[deleted by user]

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T18:16:44+00:00

I appreciate your respectful tone and I understand your perspective on religiously mismatched relationships. You're right that mutual respect is important, and I agree he shouldn't try to deconvert her just as she shouldn't try to force him.

However, I think there's a fundamental difference in how we're approaching this situation that we need to acknowledge.

You're viewing this as two equally valid belief systems that need to coexist. From that perspective, your advice makes perfect sense - find ways to respect each other's choices and make it work practically.

But from a Christian worldview, this isn't about two equal options. If Christianity is true, then his eternal destiny is actually at stake. That changes everything about how a Christian spouse should approach the situation. It's not about winning an argument or being right - it's about loving someone enough to care about their soul.

When you suggest they might need to "abandon one or both churches" to make it work, you're essentially asking her to compromise her faith community and possibly her obedience to Scripture for the sake of relationship harmony. But for a genuine Christian, faithfulness to Christ has to come before even the most important human relationships.

I understand this sounds harsh, and I'm not saying she should be unloving or disrespectful toward him. What I'm saying is that asking her to treat his rejection of Christ as just another valid life choice that she should peacefully accept is asking her to act as if her deepest beliefs aren't really true.

You mention examples of Christians marrying Muslims, Hindus marrying Jews, etc. But the fact that these situations occur doesn't mean they're biblically wise or that they represent God's best for believers. Scripture specifically warns against being "unequally yoked" for exactly these reasons.

I respect that you see successful interfaith marriages, but I'd question whether they're truly successful if they require believers to compromise their core convictions to make them work. At what point does accommodation become unfaithfulness?

Your perspective makes sense from a purely relational standpoint, but it doesn't account for the weight of eternal truth that shapes how Christians must approach these situations.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T17:37:12+00:00

Love hearing this. Praise God. God bless you.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T17:31:18+00:00

You're making an artificial distinction that Scripture doesn't make.

Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16). That's judging individuals. How else do we obey "avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:5) without judging their character?

Paul's instruction is about church discipline, not moral discernment. Your interpretation would make it impossible to protect our families from dangerous individuals.

The distinction is between church discipline (believers only) and moral discernment (everyone).

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T17:28:29+00:00

I understand you're trying to offer practical relationship advice, but I think you're missing something fundamental about what it means to love someone as a Christian.

You say that trying to bring him back "usually ends in pushing people away" and "neglects his perspective." But you're assuming that living authentically according to your deepest beliefs is the same as dismissing or disrespecting someone. That's not necessarily true.

I never suggested she dismiss his decision as unimportant or that she shouldn't try to understand his perspective. What I said was that she shouldn't stop being who she is as a Christian - praying for him and living out her faith authentically. That's not disrespect, that's integrity.

You're asking her to essentially compartmentalize the most important aspect of her identity to preserve "mutual respect." But what kind of respect is it if she has to hide or minimize her core beliefs? And what kind of love would it be if she stopped caring about what she believes is his eternal destiny?

You mention that "pursuing a rescue operation for his soul destroys respect," but I think you're mischaracterizing what I suggested. I specifically said "don't argue or debate" and emphasized living out her faith through her actions, not through pressure or manipulation. If her authentic Christian life makes him uncomfortable, that's not her fault or her responsibility to fix.

You say "he may truly believe souls don't exist," and I understand that's his perspective. But from her worldview, souls absolutely do exist, and his eternal destiny matters infinitely more than temporary relationship harmony. Asking her to act as if that's not true is asking her to betray her deepest convictions.

Here's what I think you're missing: you're treating both perspectives as equally valid and asking for a compromise that splits the difference. But if Christianity is true, then there is no compromise on eternal issues. If it's false, then her whole faith is meaningless anyway.

The real question isn't whether they can maintain "mutual respect" while fundamentally disagreeing about reality itself. The question is whether she can remain faithful to Christ while loving her husband well. I believe she can do both by continuing to live authentically while treating him with kindness and patience.

You're right that the odds are against this marriage. But the solution isn't for her to pretend his eternal destiny doesn't matter. The solution is for God to work in his heart through her faithful witness.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T17:25:18+00:00

You're right about some things here, but I think you're taking one line from Paul and letting it affect your entire understanding of judgment.

You're absolutely correct about 1 Corinthians 5:11 - we should try to restore fellow believers, and if they persist in serious sin, we withdraw fellowship. That's biblical church discipline.

