[ingliz]

I'm not a papist, so there is that. Neither was St. Augustine for that matter.

Don't be silly. Aurelius Augustinus was bishop of Hippo in the Roman Catholic Church of which the pope, or bishop of Rome, is the supreme head. In Roman Catholicism he is formally recognized as a doctor of the church.

His distinctive theological style shaped Latin Christianity in a way surpassed only by Scripture itself.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Nope. Biological organisms do not require an existence as a logical concept before becoming biological organisms.

Yes they do, if something did not have a time when it was a potentiality, than it could not have become an actuality.

Again, you cannot kill a specific potential person with an identity because there is no such thing.

Nor can you kill potential people.

Did you misread where I just said that you cannot kill a potential person? Did you literally just miss that? This is an argument at no one.

If we are now defining potential people as the circumstances that can lead to actual people, then John Connor would have had to been the sex between his biological parents before being a fetus.

Where did I make this claim? I stated that the potentially exists, necessarily in such circumstances and conditions, not that it was the same as such. Instead of being in such a hurry to post a bunch of horseshit that shows you didn't read a thing I wrote, how about you read what was actually argued before you post? How is that for a radical idea?

it prevents actual beings from coming about, and it disassociates the person from the logical concept of potential people.

Explain to me why this disassociation is necessary and how it happens?

If you made Sarah Connor intentionally sterile ( a form of contraception), you are intentionally making it impossible for John Connor to exist in actuality but not by intentionally destroying the potential person, because there is no potential person called John Connor who will lead a rebellion against Skynet, (unless there is time travel).

Even if there is not time travel, the potential person called John Connor still exists, because even if Sarah were killed by a common criminal instead of the Terminator, the John Connor who would have otherwise existed would have been eliminated preemptively. Once again, identity is not dependent on one's knowledge of its contents.

Either way, how is intentionally making it so that someone who would otherwise exist, cannot exist, not the same as intentionally eliminating their potentially and their consequent actuality? You state the difference, but how is it qualitatively different at all? You admit that potential people exist in these circumstances as objective logical concepts, you admit that contraception eliminates them (or disassociates them?), you admit that the actual people that otherwise would exist are made to cease from existing, and intentionally so, by the same pre-emptive contraceptive actions that makes the existing potential people nihl

So how is your position currently different from mine and how are its implications different?

Potential people are logical concepts, so they are dependent on those circumstances that bring them about, in a sense. Sarah’s potential people are dependent on her fertility. At the same time, potential people still exist as a logical concept. So it would be more correct to say that the logical concept no longer applies to Sarah.

And potential people are related to actual people, but not in the way you think. They are not proto-people with specific identities who have to exist in order for some corresponding actual person with the same identity to exist. It would be more correct to say that potential people and actual people both come into a parent’s life when he or she has sex.

It all basically made sense until the last two sentences.

If Potential people are not corresponding proto-people, then how are potential people not like ghosts that have no bearing on reality?

Likewise, what is the relationship between potential people and actual people under this claim?

Are you claiming that a particular person, lets say, Raul Castro, never had a potential existence at a point in the past?

Don't be silly. Aurelius Augustinus was bishop of Hippo in the Roman Catholic Church of which the pope, or bishop of Rome, is the supreme head. In Roman Catholicism he is formally recognized as a doctor of the church.

The Roman Catholic church did not exist until it seperated itself from the true church via its schism and heresy at the Council of Trent. The Tridentine doctrine is, specifically, a condemnation of Augustinian thought as were the future papal bulls issued against the Jansenists in France (not mention the grievous errors of Vatican I and Vatican II)

St. Augustine was a bishop in the Latin wing of the true church, his doctrines are orthodoxy (upheld at the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Orange), and the church that canonized his doctrine argued that for any Bishop of Rome to claim universal authority was to claim the office of anti-christ. (These very words being taught by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century).

The Tridentine religion of the Roman Church is neither Augustinian or Catholic in any real or historic sense.

So you are wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes they do, if something did not have a time when it was a potentiality, than it could not have become an actuality.

Did you misread where I just said that you cannot kill a potential person? Did you literally just miss that? This is an argument at no one.

Where did I make this claim? I stated that the potentially exists, necessarily in such circumstances and conditions, not that it was the same as such. Instead of being in such a hurry to post a bunch of horseshit that shows you didn't read a thing I wrote, how about you read what was actually argued before you post? How is that for a radical idea?

Explain to me why this disassociation is necessary and how it happens?

Even if there is not time travel, the potential person called John Connor still exists, because even if Sarah were killed by a common criminal instead of the Terminator, the John Connor who would have otherwise existed would have been eliminated preemptively. Once again, identity is not dependent on one's knowledge of its contents.

Either way, how is intentionally making it so that someone who would otherwise exist, cannot exist, not the same as intentionally eliminating their potentially and their consequent actuality? You state the difference, but how is it qualitatively different at all? You admit that potential people exist in these circumstances as objective logical concepts, you admit that contraception eliminates them (or disassociates them?), you admit that the actual people that otherwise would exist are made to cease from existing, and intentionally so, by the same pre-emptive contraceptive actions that makes the existing potential people nihl

So how is your position currently different from mine and how are its implications different?

It all basically made sense until the last two sentences.

If Potential people are not corresponding proto-people, then how are potential people not like ghosts that have no bearing on reality?

Likewise, what is the relationship between potential people and actual people under this claim?

Are you claiming that a particular person, lets say, Raul Castro, never had a potential existence at a point in the past?

Yes, I am saying that none of us were ever potential people.

Actual people were never potential people.

Actual people come from sex.

Sex also, incidentally, is the context in which a person is associated with the logical concept of potential people.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Pants-of-dog,

The above post was not an adequate response to the information requested, though it will be noted and used in future responses. Please answer the questions I asked you.

1. So how is your position currently different from mine and how are its implications different?

2. If Potential people are not corresponding proto-people, then how are potential people not like ghosts that have no bearing on reality?

3. Likewise, what is the relationship between potential people and actual people under this claim?

4. Are you claiming that a particular person, lets say, Raul Castro, never had a potential existence at a point in the past?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog,

The above post was not an adequate response to the information requested, though it will be noted and used in future responses. Please answer the questions I asked you.

1. So how is your position currently different from mine and how are its implications different?

I explained the answers to all these question already. But here we go again:

You are saying a causes b causes c.

Circumstances cause potential people cause actual people.

I am saying a causes b and c.

Circumstances cause potential people and actual people.

2. If Potential people are not corresponding proto-people, then how are potential people not like ghosts that have no bearing on reality?

They are like ghosts who have no effect on objective reality.

They are a logical concept that exists because of the reality of reproduction.

3. Likewise, what is the relationship between potential people and actual people under this claim?

Both come about because if the same thing. They are correlated.

4. Are you claiming that a particular person, lets say, Raul Castro, never had a potential existence at a point in the past?

Yes. Exactly.

[ingliz]

The Roman Catholic church did not exist until it separated itself from the true church

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ.

Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una ecclesia.

for any Bishop of Rome to claim universal authority was to claim the office of anti-christ.

Primacy

It is a fact that in the first three centuries of Christianity the church in Rome, exercising its universal authority, intervened in other communities to resolve conflicts.

Pope Clement I, Bishop of Rome from 88 to his death in 101, did so in Corinth at the end of the first century.

At the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor I, Bishop of Rome from 189 to his death in 199. threatened to excommunicate the Eastern bishops who continued to celebrate Easter on 14 Nisan, not on the following Sunday.

In the third century, Pope Cornelius, Bishop of Rome from 251 to his martyrdom in 253, convened and presided over a synod of 60 African and Eastern bishops, while his rival, Novatian, antipope between 251 and 258, claimed to have "assume[d] to himself the charge of ruling or governing the Church*".


* Cyprian, Letter XLVIII


By the bye

Saint Augustine of Hippo (b.354 d.430) was a Catholic

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church

The Nicene Creed, or Symbol of Faith, was written by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325, with additions (the 3rd paragraph and following) by the first Council of Constantinople in 381. Augustine was installed as bishop of Hippo in 396.

and

Don't you find it odd, if the Catholic Church did not exist until 1563, that St. Cyprian of Carthage was referring to the Church of Christ as such in 251?

For we, who furnish every person who sails hence with a plan that they may sail without any offence, know that we have exhorted them to acknowledge and hold the root and matrix of the Catholic Church.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I explained the answers to all these question already. But here we go again:

You are saying a causes b causes c.

Circumstances cause potential people cause actual people.

I am saying a causes b and c.

Circumstances cause potential people and actual people.

You forgot to explain how your implications differ which was part of that question. Please explain why you feel your implications are or would be different.

They are like ghosts who have no effect on objective reality.

They are a logical concept that exists because of the reality of reproduction.

Noted. Will address below.

Both come about because if the same thing. They are correlated.

Noted. Will address below.

Yes. Exactly.

Let us keep in mind this definition, from the Wikipedia article on potential persons, that we discussed earlier: "In philosophy and bioethics, potential (future) person (in plural, sometimes termed potential people) has been defined as an entity which is not currently a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions"

1. To say that potential people are irrelevant ghosts that emerge as inconsequential objective concepts under certain circumstances, is a non-position for such potential persons are no potential persons at all as the definition implies above. The OP definition, and the accepted scholarly definition, are the same, yours is of your own device and is non-sensical. Indeed, calling potential persons "future persons" is a common alternative use of the phrase indicating the relationship between this objective logical concept and the reality that would otherwise exist. The two, according to all definitions of such, are necessarily connected. Given certain biological or technically possible conditions (notice i am using the language of the above definition), potential people not only exist as concepts, but are capable of developing into an actual person.

You phantasms are non-sense and you counter-position can neither be substantiated or demonstrated.

2. The reason your position can be neither substantiated or demonstrated is because that potentiality exists in connection to actuality, is logically indisputable.

When, for instance, we are explaining why we see mold, we understand that it arose because it developed into such out of its logical potentiality. For instance, we would say that "such a potential (mold) existed when certain physical conditions were present;" ie: mold spores, moisture, temperatures between such-and-such, light exposure rated-as-such-and such, protein levels at such-and-such, etc. Thus, as was stated, one can say that under such conditions mold was potential, and with the natural course being permitted to take place, the mere potential became actual.

This is not disputable. This is the reality.

3. If you preemptively prevent a child that would otherwise exist, from existing, you have done that which my syllogism concludes to have been done. In truth, even if we admitted of no potential persons, I cannot imagine how you would argue otherwise. But I eagerly await for your explanation and will speculate no futher.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ.

Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una ecclesia.

So do all heretical bodies as well, such as the Monophysites and the Nestorians. Big deal. I could claim to be the strongest man alive, that does not make it so.

Primacy

It is a fact that in the first three centuries of Christianity the church in Rome, exercising its universal authority, intervened in other communities to resolve conflicts.

Pope Clement I, Bishop of Rome from 88 to his death in 101, did so in Corinth at the end of the first century.

At the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor I, Bishop of Rome from 189 to his death in 199. threatened to excommunicate the Eastern bishops who continued to celebrate Easter on 14 Nisan, not on the following Sunday.

In the third century, Pope Cornelius, Bishop of Rome from 251 to his martyrdom in 253, convened and presided over a synod of 60 African and Eastern bishops, while his rival, Novatian, antipope between 251 and 258, claimed to have "assume[d] to himself the charge of ruling or governing the Church*".


* Cyprian, Letter XLVIII


By the bye

Saint Augustine of Hippo (b.354 d.430) was a Catholic

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church

The Nicene Creed, or Symbol of Faith, was written by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325, with additions (the 3rd paragraph and following) by the first Council of Constantinople in 381.

Augustine was installed as bishop of Hippo in 396.

and

Don't you find it odd, if the Catholic Church did not exist until 1563, that St. Cyprian of Carthage was referring to the Church of Christ as such in 251?

I. On The Historic Respect and Honor Afforded The Bishop of Rome and The Relation of Such to The Claim of Papal Authority.

1. That the Bishop of Rome held special primacy and authority is not historically disputed, nor is this necessarily even a problem per se. For even the Eastern church acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as "a greater among equals," this being largely due to the history of martyrdom in that city and its significance in the Empire. That such a primacy eventually led to the error of the claim of sole universal authority, is likewise hard to deny. This applies to the Great Schism of 1054 A.D., Pope Leo IX reacted to the closing of Latin churches and the denial to accept the Latin form of the Creed in the East, with excommunication (though technically executed by Humbert) which was simultaneously based in the East's excommunication of the west under order of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This dispute, had less to do with creed and more to do with Papal overreach.

