Permissibility Of Abortion

[MiserereNobis]

If He created them from nothing, then they are what He made them to be. If they chose to sin against God it is ONLY because He created them to do so.

This is the atheist's argument that God could not create someone with free will. God created us in His likeness, which to the Catholic means that we have intellect and will. He gave us the gift of a will, which we abuse.

If He created them from nothing, then they are what He made them to be. If they chose to sin against God it is ONLY because He created them to do so.

You seem to be equating the creation from nothing with a lack of free will. God can create from nothing and imbue that creation with free will. There is no contradiction between creation ex nihilo and free will.

If God created Adam and Eve from nothing, and if God is omniscient, THEN God knew they would sin against Him because He created them to do so.

Here you are equating knowing and causing. God's omniscience does not cause, it knows. God knows I'm going to sin but that doesn't mean He causes me to sin.

Surely the LDS church teaches that God's omniscience doesn't interfere with free will...?

[MiserereNobis]

Yet, as far as the Catholic treatment of the two commandments as they apply to the abortion issue is concerned, I haven't seen a response, so perhaps it is unanswerable from the Catholic perspective.

I guess I'm not understanding your question, then (I'm sorry). Could you rephrase how those two commandments are contradictory (or how one has to be more important than the other) as it applies to abortion? Thanks!

[blueadept]

Yes, i've been trying to stay out of those weeds.

Yet, as far as the Catholic treatment of the two commandments as they apply to the abortion issue is concerned, I haven't seen a response, so perhaps it is unanswerable from the Catholic perspective.

I've never even fathom trying to apply those two commandments in regards to the issue of abortion. That would seem so eisegesis and would be the reading of one's own ideas into scripture. Therefore, I've passed in commenting.

[CV75]

I guess I'm not understanding your question, then (I'm sorry). Could you rephrase how those two commandments are contradictory (or how one has to be more important than the other) as it applies to abortion? Thanks!

You will probably come across these ideas as you read trough the threads--how one is more importnant than the other has been addressed more than once over the past couple of days.

[Ahab]

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).

No, that's another false notion you have.

To sin a person needs to not only have the propensity (ability) to sin, but also a knowledge of what sin actually is. Nobody can sin in ignorance, but when they do sin, they know what they are doing is evil and that is what makes it a sin.

That's what made it a sin when Lucifer and his angels did what thye did. They knew what God wanted, and they knew their will was in oppostion to God's will when they did what they did, which is what made what they did a sin.

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.

No, because she didn't realize who was God and who was Satan. She didn't know who Satan was, or rather, she didn't rememeber. Eve had one person telling her to do one thing and another person telling her to do something else, and she chose to follow the counsel of the second person because he made that sound enticing. She didn't know that would be evil, though, just as she didn't know that was Satan. It wasn't until she ate from the tree of knowledge of both good and evil that she was able to tell the difference.

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

There's a slight difference between a transgression and a sin, even if it involves doing what appears to be the same action.

The question is whether or not you know that what you are doing is sin when you transgress a law of God. If as a child you do something which isn't good but you don't know it isn't good when you do it, then it's not considered a sin in God's eyes because you didn't know it wasn't good even if you did know someone told you not to do it.

And what do you mean by a "fallen" nature? Do you mean "human" ? Don't you know Jesus was human, as well as divine?

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

[Ahab]

God can create from nothing...

That's an idea I'd like you to think about more until you are perfectly able to explain it with common sense.

It would make a little more sense if you said God created something from a thought in his mind, but instead you say nothing.

Come on, now. Do you really believe he created anything from nothing at all? Nothing is nothing and always will be.

[Vance]

This is the atheist's argument that God could not create someone with free will.

Well it is totally logical regardless of who uses it.

God created us in His likeness, which to the Catholic means that we have intellect and will. He gave us the gift of a will, which we abuse.

Rephrasing your position doesn't refute my argument. If God created us from nothing, then we are what He made us to be. You can claim to have free will, but it is merely a claim. A computer program can also claim to have free will, if the programmer creates it that way. But the program does exactly what the programmer tells it to do.

You seem to be equating the creation from nothing with a lack of free will. God can create from nothing and imbue that creation with free will. There is no contradiction between creation ex nihilo and free will.