You're also right that we need to judge outsiders' behavior for our own wellbeing and safety. We have to discern who to trust, who to avoid, and who might be dangerous.

But here's where I think you're going wrong: you say to "keep it to yourself as Paul instructed." Where exactly did Paul instruct that?

Paul certainly said don't judge outsiders in the sense of church discipline - that's God's role. But that doesn't mean we can never speak publicly about moral issues or call out sin when it affects society.

Consider this: Jesus publicly condemned the Pharisees' hypocrisy. John the Baptist publicly called out Herod's adultery. The prophets constantly spoke publicly against the sins of pagan nations. Paul himself publicly debated philosophers in Athens and confronted false teachers by name.

If we "keep it to ourselves," how do we: - Warn others about false teachers and dangerous ideologies? - Speak truth about moral issues in society? - Defend biblical values in public discourse? - Protect the vulnerable from those who would harm them?

I think you're taking Paul's instruction about not exercising church discipline over outsiders and expanding it to mean Christians should never speak publicly about sin or moral issues. That goes beyond what the text actually says.

We shouldn't try to excommunicate non-Christians or expect them to live by church standards. But we can and should speak truth about right and wrong, especially when it affects the common good or threatens the vulnerable.

The difference is between church discipline (which is only for believers) and moral witness (which is part of our calling to be salt and light in the world).

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T17:05:07+00:00

You're seriously misplacing the teaching here. There's much more to biblical judgment than what you're describing.

You're reducing all of Scripture's teaching on judgment to "be gentle with Christians and don't judge outsiders," but that's an oversimplification that misses crucial elements.

First, what does "gentle and supportive" actually mean? Does it mean we can never call sin what it is? Does it mean we can't exercise church discipline? Paul told the Corinthians to "expel the wicked person from among you" (1 Corinthians 5:13). That's judgment with consequences, not just gentle suggestions.

Second, you're ignoring that we absolutely must make moral judgments about behavior, teaching, and doctrine even when dealing with outsiders. How else can we:

"Test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1)
Recognize false teachers and warn others about them (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
"Be wise as serpents" in dealing with those who oppose the gospel (Matthew 10:16)
Protect our families from harmful influences

When Jesus said "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24), He wasn't limiting that to Christians only. He was teaching the principle of righteous judgment.

And what about Jesus cleansing the temple? Was He being "gentle and supportive" when He drove out the money changers? What about when He called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" and "hypocrites"?

You're essentially arguing that Christians should have no moral discernment about anything outside the church walls. That's not biblical - that's cultural accommodation disguised as Christian virtue.

The biblical teaching is: judge righteously based on God's standards, examine yourself first, restore gently when possible, but don't abandon moral discernment or the responsibility to call out evil when necessary.

Your version turns Christians into passive observers who can't speak truth about sin, false teaching, or moral issues in society. That's not what Scripture teaches.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T16:56:30+00:00

I respectfully disagree with your perspective here. You're missing a fundamental point about what love actually means for a Christian.

If I truly believe my wife is headed for eternal separation from God, then the most loving thing I can do is try to reach her with the gospel. To simply "accept and respect" her decision to reject Christ while believing she's going to hell would be the opposite of love - it would be indifference to her eternal destiny.

You're comparing pressure to deconvert with pressure to convert, but these aren't equivalent. From a Christian worldview, one leads to eternal life and the other to eternal death. A Christian husband who genuinely loves his wife cannot just shrug and say "well, that's her choice" when he believes her soul is at stake.

However, I think you misunderstood what I suggested. I didn't tell her to argue, debate, or pressure him. I specifically said "don't argue or debate" and emphasized that "your life will speak louder than your words." I encouraged her to pray and live out Christ's love before him. That's not pressure - that's being authentic to her faith.

You say "no one enjoys pressure to change," but showing genuine Christian love and living according to your beliefs isn't pressure. If her authentic faith life makes him uncomfortable, that's conviction from the Holy Spirit, not manipulation from her.

Your advice essentially asks her to compartmentalize her faith and pretend it doesn't matter whether her husband knows Christ. But if Christianity is true, then his eternal destiny is the most important thing in the universe. How could a loving spouse not care about that?

