Permissibility Of Abortion

[Ahab]

Yes, exactly. I think this is where people have a hard time understanding that we are a fallen race, outside of God. God redeemed us, but we start off fallen. He was under no requirement to redeem us -- He redeemed us out of His love, not out of a requirement to do so. This is why we glorify Him for His love and His mercy.

A lot of that is in harmony with what we are taught in the Church, but some tweaks are in order.

Yes, we fell from the state Adam and Eve were in after God created them in the garden of Eden, and yes it was Jesus Christ who redeemed us, or can redeem us, through his atonement. When that happens, our state will be just as Adam and Eve were before they fell, which is the same state Jesus Christ was in after he was resurrected. We were told this would happen before we fell and before we came to this Earth to live as mortals, but still Jesus was under no obligation to do what he did for us. He was chosen by our Father as the one to save us, but he could have aborted our Father's will if he had wanted to do that. He wasn't forced to do what he did. He did it all of his own free will.

From the LDS point-of-view (as I understand it), we are not a fallen race, so I can understand think the concept of "original sin" is so strange.

Yes, we are fallen, and not until we are redeemed to the state Adam and Eve were in before they fell, which is the same state Jesus Christ was in after his resurrection, will we be redeemed from our fall.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Ahab

[Ran]

Depriving the innocent of His graces sounds extremely unjust.

That raises the question as to the nature of grace -- a "free and undeserved help" (cf. 1996) -- which the Catholic Church considers original justice and holiness to be (cf. 375). I would have to examine the notion of an undeserved help that is, at the same time, deserved.

[mfbukowski]

To me, it is a mass of confusion.

I didn't know you were that old.

[mfbukowski]

One can sin without the propensity to sin (look at Lucifer as a non-human example -- the angels did not have a fallen nature yet 1/3 of them went with the devil).

Temptation arises from: the flesh, the world, and the devil. You had one of those three in the Garden (the devil) tempting Eve's pride, telling her she could be just like God. She followed him much like the angels followed him.

You can sin without a fallen nature, but with a fallen nature you cannot not sin.

I hope that helps resolve the issue of circular reasoning, even if you disagree with the ideas.

Not really. Even choice itself implies the ability to sin and I am not really any more sure of how to define a "propensity" than I am to define "nature".

Are you familiar with the idea of a "virtus dormitiva"? That was one of Nietzsche's gems.

It is said that opium produces sleep "by it's sleep producing qualities" which does not explain anything of course. Man's "nature" is to be manlike, Go's nature is to be godlike, a dog's nature is to be doglike.

None of these explain anything. So to with the idea of "propensity". We sin because we have the "propensity" to sin. Duh! If we did not have the "propensity" we would not sin. Man has the propensity to be manlike as well. Wasn't that illuminating?

Circular logic in all cases as far as I am concerned, with no explanations for anything.

And by the way, I am still waiting for explanations about the location of Jesus' temporal body and sensus fidelium, among other things.

Edited September 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

BlueAdept and MiserereNobis i ask again: How can an omniscient God not know something as precious as a child? For me that would not only destroy his omniscience but his love for his children.

[mfbukowski]

From the LDS point-of-view (as I understand it), we are not a fallen race, so I can understand why they think the concept of "original sin" is so strange.

In fact we emphasize the goodness of mankind and you emphasize its depravity and hence the different understanding of "humility".

For us humility is simply being teachable, for you it is demonstrating your nothingness in relation to God. For us, God is our dear and helpful Father who didn't make a mistake in the Garden, but wisely allowed us to take a choice which was enabling rather than destructive.

When you teach a child to ride a bike, it is a virtual certainty that the child will fall, but you teach them anyway because by learning and making mistakes one progresses in abilities and understanding

And it is Christ's atonement which enables us to make mistakes, repent, and by so doing, progress. I think that concept is totally foreign to the Caholic system.

[Ahab]

BlueAdept and MiserereNobis i ask again: How can an omniscient God not know something as precious as a child? For me that would not only destroy his omniscience but his love for his children.

I think they're thinking along the lines of what Jesus said to some people who professed his name and said they did many mighty deeds in his name. He said something like 'Go away, I never knew you'. Try thinking of how you would explain that.

[mfbukowski]

We are not known to God before baptism. So from our perspective we are not entitled to that original holiness and justice of God.; therefore, this is the reason infant baptism was/is pushed to avoid the problem. Thus, the reason Limbo came about which I don't accept and is not mandatory for me to believe.

