Stanek weekend question: When does “anti-choice bullying” cross the line, if ever?
Let’s start this conversation by taking violence off the table. Both pro-lifers and abortion supporters agree that violence emanating from either side is wrong and committed by outliers.
Beyond that, where, if ever, can pro-lifers cross the line? The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the decision of which will have implications across the country. Can a state or municipality erect an unseen red line of whatever distance it decides to keep pro-lifers from reaching out to mothers going into abortion clinics to kill their babies? The other side, of course, calls this harassment.
A couple days ago pro-choicer Robin Marty (by now a friend, in actuality) took me on for outing Minnesota businesses that are supporting an abortion fundraiser:
https://twitter.com/robinmarty/status/444227612659838976
Was I really “bullying”?
On March 10 the Manassas, Virginia, City Council defeated a measure that would have enhanced abortion clinic regulations in that city. One abortion proponent wrote an astute tweet:
https://twitter.com/ClinicEscort/status/443189999417450497
ClinicEscort was right. Pro-lifers become a self-fulfilling prophecy by protesting at abortion clinics, often distressing the community around it.
And what of it? Abortion is legalized murder. Abortion clinics are the equivalent of modern-day gas chambers.
A Christian, no less, recently called pro-life protests using photos of abortion victims at a high school “bullying.” Likewise, an abortion advocate called a similar pro-life display at a university “hate speech.”
But my friend Leslie often says, “No child killing with tranquility.” And I agree. I’m all for whatever peaceful means are necessary to stop abortion.
To reiterate that last point, I think we must create our social justice disturbances peacefully, as Martin Luther King, Jr., advocated, and void of personal animosity or physical/verbal retaliation.
But we must indeed create disturbances against abortion, the greatest evil of our time, perhaps of all of human history.
But perhaps I’m an extremist. What are your thoughts?
[Top photo via georgiatipsheet.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think the voices of women and the children who were saved from the front lines of the abortuaries would be featured more prominently in these legal decisions regarding the clinics and their ‘red lines’ if this was really about caring about them, because these are the women the clinics say they serve, and yet they were served not by the clinic workers themselves, but by those protecting their rights outside of the clinics. So if you if you must be for the clinics, you must also be for the the free choices that’s being made outside of the clinics… that is, if your truly for women’s rights, free choice, and freedom of speech, for women that is. Of course it would be nice to preserve that constitutional legality for all Americans, men too! BUT is this really about women’s health care… I think that is what the debate is coming down to… they say it comes down to birth control, and let’s face it, if the pill is a carcinogen, which is it, and if abortion causes the countless number of health problems and fatalities that it does… it has nothing to do with women’s health care. Dupont, the Dirtdevil & whilpool have done more for women’s rights than any “pill” ever did, just be honest-take one look at those washboards and those metal bins and those clotheslines, not to mention the jars of porkgrease by the kitchen sink that were standard about sixty years ago–but nice claim, abortion proponents, on what is now called women’s lib-face it, it’s really just modern convenience.. Of all the women I have known on the pill, using condoms, taking every precaution that they could think of not to get pregnant… and all of them have had abortions… it just doesn’t make sense, I guess these same people are equating abortion to the pill, but none of the post abortive women I know are “free” they are all still trying to find themselves, so sad. God end this scourge on women that they call “choice”, please!! If 9 out of ten women denied abortions embrace motherhood, one out of ten aboritions ends in adoption, 6 out of every 100 abortions ends in suicide or cancer of the post-abortive mother. Are we protecting the clinics, clinic workers and abortion providers / profiteers or are we protecting women? Focus, people, focus!
I’m not too worried about anti-choice bullying because anti-choice is not a thing. Now, pro-life bullying would be a whole different matter.
I agree with you Ms. Stanek. You are not an extremist. Our behavior should always model Christ’s, and that includes making the choice between Good and Evil clear.
Harassment, like beauty, is in the eye/ear of the beholder. Escorts had the off-duty policeman/security guard tell me to stop hollering at the girls. I told him that my children would tell him when I am hollering. I am raising my voice to be heard across the parking lot and over traffic noise. Did he look surprised … and understood the difference!