Ah, but there is. Your refusal to see it or admit it not withstanding.

Here you are equating knowing and causing.

So what are you trying to argue?

That God knew that He was going to create a creature that was flawed (going to sin) but did it anyway even though that isn't what He wanted to create?

That God was incapable of created a sinless creature?

That God didn't know that what He was creating was flawed?

God's omniscience does not cause, it knows.

If He knows what He is doing why did He created something that didn't do what He created it to do?

God knows I'm going to sin but that doesn't mean He causes me to sin.

Sure it does. He created you just the way you are.

Why was He incapable of creating an obedient creature?

Surely the LDS church teaches that God's omniscience doesn't interfere with free will...?

The LDS Church rejects the false doctrine of creatio ex nihilo so we don't have the logical problem with accepting the agency of man.

[CV75]

I've never even fathom trying to apply those two commandments in regards to the issue of abortion. That would seem so eisegesis and would be the reading of one's own ideas into scripture. Therefore, I've passed in commenting.

I can appreciate that. To me, it is very obvious that one pertains to reproduction (making both contraception and abortion sins) and the other to killing (making abortion a sin). And that the command to reproduce and have dominion was given before the command not to die (kill) and continued to be in force even after the command not to die/kill was broken. There are more scriptural examples of God instructing His people to kill than to stop multiplying. This is pertinent in prayerful, considerations for discerning the Lord's will with regards to saving the mother's life or stewarding the effects of rape and incest.

[blueadept]

That's an idea I'd like you to think about more until you are perfectly able to explain it with common sense.

It would make a little more sense if you said God created something from a thought in his mind, but instead you say nothing.

Come on, now. Do you really believe he created anything from nothing at all? Nothing is nothing and always will be.

I love the way LDS try to humanize God at times and how Catholics can allow it to be a mystery and let God be God and we both be content with our perspective.

Edited September 26, 2012 by blueadept

[MiserereNobis]

No, that's another false notion you have.

To sin a person needs to not only have the propensity (ability) to sin, but also a knowledge of what sin actually is. Nobody can sin in ignorance, but when they do sin, they know what they are doing is evil and that is what makes it a sin.

You have equated propensity and ability. They are not the same. Propensity is an inclination toward something. Ability is, well, being able to do it. I can be able to do something but not have an inclination to. I can eat the dirt in my backyard -- I am able to do it -- but I do not have the propensity/inclination to (my apologies to dirt aficionados out there...)

I agree that sin requires some knowledge. God told them not to eat it, they knew they were not to eat, they ate it anyways. That's sin.

That's what made it a sin when Lucifer and his angels did what thye did. They knew what God wanted, and they knew their will was in oppostion to God's will when they did what they did, which is what made what they did a sin.

It's the same in the Garden.

No, because she didn't realize who was God and who was Satan. She didn't know who Satan was, or rather, she didn't rememeber. Eve had one person telling her to do one thing and another person telling her to do something else, and she chose to follow the counsel of the second person because he made that sound enticing. She didn't know that would be evil, though, just as she didn't know that was Satan. It wasn't until she ate from the tree of knowledge of both good and evil that she was able to tell the difference.

Is this LDS doctrine or Ahab's personal take? I'm just curious -- I haven't heard someone say that Eve couldn't tell God from satan.

There's a slight difference between a transgression and a sin, even if it involves doing what appears to be the same action.

Perhaps the equivalent in Catholic theology would be a venial and a mortal sin. Venial sins do not cut you off from God's Sanctifying Grace, but mortal sins do. In this case, God clearly said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit, which made it a mortal sin.

And what do you mean by a "fallen" nature? Do you mean "human" ? Don't you know Jesus was human, as well as divine?

Fallen nature is what we inherit from Adam -- the propensity to sin (among other things). Jesus had a human nature, but He did not inherit a fallen nature due to the Immaculate Conception. Now, I know you disagree with these doctrines, obviously, but they are internally consistent in Catholicism.

[Ran]

This the problem I have with that. It seems to m that to be able to claim the high moral ground they (the Catholic Church) claims that the unborn are "innocent", yet, upon birth they are immediately guilty and are in need of baptism. It is my understanding that their doctrine is that man is conceived in sin or born in sin and thus are not innocent but are guilty and are in need of baptism. Just more to add to the mass of confusion, I guess.

