I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding.
Joel Send a noteboard - 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM
The point is that if it can be conclusively proven that the very early Church taught this, while it may not be canon, it expresses their understanding of the teachings of Christianity, and obviously those who knew the apostles knew a lot that hasn't been passed down to us.
More importantly, some of the major figures of the orthodox (little "o"), Pauline Christian movement endorsed the Didache as canonical - Eusebius and John Damascene consider it canon, and Athanasius, while not calling it "canon", recommended it to the faithful as good Christian reading (along with The Shepherd of Hermas).
In the absence of any Scriptural passages that would contradict this stance, and on the weight given the text by some of the most influential Church Fathers, I would say that your stance is entirely unorthodox. And, as we know well, what is not orthodox is heresy.
More importantly, some of the major figures of the orthodox (little "o"), Pauline Christian movement endorsed the Didache as canonical - Eusebius and John Damascene consider it canon, and Athanasius, while not calling it "canon", recommended it to the faithful as good Christian reading (along with The Shepherd of Hermas).
In the absence of any Scriptural passages that would contradict this stance, and on the weight given the text by some of the most influential Church Fathers, I would say that your stance is entirely unorthodox. And, as we know well, what is not orthodox is heresy.
So I agree with the Church Fathers who hold that view and disagree with those who consider the Didache canon law. However, if you want scriptural support, how about Acts 15:22-29; Barnabas did not write it, but he and Paul did deliver it from the original Church Fathers.
Yet I see nothing objectionable in the quoted passage, just no absolute abortion prohibition: It prohibits killing a child in the womb, but EVERYONE objects to killing a child as such. That is only an obstacle to abortion when 1) we know a fetus is a child and 2) bearing it threatens a womans physical safety. The much older Exodus passage is stronger in that regard, because it covers pregnancies at all points, but is weaker in being confined to malicious acts committed without a womans assent.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
God Distances Self From Christian Right
- 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM
1219 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM
356 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization."
- 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM
549 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is....
- 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM
723 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin?
- 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM
585 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but...
- 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM
592 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. 
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
632 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
632 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance.
- 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM
584 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right?
- 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
513 Views
You're getting rather emphatic.
- 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM
581 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that.
- 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
567 Views
That's a dangerous stance to take as a Christian
- 27/10/2012 01:11:14 AM
567 Views
I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding.
- 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM
583 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this.
- 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM
636 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect
- 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
641 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM
316 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM*
- 26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM
330 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no.
- 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM
561 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals
- 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM
585 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive.
- 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM
610 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all...
- 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM
624 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal
- 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM
526 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are.
- 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM
684 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors.
- 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM
618 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient."
- 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM
528 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
- 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
535 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child.
- 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM
528 Views
Fantastic question.
- 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM
562 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words.
- 27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM
549 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously.
- 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM
551 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism
- 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM
628 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative
- 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM
604 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time!
- 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM
569 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment.
- 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM
528 Views
Or it could mean....
- 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM
584 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that.
- 27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM
592 Views
I agree
- 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM
619 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend.
- 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM
583 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief.
- 27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM
590 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause.
- 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM
575 Views
God intends everything.
- 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM
660 Views
"Intends" is a big word.
- 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM
604 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM*
- 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM
313 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM*
- 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM
330 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular.
- 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM
544 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. 
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
592 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
592 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that.
- 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM
560 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact.
- 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM
534 Views
Come on, Tom.
- 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM
532 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well.
- 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM
595 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM*
- 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM
331 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads.
- 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM
547 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the
- 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM
558 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent?
- 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM
560 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM
330 Views
[citation needed]
- 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM
513 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM
316 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose
- 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM
552 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it.
- 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM
535 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up.
- 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM
740 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress?
- 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
620 Views
amazing
- 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM
664 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter
- 28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM
540 Views