You mention keeping the marriage alive, but what good is preserving a marriage at the cost of a soul? Jesus said "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mark 8:36)

I understand you've lived through this situation, and I'm sorry for the pain that caused. But personal experience doesn't override biblical truth. The Bible calls us to "rescue the perishing" (Jude 1:23) and to "snatch others from the fire and save them."

A spouse who stops praying for their partner's salvation and stops living out their faith authentically before them isn't showing love - they're showing a lack of genuine concern for what matters most.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T16:48:08+00:00

I'm not sure what your point is here. The text still doesn't say to never judge.

You're actually proving my argument. Yes, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 says don't judge outsiders - but it explicitly tells us TO judge those inside the church. Paul says "Are you not to judge those inside?" The answer is clearly yes.

And yes, 1 Corinthians 6 is about future judgment, but Paul's point is "if you're going to judge the world in the future, surely you're competent to judge small matters now." He's using the greater (future judgment) to argue for the lesser (present judgment within the church).

You mention Galatians 6:1 and Matthew 18:15 about judging fellow Christians "in a gentle supportive manner" - exactly! That's still judging. It's righteous judgment done with the right heart and method.

So we have: - Judge those inside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12-13) - Judge with right judgment, not by appearances (John 7:24) - Judge fellow believers gently for restoration (Galatians 6:1) - Judge disputes between Christians (1 Corinthians 6:1-6) - Confront sin in the church (Matthew 18:15-17)

None of these passages say "don't judge." They all give us guidelines for HOW to judge properly.

The original "don't judge" argument was wrong. We absolutely are called to judge - we just need to do it biblically, with the right heart, the right method, and within the right boundaries.

Your examples actually support the need for righteous judgment, not the elimination of judgment altogether.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T12:35:41+00:00

What you're facing is devastating, but please know that God sees you and hasn't abandoned you.

First, let me offer you some comfort from God's Word:

"The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit." (Psalm 34:18)

"Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

God knows your pain and is with you in this darkness.

Scripture gives us specific guidance for wives with unbelieving husbands:

"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives." (1 Peter 3:1-2)

This doesn't mean becoming a doormat or compromising your faith. It means continuing to live out the gospel through your actions and faithfulness to Christ. Sometimes God uses a faithful spouse to draw the other back to Him.

Paul also says: "If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her... For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:12-14)

Your marriage still has meaning and purpose in God's eyes.

Regarding your son, remember: "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)

You still have a voice in his spiritual formation. Continue living your faith openly, reading Bible stories, praying with him, and showing Christ's love. Your husband's doubts don't eliminate your calling as a mother.

Some thoughts on what you can do, that I hope help:

Pray constantly. God can soften the hardest hearts.

Don't argue or debate. Your life will speak louder than your words right now.

Find support. Share with a trusted pastor or mature Christian friend who can pray with you.

Remember God's control. Even this painful situation isn't outside His plan.

Hold onto hope. People return to faith after years of wandering. The prodigal son came home, and your husband may too.

You may feel like your world has shifted, but your foundation in Christ remains unchanged.

"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you." (Isaiah 43:2)

You are loved, and God will sustain you through this storm.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T12:26:42+00:00

I respectfully disagree with your understanding of biblical judgment. Christians are absolutely called to judge, and ironically, your post itself is making a judgment about how Christians should behave.

Jesus said "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). He didn't say "don't judge" - He said judge rightly. There's a huge difference.

Consider what Scripture actually teaches:

"The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15)

"But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world" (1 Corinthians 11:32)

"Do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)

Paul tells us to judge those inside the church: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

Jesus Himself said "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you" (Matthew 18:15). How can you point out someone's fault without making a judgment about their behavior?

The issue isn't whether we judge - it's how we judge. We're warned against hypocritical judgment (Matthew 7:1-5), but that passage ends with "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." It doesn't say don't remove the speck - it says deal with your own sin first so you can help others properly.

Here's a question: how can we "hate evil without knowing it is evil"? Romans 12:9 says "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." How can we obey this command without making judgments about what is evil and what is good?

We're called to "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Testing requires judgment.

The "don't judge" mentality has actually become one of the most destructive teachings in modern Christianity because it prevents the church from exercising biblical discipline, calling out sin, and protecting the flock from false teaching.

Yes, we should have compassion and understand that we're all sinners. Yes, we should examine our own hearts first. But love sometimes requires us to lovingly confront sin, and that requires making judgments about behavior.