War is hell! 55M+ abortions and 110+ prevalent STIs according to the CDC, plus their expense, pain and afterward problems sure sounds like hell-to-pay to me. There is no ‘love’ or even ‘like’ involved. Sounds more like something sadomasochistic. The war is between good and evil over true love and correct definitions/understandings of words. The devil is a murderer and a liar. Who profit$ to the tune of 16 billion a year just for the STIs? Now add the cost of the abortions. Sure would be easier and cheaper to stay home and wash your hair. Always loved that excuse. ;)
“CDC’s analyses included eight common STIs: chlamydia, gonorrhea,
hepatitis B virus (HBV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis,
and trichomoniasis.” http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
I don’t know the legal term “hate speech” but it seems it would need to be directed to a direct person/persons and showing photos doesn’t qualify as they are not directed as hate toward a person/persons. You are not extreme. I would do probably any of the above.
They are hurling words like spears: bullying and harassment and hate speech. This is question about whether those words are true, or just more lies from the anti-life activists.
Our presence might be bullying and harassment and hate speech, if we are actually doing those things while we are present. But our presence is tries to be caring and loving and supportive. To the women entering the abortion clinic, we say, “We can help you?” and “All the help you need is free!” and “Would you like a free ultrasound?”
I am impressed with the way that Brian Gibson engaged the pro-‘bort fundraiser. Very professional. He contacted the listed sponsors and informed them that he intended to make their sponsorships known to the public. He offered them an opportunity to distance themselves from killers.
I think the dividing line is Truth. If we carry signs with the message, “Look at what is already happening here,” we are not bullying. We are shining a light on reality, so that all can see and our culture can decide if we want to be this way. It is a job that our newspapers should be doing.
But if the anti-lifers pass ordinances to say that we cannot hold such signs or be present in such places, then they are bullying us.
I think we need to pray knowing that it’s murder but act knowing that a significant segment of our society doesn’t acknowledge that, and our insistence frustrates and angers them rather than appeals to their conscious. Especially for Bible believers, we know the delicate balance between living in this world while adhering to eternal truths. For those who don’t consider that as a valuable comparison, it can be simplicity to befriend the enemy in order to win the war.
Just for the record Jill, since you brought it up – I’m not in favor of “outing” the businesses and individuals. I understand the intent, but it seems to me that it just turns into mud-slinging - because everyone can be outed for something.
Bottom line: do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.
I agree that we need to do our social justice disturbances peacefully. I also agree that Martin Luther King Jr is a good role model for this.
That being said, we must also realize that the other side wants to demonize us to the maximum degree possible. If they can get away with saying we are violent, they will. Sometimes they will even try to provoke us to violence, and failing that, they will stretch the truth, or just outright lie.
But this is all the more reason why nonviolence is so important to our cause.
As for the harassment issue: girls who don’t want to get abortion are harassed into it all the time, sometimes to the point of tears and sometimes by clinic staff. Nobody dares call that harassment But if we reach out to them with information about alternatives to abortion as they are being forced into the clinics, this is called harassment. Double standard much?
Yes, we are dealing with a double standard. It may take a while for the public to catch on to what’s really going on in the abortion controversy, and who the really violent ones are. But they will never catch on if we don’t do it nonviolently. In fact, even a good cause will not win God’s approval if it’s fought for via ungodly means.
So keep soldiering on pro-life demonstrators, and keep reaching out in love, while being as unaggressive as possible. If you do this, the truth will eventualy come out.
So keep soldiering on pro-life demonstrators, and keep reaching out in love, while being as unaggressive as possible. If you do this, the truth will eventualy come out.
This.
Activists (pro-life and otherwise) and prophets often make people feel strangely uncomfortable or intimidated or even afraid by the things they say and do because the message pierces the heart. This is what makes them prophetic…it is exactly what they are meant to do.
The brothel thing was just a parable, everybody relax ;>)
Now, i think that protesting an abortionist’s home could definitely be going too far. Showing real photos at a college or even high school is free speech, not hate speech. Screaming in people’ s faces is rude, and I am touched that DLPL is still pro-life, despite his experiences.
But perhaps I’m an extremist.
Quite probably. But given how readily this site complains about bullying from pro-choice groups and how much space it spends clutching its pearls over the materials to which Planned Parenthood exposes the tender eyes of young children, the word that you want here is “hypocrite.”
If the signs are hate speech then abortion is hate.
Hi Del,
While on patrol my brother pulled over a john and his “friend”, who quickly bolted. My brother inquired as to who the “friend” was and the john, sweating bullets, told him she was just “a friend” and my brother had just made her nervous. I bet he did!