Could a Catholic poster explain this to me?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". (

417

)

Original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. (

404

)

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. (

405

)

[Adam] has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (

403

)

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin (

405

).

The unborn have not committed any personal sins to be guilty of, and the original sin that afflicts them lacks the character of a personal fault. But because they are deprived of original holiness and justice, once born they need Baptism to receive the justice of God (cf. Council of Trent, Session 5; Session 6, Chapter 7).

[MiserereNobis]

That's an idea I'd like you to think about more until you are perfectly able to explain it with common sense.

I don't think I'm going to go the rounds of sense, nonsense, and common sense with you again. We've been there before

It would make a little more sense if you said God created something from a thought in his mind, but instead you say nothing.

Well, God's will was involved certainly, if that helps you. But there was no matter that He organized. He created the matter (and energy and time and space and etc).

Come on, now. Do you really believe he created anything from nothing at all?

I do, absolutely.

Nothing is nothing and always will be.

Unless you are an omnipotent God that can create, not just organize.

[Vance]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". (

417

)

Original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. (

404

)

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. (

405

)

[Adam] has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (

403

)

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin (

405

).

The unborn have not committed any personal sins to be guilty of, and the original sin that afflicts them lacks the character of a personal fault. But because they are deprived of original holiness and justice, once born they need Baptism to receive the justice of God (cf. Council of Trent, Session 5; Session 6, Chapter 7).

Sorry, but this whole thing makes no sense. "they are deprived of original holiness and justice"? How can that be if they have done nothing wrong? What kind of injustice is God a party to?

[blueadept]

Sorry, but this whole thing makes no sense. "they are deprived of original holiness and justice"? How can that be if they have done nothing wrong? What kind of injustice is God a party to?

They are deprived of the graces of God which we had prior to the Fall which baptism restores.

'How can that be if they have done nothing wrong?' - You are confusing sin versus being able to receive the grace of God. As I've said before, I wish they didn't call it 'Original Sin' for this very reason.

[Vance]

They are deprived of the graces of God which we had prior to the Fall which baptism restores.

Why does God deprive them of His graces for something they did not do?

Depriving the innocent of His graces sounds extremely unjust.

'How can that be if they have done nothing wrong?' - You are confusing sin versus being able to receive the grace of God.

That doesn't address the injustice involved.

As I've said before, I wish they didn't call it 'Original Sin' for this very reason.

I understand that. But that doesn't address the injustice of depriving the innocent of something that the guilty (and baptized) have access to.

I just don't get it.

[blueadept]

Why does God deprive them of His graces for something they did not do?

Depriving the innocent of His graces sounds extremely unjust.

That doesn't address the injustice involved.

I understand that. But that doesn't address the injustice of depriving the innocent of something that the guilty (and baptized) have access to.

I just don't get it.

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.

Edited September 26, 2012 by blueadept

[mfbukowski]

I've been following this discussion with interest, but with nothing much of a substantive nature to contribute. I still don't have much to say, but I did have one semi-cogent thing to toss out there. And that is you, mbufkowski.

I noticed that somewhere along about 50 or 70 posts ago you said that with one last post you would be GONE. In fact, you renewed this promise several times. Not that I wish you to exit, but may I play Inigo to your Vizini? That word? I don't think it means what you think it means!

I know - I am hopeless.

But in my defense I was speaking more about posts to saemo and I think I have been "gone" from those at least.

[MiserereNobis]

We are not known to God before baptism so from our perspective we are not entitled to that original holiness and justice of God.

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.

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.

[MiserereNobis]

I know - I am hopeless.

But in my defense I was speaking more about posts to saemo and I think I have been "gone" from those at least.

I don't mind you doing the pro-sports player "retire/come-back/retire/come-back" dance. I like having you on threads, even if you are fiesty

[blueadept]

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.

Even in the LDS 'Articles of Faith', they distinctly state that we are not accountable for the sin of Adam and Eve.

As a Catholic, I totally agree with this understanding but it's discussion like this that I wished the RCC didn't use the term 'Original Sin.'

[ERayR]

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.

I have refrained from posting here but I just have to ask this. 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.