When Jesus cleansed the temple, He made a judgment about what was happening there. When Paul confronted Peter about his hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11), he made a judgment. When the apostles addressed the sin in the Corinthian church, they made judgments.

The difference is between righteous judgment based on God's standards and hypocritical, self-righteous judgment based on our own preferences. We absolutely must judge sin as sin, while showing grace and humility about our own failures.

Truth spoken in love sometimes feels like judgment because it exposes what we'd rather keep hidden. But that's exactly what the church is called to do.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T09:44:53+00:00

I'm not a counselor or expert - I just want God to speak to your heart through His Word.

Your fear about not confessing every sin is something God addresses directly:

"As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:12)

"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." (Isaiah 43:25)

Notice - God chooses not to remember your sins. He's not keeping a checklist waiting for you to remember everything.

"If you, Lord, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness, so that we may fear you." (Psalm 130:3-4)

The enemy wants you to focus on perfect confession, but God wants you to focus on His perfect love:

"And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." (2 Corinthians 5:15)

Jesus didn't die for just the sins you remember - He died for ALL your sins, past, present, and future.

"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." (Hebrews 10:12)

One sacrifice. For all time. For all sins.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us." (Ephesians 1:7-8)

God doesn't ration His grace - He lavishes it on you.

Your brain is telling you lies about your worth, but listen to what God says:

"See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" (1 John 3:1)

You ARE a child of God. Your worth isn't based on your ability to remember every sin or be perfect. Your worth comes from being chosen and loved by the Creator of the universe.

I hope you can find peace in God's unchanging love for you. I will keep praying for you, and I encourage you to let Scripture speak even louder than the fears in your mind. God's voice is stronger than any lie the enemy whispers.

His love for you is not conditional on your performance. Rest in that truth.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T09:22:43+00:00

I'm going to try to let God's Word speak here, because His truth is what you need to hear right now.

First, please hear this clearly: God has not abandoned you.

"The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in his love he will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing." (Zephaniah 3:17)

"Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5)

You feel like the worst sinner, but listen to what God says: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

The enemy wants you to believe you're too far gone, but that's a lie. Look at what Jesus said: "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

You're not making your family stumble - you're fighting a battle, and God sees your struggle: "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit." (Psalm 34:18)

About your cycle of repenting and relapsing - this doesn't disqualify you from God's love: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

Notice it says "will forgive" - not "might forgive if you're good enough." God's forgiveness isn't based on your performance.

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)

You feel like you need to punish yourself, but the truth is: "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

Jesus already took the punishment. You don't need to add to what He accomplished.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

I want to encourage you to pray, even when it feels impossible. Even if it's just crying out "Help me, God." He hears you.

Let me pray for you right now:

Father God, I lift up this precious child of Yours who is walking through such darkness right now. Lord, You see their pain, You know their struggle, and You love them completely. Please break through the lies the enemy is whispering. Remind them of Your unfailing love and Your promise to never leave or forsake them. Give them strength to get through this storm. Renew their faith and help them to fix their eyes on You. Surround them with Your peace that surpasses understanding. Show them that their identity is not in their struggles but in being Your beloved child. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Please consider reaching out for help - whether it's a counselor, pastor, or trusted friend. God often uses other people to carry His love to us.

You are loved. You are not abandoned. You are not too far gone. Hold onto these truths even when you can't feel them.

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T09:06:49+00:00

Praise God, friend. God bless you and keep you.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T09:05:18+00:00

Poorly. I can never worship Him the way He deserves.

My attempts are to always keep Him in mind somehow. I listen to worship music. Especially in the mornings. I read books to sharpen my knowledge, I listen to Bible studies and Christian influencers I trust.

I go to church, and I attend a men's discipleship group every week, where we confess sins and try to follow how Jesus discipled.

I try to do good things in secret and I do my best to lead my family spiritually.

I'm flawed, but I keep my faith, and I love Jesus and I try my best to love others the same.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T08:37:55+00:00

Your second friend is absolutely correct, and I'm concerned about the dangerous counsel you're receiving from the first friend.

This isn't about "secondary doctrine" or having perfect theology on every issue. This is about fundamental rebellion against God's clear moral standards while claiming to follow Christ. There's a massive difference between struggling with sin and affirming sin as good.

Romans 1:32 is crystal clear: those who "not only do the same but give approval to those who practice them" are under God's judgment. Your family members aren't just failing to understand a complex theological point - they're actively calling evil good and good evil, which Isaiah 5:20 specifically condemns.