Anyway my brother took the john’s phone number and told him he would be calling his house in half and hour. I’m sure the john wasted no time getting home, sweating all the way. My brother of course didn’t call but is certain the john paid no more visits to that part of town!
Bullying is the new hot button, buzz word, that is already losing its meaning now that it is so often applied to people who admonish others to stop killing, raping and stealing.
The pro-choice advocates have no legitimate claims to stand on. So, they make up stuff about the opposition.
The most ridiculous has been the efforts to make bad-guys out of the crisis pregnancy centers.
I am strongly against picketing the home of an abortion doc or clinic manager – sure, it could be argued-for, but that type of activity has a feel of terrorism to it; kids and neighbors ought to be scared when this kind of thing happens — I agree with other liberals that some banks cheat and mislead the average guy, but I am very upset abt the protests where the homes of the bankers are targeted.
For those at the clinics, I believe there should be little or no utterances of animosity — all anyone should be saying is message s such as “God loves you and your baby;” “we will help you get on Medicaid for your prenatal care and delivery,” “things will work out;” “yes, it is a human – ask to see the ultrasound;” and so on.
Arguing or other conflictual utterances have very little to no desired effect.
There is no clever retort to give a deathscort except “we are praying for you.,” and similar stuff.
Biology pictures?
Totally.
We liberals love to flash pictures of those endangered polar bears, those clubbed sea lions, and those starving African children. Images tell a story, and can tell a true story.
–It is funny how one tired-ol’ strategy of the pro-choicers is to argue that some aborted baby has the wrong gestational age noted; is this taught in pro-choice rhetoric 101?
If your business supports a pro-abortion fund-raiser or group, you definitely deserve to have your support broadcast. Otherwise is illogical.
LisaC,
Feel free to take your leave at any time.
Your CHOICE!!!
The Last Democrat,
Excellent comments!!
Anti life is a strange way to paint people who are trying to save the lives of children so I call them pro death. Anyway it can get very heated out there and when a pro deather gets in my face they get it right back! Most back down when they realize I dont play.
truthseeker 3/15 10:42p: awesome, succinct.
The aborted child in the image had no voice until his image gave him one.
When the Leader of the Free World insists that Crucifixes come down when he speaks at a Catholic college, then signs of aborted babies at abortion chambers are speaking publicly for Christ.
Atheists want to shut down debate. They want to bring lawsuits against Christians’ Free Speech and Freedom of Religion rights. When they attack public displays of Manger Scenes, Crucifixes and Crosses, call for restrictions on prayers in public, in public schools and in governmental meetings and at sports venues, insist that colleges teach evolution only and never Creationism, insist that abstinence only be banned from schools, insist that bubble zones be mandated at abortion chambers, etc., all these things add up to insisting that Christians have no voice in the Public Square.
Atheists say Christians are practicing hate speech when they are doing good works when the atheists in fact are motivated by hatred of a Being they insist doesn’t exist. How do I know they hate God? They say they hate Christians by the hateful words they use to describe God and Christians. That’s hate speech.
I don’t think a free country should cut off ANY speech; I’d insist that the atheist do Christians the same courtesy and stop trying to mandate the end of Freedom of Christian Speech and Freedom of the Christian Religion.
When atheists can’t win a debate, they run to an ACLU lawyer to have the speech of Christians silenced. When atheists see a symbol of Christianity that they hate or hate to see a person practicing it, they run to an ACLU lawyer to have that symbol removed or the Christian charged with a hate crime.
Atheists insist that Christians be motivated by perfect love in everything we do, which would require the atheist to search the soul of a Christian to read the motivations of the soul, and , you know, there may just be some small human motivation emanating from no such a pure place in there. So what? We all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. That doesn’t make a good act bad. If we were all sinless, we’d be God, and none of us would need a Savior.
My two comments on this thread say they are awaiting moderation.
Not sure why.
Protests and demonstrations are a normal part of civilized society. Harrassing, impeding and abusing people going about their legitimate business day after day is not so civilized. If you want the laws changed go pester your politician, protest outside the relevant government building.
Atheists want to shut down debate. They want to bring lawsuits against Christians’ Free Speech and Freedom of Religion rights. – that is not happening.
