Abortion is immoral but a baby can suffocate minutes after birth

[Sparko]

See my reply to BtC. You voluntarily practise socialist policies.

That's not socialism. it's charity.

[Sparko]

From that remark it appears that churches only help those it knows about and/or members of its community.

Churches help those who come to them for help. Or they will seek out people they know need help, such as helping after a disaster or such. They also fund missionaries and aid around the world. And it is all voluntary, not forced. And it is not socialism. It's charity.

[Bill the Cat]

What do you understand by the Social Gospel?

The Social Gospel is a social movement within Protestantism that aims to apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labor, lack of unionization, poor schools, and the dangers of war. It was most prominent in the early-20th-century United States and Canada. Theologically, the Social Gospelers sought to put into practice the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10): "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". They typically were postmillennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. The Social Gospel was more popular among clergy than laity. Its leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the progressive movement, and most were theologically liberal, although a few were also conservative when it came to their views on social issues. Important leaders included Richard T. Ely, Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.


I think it was misguided and theologically lacking while having literally nothing to do with socialism.

That is not precisely the same thing as persuading [?coercing?] a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her own initial better judgement or wishes.

Yeah it is. You've coerced someone from ending their perceived suffering "against [their] own initial better judgement or wishes". In both situations, we've stopped a death.

You do not agree with my position; but then as you observed on another thread:

Continue to enjoy your butchery then. People like you have been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. Your conscience may be seared, but ours isn't...

[rogue06]

The ethical aspect remains valid.



One could argue that there is a wider ethical duty for a society to take care of all those within it that are in need.

And rather than piecemeal and impromptu charitable works by individuals or groups which can only ever [to use a phrase]"scratch the surface" of social need, a national system overseen by government into which everyone who has the ability pays [according their individual means] would ensure that all those who needed assistance received it according to their needs.

Like during the 2003 heatwave, particularly in France?

[Sparko]

Like during the 2003 heatwave, particularly in France?

Or East Palestine (train derailment and chemical spill/burn) right now, where they can't even get FEMA to help?
Or during COVID where people couldn't even get their unemployment checks because the system was too backed up?

Government is terrible at assistance. Most of the money is wasted on bureaucracy and red tape, and fraud. With churches, they get to know the people personally and can help them where they need it. And can help emotionally too.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Social Gospel is a social movement within Protestantism that aims to apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labor, lack of unionization, poor schools, and the dangers of war. It was most prominent in the early-20th-century United States and Canada. Theologically, the Social Gospelers sought to put into practice the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10): "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". They typically were postmillennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. The Social Gospel was more popular among clergy than laity. Its leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the progressive movement, and most were theologically liberal, although a few were also conservative when it came to their views on social issues. Important leaders included Richard T. Ely, Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.

That was lifted straight from Wiki.

I think it was misguided and theologically lacking

On what grounds do you consider it to have been theologically lacking?

while having literally nothing to do with socialism.

Certainly Rauschenbusch disliked socialism because it is generally associated with atheism. However social concerns and reform including housing, education, trades unions and working conditions [including child labour] were very much the concerns of those who believed this. Hence the question "What would Jesus do?"

Yeah it is. You've coerced someone from ending their perceived suffering "against [their] own initial better judgement or wishes". In both situations, we've stopped a death.

Many of these same groups arrive at abortion clinics with their posters and placards shouting, praying, or harassing patients and staff. I understand the Blue Bus mobile pregnancy centre used to park near to abortion clinics.

[CivilDiscourse]

Many of these same groups arrive at abortion clinics with their posters and placards shouting, praying, or harassing patients and staff. I understand the Blue Bus mobile pregnancy centre used to park near to abortion clinics.

No, it isn't but you didn't say that was an issue, what you said, and I quote was: That person and that organisation are responsible for that child being alive.


How long do you believe Doctors should be financially responsible for patients that they save? If a pregnant woman goes into cardiac arrest, are the paramedics and doctors now responsible for the baby that would otherwise have died without their intervention?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Churches help those who come to them for help. Or they will seek out people they know need help, such as helping after a disaster or such. They also fund missionaries and aid around the world. And it is all voluntary, not forced. And it is not socialism. It's charity.