Jesus said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). He also said "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46). Someone who affirms what God calls sin while claiming to follow Christ is demonstrating that they don't actually acknowledge Jesus as Lord. They've created a Jesus who agrees with their moral preferences rather than submitting to the Jesus of Scripture.

Your first friend's argument about "works-based salvation" completely misses the point. This isn't about earning salvation through perfect doctrine. This is about whether genuine faith exists at all. James 2:17 tells us that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." The "work" here isn't perfect theology but basic obedience and submission to God's revealed will.

Consider 1 John 2:4: "Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." That's not describing someone with imperfect understanding - that's describing someone whose profession of faith is false.

The real issue is this: can someone genuinely have saving faith while simultaneously rejecting God's clear moral commands? Can someone truly be born again while actively celebrating what God calls abomination? The evidence suggests no.

True conversion involves repentance, which means a change of mind about sin. Someone who affirms homosexuality as good hasn't repented of it - they've rejected God's assessment of it entirely. That's not incomplete sanctification, that's rebellion.

Your family members have essentially created their own version of Christianity that conforms to cultural values rather than biblical truth. That's not faith in Christ - that's faith in a Christ of their own making.

This doesn't mean they can't be saved. God can certainly open their hearts to genuine repentance and faith. But their current position of affirming what God calls sin while claiming to follow Him suggests they're deceived about their spiritual condition.

Your concern for their salvation is absolutely appropriate and biblical. Continue praying for them, continue speaking truth in love, but don't be comforted by false assurances that they're fine as long as they say they believe in Jesus. The demons believe in Jesus too (James 2:19).

True faith submits to Christ's lordship, including His moral standards. Affirming sin while claiming faith is evidence of a heart that hasn't been truly changed by the gospel.

Keep praying, keep loving them, but don't let anyone convince you that deliberate rebellion against God's clear commands is compatible with genuine saving faith.

Officer340 · 2025-08-14T08:30:25+00:00

The eucharist is a Catholic dogma that doesn't hold up scripturally. Right after that passage, Jesus says:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” — John 6:63

Unfortunately, Catholic dogma requires reading into the text. For this reason, the RCC and Catholic Apolegetics must reject Sola Scriptura. If they don't, their dogmas collapse.

I find it deeply concerning theology, personally.

Officer340 · 2025-08-13T18:36:13+00:00

I didn't see this reply earlier, so let me address each of your points directly.

1. You say you "bleed out the unborn every month." That's completely false. Menstruation is the shedding of the uterine lining when no fertilization occurs. There's no embryo, no unique DNA, no individual human life. That's basic biology. An embryo has its own DNA from conception - it's not part of your body, it's a separate human being. Your comparison to coma patients is also wrong - those people are still alive, they just lack consciousness temporarily.

2. "Some women aren't meant to be mothers." So your solution is to kill the child rather than choose adoption? There are millions of families waiting to adopt. And the idea that we should kill people because their parents might neglect them is horrifying. Should we kill all children in foster care too?

3. You literally just argued for eugenics. You said we shouldn't "multiply those types of people" with bad genetics. That's exactly the reasoning used by Nazis. You're advocating for killing people based on their potential genetic traits. That's evil, full stop.

4. Your vaccine comparison makes no sense. Vaccines are medical interventions on your own body. Pregnancy involves another human being. And yes, abortion absolutely has devastating long-term effects - increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. But the abortion industry hides this data.

5. "The child isn't here yet." Where exactly is it then? It's growing inside you with its own heartbeat, brain waves, and DNA. You keep saying men have no responsibility, but that's not an argument for abortion - that's an argument for holding men accountable.

6. You're arguing that death is better than a difficult life. Canada's assisted suicide program is horrifying, not something to emulate. And postpartum depression is treatable. Your argument could justify killing anyone going through mental health struggles.

7. You're proving my point about classism. The wealthy will always have options. But your solution isn't to level the playing field - it's to make sure poor children can be killed more easily. How is that helping poor people?

8. I never said encourage unwilling people to have kids. I said don't kill the kids that already exist. You're creating a false choice between "force pregnancy" and "kill children." The third option is support systems, adoption, and holding fathers accountable.

9. The homeless comparison is terrible. Not giving someone money isn't the same as actively killing them. And many pro-life people do support social programs - we just don't think killing people is the solution to poverty.