When they attack public displays of Manger Scenes, Crucifixes and Crosses - no. It is unconstitutional to demonstrate support for one particular religion using government resources. Mangers, crucifixes and crosses are permissable if other groups are also alllowed to instal their versions of such displays. Anyones or none.
call for restrictions on prayers in public, in public schools and in governmental meetings and at sports venues, – same as above. Invocations, moments of silence etc. are permissable. Constantly expressing one single religious viewpoint is not.
insist that colleges teach evolution only and never Creationism, – that’s because colleges are meant to teach facts in subjects relating to the pure sciences. Creationism could be taught as part of religious studies, history, anthropology etc.
insist that abstinence only be banned from schools, – teaching abstinence-only is tantamount to teaching nothing. Abstinence can be taught as part of a broad package.
insist that bubble zones be mandated at abortion chambers, etc., – people should be permitted to go about their legitimate business without being constantly impeded.
all these things add up to insisting that Christians have no voice in the Public Square. – not at all. They add up to your religion not being privileged and accorded rights above everybody else. Not the only voice in the square.
Atheists say Christians are practicing hate speech when they are doing good works – no, the hate speech is when your beliefs become words and actions impacting on those who don’t beleive that same things as you.
when the atheists in fact are motivated by hatred of a Being they insist doesn’t exist.– are people really still trying this one on? Can’t hate that which doesn’t exist. What atheists ‘hate’ if anything, is the words and deeds some folk demonstrate supposedly in the name of their god.
How do I know they hate God? They say they hate Christians by the hateful words they use to describe God and Christians. That’s hate speech. – calling out hate speech is not hate speech.
I don’t think a free country should cut off ANY speech; I’d insist that the atheist do Christians the same courtesy and stop trying to mandate the end of Freedom of Christian Speech and Freedom of the Christian Religion. – that is not what is taking place. What is taking place is the redressing of unjustified privilege over others and unconstitutional behaviors to which a blind eye has been turned for too long. No one is preventing you from following your beliefs. What is happening is an increase in guarding against you forcing your beliefs and the impact of those beliefs on others.
When atheists can’t win a debate, they run to an ACLU lawyer to have the speech of Christians silenced. When atheists see a symbol of Christianity that they hate or hate to see a person practicing it, they run to an ACLU lawyer to have that symbol removed or the Christian charged with a hate crime. – no, the ACLU simply points out the illegality or unconstitutionality of acts which people have gotten away with in the past. The laws being applied are not new, they’re just being correctly adhered to more often. Who’s been charged with a ‘hate crime’?
Atheists insist that Christians be motivated by perfect love in everything we do, - are you kidding?
which would require the atheist to search the soul of a Christian to read the motivations of the soul, and , you know, there may just be some small human motivation emanating from no such a pure place in there. So what? - souls do not exist.
We all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. – you might, I and many others don’t.
That doesn’t make a good act bad. – a good act is bad if it impacts negatively on those who do not wish to be a part of that act.
If we were all sinless, we’d be God, and none of us would need a Savior. – that all sounds a bit self-redundant to me.
No one is forcing you to do things you don’t want to. You are finally being prevented from forcing others to do things they don’t want to. That’s all.
Of course human souls exist, and our souls survive the destruction of the body. Scientific proof of the survivability of the human soul is quite abundant in Eucharistic Miracles.
Jesus survived death, and the Miracle of Lanciano, and many other Miracles of the Eucharist attest to the survivability of the human soul. Every Eucharistic Miracle upon examination reveals the same blood type is present, AB. The Miracle of Lanciano occurred before blood typing was discovered, and it is AB blood type just like all Eucharistic Miracles since then have been. If Eucharistic Miracles are a hoax, they are so elaborate a hoax that the hoaxers anticipated the invention of blood typing, and provided the hoax with evidence of physical qualities that were unknown to exist when the miracle first occurred. The custody chain of evidence is secure on the Miracle of Lanciano, as it impossible to access it except on the annual day of the miracle.
Upon microscopic examination by trained scientists, the Eucharistic Miracle at Finca Betania, Venezuela revealed it it be a slice of human heart muscle cut in such a way that it would be impossible to replicate by any known means.
