From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: A difficult position to be in....
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:40:36 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:
] >> I`m a Christian, thus pro-life. 
] 
] Ooops!  I apologize for this statement (>>).  I realize that Christians
] come in all shapes and sizes...  Furthermore, I was not even right
] to call myself pro-life, because politically I am not.  

Until you clarify your 'labels' its hard to say that
you 'have' or 'have not' conformed to your notions.[1]

] However, it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's will for any abortion 
] to ever take place. But that is just my feeling, I don't think I
] have the right to force others to agree and act accordingly.  I would 
] not want someone of another religion telling me what I can and can't do! 

Cameron, 

I think you have found yourself in a bit of a 'wedge' on this issue.

On the one hand you are placing 'god' in a bit of a 
difficult box with the idea that it is 'not god's will that...'

This matter has come around time, and time, and time again.

Everytime that someone testifies that it was 'God's Will....'
that saved them, and not the person sitting next to them....
many folks pause and wonder what sort of god does this....
{ I speak from the unpleasant experience of watching my father
roll to one too many aircraft crash... }

] Now, my problem.  My closest friends, and even my wife, don't like
] my "new" views on this matter.   Since I deeply respect these people,
] and we stand side by side on most other matters, I am worried that
] I have somehow been led astray since stumbling onto this network,
] and being exposed to more secular/liberal/radical thought?  

The other side of this same 'wedge' notion is allowing that there
mayh be differing opinions on how best to implement one's understanding
of how christianity applies, for that person, to a given situation.

If you can step back and allow that there are those who are
"Both Christians and <X>" you face the 'vileness' of 'moral
relativisim.' I present that understanding from the background
of accepting that I can NOT be a pascifist. Yet I can accept that
there are those who, in good faith and piety, can not take up arms.

When you cross the threshold that allows you to see that one
can be "Both Christian and <X>" YOU HAVE alienated yourself
from those who's sense of faith rests upon a simplistic approach
to the notion of "Moral Absolutes."

When it is this 'simplistic' notion that you are facing, then it
is a VERY HARD time indeed. As I have pointed out, there were very
good arguments for and against slavery, and why it was an effort
by the 'Modernists' to seek 'abolition of slavery.' Many folks
even forget that the reason that there is a Southern Baptist Conference
is that They Broke with the rest over the matter of whether 
or not slavery was a biblical notion. { a point worth reviewing in
this the centennial of C.G.Finney. }

If it is any consolation, I have deep respect for persons who,
by inclination, are Not Warriors, and in good faith can not
be Warriors. And there are times when this respect leads us to
select different things. During the Persian Gulf War, a friend
and I opted to discuss baking french bread...

"I am not a better catholic because I can refute every shade
of protestantism, but that I can affirm what I can affirm 
without bland syncretism."
		Thomas Merton


ciao
drieux


[1] as I remind folks, I am VERY ProLife, that IS why I
believe in Close Air Support.
-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright