingdom. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Roman government probably wasn’t a big fan of someone going around announcing the coming of a new kingdom. 

Argue all you want that Jesus never sinned against God, but he was guilty as charged from the perspective of the Roman empire.  And no one lost any sleep condemning someone like to Jesus.  He was a dime a dozen kind of guy, where you kill off their silly movement by making an example of the leader.   Where the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent.   Oops!  Guess this time was a bit different.

 

[Joe Bryant]

 He never directed action - protest, insurrection, whatever against the Roman government but he attacked it pretty constantly in what he supposedly said.  Just in rather subtle ways.  

Thanks. Can you elaborate?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for posting this perspective, Joe. I should relate that at the pro-choice rally I attended last week, we heard from both a Protestant minister and a rabbi, both women, in favor of women’s reproductive rights. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks. Can you elaborate?

Elaborate.  Not really too much tonight.  But a few examples.

The "Kingdom of God is at hand" was a direct challenge to Rome, not to mention Rome being the kingdom of god on earth - Caesar.  More importantly the "Kingdom of God" was a kingdom that was greater than Rome.  One that would provide even for the "least of us".

Another example, when Jesus says give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's he means give everything that matters to God and Caesar can have those useless trinkets.

Caesar is the King of Jews anyone else claiming the title is treason.  Same with Caesar is Lord.  Caesar is the Savior.  Claiming these titles, or being given them is challenging Rome.  

Even jabs at the High Priest or Herod are subtle attacks on the Roman political structures.  Causing a disturbance at the Temple  was a not so subtle attack on all of these ruling structures.

They all seem like a lot of nothing to our sensibilities, but Rome didn't take kindly to any of this.   

 

[Joe Bryant]

Elaborate.  Not really too much tonight.  But a few examples.

The "Kingdom of God is at hand" was a direct challenge to Rome, not to mention Rome being the kingdom of god on earth - Caesar.  More importantly the "Kingdom of God" was a kingdom that was greater than Rome.  One that would provide even for the "least of us".

Another example, when Jesus says give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's he means give everything that matters to God and Caesar can have those useless trinkets.

Caesar is the King of Jews anyone else claiming the title is treason.  Same with Caesar is Lord.  Caesar is the Savior.  Claiming these titles, or being given them is challenging Rome.  

Even jabs at the High Priest or Herod are subtle attacks on the Roman political structures.  Causing a disturbance at the Temple  was a not so subtle attack on all of these ruling structures.

They all seem like a lot of nothing to our sensibilities, but Rome didn't take kindly to any of this.   

Thanks. If you have some more time to elaborate I'd be interested. I never had really thought of Jesus attacking the Roman government "pretty constantly". I have always seen it way more that it was the Religious Leaders who wanted rid of him. That's how it's described in Luke 23 when they brought him before the Roman government and both Pilate and Herod found him innocent. But I'm far from any scholar on this. I just had not heard before the idea Jesus constantly attacked the Roman government. 

Luke 23: 1-13

Then the entire council took Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor. 2 They began to state their case: “This man has been leading our people astray by telling them not to pay their taxes to the Roman government and by claiming he is the Messiah, a king.”

3 So Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

Jesus replied, “You have said it.”

4 Pilate turned to the leading priests and to the crowd and said, “I find nothing wrong with this man!”

5 Then they became insistent. “But he is causing riots by his teaching wherever he goes—all over Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem!”

6 “Oh, is he a Galilean?” Pilate asked. 7 When they said that he was, Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas, because Galilee was under Herod’s jurisdiction, and Herod happened to be in Jerusalem at the time.

8 Herod was delighted at the opportunity to see Jesus, because he had heard about him and had been hoping for a long time to see him perform a miracle. 9 He asked Jesus question after question, but Jesus refused to answer. 10 Meanwhile, the leading priests and the teachers of religious law stood there shouting their accusations. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers began mocking and ridiculing Jesus. Finally, they put a royal robe on him and sent him back to Pilate. 12 (Herod and Pilate, who had been enemies before, became friends that day.)

13 Then Pilate called together the leading priests and other religious leaders, along with the people, 14 and he announced his verdict. “You brought this man to me, accusing him of leading a revolt. I have examined him thoroughly on this point in your presence and find him innocent. 15 Herod came to the same conclusion and sent him back to us. Nothing this man has done calls for the death penalty. 16 So I will have him flogged, and then I will release him.”[a]

 

[dgreen]

Thanks. If you have some more time to elaborate I'd be interested. I never had really thought of Jesus attacking the Roman government "pretty constantly". I have always seen it way more that it was the Religious Leaders who wanted rid of him. That's how it's described in Luke 23 when they brought him before the Roman government and both Pilate and Herod found him innocent. But I'm far from any scholar on this. I just had not heard before the idea Jesus constantly attacked the Roman government. 

Luke 23: 1-13

I’d agree that the religious leaders disliked Jesus more than Rome. But, how familiar are you with the meaning of “gospel” and kingdom talk?  (I’m no expert but can share what I’ve learned.)