No it is not socialism in the generally accepted use of that word because most people associate socialism with communism and atheism. However, it is socialist, and its roots in the Christian religion go back a long way.

My emphasis from a short but interesting article:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-socialism-...odern-religion

In fact, socialists had a vital and productive relationship with religion. In the 1820s, the French Saint-Simonians, the first influential socialist movement, declared themselves the apostles of their ‘church’ and preached a ‘New Christianity’. The Fourierists, who succeeded the Saint-Simonians as the most dynamic socialist school, demanded the ‘return to the Christianity of Jesus Christ’socialisme, explained its meaning with ‘religious democracy’. Engels, in 1843, had marvelled at the Frenchmen’s ‘mysticism’, but later observers, who had usually been shaped by Marxism, dismissed the religion of the early socialists as superficial rhetoric or childish enthusiasm. However, that is simply not the case. Many early socialists looked to religion for ways to define society according to principles both religious and socialist.

In his book Christian Socialism: An Informal History John Cort [1913-2006 and a Christian Socialist] noted this on Matthew 25:

Matthew 25:31–46 is not only the end and summation of Jesus’ teaching; it is also a vision of the end of the world. In effect, it is a hellfire sermon. Hellfire sermons are no longer popular, and perhaps this is one reason why Matthew 25 is not more frequently quoted. Actually, it is a heaven-and-hell-fire sermon, but it is not built around the usual sins and virtues. There is nothing about sex in it. The only questions asked are, “Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the shelterless, visit those who are sick or in prison?” No questions are really asked, of course. The Son of Man sits on his throne and separates the sheep from the goats. He knows. He does not have to ask questions. He tells the sheep, “I was hungry and you gave me food…. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And to the goats, “I was hungry and you gave me no food…. Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Both groups, surprised, ask him, “When did we do this to you?” And he responds, “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

Jesus’ identification with the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the prisoners is one powerful element in this passage. It is an element that Christians can never permit themselves to forget. For the Christian socialist, however, the passage is, or should be, the cornerstone of his or her faith.

Monsignor Joseph Gremillion, former director of the Vatican's Commission on Justice and Peace, said something once that throws a bright beam of light on the meaning and significance of this passage. His words were to the effect that to feed the hungry is a simple imperative, but it is not a simple undertaking. That is, “to feed the hungry” takes planning, and the planning will have to be just as sophisticated, just as long-range, just as complex as the demand for food, clothing, and shelter requires. For the demand must be met, the hungry must be fed, the naked must be clothed, the homeless must be given a decent roof over their heads, the sick must be cared for, the prisoners (even) must be treated with compassion. [...]

Let us proceed then to draw out the implications of Matthew 25, which is simply Jesus’ further explanation of what it means to love one's neighbour as oneself. Let us combine with Monsignor Gremillion's aphorism another, more ancient one: “Feed people fish and you feed them for a day; teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” No one would deny that this is even more in keeping with the spirit of Matthew 25. Who wants a permanent population of beggars or welfare mothers? Everyone wants to see the poor working, at least those who are able to; we all agree with St. Paul (2 Thess. 3:10), “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.” All, that is, but the idle rich agree.

The unemployed are dangerous and expensive. They breed crime, physical and mental illness, loss of tax revenue, unbalanced budgets, high interest rates, recession and depression, vicious circles and spirals, Keynesian cycles of boom-and-bust. And there is the psychic element, the psychic hunger. Those who are unemployed hunger not only for food but for fulfilment, for work that will permit them to reach their potential as children of God, to share in the creative work of God, making and remaking the world. “Teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” It is still too simple. Teaching people how to fish with a hook and line will not feed them for a lifetime. More is required. They need fishing boats that are big enough to go to sea winter and summer and are equipped with expensive gear. They need a society around them that can be counted on to pay a fair price for the fish so that they can support themselves and their dependents in what has come to be called “reasonable comfort [pp 68,70.

And for Cort all that could not be achieved on a piecemeal basis by volunteers, however well intentioned and organised. Such situations required a great deal more in both political and economic planning. And that is where the socialism would come in.

