I'd like to ask for something you'll rarely hear online or anywhere else on the planet: preach to me. Someone explain to me how the Catholic church , or any Christian for that matter, rectifies it's no-abortion stance with Numbers 5:27

Just for now, please avoid the snarky responses. There are other smaller reasons, but this passage is the straw that broke the camel's back for me, proving the Bible is fallable, riddled with irreconcilable errors rendering it anything but the word of an almighty and all-loving God.

This passage describes a priest administering a terrifying potion to a suspected adulterous woman who, if guilty, miscarries her baby and is cast out of the community, in those days a death sentence for a young wife.

The problems with this are numerous. One, that the life of the unborn child is given no consideration. A just God would make the adulterous wife and her lover responsible for raising the child according to God's laws, not just abort it. Two, that if the woman was virtuous, but because the fetus was malformed or she was malnourished or abused by her jealous husband or whatever, she may miscarry anyway, so an innocent woman gets cast into the wilderness for no reason other than she has a freaky jealous husband.

So here's a passage describing the abortion of an adulterously conceived baby at the hands of a priest as fulfilling God's law.

Yes, this sounds like I'm jabbing at the Bible, but really, explaining this hideous passage with something other than that "strange and wondrous ways" babble would go a long way towards rehabilitating my view of organized religion as nothing more than another form of crowd control tyranny.

I went through the profound conversion, accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior decades ago, fully, emotionally, with every fiber of my being. I read, and reread, and reread the Bible like my pastor recommended. But as I read, the truth of dead babies, mass slaughter, social division, unjustified inheritance, inconsistencies, bigotry, superstition and mysticism just kept jumping out at me until I just couldn't swallow it anymore. Again, this passage was the proverbial straw.

Preach to me. It's supposed to be ten times more important to return lost sheep to the flock than recruit new ones, according to Jesus' teachings. Or just delete me as off-topic. I'm used to that.

God loves you, Congressive. Pray to God for understanding.

The DemocRAT party, and its lemmings, won't change its views, no matter how righteous, if it affects their power. Power is their religion...

within the context of public policy - only lawyers speak in "either/or" phrases.

like the background of this comment field is either black or white - but not the grey it certainly appears to be.

I take the same appoarch as Rudy Giulioni and that is abortion is not for me, but I can not or should not stand in the way of mother. Congressive, you did a very nice job with this one and I would say that 99% of the democrats are not about killing babies. If we are to believe and follow the Bible to the letter we will find that it is not completely Christian friendly.

I have to keep in my mind that the Bible was interpreted by a man (King James or Pat Roberts) who like Republicans and Democrats has an agenda or opinion.

I wonder if the vatican will begin excommunicating Catholics who support capital punishment?

You know, culture of life and all that....

Hey - you can still support killing babies, just not as part of our church.

If you don't like it, maybe you could revise the religion of the Maya and make baby killing part of your ceremonies.

If the Catholic Church (or any other denomination) needs to rectify its teachings with the Old Testament, then they should:

Forbid anyone with a physical deformity from becoming a priest (Leviticus 21:17-21)

Impose the death penalty for blasphemy (Lev 24:16), disbeying one's parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and adultery (Deut 22:22-24).

Demand that farmers turn over their first-born animals to the church (Lev 27:26)

Forbid any man whose genitals have been mutilated, and anyone born illegitimately (and descendants of the latter to the tenth generation) from attending church. (Deut 23:1-2)

oh devout one, mark - what does the vatican, and by extension, the church say about the war?

i thought so.

hypocrite.

Congressive,

I don't read numbers 5:27 that same way as you do. I read it to mean that the woman would not be able to have children, not that it causes a miscarriage.

Either way, I'm not Catholic, so what the Pope says doesn't really affect me personally as it is.

I am a Christian, though I believe a lot of the Bible is fable, and embellished history. The idea that the God of the universe, whoever, or whatever he,she, or it may be, would actually talk to primitive animal-sacrifing nomads on a small, backwoods planet not even in the center of our own galaxy is a little far-fetched to me.

Of course, back then they thought the earth was the center of the universe.

The Bible does have a very good collection of moral codes, etc. that indicate, at least to me, that people tried to figure out what was the right thing to do, but, in the end, it is just a book, written by men, who were searching for meaning just like everyone else.

To me, the true nature of God can be found just by looking up at the night sky.

Mark,
You have that luxury because your job does not revolve around representing an enormous variety of random citizens. That's what politicians have to do - represent the views & needs of their constituents, even the ones who didn't vote for them. And if those constituents don't want abortion outlawed, the politician shouldn't work towards that goal.