It's interesting to me that according to Catholic doctrine as far as I understand it, I could actually baptize a baby in an emergency in an acceptable manner which God would honor assuming I had the right intent etc

Suppose I found a baby I knew to be Catholic floating in a pool, unconscious with a heart beat with no other adults around, and I happened to know that the baby had not been baptized yet. After I tried CPR and called 911, I believe that if I poured water on his head and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", according to what I believed the will of the parents would be, Catholics would regard that baptism as "valid" if indeed the baby then died.

Yet if I were to baptize someone using substantially the same words in an LDS Chapel, when that baby was now 8 years old, because I am LDS suddenly the baptism would NOT be valid, because the Catholic church does not recognize LDS baptisms.

Is that right, or should I refrain from baptizing a Catholic baby in such a situation? I mean I would not want to send the kid to hell because he was baptized by someone LDS or anything like that.

[mfbukowski]

So with you it's either accept or reject what you say without trying to understand how you make sense?

Gulp. How exactly am I supposed to lay down my inquisitive mind and just accept what you tell me when to me it doesn't make any sense? Is this question something I'm not supposed to ask too? I'm just trying to understand how you think that is possible.

I have the same problem with him. He will attack our church but never answer tough questions about Catholicism.

[Thinking]

Several years ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to preview a sex education video that was to be shown to 7th graders at the local middle school. One of the segments featured a woman who was preaching abstinence and was also educating the girls about how to avoid situations which might lead to rape. She covered the subject of abortion in cases of rape, but cautioned the viewer to consider that she was a child of rape. She was so thankful that her birth mother refused the abortion option and decided to give her up for adoption. As a man, I am unqualified to make any judgements about abortion. However, I will tell you that my wife's view was modified after watching that video.

[ERayR]

I think they're thinking along the lines of what Jesus said to some people who professed his name and said they did many mighty deeds in his name. He said something like 'Go away, I never knew you'. Try thinking of how you would explain that.

My question still stands even along those lines.

[Vance]

Yes, and what He made us to be was a creature that has free will.

Logically impossible. The will He gives us is the will we have. It isn't free or independent. We can not have a will that is free from what He made us to be.

God is much more than a programmer.

The analogy is good.

He can create free will, not just program it.

He can not give us a will that is free and independent from the will He gives us. We can not act in a manner that is not programmed into us by our creator. Claiming that He can doesn't address the logical contradiction.

Do you doubt the omnipotence of God?

Can God create a rock that is so large that He can not move it?

If He can then He is powerless to move it.

If He can't then He is powerless to do so.

So it is rather obvious that God does have limit to His power.

To me, He has all power that is available to have, not the power to do the impossible. So, in a sense, I reject the omni-de jure of the neoplatonic God.

Free will was obviously important to God if He created a creature with it, knowing that it could/would be abused.

I believe in free will, that is why I have to reject creatio ex nihilo.

He could have, but then that creature would not have free will.

So, Jesus didn't have free will? A drone maybe?

So, He is incapable of creating a creature with free will and the will to be sinless? I guess then, that omnipotence doesn't really apply after all.

Free will is not a flaw.

I never said it was. The flaw is the desire to sin.

So God can't create a creature with free will that can also be sinless. Omnipotence gets thrown under the bus.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

The abuse of free will is sin, not free will itself.

Yes, and apparently God is incapable of creating a creature that has free will and also capable of remaining sinless.

So, He is only partly omnipotent. I get it.

God's creation was perfect; . . .

Apparently not. Sin abounds.

. . . the abuse of the creature's free will caused it to be flawed.

Right, because God is incapable of creating a creature with free will that will remain sinless. It is beyond His power to do so.

Got it.

Because He wanted us to have free will. Why? Because we cannot love without free will. God did not want robots. He created us in His likeness, so we have intellect/reason and free will.

I agree with all of that. But it doesn't address the logical inconsistencies.

Too bad God is powerless to create a creature with both free will and a sinless nature.

He's not incapable of it.

Apparently, He is incapable of that.

He wanted beings that were capable of love, and that requires free will, and free will requires the ability to sin.

Right, because He is incapable of creating a creature that will freely love Him, have free will, and be sinless.

I get that He is not really omnipotent, but only kind of omnipotent.

So, according the LDS view, your free will has eternally existed?

Yes, it is something that is uniquely mine. So it is really the only thing I can give Him that did not originate from Him.

Your will has no beginning?

Yup.

What was your will doing before you were "organized"?

Don't know.

What was your will doing before God became God?

Was there such a time?

The will acts, so what was it doing?

Don't know.

And how does your will never have a beginning?

Why do you think that it has to have a beginning?

Where did it come from?

Why do you think it has to come from somewhere, or someone, or something?

Also, you seem to think that God cannot create free will. Why is that?

Well, it is obvious from this conversation that there are just somethings that God can't do.