[CivilDiscourse]

No it is not socialism in the generally accepted use of that word because most people associate socialism with communism and atheism. However, it is socialist, and its roots in the Christian religion go back a long way.

My emphasis from a short but interesting article:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-socialism-...odern-religion

In fact, socialists had a vital and productive relationship with religion. In the 1820s, the French Saint-Simonians, the first influential socialist movement, declared themselves the apostles of their ‘church’ and preached a ‘New Christianity’. The Fourierists, who succeeded the Saint-Simonians as the most dynamic socialist school, demanded the ‘return to the Christianity of Jesus Christ’socialisme, explained its meaning with ‘religious democracy’. Engels, in 1843, had marvelled at the Frenchmen’s ‘mysticism’, but later observers, who had usually been shaped by Marxism, dismissed the religion of the early socialists as superficial rhetoric or childish enthusiasm. However, that is simply not the case. Many early socialists looked to religion for ways to define society according to principles both religious and socialist.

In his book Christian Socialism: An Informal History John Cort [1913-2006 and a Christian Socialist] noted this on Matthew 25:

Matthew 25:31–46 is not only the end and summation of Jesus’ teaching; it is also a vision of the end of the world. In effect, it is a hellfire sermon. Hellfire sermons are no longer popular, and perhaps this is one reason why Matthew 25 is not more frequently quoted. Actually, it is a heaven-and-hell-fire sermon, but it is not built around the usual sins and virtues. There is nothing about sex in it. The only questions asked are, “Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the shelterless, visit those who are sick or in prison?” No questions are really asked, of course. The Son of Man sits on his throne and separates the sheep from the goats. He knows. He does not have to ask questions. He tells the sheep, “I was hungry and you gave me food…. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And to the goats, “I was hungry and you gave me no food…. Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Both groups, surprised, ask him, “When did we do this to you?” And he responds, “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

Jesus’ identification with the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the prisoners is one powerful element in this passage. It is an element that Christians can never permit themselves to forget. For the Christian socialist, however, the passage is, or should be, the cornerstone of his or her faith.

Monsignor Joseph Gremillion, former director of the Vatican's Commission on Justice and Peace, said something once that throws a bright beam of light on the meaning and significance of this passage. His words were to the effect that to feed the hungry is a simple imperative, but it is not a simple undertaking. That is, “to feed the hungry” takes planning, and the planning will have to be just as sophisticated, just as long-range, just as complex as the demand for food, clothing, and shelter requires. For the demand must be met, the hungry must be fed, the naked must be clothed, the homeless must be given a decent roof over their heads, the sick must be cared for, the prisoners (even) must be treated with compassion. [...]

Let us proceed then to draw out the implications of Matthew 25, which is simply Jesus’ further explanation of what it means to love one's neighbour as oneself. Let us combine with Monsignor Gremillion's aphorism another, more ancient one: “Feed people fish and you feed them for a day; teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” No one would deny that this is even more in keeping with the spirit of Matthew 25. Who wants a permanent population of beggars or welfare mothers? Everyone wants to see the poor working, at least those who are able to; we all agree with St. Paul (2 Thess. 3:10), “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.” All, that is, but the idle rich agree.

The unemployed are dangerous and expensive. They breed crime, physical and mental illness, loss of tax revenue, unbalanced budgets, high interest rates, recession and depression, vicious circles and spirals, Keynesian cycles of boom-and-bust. And there is the psychic element, the psychic hunger. Those who are unemployed hunger not only for food but for fulfilment, for work that will permit them to reach their potential as children of God, to share in the creative work of God, making and remaking the world. “Teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” It is still too simple. Teaching people how to fish with a hook and line will not feed them for a lifetime. More is required. They need fishing boats that are big enough to go to sea winter and summer and are equipped with expensive gear. They need a society around them that can be counted on to pay a fair price for the fish so that they can support themselves and their dependents in what has come to be called “reasonable comfort [pp 68,70.

And for Cort all that could not be achieved on a piecemeal basis by volunteers, however well intentioned and organised. Such situations required a great deal more in both political and economic planning. And that is where the socialism would come in.

