Notebook.ai

Ask the Christians

@Althalosian-is-the-father book The official Dad.,o7 forum 161 comments schedule
person_off
Deleted user

"The morning-after pill (also known as Emergency Contraception, EC, Preven, or Plan B) prevents pregnancy and does not cause an abortion. It prevents fertilization of an egg or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall."

Bruh.

Fertilized eggs get released through periods all the time. It's more common than you think. And this is not considered an abortion OR a miscarriage. A woman is pregnant (and her body starts reacting) when then egg is attached to the uterine wall and starts growing. Not when the egg is fertilized because it can still be expelled naturally.

This is why pregnancy tests do not work until more than a week after unprotected sex. Fertilization doesn't make the body start making pregnancy hormones–attachment to the uterus does. Therefore–a woman is not pregnant at fertilization.

The morning after pill prevents that from happening–but doesnt always work.
The abortion pill stops a pregnancy in it's tracks.

Do you understand the difference?

book

"The morning-after pill (also known as Emergency Contraception, EC, Preven, or Plan B) prevents pregnancy and does not cause an abortion. It prevents fertilization of an egg or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall."

Bruh.

Fertilized eggs get released through periods all the time. It's more common than you think. And this is not considered an abortion OR a miscarriage. A woman is pregnant (and her body starts reacting) when then egg is attached to the uterine wall and starts growing. Not when the egg is fertilized because it can still be expelled naturally.

This is why pregnancy tests do not work until more than a week after unprotected sex. Fertilization doesn't make the body start making pregnancy hormones–attachment to the uterus does. Therefore–a woman is not pregnant at fertilization.

The morning after pill prevents that from happening–but doesnt always work.
The abortion pill stops a pregnancy in it's tracks.

Do you understand the difference?

Aight. Did some research. (Love that Bruh btw.) So it seems that it doesn't end a pregnancy because a pregnancy is not defined as such until a implantation into the uterus is complete. This seems to me to be an argument based in technicality. So what would happen would not be defined as abortion or miscarriage based on that fact that those are defined by pregnancy's definition in implantation. But it is still the ending of the zygote's existence.

Also to go back to your first point on this reply, a fertilized egg would be released because the implantation had not occurred, therefore not giving the chemical signals of pregnancy that prevent menstruation. Is that correct?

group
@Becfromthedead group

Well the Bible never directly touches on abortion. (Though the church has which invalidates that argument.) But the church has traditionally always been very Pro-life.
But it is not just the Old Testament or more directly the Ceremonial Law that is -for lack of a better term- anti-gay. The church is very not supportive of Lgbt. This is a controversial statement. But most disagree mainly because they lack a complete understanding of the Bible and church history.

(Obviously Christians are supposed to love all and oppress no one for anything.)

Even then, it is very interpretation-heavy. I had to do a lot of work on interpreting different possible meanings of religious texts last semester. From what I understand, not everyone could agree on exact meanings for even some major things like the status of Mary, the status of Jesus, and the existence of the holy trinity, so they had to hold councils on these things because they were not explicitly clear in the Bible. Even major points in Christianity had to be interpreted by human beings. So I wouldn't call it lack of understanding. It's just interpretation, and neither one is inherently more correct than the other. How do we know the more traditional interpretations are the more correct ones?

book

The denomination that I am a part of doesn't frown upon using birth control. They think it's necessary for a woman to protect, and take care of herself. They frown upon having sex before marriage, but using birth control? It's common and accepted, because it benefits the well being of the woman, and only prevents pregnancy.

group
@Becfromthedead group

Yeah, that's a good question. Why isn't birth control, even within marriage okay for some denominations? Some women need time to further their careers to support their family, or may want to wait a few years between children and take birth control in between, but they're still having sex, and they fit under the umbrella of people who do have sex for procreative purposes.

book

What I do know, is that some denominations (at least around where I live) are very patriarchal. The man makes the choices, whatsoever. The woman isn't really thought of. If the church says no birth control, the man in the house has to enforce it. I had a friend who was on birth control and her boyfriend found out and he told her either that she had to throw it away, or he was ending the relationship. She ended that relationship on the spot and moved on.

book

Yeah, that's a good question. Why isn't birth control, even within marriage okay for some denominations? Some women need time to further their careers to support their family, or may want to wait a few years between children and take birth control in between, but they're still having sex, and they fit under the umbrella of people who do have sex for procreative purposes.

Because there are natural ways to prevent pregnancy. Using artificial ways means using sex without any of its natural purpose.

book

The denomination that I am a part of doesn't frown upon using birth control. They think it's necessary for a woman to protect, and take care of herself. They frown upon having sex before marriage, but using birth control? It's common and accepted, because it benefits the well being of the woman, and only prevents pregnancy.