[blueadept]

It's interesting to me that according to Catholic doctrine as far as I understand it, I could actually baptize a baby in an emergency in an acceptable manner which God would honor assuming I had the right intent etc

Suppose I found a baby I knew to be Catholic floating in a pool, unconscious with a heart beat with no other adults around, and I happened to know that the baby had not been baptized yet. After I tried CPR and called 911, I believe that if I poured water on his head and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", according to what I believed the will of the parents would be, Catholics would regard that baptism as "valid" if indeed the baby then died.

Yet if I were to baptize someone using substantially the same words in an LDS Chapel, when that baby was now 8 years old, because I am LDS suddenly the baptism would NOT be valid, because the Catholic church does not recognize LDS baptisms.

Is that right, or should I refrain from baptizing a Catholic baby in such a situation? I mean I would not want to send the kid to hell because he was baptized by someone LDS or anything like that.

Since you obviously have the right intent for a baby that might die, there is nothing wrong with baptizing the baby and would be recognized by the church. You're essentially taking the baptismal vows for the child and making the same promise as a god-parent does for the child in today's practice.

In regards to what is going on when a child is baptised at the age of 8 (age of reason), the child is the one takinig on the understanding of what is happening. They are taking upon themselves those promises and no one else is doing that for them. For Catholics, this happens at Confirmation which varies at the discretion of the local bishop and can range for most from the age of 7 to 17. For myself, I received that at the age of 7 in the Phiilippines. In my local diocese, it's done at the age of 16..

This should explain why one baptism would be recognized while the other one is not (even though it was not too long ago)

Edited September 26, 2012 by blueadept

[Vance]

I didn't know you were that old.

I know, I write less mature than my age would indicate.

I am just young at heart, at least that is my excuse, and I am sticking to it.

[Vance]

That raises the question as to the nature of grace -- a "free and undeserved help" (cf. 1996) -- which the Catholic Church considers original justice and holiness to be (cf. 375). I would have to examine the notion of an undeserved help that is, at the same time, deserved.

Interesting point.

[Vance]

And it is Christ's atonement which enables us to make mistakes, repent, and by so doing, progress. I think that concept is totally foreign to the Caholic system.

I would say that the Protestant system suffers from this as well.

[Vance]

For myself, I received that at the age of 7 in the Phiilippines. In my local diocese, it's done at the age of 16..

I served my mission in the Philippines. Wonderful people. Hotter than ##$^. I haven't had a good mango since I left.

[mfbukowski]

Since you obviously have the right intent for a baby that might die, there is nothing wrong with baptizing the baby and would be recognized by the church. You're essentially taking the baptismal vows for the child and making the same promise as a god-parent does for the child in today's practice.

In regards to what is going on when a child is baptised at the age of 8 (age of reason), the child is the one takinig on the understanding of what is happening. They are taking upon themselves those promises and no one else is doing that for them. For Catholics, this happens at Confirmation which varies at the discretion of the local bishop and can range for most from the age of 7 to 17. For myself, I received that at the age of 7 in the Phiilippines. In my local diocese, it's done at the age of 16..

This should explain why one baptism would be recognized while the other one is not (even though it was not too long ago)

Not really.

I, a Mormon can take on the promises a baby cannot take on himself- and he is a Catholic and I am a Mormon?

And note that you did not explain why the Catholic church does not recognize Mormon baptism- only the difference in our beliefs regarding taking on covenants.

That's ok. It will not make sense to me anyway.

So I suppose proxy baptisms are then recognized by the Catholic church? Good! Soon they will be baptizing dead people!

Oh I forgot- that is not necessary because if God would have admitted them to heaven they go anyway. But if you don't baptize babies, they don't go to heaven. Or something like that.

Like I said- it won't make sense to me anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Wonderful people. Hotter than ##$^.

I beg your pardon?

This is a G rated board

[MiserereNobis]

In fact we emphasize the goodness of mankind and you emphasize its depravity and hence the different understanding of "humility".

For us humility is simply being teachable, for you it is demonstrating your nothingness in relation to God. For us, God is our dear and helpful Father who didn't make a mistake in the Garden, but wisely allowed us to take a choice which was enabling rather than destructive.

This is a straw man. No Catholic believes God made a mistake in the Garden. Adam and Eve made the mistake, not God.

When you teach a child to ride a bike, it is a virtual certainty that the child will fall, but you teach them anyway because by learning and making mistakes one progresses in abilities and understanding

And it is Christ's atonement which enables us to make mistakes, repent, and by so doing, progress. I think that concept is totally foreign to the Caholic system.