4. Lying, denying, changing definitions


Here, in order to win, the narcissist uses more covert tactics.

Sometimes they lie about what happened, what you or they did and didnt do, or even about whats real and factually true. Often to the degree of pure denial and delusion. An attempt to confuse the other person and make them doubt their experiences or reality by lying about it is called gaslighting.

Another method that falls in this category is redefining to suit their narrative. For that purpose, they are keen on using euphemistic language or redefining commonly used words to fit their narrative when it clearly doesnt. Again, the goal is to justify that what they are doing is good and what they are saying is right, even when it clearly isnt.

Sometimes it means reframing or minimizing their toxic behavior to confuse you. For instance, I didnt yell at you, I was just passionate. Or, This is not abusive or manipulative, Im just being assertive and honest.

[rogue06]

Or East Palestine (train derailment and chemical spill/burn) right now, where they can't even get FEMA to help?
Or during COVID where people couldn't even get their unemployment checks because the system was too backed up?

Never received a single dime even though I was eligible.

I registered and was accepted but when I'd go back into the system it would say my Social Security number was wrong. I was literally calling three times a day for two months and then every other day for another month.

Nobody ever returned my call.

Then six months later I got a notice saying everyone needed to reapply. I did. And was again accepted. And again when I tried to get into the system after being accepted I was told my Social Security number wasn't valid.

Again, I called every day, and again never heard from them.

A friend recommended that I contact Senator Warnock. I did and they told me they would look into it and get back to me.

That was the last time I heard from them. Later emails went unanswered.

So in the end I never got anything.

[Sparko]

No it is not socialism in the generally accepted use of that word because most people associate socialism with communism and atheism. However, it is socialist, and its roots in the Christian religion go back a long way.

My emphasis from a short but interesting article:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-socialism-...odern-religion

In fact, socialists had a vital and productive relationship with religion. In the 1820s, the French Saint-Simonians, the first influential socialist movement, declared themselves the apostles of their ‘church’ and preached a ‘New Christianity’. The Fourierists, who succeeded the Saint-Simonians as the most dynamic socialist school, demanded the ‘return to the Christianity of Jesus Christ’socialisme, explained its meaning with ‘religious democracy’. Engels, in 1843, had marvelled at the Frenchmen’s ‘mysticism’, but later observers, who had usually been shaped by Marxism, dismissed the religion of the early socialists as superficial rhetoric or childish enthusiasm. However, that is simply not the case. Many early socialists looked to religion for ways to define society according to principles both religious and socialist.

In his book Christian Socialism: An Informal History John Cort [1913-2006 and a Christian Socialist] noted this on Matthew 25:

Matthew 25:31–46 is not only the end and summation of Jesus’ teaching; it is also a vision of the end of the world. In effect, it is a hellfire sermon. Hellfire sermons are no longer popular, and perhaps this is one reason why Matthew 25 is not more frequently quoted. Actually, it is a heaven-and-hell-fire sermon, but it is not built around the usual sins and virtues. There is nothing about sex in it. The only questions asked are, “Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the shelterless, visit those who are sick or in prison?” No questions are really asked, of course. The Son of Man sits on his throne and separates the sheep from the goats. He knows. He does not have to ask questions. He tells the sheep, “I was hungry and you gave me food…. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And to the goats, “I was hungry and you gave me no food…. Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Both groups, surprised, ask him, “When did we do this to you?” And he responds, “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

Jesus’ identification with the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the prisoners is one powerful element in this passage. It is an element that Christians can never permit themselves to forget. For the Christian socialist, however, the passage is, or should be, the cornerstone of his or her faith.

Monsignor Joseph Gremillion, former director of the Vatican's Commission on Justice and Peace, said something once that throws a bright beam of light on the meaning and significance of this passage. His words were to the effect that to feed the hungry is a simple imperative, but it is not a simple undertaking. That is, “to feed the hungry” takes planning, and the planning will have to be just as sophisticated, just as long-range, just as complex as the demand for food, clothing, and shelter requires. For the demand must be met, the hungry must be fed, the naked must be clothed, the homeless must be given a decent roof over their heads, the sick must be cared for, the prisoners (even) must be treated with compassion. [...]