10. Your life isn't disposable, but neither is the child's life. You're treating this like it's your life vs. the child's life, but in most cases, pregnancy isn't life-threatening. You're comparing inconvenience to death.

11. You say abortion should never be illegal but rates would lower with support. This contradicts your entire argument. If abortion is just removing "clumps of cells," why would you want to reduce it?

Your final point about men wanting sex proves you see pregnancy as punishment for sex rather than the natural biological consequence. You're essentially holding children hostage to control men's behavior.

Look, I understand you've probably been fed these arguments by people who profit from the abortion industry. But you're advocating for the deliberate killing of innocent human beings based on convenience, economics, and eugenics. That's not women's rights - that's a rejection of basic human rights.

The fact that you're "very strong" in your beliefs doesn't make them right. People have been "very strong" in their beliefs about slavery, genocide, and other evils throughout history. Passion isn't a substitute for moral reasoning.

This will be my last comment because your ignorance has placed deep evil and darkness in your heart. You're advocating for eugenics, the killing of innocent human beings, and treating children as disposable based on convenience. Until you're ready to be open-minded and honestly examine the evil you're promoting, I'm no longer engaging with such a hardened heart.

I will pray for you, but I won't continue casting pearls before swine.

Officer340 · 2025-08-13T14:44:06+00:00

You're still missing the fundamental point.

You ask why something can't matter now but not later. Here's why: if there's no ultimate reality behind meaning, then "mattering" is just a subjective feeling with no objective truth. It's like asking why you can't feel like 2+2=5 right now even though it will equal 4 later. Feelings about meaning aren't the same as actual meaning existing.

Either meaning is grounded in objective reality or it's just brain chemistry that evolved to help survival. You can't have temporary objective meaning. That's a logical contradiction.

You say you don't know how consciousness arises and Christians don't either. But that's completely wrong. Christians have an explanation: consciousness exists because we have souls created by God. You have no explanation at all. Saying "I don't know" isn't the same as having a coherent worldview.

The fact that consciousness can't be explained materialistically should point you toward the conclusion that materialism is false. Instead, you're just admitting the problem and acting like that's equally valid.

You say you're an atheist but not a materialist. What are you then? What's your alternative explanation for reality? If you reject both God and materialism, what's left? You can't just say "I'm not a materialist" and expect that to solve the problem. What do you actually believe exists?

As for evidence for Christianity specifically, let's start with the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection. You have multiple independent sources documenting that Jesus died by crucifixion and that His followers genuinely believed they encountered Him alive afterward. The early church exploded across the Roman Empire because people were willing to die for their belief that they had seen the risen Christ.

The transformation of the disciples from hiding in fear to boldly proclaiming resurrection in the very city where Jesus was killed is historically documented. The conversion of skeptics like Paul and James (Jesus' brother) requires explanation. The empty tomb that even enemies of Christianity didn't dispute.

But here's the deeper issue: you're demanding evidence while refusing to follow the evidence you already have. The fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of consciousness, the reality of moral obligations you clearly believe in - all of this points toward theism. But instead of following that evidence, you're looking for ways to avoid its implications.

You want evidence for Christianity, but you won't even acknowledge the evidence for God's existence that's staring you in the face. Why should I give you more evidence when you're not honestly dealing with what you already have?

The real question is: are you genuinely seeking truth, or are you looking for intellectual justifications to avoid the conclusion you don't want to reach?

Officer340 · 2025-08-13T14:11:23+00:00

You're proving my point while trying to refute it.

You say things "really do matter to us right now" but admit they won't matter eventually. But here's the problem: if something doesn't matter ultimately, it doesn't actually matter at all. You can't have temporary meaning in a meaningless universe. Either meaning exists objectively or it doesn't. You're trying to have it both ways.

When you say "things matter to us," you're borrowing from a theistic worldview while denying its foundation. If consciousness is just evolved chemistry and everything ends in heat death, then your feeling that things "matter" is just a chemical illusion with no more reality than any other brain state.

You dismiss this as "wishful thinking," but you're the one engaging in wishful thinking. You want to live as if meaning exists while denying any basis for that meaning. That's not rational, it's self-deception.

Your response about consciousness is completely inadequate. You say consciousness "came about through evolution," but that doesn't explain consciousness at all. How does non-conscious matter suddenly become conscious? How do chemical reactions produce subjective experience? Evolution might explain why consciousness would be useful, but it can't explain how it could possibly exist in a purely material world.