The Papists erroneously believe that the Pope had the unilateral authority to validate the filoque and force the East to conform. On this point, the East was partially correct in refusing, for regardless of the Bishop of Rome's primacy, he did not have the authority to change the doctrine of the church with out concilliar formulation or atleast clarification as to why.

In reality, the reason that the west was ultimately correct was because the Latin formation of the creed was Scripturally correct and because the western church was not adequately represented in the council of Nicaea to begin with and had always questions the Greek formulation of the Creed; which is stated explicitly by St. Augustine in his work De Trinitate.

Thus, what defined the historicity of the Church and Her Authority, was the truth of its claims from Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and Its Creedal Formulations and Decrees, NOT the declarations of the Pope Ex Cathedra as is claimed by the Romish church today.

2. Once again, let it be reiterated, that as late as the 6th century, the Bishop of Rome himself was the one whodeclared that universal claims of authority by any See's Bishop were to entertain for oneself the doctrine of anti-christ. This is based on a reading of 2 Thessalonians 2, where it states that such a declaration was the work of Satan.

Therefore, in spite of having historic "primacy," this same pope who had such, still denied universal authority as a doctrine of the church. Indeed, Pope Gregory the Great's denial of any Bishop having such was a response to the Bishop of the See of Constantinople have claimed such for himself. It was the basis of an actual rebuke.

Thus, that the Bishop of Rome had historic primacy was not even regarded by the Bishops of Rome as being a legitimate grounds for the universal authority of the Papal office, so why should the doctors of the church hold such?

Its ludicrous.

3. It is also clear, implicitly, from the forgery Donatio Constantini, that the leaders of the Church assumed the Emperor to be the only one with universal temporal authority over the church. Indeed, it was this document that the later popes attempted to use to legitimize their claim of authority over Christian kings. Why? Because unless the temporal ruler vested such authority in the church by surrending it to the Bishop(s), such authority would otherwise be their own and they would not have to yield to Romish impositions (such as occured in the Investiture controversy around the time of the First Crusade, and with the Indulgences controversy that sparked the Reformation.).

Thus, even the bishops themselves knew they had no biblical or apostolic grounds for such an expansion of power and could only justify it with that forgery. Thus proving, that the ancient church that, of itself, the Bishopic had no such rights to universal power.

II. Why The Roman Catholic Church is Not The One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

1. Catholic means universal, and at one time, when the Sees were unified, all of the varying Sees participated as national churches in this One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Indeed, The See of Alexandria, The See of Constantinople, The See of Antioch, The See of Rome, and The See of Jerusalem were all part of this One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as regional participants because of their shared confession in the truth of God's Word as expressed in Holy Writ.

Because of her doctrines, the See of Antioch broke off from the true church by embracing the heresy of Nestorianism. Then, The See of Alexandrian broke off with its Monophysitism, Then the See of Constantinople with The See of Jersualem broke off with their denials of the Filioque. The See of Rome alone remained as part of the true faith until it condemned its own councils at Trent; leaving only the churches of the Magisterial Reformation as part of the true church.

All of these Sees, including the Roman See, claim to be the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Obviously, they cannot all be such.

Indeed, they were all part of such at one time, but their error has shown them for who they really are. I confess the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds in the Divine Service, every Lord's day. I confess to be a son of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church every week. Saying so, does not make it so. What makes it true is if the church has held to the true teachings and councils of that Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church. The Romish church deviated from this doctrine with its innovations, the conservative reformation did not.

2. So no, I do not find it odd that St. Cyprian claimed to be catholic, he was and I am also. But neither of us are Roman Catholic, for the Roman see fell into error in the 16th century and ceased to be a true church, but became a synagogue of Satan ruled by Anti-Christ.

[ingliz]

Big deal. I could claim to be the strongest man alive, that does not make it so.

It is not I who makes the 'claim', it is God.

"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.

Isaiah 22:22

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 16:17 -19


To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens, no one will shut; and what He shuts, no one will open.

Revelation 3:7

[Hindsite]

It is not I who makes the 'claim', it is God.