Let us proceed then to draw out the implications of Matthew 25, which is simply Jesus’ further explanation of what it means to love one's neighbour as oneself. Let us combine with Monsignor Gremillion's aphorism another, more ancient one: “Feed people fish and you feed them for a day; teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” No one would deny that this is even more in keeping with the spirit of Matthew 25. Who wants a permanent population of beggars or welfare mothers? Everyone wants to see the poor working, at least those who are able to; we all agree with St. Paul (2 Thess. 3:10), “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.” All, that is, but the idle rich agree.

The unemployed are dangerous and expensive. They breed crime, physical and mental illness, loss of tax revenue, unbalanced budgets, high interest rates, recession and depression, vicious circles and spirals, Keynesian cycles of boom-and-bust. And there is the psychic element, the psychic hunger. Those who are unemployed hunger not only for food but for fulfilment, for work that will permit them to reach their potential as children of God, to share in the creative work of God, making and remaking the world. “Teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” It is still too simple. Teaching people how to fish with a hook and line will not feed them for a lifetime. More is required. They need fishing boats that are big enough to go to sea winter and summer and are equipped with expensive gear. They need a society around them that can be counted on to pay a fair price for the fish so that they can support themselves and their dependents in what has come to be called “reasonable comfort [pp 68,70.

And for Cort all that could not be achieved on a piecemeal basis by volunteers, however well intentioned and organised. Such situations required a great deal more in both political and economic planning. And that is where the socialism would come in.

LOL. Sharing and Charity are not Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production. Just because socialists try to twist and corrupt Christian charity as an excuse to steal from the people doesn't make Christianity socialist. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily sharing and helping others. The problem comes when it is mandated by the the government. Then it becomes theft.

[rogue06]

LOL. Sharing and Charity are not Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production. Just because socialists try to twist and corrupt Christian charity as an excuse to steal from the people doesn't make Christianity socialist. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily sharing and helping others. The problem comes when it is mandated by the the government. Then it becomes theft.

She cannot grasp that giving of your own free will is not equivalent to a third party taking what they want.

It goes back to her bewildered confusion regarding the Book of Acts and Ananias and Sapphira from two summers ago.

[Bill the Cat]

That was lifted straight from Wiki.

So what?

On what grounds do you consider it to have been theologically lacking?

Why do you care?

Certainly Rauschenbusch disliked socialism because it is generally associated with atheism. However social concerns and reform including housing, education, trades unions and working conditions [including child labour] were very much the concerns of those who believed this. Hence the question "What would Jesus do?"

Not that.

Many of these same groups arrive at abortion clinics with their posters and placards shouting, praying, or harassing patients and staff. I understand the Blue Bus mobile pregnancy centre used to park near to abortion clinics.

So what? Harassing people is clearly the wrong way to go about it, but we seem to have come a long way from your "its immoral to let someone die on their own but it's not immoral to kill them for nothing more than the whims of the mother..."

[Sparko]

She cannot grasp that giving of your own free will is not equivalent to a third party taking what they want.

It goes back to her bewildered confusion regarding the Book of Acts and Ananias and Sapphira from two summers ago.

Hey maybe we can force her to subscribe to Theologyweb and call it "socialmediaism?" 50 Euros a month should do it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

LOL. Sharing and Charity are not Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production.

That is later politically applied socialism.

Being socialist [in the widest sense of that word] is another matter. How, for example, would you define individuals such Henri Dunant, William and Catherine Booth, Ida Arenhold, or Elizabeth Fry?

While concentrating [as so many do] on the writings of Paul and the gospel of John there is tendency to forget the pronounced social aspect to the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics [particularly Mark and Matthew] as they have come down to us. Hence the social gospel and the question "What would Jesus do?"

There is nothing wrong with voluntarily sharing and helping others

According to Matthew 25 it should not be "voluntary". It should be an integral part of a believers life and done for everyone. And those who do not "will go away into eternal punishment ".