Jesus didn’t invent the idea of “gospel”. Gospel goes back to at least Alexander the Great. Greece and Rome would bring their own gospel to places and that gospel was that a new kingdom was there to save them. Gospel messages were about new kings and new kingdoms. So, when Jesus (and the gospel authors) talk about their gospel, they are saying there’s a new kingdom and a new king in town. To the extent Rome knew this was going on, they would not have been pleased. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks. If you have some more time to elaborate I'd be interested. I never had really thought of Jesus attacking the Roman government "pretty constantly". I have always seen it way more that it was the Religious Leaders who wanted rid of him. That's how it's described in Luke 23 when they brought him before the Roman government and both Pilate and Herod found him innocent. But I'm far from any scholar on this. I just had not heard before the idea Jesus constantly attacked the Roman government. 

Luke 23: 1-13

I think we'd be talking past each other a bit here.  Maybe my usage of "constantly" should be replaced with rather "consistently".  I think it is fair that to say that Jesus's ministry consisted of miracles - mostly healing various people,  life lessons through parables on how one should live, how one should follow him, jostling with the Pharisees in their religious debates, and describing, paving the way, etc. the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven not only in heaven but here on earth.  It is that last part that is in conflict with Roman authority in Jerusalem,  Galilee, Judea, etc.  For the reasons I mentioned.  

I have wondered what the Gospel writers have in mind with Pilate.  Is Jesus innocent because Pilate is oblivious to Palm Sunday and the tantrum in the Temple?   Is he innocent because Pilate, at least as much as Pilate could saw Jesus for what he was?  Is he innocent because he was just tired of the Caiaphas and the Sadducees dumping their problems on him?  I think the gospels hint at the second option.  I know that there are Christian churches (the Coptic Church) that have Pilate being an early Christian, even a Saint so there is even more support for this.

The other two options also don't  make much sense with what else we know of Pilate.  First Pilate is only in Jerusalem in the event that he is needed to squash an uprising whether large or small.  I can imagine that he tries to just not care too much of what "those people" do as it long as it doesn't gain any momentum, but when his chosen High Priests (Pilate kept Caiaphas in that position his entire term) brings Jesus to him I'd suspect that he'd be brought up to speed on his actions during the week.  And based on what we know of Rome that was more than enough for the sentence.  So I think Pilate being hesitant, almost single handedly going to thwart God's plan is only explained by the Gospel writers wanting us to know that even Pilate "was amazed" by Jesus.

But this seems to be a different discussion as to whether or not what Jesus was doing that week and the three'ish years prior was subtly attacking Rome.  I think every reference to "God's Kingdom"  "on earth as it is in heaven" with Jesus being the "king of king" "lord of all", etc., etc. where the "meek will inherit the earth" he is comparing and contrasting his vision, God's vision against that of the reality under Rome.   And in a time where there was no separation of church and state, where "freedom of religion" meant that you could worship whatever you want as long as you fully participate in the state's religious activities these things which we see as "spiritual" or just "religious" in our modern way of thinking, were very much political in that first century. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think we'd be talking past each other a bit here.  Maybe my usage of "constantly" should be replaced with rather "consistently".  I think it is fair that to say that Jesus's ministry consisted of miracles - mostly healing various people,  life lessons through parables on how one should live, how one should follow him, jostling with the Pharisees in their religious debates, and describing, paving the way, etc. the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven not only in heaven but here on earth.  It is that last part that is in conflict with Roman authority in Jerusalem,  Galilee, Judea, etc.  For the reasons I mentioned.  

I have wondered what the Gospel writers have in mind with Pilate.  Is Jesus innocent because Pilate is oblivious to Palm Sunday and the tantrum in the Temple?   Is he innocent because Pilate, at least as much as Pilate could saw Jesus for what he was?  Is he innocent because he was just tired of the Caiaphas and the Sadducees dumping their problems on him?  I think the gospels hint at the second option.  I know that there are Christian churches (the Coptic Church) that have Pilate being an early Christian, even a Saint so there is even more support for this.

The other two options also don't  make much sense with what else we know of Pilate.  First Pilate is only in Jerusalem in the event that he is needed to squash an uprising whether large or small.  I can imagine that he tries to just not care too much of what "those people" do as it long as it doesn't gain any momentum, but when his chosen High Priests (Pilate kept Caiaphas in that position his entire term) brings Jesus to him I'd suspect that he'd be brought up to speed on his actions during the week.  And based on what we know of Rome that was more than enough for the sentence.  So I think Pilate being hesitant, almost single handedly going to thwart God's plan is only explained by the Gospel writers wanting us to know that even Pilate "was amazed" by Jesus.

But this seems to be a different discussion as to whether or not what Jesus was doing that week and the three'ish years prior was subtly attacking Rome.  I think every reference to "God's Kingdom"  "on earth as it is in heaven" with Jesus being the "king of king" "lord of all", etc., etc. where the "meek will inherit the earth" he is comparing and contrasting his vision, God's vision against that of the reality under Rome.   And in a time where there was no separation of church and state, where "freedom of religion" meant that you could worship whatever you want as long as you fully participate in the state's religious activities these things which we see as "spiritual" or just "religious" in our modern way of thinking, were very much political in that first century. 

Thanks. I don't think we're talking past each other. I just had not heard before the idea Jesus constantly or consistently attacked the Roman government. Thanks for sharing your insight.