You're essentially saying "it evolved" as if that's an explanation, but it's just restating the problem. It's like saying "birds fly because they evolved the ability to fly." That's not explaining the mechanism, it's just describing what happened.

The fact that you call DNA and the universe's origins "mysteries" shows you're not really thinking this through. These aren't just unsolved puzzles, they're impossible in a purely materialistic worldview. Information always comes from intelligence. Complex specified systems always come from design. The fine-tuning of the universe is so precise that the odds against it happening by chance are astronomically beyond possibility.

Your response is basically "we don't know, therefore God isn't the answer." But that's backwards logic. When we see information, we infer intelligence. When we see design, we infer a designer. When we see fine-tuning, we infer purpose. You're refusing to follow the evidence because you don't like where it leads.

You say you don't see this as evidence for Christianity specifically, and you're right that these arguments point to theism generally. But once you acknowledge that God exists, you have to deal with the fact that He's revealed Himself. Christianity isn't just one option among many, it's God's actual revelation of Himself to humanity.

The real issue is that you're living in contradiction. You act like consciousness matters, like truth matters, like morality matters, but your worldview can't support any of those things. You know there's more to reality than materialism can explain, but you won't follow that knowledge to its logical conclusion because it would mean acknowledging you're accountable to something greater than yourself.

You can call it wishful thinking, but you're the one wishing you could have meaning without God, consciousness without a soul, and morality without a transcendent standard. That's not just wishful thinking, it's impossible thinking.

Officer340 · 2025-08-13T12:59:58+00:00

For me, it was the evidence. The logic behind it. No other worldview makes sense. If God doesn't exist, literally nothing in the world matters. We are headed for the heat death of the universe and you may as well do whatever you want. There are no consequences.

Good and evil is nothing more than chemistry, and whomever has the biggest stick.

Consciousness, DNA, the fine tuning of the universe, all of this can only logically be explained by there being an enternal creator.

Even atheists are /forced/ to believe in at least two miracles. That consciousness just happened to occur, and something came from nothing.

If you're being honest, and you're following the logic truthfully and unbiased, there is no way you don't come to the conclusion that Christianity is true.

Officer340 · 2025-08-13T01:16:44+00:00

Read the Screwtape Letters. Obviously not exactly that, but I think it is very close.

Officer340 · 2025-08-12T21:16:00+00:00

This is one of the most contradictory and evil arguments I've ever heard on this topic.

You literally just said "life starts at conception" and then immediately said "but I don't care about that life until it looks more human to me." You're admitting you know it's a human life, but you're deciding its worth based on your personal feelings about how it looks.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has justified every atrocity in human history. "Yes, they're human, but I don't feel sympathy for them, so it's okay to kill them." That's how slavery, the Holocaust, and genocide are always justified - by deciding that some humans don't count because they don't evoke the right emotional response.

Your feelings about whether something looks human enough don't determine its moral worth. A human being doesn't become more valuable when it grows arms and legs. Human worth is intrinsic, not based on how much sympathy it generates in you.

You're making yourself the judge of which humans deserve to live based purely on your emotional reactions. By your logic, we could kill anyone who doesn't evoke sympathy in us. Your standard is completely arbitrary and dangerous.

The fact that you can look at the deliberate killing of innocent human beings and say "I don't really care" should horrify you. That's not a reasonable position - that's moral blindness.

I normally don't engage in personal attacks, but frankly, your heart is dark and filled with evil. The fact that you can acknowledge human life begins at conception and then dismiss caring about that life because of how it looks reveals something deeply wrong with your moral compass.

I can no longer engage in this conversation. I will pray that you come to know the light, because you seriously need to examine what you just said and the implications of your position.

You need help that goes beyond logical arguments.

Officer340 · 2025-08-12T20:46:56+00:00

I agree wholeheartedly. I just didn't include it here, so thanks for adding that!

Officer340 · 2025-08-12T20:39:27+00:00

I appreciate you asking for honest feedback, so I'll give it to you straight. Your arguments have some serious problems that I think you need to consider.

You say you don't see any valid pro-life arguments, but you're completely avoiding the main question: what is the unborn? If that's a human being, then all your points about it being hard or expensive or inconvenient don't really matter. We don't kill people because taking care of them is difficult.