Of course, it is within the Church's/Pope's purview to take serious issue with such a stance (the hypocracy of choosing the abortion issue over any other, while galling, is somthing for a separate thread). And if a politician finds he or she cannot separate their personal views from those required for their chosen job, then they have to decide which is more important to them - being a politician or being a Catholic.

That said, any attempt to strong-arm politicians into voting a certin way, especially in opposition to the desires of the people that politician represents, is absolutely unacceptable in a democratic society. It is nothing short of foreign interference in the running of our country, and cannot be tolerated. If the Vatican really wants to push this, they need to lose their tax exepmtion and formally turn into a political organization.

Mark, I am also Catholic and pro life. I would only vote for Rudy Guiliani if he was the republican nominee for president. Otherwise, my vote goes to John McCain or Fred Thompson (Jeb, where are you!!). The words that are coming out of Rudys mouth about abortion could just as easily have been said by bill clinton.

Deleted - weird

Congressive,

I don't see how that passage has anything to do with abortion - seems to me to be about a way of deflecting a jealous husband who more than likely unreasonably suspects his wife of adultery. Great deal of wisdom in having the woman appear before the Lord and, at the risk of her immortal soul, swear that she is pure - if the man is at all Godly, then that would do the trick and the problem is resolved...if he isn't Godly, then he wouldn't bring his wife before the Lord.

As for helping you return to the Church - I'm afraid I'm really not good enough to offer you the perfect words which would convince you to come home. I will pray for you, and I ask you to follow this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/backgr.htm

And follow the instructions you'll find. If you do it, then I think you'll find your way back home pretty quick.

James,

Rudy is a thorny issue for Catholics - but as we are allowed to support those who will help, even if they are not 100% with us, I think when confronted with a clearly pro-abortion Democrat and a less-clearly-pro-abortion Giuliani who will, also, appoint judges friendly to our cause, then I think our duty would be clear.

legion,

So, a politician should check his views at the door and just vote the way a perceived majority of his constituents desire?

I don't think so - a man is to vote his conscience...and if by so doing his constituents eject him at the next election, then at least he'll leave office with honor intact.

conscriptor,

The Church doesn't like war - but it also leaves the decision for war where it belongs: in the hands of the properly constituted authorities who will use their prudential judgement in deciding such issues.

A politician is elected by the people he can not honourably vote against their wishes. Democracy (supposedly) is the will of the people not the will of the representative thus it should be that he follows the majoritys wishes. Sure its tyranny of the majority and is unfair to the minority however thats the problem with democracy. Churchill once said that "democracy was the worst form of government, except for all those we have tried before."

The vatican can try to influence policies and politicans but only the will of the people should be followed. America is not a theocracy it s a multicultural country it cannot be run on religious beliefs. Sure you can have guidelines but you cannot force religious beliefs on others otherwise where is the democracy in that?

What weefee said. And Mark, I don't disagree with your broad concept, but I do disagree with your timing;
I don't think so - a man is to vote his conscience...and if by so doing his constituents eject him at the next election, then at least he'll leave office with honor intact.

The time for a politician to have this self-debate is not during the floor vote, it's before he first runs for office. On an issue this clear & divisive, it's not plausible that politician wouldn't know what his constituents want. If he cannot morally support that, then he needs to resign his office _before_ the vote in question. To vote his own way and just wait for the people to kick him out is clearly selfish, unprofessional, and deeply dishonest.

legion,

No, we constituents are to find out about the person before we elect him - that will give us a general sense of where he'll go in office; at the next election, if he's disappointed us then we'll toss him out.

If I were to run for office (say, againts a certain Senate Majority Leader in 2010...not that I'm hinting at any future plans, or anything), you'd know that I'm a rock-ribbed, conservative Catholic...and if you don't know what that means, then that would be your failure as a voter to inform yourself.

Supposing I were elected and an issue came up which was not in the public square when I was elected, then I would vote my conscience and stand or fall on the result. It would be the height of absurdity if I were to resign my seat because a new issues comes up and a public opinion poll back home shows 51% opposed to the position I take on it.

A new issue could not just pop up. It would be your duty as a representative to clearly put your views into the public arena. I am not just talking about some small inconsequential issue but of controversial issues. Some people do not have the same levels of education to discover your views for themselves it is your duty to show them. They have a right to vote even if they can't understand your manifesto.

You seem to fail to understand the process of representative democracy. You would be elected by the people, for the people. You must therefore not act against what has been stated in your manifesto and you must stick to your manifesto. If an issue not covered in your manifesto happens to pop up you can't just go against majority wishes. Politicans are not in power to represent their conscience they are in power TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.

weefee,

Absurd - especially as, between elections, there is no way to determine what a majority wants...public opinion polls don't count.