[Vance]

We are not known to God before baptism

This makes no sense to me. Is God not omniscient? So what happens between creation (I assume you believe that to be at conception) and birth that makes God forget us?

How does this absolve God of injustice toward the innocent?

so from our perspective we are not entitled to that original holiness and justice of God therefore the reason infant baptism was/is pushed to avoid the problem.

This doesn't address the injustice involved. Why doesn't being innocent entitle us to God's graces?

Thus reason Limbo came about which I don't accept and is not mandatory for me to believe.

???

I don't think it is helpful to bring up irrelevant stuff. It is confusing enough.

[Ahab]

I don't think I'm going to go the rounds of sense, nonsense, and common sense with you again. We've been there before

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.

Well, God's will was involved certainly, if that helps you. But there was no matter that He organized. He created the matter (and energy and time and space and etc).

I think I get the picture of what you believe, but what I am asking is Why? And how? And why you believe that?

I do, absolutely.

Why? How? When? Where? ... and I'd like to hear your explanation in a way that makes sense to me, with common sense.

Unless you are an omnipotent God that can create, not just organize.

Would it help if I explained how creation involves the organizing of things that already exist?

The word "creation" doesn't automatically include the idea that what was created was created from nothing. That's an addition to what the word means, or rather a subtraction with an unwarranted assertion placed in the way to understanding what the word really means.

It would make a litlte more sense to me if you said that all that was created was created from some part of God, rather than from out of nothing. It would actually be better if you just stopped at the word "created" instead of adding "from nothing" after the word created, since nothing isn't created or a part of anything that is created. Nothing isn't a component in anything, so "from nothing" just doesn't make any sense.

Seriously. You should at least be able to explain how something makes sense instead of just saying what it is you believe. You're actually supposed to be able to give reasons for your beliefs, according to God. That is written in the scriptures.

[MiserereNobis]

If God created us from nothing, then we are what He made us to be.

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

You can claim to have free will, but it is merely a claim. A computer program can also claim to have free will, if the programmer creates it that way. But the program does exactly what the programmer tells it to do.

God is much more than a programmer. He can create free will, not just program it. Do you doubt the omnipotence of God?

That God knew that He was going to create a creature that was flawed (going to sin) but did it anyway even though that isn't what He wanted to create?

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

That God was incapable of created a sinless creature?

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

That God didn't know that what He was creating was flawed?

Free will is not a flaw. The abuse of free will is sin, not free will itself. God's creation was perfect; the abuse of the creature's free will caused it to be flawed.

If He knows what He is doing why did He created something that didn't do what He created it to do?

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.

Why was He incapable of creating an obedient creature?

He's not incapable of it. He wanted beings that were capable of love, and that requires free will, and free will requires the ability to sin.

The LDS Church rejects the false doctrine of creatio ex nihilo so we don't have the logical problem with accepting the agency of man.

So, according the LDS view, your free will has eternally existed? Your will has no beginning? What was your will doing before you were "organized"? What was your will doing before God became God? The will acts, so what was it doing? And how does your will never have a beginning? Where did it come from?

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

[ERayR]

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 think I get the picture of what you believe, but what I am asking is Why? And how? And why you believe that?

Why? How? When? Where? ... and I'd like to hear your explanation in a way that makes sense to me, with common sense.

Would it help if I explained how creation involves the organizing of things that already exist?

The word "creation" doesn't automatically include the idea that what was created was created from nothing. That's an addition to what the word means, or rather a subtraction with an unwarranted assertion placed in the way to understanding what the word really means.

It would make a litlte more sense to me if you said that all that was created was created from some part of God, rather than from out of nothing. It would actually be better if you just stopped at the word "created" instead of adding "from nothing" after the word created, since nothing isn't created or a part of anything that is created. Nothing isn't a component in anything, so "from nothing" just doesn't make any sense.

Seriously. You should at least be able to explain how something makes sense instead of just saying what it is you believe. You're actually supposed to be able to give reasons for your beliefs, according to God. That is written in the scriptures.

A painter( say Rembrandt) creates a beautiful painting but it was not out of nothing. He takes paint and canvas and then adds the inspiration of his creative mind, puts them all together but it wasn't from nothing it was paint (that existed), canvas (that existed) and mind (that existed) to make a creation that had not existed.