That is not in line with the traditional church. (I do not have 100% affiliation with any church, but the first church is the right one. Unfortunately there are so many splits that I don't know even if the true church is still around. I plan on looking into Orthodoxy.)

book

What I do know, is that some denominations (at least around where I live) are very patriarchal. The man makes the choices, whatsoever. The woman isn't really thought of. If the church says no birth control, the man in the house has to enforce it.

Well the other option is not following the teachings of ones church so I don't see the issue. If you are a part of a church, it is your job to live under it's teachings and religious demands. So of course the man should enforce it. And so should the woman. They should be mutually agreed on it because of what their church teaches.

book

The denomination that I am a part of doesn't frown upon using birth control. They think it's necessary for a woman to protect, and take care of herself. They frown upon having sex before marriage, but using birth control? It's common and accepted, because it benefits the well being of the woman, and only prevents pregnancy.

That is not in line with the traditional church. (I do not have 100% affiliation with any church, but the first church is the right one. Unfortunately there are so many splits that I don't know even if the true church is still around. I plan on looking into Orthodoxy.)

I'm not traditional traditional. I go to a Church of God, and they are accepting of most things. They don't accept LGBTQ+, but they won't beat it out of you with a bible. They'll try to change you with words, and why it's wrong, but if it fails, they'll roll with it. But again, this is the denomination that people think plays with snakes and fire, but that's not true either.

book

I'm intellectually rather traditional. In my life… not as much. But we all need to grow in Christ.

person_off
Deleted user

Homosexuality.
Why y'all gotta rain on our pride parade?

book

So. Homosexuality bad. Says so in the Good Book. (And the church.) That's it.

person_off
Deleted user

Where?

book

Besides the time the gays got rained on with fire rocks, Romans and Corinthians. (Plus the Old Testament that says they must die. But luckily we don't do that anymore because Christians need not follow the Ceremonial Law.)

group
@Becfromthedead group

The wrongdoing of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t even explicitly homosexuality… it was literally nondescript except the night the angels stayed with Lot and his family and these men wanted to rape the angels, who were guests. It’s not explicitly because they were men. It’s rape.
Like I said earlier, the Bible is subject to so much interpretation that it’s totally unfair to say any one interpretation is completely and indisputably “true” and “correct,” even the “original interpretation.”
As for Romans and Corinthians, I can’t remember them off the top of my head, but I’ve had to analyze much of that scripture before and still can’t wrap my head around why homosexuality is so hated. Literally adultery was treated more acceptable than homosexuality in my churches growing up, even though one should be a much bigger deal than the other. You don’t think the weight put on the “wrongness” of homosexuality is blown out of proportion?

book

So the story of S and G was always considered by first the Jews and then the Christians to be about Homosexuality. So that pretty much means it was. Especially as S and G were known for that and no where else and those other crimes… were.
As for the interpretation argument. It's pretty explicit. And of course the actual original one was.
And for my take, I don't exactly understand why homosexuality is a big deal. (I have theories involving optimal compatibility being with the opposite sexes so as to produce the best safety and development of children.)
But really… it doesn't matter what I think. This isn't the first thing I really don't understand. But I have to believe it. I have been convinced through both my upbringing and logical analysis that Christianity is the true religion and contains the Truth of existence. Because of that, if Christianity says that a thing is true, it must be so, regardless of any feelings I might have.

@ninja_violinist

So the story of S and G was always considered by first the Jews and then the Christians to be about Homosexuality. So that pretty much means it was. Especially as S and G were known for that and no where else and those other crimes… were.

hmmm, that's… that's a very selective reading? Even within the Bible it's acknowledged that S and G were about more than homosexuality. yes it was was part of it, but it certainly wasn't limited to it. so for example you have Ezekiel 16: 49-50 where it says: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (wow, it's almost like we could insert any rich country into "Sodom" here and accurately describe it. that's depressing. anyway.) in the same context, it also mentions lewdness and sexual perversion, so homosexuality was a part of it, but it's a bit narrow to limit it to that only.

and tbh I think that highlights a part of Christianity that we Christians these days kind of fail at? we point out the things in society that we feel comfortable condemning because we often feel removed from it ourselves. But the fact is that God's standards are high in every part of life, and all people fall short everywhere. Part of being a Christian, like Dom said, is believing that God sets the standards of what's good, and knowing that even if I don't understand the standards I need to trust that he knows what he's doing. another part is knowing that his standards are literally impossible for someone to meet on their own, and the entire point of Christianity is knowing that Jesus did it on my behalf. As I get to know him better he enables me to live more like him, and he shows me that I can trust that he's changing me for the better. But it's ridiculous and wrong to claim that there are certain kinds of people who have to change before he offers that to them. There are no entry requirements to being a Christian. God doesn't say "I'll take anyone, but not them."

book

Nicely spoken! Well said! I am both surprised and glad that you were able to pull a passage I was unfamiliar with.
But what you said about the story of S and G (though I will admit you made a very good point) is not the only part of the Bible that strongly condemns homosexuality. (But yeah, arrogance and not helping the poor should still be high on the radar.)
Like you said, God will take anyone; but one cannot be a Christian moving forward while still committing a sin and not repenting of it.
But of course, with God's help, all of us shall be turned to better creatures.