"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.

Isaiah 22:22

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 16:17 -19


To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens, no one will shut; and what He shuts, no one will open.

Revelation 3:7

The church in Philadelphia is not the church in Rome.

[ingliz]

2 Thessalonians 2

These verses do not advance your argument.

It is the Bishop of Constantinople "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God" when he attempts to usurp the God given authority (Matt. 16:19) of the Bishop of Rome.

The church in Philadelphia is not the church in Rome.

Obviously, not. It was the church in what is now Alasehir, Turkey, 28 miles southeast of Sardis.

But I don't see how this advances whatever argument you were trying to make.

Christ the King dictated the letter to John:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The Bishop of Rome is his steward:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

[Hindsite]

These verses do not advance your argument.

It is the Bishop of Constantinople "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God" when he attempts to usurp the God given authority (Matt. 16:19) of the Bishop of Rome.


Obviously, not. It was the church in what is now Alasehir, Turkey, 28 miles southeast of Sardis.

But I don't see how this advances whatever argument you were trying to make.

Christ the King dictated the letter to John:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The Bishop of Rome is his steward:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The Bishop of Rome is the steward of Satan the Devil just as Muhammad of Islam is the prophet of Satan the Devil.

[Pants-of-dog]

You forgot to explain how your implications differ which was part of that question. Please explain why you feel your implications are or would be different.

I just ignored it because the implications do not matter. This whole thing is obviously an attempt to grant personhood not only to the fetus but also to the elements that lead to a fetus, as part of the abortion debate.

But it does not matter if we grant personhood to the fetus or the sperm. Actual persons are not allowed to use a woman’s body without her consent, so even if sperm were an actual person, she would still have the right to kick anyone out of her body whenever she wants.

Noted. Will address below.

Noted. Will address below.

Let us keep in mind this definition, from the Wikipedia article on potential persons, that we discussed earlier: "In philosophy and bioethics, potential (future) person (in plural, sometimes termed potential people) has been defined as an entity which is not currently a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions"

1. To say that potential people are irrelevant ghosts that emerge as inconsequential objective concepts under certain circumstances, is a non-position for such potential persons are no potential persons at all as the definition implies above. The OP definition, and the accepted scholarly definition, are the same, yours is of your own device and is non-sensical. Indeed, calling potential persons "future persons" is a common alternative use of the phrase indicating the relationship between this objective logical concept and the reality that would otherwise exist. The two, according to all definitions of such, are necessarily connected. Given certain biological or technically possible conditions (notice i am using the language of the above definition), potential people not only exist as concepts, but are capable of developing into an actual person.

You phantasms are non-sense and you counter-position can neither be substantiated or demonstrated.

2. The reason your position can be neither substantiated or demonstrated is because that potentiality exists in connection to actuality, is logically indisputable.

When, for instance, we are explaining why we see mold, we understand that it arose because it developed into such out of its logical potentiality. For instance, we would say that "such a potential (mold) existed when certain physical conditions were present;" ie: mold spores, moisture, temperatures between such-and-such, light exposure rated-as-such-and such, protein levels at such-and-such, etc. Thus, as was stated, one can say that under such conditions mold was potential, and with the natural course being permitted to take place, the mere potential became actual.

This is not disputable. This is the reality.

3. If you preemptively prevent a child that would otherwise exist, from existing, you have done that which my syllogism concludes to have been done. In truth, even if we admitted of no potential persons, I cannot imagine how you would argue otherwise. But I eagerly await for your explanation and will speculate no further.

You defined it as a logical concept, and you now seem to be using a different definition: Warren’s definition that includes the egg and sperm.

And this is why I aksed you to clarify before.

If you are arguing that preventing the egg and sperm from combining is the same as killing the potential person, that seems to be a boring discussion about how we define killing potential people.

Mind you, an egg and a sperm do not have an identity of personality. At best, the egg and sperm can be linked to a fetus that will eventually have an identity and a personality. Also, the potential person and actual person that can come from an act of procreative sex are simply one out of a possible multitude of people that can come from such a union.

Also, if preventing the union of the egg and sperm is now akin to destroying a person, then merely deciding not to have procreative sex when the woman is ovulating is also destroying a person.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I just ignored it because the implications do not matter. This whole thing is obviously an attempt to grant personhood not only to the fetus but also to the elements that lead to a fetus, as part of the abortion debate.