You're on to something here -- it is somewhat foreign to the Catholic system, and here is why. We believe in the FALL of Adam, with everything that term connotes. It was a fall from grace, a fall from paradise, a fall from the world God intended us to inhabit. From the Catholic point-of-view, it was better back in the Garden. The Redemption is to bring us back to the Garden. Christ is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve. The bike analogy does not really fit this sytem. The child learning how to ride a bike starts out in a place they are trying to leave (ignorance of riding a bike) and then tries to get to a place they want to be (knowledge of riding a bike). The Catholic system posits that we started out where we were already supposed to be and now we want to get back there, but there is no way we can without a Redeemer. It is the cry of exiled Israel, wanting to return home. Veni veni Emmanuel. It is not the cry of a nation wanting to find a new home.

From the LDS point-of-view (as I understand it), the fall is not a fall but a step in a progression that leads to perfection. This fits your bike analogy, which is why your bike analogy doesn't fit Catholic theology.

Catholicism and the LDS church appear to me, after my short time here, to be superficially similar, but any scratch under the surface starts to reveal deeper and deeper differences that diverge the further down we go. It's probably because our starting points are so vastly different: the nature of God, the purpose of life, the meaning of the fall, the meaning of redemption, etc.

[MiserereNobis]

I think they're thinking along the lines of what Jesus said to some people who professed his name and said they did many mighty deeds in his name. He said something like 'Go away, I never knew you'. Try thinking of how you would explain that.

Yes, "to know" here doesn't mean literal omniscience. It is a metaphor for being in the grace of God.

[USU78]

As a man, I am unqualified to make any judgements about abortion.

Sorry, Thinking, but that's nonsense. You are eminently qualified to have an opinion and make judgments. I leave such judgments to only ~50% of the population, you leave accept the proposition that the left-behinders are not full participants in humanity. We have a say in whether our children are carried to term, no matter what a tendentious court might have to say in the matter. That's half of our dna in that there foetus. We have a protectible stake.

[MiserereNobis]

It's interesting to me that according to Catholic doctrine as far as I understand it, I could actually baptize a baby in an emergency in an acceptable manner which God would honor assuming I had the right intent etc

Suppose I found a baby I knew to be Catholic floating in a pool, unconscious with a heart beat with no other adults around, and I happened to know that the baby had not been baptized yet. After I tried CPR and called 911, I believe that if I poured water on his head and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", according to what I believed the will of the parents would be, Catholics would regard that baptism as "valid" if indeed the baby then died.

Yet if I were to baptize someone using substantially the same words in an LDS Chapel, when that baby was now 8 years old, because I am LDS suddenly the baptism would NOT be valid, because the Catholic church does not recognize LDS baptisms.

Is that right, or should I refrain from baptizing a Catholic baby in such a situation? I mean I would not want to send the kid to hell because he was baptized by someone LDS or anything like that.

You misunderstand the Catholic position as to what makes a baptism valid or not. Valid Sacraments require three things: form, matter, and intent. In the case of baptism, the form is baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." The matter is water (poured or immersed or sprinkled). The intent is to remove original sin and initiate the child into the Mystical Body of Christ, into His Church.

Now, when an 8 year old is baptized in the LDS church, the baptizer does not intend to do what the Church intends -- namely, to remove original sin. That is the major reason why LDS baptisms are invalid. The minor second reason is that the form might not be the same, even though the words are the same, because of the vastly different understanding of the nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. But that is secondary. It is the primary intent of removing original sin that invalidates LDS baptism. So, the fact that you are LDS does not invalidate the baptism. It is the fact that you do not intend to do with that baptism what the Church intends.

[MiserereNobis]

I have the same problem with him. He will attack our church but never answer tough questions about Catholicism.

Do you really feel that I am attacking your church? I have not felt that I have done that. I have asked questions and started discussions that apparently are interesting to people since many of them go on page after page (like this one).

I refrained from engaging Ahab on sense vs. nonsense because he and I went the rounds on that before and didn't convince the other what it means to have an explanation that makes sense or not.

You and I have gone back and forth and determined that you have a postmodern outlook and I a neo-Platonic one. We both reject the other's underlying philosophical assumptions. You in fact told me that there was no need for us to go at it over philosophy, because "that's called the History of Philosophy."

From my point-of-view, I have offered Catholic answers to Catholic questions. If you don't accept them, that is understandable. But that doesn't mean I never try to answer them.

I am also not the Encylopedia of Catholicism. I do not have the answers to all questions regarding Catholicism, just as posters here do not have the answers to all things LDS.

I guess I feel a little bummed out that you consider me to be on the attack yet evasive, as I don't see myself doing that at all. Oh well. *shrug*

ETA: I also cannot respond to every post/question by every post/questioner simply because I am just one guy. I'm happy to see a few other Catholics responding to help spread out the load. If I do not respond to a particular post, please don't anyone take it personally.

Edited September 26, 2012 by MiserereNobis