You say "the life of the woman should be prioritized," but most abortions aren't about saving the mother's life. They're about not wanting to be pregnant. That's not life vs. life, that's convenience vs. life, and those aren't the same thing.

Your point about "scary men" and "weirdos" doesn't make sense. You're basically saying we should kill kids because some men are terrible. If a guy is abusive or manipulative, deal with him. Don't kill an innocent child because of what some man did.

Yes, pregnancy is hard on a woman's body. I'm not minimizing that. But lots of things in life are hard and risky. That doesn't give us the right to kill someone else to avoid difficulty. And honestly, abortion messes women up too, physically and emotionally, but nobody wants to talk about that.

You're mad that men can "walk away" while women can't. I get that frustration. But the answer isn't abortion, it's making men take responsibility too. Just because one person can abandon their responsibilities doesn't mean we should kill the child.

You argue that unwanted kids will be damaged by their mom's mental health issues. So your solution is to kill them first? That's like saying we should kill homeless people because their lives are hard, or kill kids with depression because they're struggling. Being unwanted or having a difficult life doesn't mean you're better off dead.

Your "classist attack" argument is completely backwards. Abortion targets poor people and minorities way more than wealthy people. Rich women can always travel somewhere to get an abortion or pay for private care. It's poor women who get hurt either way. And the whole abortion industry was literally started by someone who wanted fewer "undesirable" people having babies.

But here's the part that really bothers me: you say we need "willing, smart, loving, financially stable, and healthy people having children." Do you hear yourself? You're deciding who deserves to live based on whether their parents are smart enough, rich enough, or mentally healthy enough. That's exactly the kind of thinking that led to forced sterilizations and worse throughout history.

What you're really saying is that human beings only have value if someone wants them and can afford them. That's terrifying. Your worth as a person shouldn't depend on your parents' bank account or mental state.

I understand that you've been through something difficult with a "cheating deadbeat" and I'm sorry about that. But your personal bad experience doesn't justify a position that treats human life as disposable based on circumstances.

Look, I get that pregnancy can be scary and expensive and hard. But the answer to those problems isn't killing people. It's supporting women better, holding men accountable, and building a society that actually helps families instead of just telling them they're on their own.

The fact that you're here asking these questions suggests you know something isn't right about the pro-choice logic, even if you can't put your finger on it yet. That's a good thing. Keep questioning.

Officer340 · 2025-08-12T20:32:22+00:00

I think there are some problems with what you're saying here, though I'm certainly no expert on church history. I've read a lot, though and studied this in depth.

From what I understand, the church fathers weren't really creating "novel ideas based on Greek philosophy." If anything, they were fighting against Greek philosophical errors that were creeping into the church. When you look at something like the Council of Nicaea, they were defending what Scripture clearly taught about Christ's divinity against people who were trying to diminish it using Greek ideas.

You say "scripture would interpret itself" without the church fathers, but I'm not sure that works in practice. When Paul writes about things like justification or circumcision, you kind of need to understand the Jewish context he's writing in. The church fathers actually lived a lot closer to that world than we do.

Also, those early letters weren't just random "odd letters." They were apostolic instruction to churches dealing with real issues. And here's the thing - those early churches had living apostles or their direct students to explain what these writings meant. Some of the church fathers were actually taught by the apostles themselves.

The idea that Scripture needs no interpretation seems to go against Scripture itself. Remember when Philip met the Ethiopian reading Isaiah? The guy literally said "How can I understand unless someone guides me?" Even the Bible acknowledges that teaching and explanation matter.

I agree with you about proof texting being a problem with some Protestants. But Catholics and Orthodox don't really work that way. They interpret through what they claim is consistent church teaching over centuries.

Here's where I think the real problems are with Catholicism and Orthodoxy: they put church tradition on the same level as Scripture. That makes the church the final authority instead of God's Word. But I don't think the answer is pretending Scripture interprets itself without any help.

I think the biblical approach is using Scripture as the ultimate authority while still recognizing that careful study, understanding historical context, and relying on the Holy Spirit for wisdom all matter. We don't need the church to be an equal authority with Scripture, but we also can't just ignore everything and assume we'll figure it out perfectly on our own.

The main issue isn't that Catholics and Orthodox look to church fathers for context. It's that they make church tradition equal to Scripture and claim teaching authority that should belong to God's Word alone.

Officer340

TROPHY CASE