But it does not matter if we grant personhood to the fetus or the sperm. Actual persons are not allowed to use a woman’s body without her consent, so even if sperm were an actual person, she would still have the right to kick anyone out of her body whenever she wants.

This is all off-topic and is a refusal to answer a component of a question that, if i had felt it were irrelevant, I would not have asked it in the first place. This is not the place for an "Abortion" debate and will not engage such at this time, however, that a woman needs to be consented on such matters, is of course, a point of contention.

Just answer the question.

If you are arguing that preventing the egg and sperm from combining is the same as killing the potential person, that seems to be a boring discussion about how we define killing potential people.

boring or not, that is the topic at hand, and you must address the contentions levied against you.

Also, if preventing the union of the egg and sperm is now akin to destroying a person, then merely deciding not to have procreative sex when the woman is ovulating is also destroying a person.

It can be, yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is all off-topic and is a refusal to answer a component of a question that, if i had felt it were irrelevant, I would not have asked it in the first place. This is not the place for an "Abortion" debate and will not engage such at this time, however, that a woman needs to be consented on such matters, is of course, a point of contention.

Just answer the question.

No, thanks. I already explained why.

boring or not, that is the topic at hand, and you must address the contentions levied against you.

My point was that this whole discussion seems to be about you redefining certain words: i.e. potential people, destroying, natural, etc. in order to say that contraception prevents pregnancy.

I am not going to get into a debate about what words mean.

It can be, yes.

So this argument implies that we can charge women for murder if they refuse to have sex with men at certain times of the month.

[Hindsite]

So this argument implies that we can charge women for murder if they refuse to have sex with men at certain times of the month.

I think you ruined his argument with that. You rock. HalleluYah.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So this argument implies that we can charge women for murder if they refuse to have sex with men at certain times of the month.

I believe they would be guilty of attempted murder, but whether such could be charged is a different matter. I don't think such a charge would be easy to litigate, but I do believe that possession of contraceptives should be treated like most U.S. states treat narcotics, and that medical procedures of a contraceptive or abortive effect should all be illegal. I also believe child-bearing should be supported with public honors and state stipends and incentives.

So, Yes, I believe they would be guilty of attempted murder and as a Christian I do not think married couples should refuse each other their sexual rights in marriage unless one is incapable because of illness or unless the two have mutually agree to abstain for fasting and praying (1 Corinthians 7).

Christian societies in the past have punished men and women who refused to give sexual relations to their spouses (Puritan New England, as just one example), so I am not opposed to such in principle.

I think you ruined his argument with that.

You can't ruin the Truth. Praise The Lord.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe they would be guilty of attempted murder, but whether such could be charged is a different matter. I don't think such a charge would be easy to litigate, but I do believe that possession of contraceptives should be treated like most U.S. states treat narcotics, and that medical procedures of a contraceptive or abortive effect should all be illegal. I also believe child-bearing should be supported with public honors and state stipends and incentives.

So, Yes, I believe they would be guilty of attempted murder and as a Christian I do not think married couples should refuse each other their sexual rights in marriage unless one is incapable because of illness or unless the two have mutually agree to abstain for fasting and praying (1 Corinthians 7).

Christian societies in the past have punished men and women who refused to give sexual relations to their spouses (Puritan New England, as just one example), so I am not opposed to such in principle.

I do not need to know all your personal opinions and feelings and how they support using state power to let men rape women.

You can't ruin the Truth. Praise The Lord.

And now you seem to be redefining the word truth.

If you think that potential people are just as real and important as actual people, let me ask you a question.

You are in a fertility lab with your wife and a box full of frozen fertilised embryos. There are thousands of these potential people in the box. All of a sudden, there is a fire. You have time to either save your wife or the box, but not both.

Which do you save?

According to your logic, you would be saving thousands of children if you save the box. While if you save your wife, you are only saving one person, and that person is not even deserving of the same rights as a child, according to you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I do not need to know all your personal opinions and feelings and how they support using state power to let men rape women.

If you didn't care to hear the explanation, why ask the question in the first place?