group

As @Winter-And-Her-Colors-Are-Fading said, some opinions vary from denomination to denomination. My family (& denomination) is pretty pro-life, though I'm not sure about birth control feelings.
Another thing that the Bible says that can be overlooked sometimes is to love everyone. There are some things that it says are wrong (that could be controversial), but the main message is to try and treat everyone like Jesus would. For example, one of my friends is atheist, and he made a point to tell me and my other Christian friend that he appreciated us treating him like we would any of our other friends, even though he believes different things than us.
IMPORTANT NOTE: We aren't perfect. We try to be kind but we all have bad days. The last paragraph of @ninja_violinist's last post highlights it very well. (I'm sorry for mostly referencing other people, but they've just said it so much better than I could.)

@Relsey-TheElder

@black-hole-sun said a lot of what I was going to. Remember the Bible was written thousands of years ago, The translation from it's original Text into Latin was bound to be different then the original text. Translating it out of Latin and into any of the common languages was strictly forbidden so when it was done there was a high stress to translate and move on, it wasn't a precise process. People were burned at the stake for translating the Bible into other languages, It's not something a person would want to spend extra time on. There are more than one translation and you could use a different version of the bible depending on the denomination, but there are bound to be mistakes and misinterpretations done by translators. It wasn't an exact careful process but it got the job done, so there are going to be errors in the Bible. When It did become legal to translate there are still going to be errors, the King James version, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible, were authorized translation but it's still a translation, from a translation. It's not going to be perfect.

person_off
Deleted user

I'm not Christian but as a bisexual I've researched lmao and the original translation is thought to be "man should not sleep with boy" as in talking about pedophilia

group

I've heard that, but I've never heard it confirmed.

group
@Becfromthedead group

Yeah, it’s hard to confirm, but I’ve heard that too. I might see if I can find my old religion notes, see what my professor and I talked about.

book

But whatever the case, there are far more valid places to quote if one wishes to condemn homosexuality from the Bible.

book

@Relsey Well there is the undeniable fact that a perfect translation is impossible when translating any piece longer than a few words.
That being said, translation that was not approved by the Catholic church (not the original church) was not allowed (though the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, was approved by the Catholic church). I believe you are incorrect in saying that translation was a hasty business as it was taken most seriously.
It is true that Bibles were not available to the laymen. But that has to do with the fact that the Catholic church thinking that the laypeople would either stumble into heresy or not be able to defend their beliefs against heresy because of the lack of education.

@Relsey-TheElder

Pardon me I did not word that very well. I do believe that it was very serious for the people doing it, How every I also believe that under such pressure mistakes would have been more common and frequent.

@ninja_violinist

oh hey, when it comes to translation I know a few things! I grew up around Bible translators (though not people who translated into English).

  1. It's not true that modern Bible translations are from the Latin Vulgate. New translations, starting with Luther's in the early sixteenth century, are done from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, which were preserved in thousands of manuscripts that survive from the early church time period.
  2. Biblical scholars today all learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and study the original texts. Quite a few of my friends study theology, and they all take Greek and Hebrew lessons from the first semester onwards.
  3. I can guarantee translation is not a fast or hasty business! I've seen projects take 20-30 years, I think that's pretty average for the whole Bible. and you've got entire teams of people checking it over for mistakes or unclarity. And in English, you've got a whole bunch of translations - all of which start with the original text and then take each other into account as well.
  4. The pedophilia thing you're referring to is one of Paul's, I think, and it can be a bit controversial. Usually, to find out the nuance of meaning in words at the time, you look at how a term is used by other writers from the time period, at the direct context, and in other parts of the Bible. But Paul coined the term he uses in Corinthians and in Timothy - "arsenokoites" - so the argument is that it's historically been translated wrong as "man who lies with man" rather than "man who lies with boy". (as a reference to pederastry which is a Greek cultural practice, a "socially accepted relationship between an adult man and a boy, usually in his teens".) But it's very shaky to say that that passage refers only to pederastry, especially when you consider that Paul explicitly links the word as derived from Mosaic law in the Timothy passage (which is a reference to Leviticus which, again, is very explicit about homosexuality).
    and even if arsenokoites refers to pederastry, which I'm personally not convinced it is, he doesn't use that word in the Romans passage. That one has a pretty clear explanation of what he means.
    so tl;dr translation is controversial and people argue about shades of meaning, but the traditional interpretation is traditional for a reason and reading it otherwise brings up a whole host of issues with textual consistency

i need to stop dropping these gigantic walls of text sorry

book

Honestly though I loved it.

group
@Pickles group

(as a reference to pederastry which is a Greek cultural practice, a "socially accepted relationship between an adult man and a boy, usually in his teens".)

I did not need this information. I will go die in a hole now-