And now you seem to be redefining the word truth.

No. Not All.

If you think that potential people are just as real and important as actual people, let me ask you a question.

You are in a fertility lab with your wife and a box full of frozen fertilised embryos. There are thousands of these potential people in the box. All of a sudden, there is a fire. You have time to either save your wife or the box, but not both.

Which do you save?

According to your logic, you would be saving thousands of children if you save the box. While if you save your wife, you are only saving one person, and that person is not even deserving of the same rights as a child, according to you.

I will go a step further and give your hypothetical scenario the strongest possible form.

1. The embryos are not merely frozen, but in a hi-tech incubation system and are in the development process. Thus, if they are saved from the fire, they WILL be "born."

2. for purposes of time, I can save all of these embryos or my wife who is trapped in another room, but not both.

I would save the embryos as would my wife if she were in the same situation. However, if the embryos have no guarantee of survival by me getting them out of the lab; whether because I am privy of their low survival rate or because unplugging them to move them out would almost guarantee their deaths, then I would choose my wife, especially with her potential to have more children. This would be no different than if I was in a burning orphanage. I would seek to save the children first unless I knew such was entirely futile. Ultimately though, I would try to save all of them and my wife if possible, even if it meant losing my own life.

We make this sort of decision all the time, This is even true of older couples being willing to sacrifice themselves if it means a younger couple that is just starting in life may survive. Healthy humans instinctively seek to preserve and perpetuate human life, all of the time. A society is sick when it starts to blind itself to such survival-impulses.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The issue with this text has always been the meaning of the "this rock" which seems to be obviously referring to Peter's confession, not St. Peter himself. Likewise, applying the principle of Scriptura Scripturae Interpres; it is clear that each of the Apostles, of which St. Peter is included, shall preside over each of the 12 Tribes of Israel. They shall each have evenly distributed dominion in the eternal state.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

(Matthew 19:28).

The positions of the papists makes the other apostles merely jewels in the crown of a single apostle. This is not the Biblical teaching. Rather, all churches and their authority stem from the Scriptures and the collective authority of the Apostles (which is seen in the council of Jerusalem in Acts, and in how apostles can rebuke one another, including Peter).

Rather, each Apostle was given a missionary dominion, and sought it out until their deaths. We see this in the fact that 3/5 of the main Sees claims a different apostolic founder and even the barbarian converts claim unique apostolic founding (St. Peter for Rome and Antioch, St. Mark for Alexandria, St. Andrew for Constantinople, St. James for Jerusalem.) Other churches being independently founded elsewhere, such as St. Thomas to India, etc.

The apostles, equally, shall reign in judgment and have special thrones given to them. They are equals, the are not all subordinate to St. Peter. This is neither the position of Scripture, nor was it the position of the ancient church, even into the medieval period before the Great Schism. This ancient and biblical view, that I am espousing, was deviated from by the Roman pontiff, but was restored by the Conservative Reformation which is the true heir to the teachings of the ancient church and represents the militant form of that one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Not Rome.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you didn't care to hear the explanation, why ask the question in the first place?

I did not ask a question. I made a statement.

I will go a step further and give your hypothetical scenario the strongest possible form.

1. The embryos are not merely frozen, but in a hi-tech incubation system and are in the development process. Thus, if they are saved from the fire, they WILL be "born."

2. for purposes of time, I can save all of these embryos or my wife who is trapped in another room, but not both.

I would save the embryos as would my wife if she were in the same situation. However, if the embryos have no guarantee of survival by me getting them out of the lab; whether because I am privy of their low survival rate or because unplugging them to move them out would almost guarantee their deaths, then I would choose my wife, especially with her potential to have more children. This would be no different than if I was in a burning orphanage. I would seek to save the children first unless I knew such was entirely futile. Ultimately though, I would try to save all of them and my wife if possible, even if it meant losing my own life.

We make this sort of decision all the time, This is even true of older couples being willing to sacrifice themselves if it means a younger couple that is just starting in life may survive. Healthy humans instinctively seek to preserve and perpetuate human life, all of the time. A society is sick when it starts to blind itself to such survival-impulses.

If you want to save frozen eggs instead of actual people, go ahead.

But this is the problem with your morality: rape is fine, and people are worth less than eggs.