Eucharistic Miracles are sufficient scientific evidence to prove the Body of Christ survived death . His soul left His Body and then reanimated His Body after three days, just as Jesus said it would at the Last Supper. It would be impossible for common bread to suddenly become what it Is if Jesus hadn’t said of the bread at the Last Supper, “This is my Body; do this in remembrance of me,” thereby giving His Word and His mandate to His Disciples to “Do this,”, meaning replicate this, represent this whenever they eat the Sacrificial Meal. This Miracle of the Eucharist is represented at every Mass; the “accidents” (physical appearance) of bread remains, but the Real Presence of Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is Truly Present. Every once in a while, the accidents disappear, and the Reality, the Real Presence is shown to be Truly Present.
Just as scientists say things exist by using deductive reasoning, but they cannot actually see them, Jesus gives humankind the elevated form of Reasoning which scientist mimic in shadow, in the True Presence of His Body in the Eucharist.
Of course human souls exist, and our souls survive the destruction of the body. – no, and no.
Scientific proof of the survivability of the human soul is quite abundant in Eucharistic Miracles. – er no, the eucharistic miracles are not scientific proof.
They attest to nothing more than faith built on either a lack of knowledge, a lack of understanding or tall tales.
Eucharistic Miracles are sufficient scientific evidence to prove the Body of Christ survived death – not in the least. They are not scientific evidence.
Just as scientists say things exist by using deductive reasoning, but they cannot actually see them – religious claims do not meet this criteria.
Claiming religious content is evidence for religious content doesn’t work.
People die because people are imperfect; if people were perfect, our bodies would be perfect and our bodies wouldn’t die and break down into its constituent parts. The soul, not made of parts, being made of spirit and therefore not made of parts and unable to break down into parts like our bodies, departs from our bodies at death. Only God is Perfect, and He became man/God and died in our stead so our indestructible souls may be forgiven of sin. People die every day; all people die. Our souls cannot be destroyed. If they could be destroyed, Jesus’ soul would have been destroyed. But it wasn’t, as shown by Eucharistic Miracles.
So still zero evidence for the existence of any ‘soul’ Doc.
You aren’t presenting anything different to the old ‘god exists because god said…..’ argument.
Atheists insist Christians be perfect when performing a good work. More than that, they insist a Christian perform miracles all the time for their good works to be considered acceptable to atheists. For instance, I’ve heard this thousands of times and read it multiple thousands of times from atheists directed art Christians:” If you don’t adopt every last one, every single “unwanted” baby, Christianity is a hoax, and Christians are hypocrites.” Atheists expect Christians to be perfect, and beyond that, they expect Christians to perform miracles.
Dr Ricardo Castenon, an atheist scientist, was converted to Catholicism on the same evidence I’ve presented to you above, as well as many other scientific examinations of miracles and visionaries, such as Nancy Fowler (R.I.P.) of Conyers, GA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VO9tkbyrJs
So were Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers bullies because they organized mass sit-ins at every segregated facility in an entire city rather than limiting themselves to government buildings? What about labour unions, which not only protest but completely shut down businesses because they don’t agree with their wages?
When atheists are presented with scientific proof of miracles of God, they deny science by rejecting scientific proof of God in Eucharistic miracles. Atheists are making themselves out, then, to be God, which is impossible, because no atheist has yet been able to create something out of nothing, as it is obvious that everything didn’t come from nothing; infinite regress , pure logic, insists that everything had to have something greater than it for it to exist at all. “Greater than which cannot exist” is a thought that humans , and only humans, can imagine. That “Greater than which cannot exist” we call “God.”
Atheists insist Christians be perfect when performing a good work. – not at all Doc, not at all. That would be an unrealistic expectation.
Atheists expect Christians to be perfect – we already know they aren’t. Nobody is.
and beyond that, they expect Christians to perform miracles. – that’d be a bit difficult since we know miracles don’t occur.
Holding a piece of human tissue and saying “this used to be bread” is not scientific evidence. Ricardo Castanon’s beliefs are not scientific evidence.
No, atheists expect Christians to perform miracles, but it’s not based on unrealistic expectations, it’s based on Magical Thinking. MT says “Eventually, mankind will know how to perform these miracles, and therefore all miracles are just proof that mankind hasn’t ‘evolved’ far enough yet. ” That’s MT. It’s faith in something that doesn’t yet exist. At least Christians can see a Eucharistic Miracle, and present it to atheist for scientific examination to support our faith. Atheists have nothing like that to support their MT.
And Eucharistic Miracles have been seen to occur on film.
This whole thread is about people who deny miracles; hiding evidence of the Miracle of Human Life in the Womb. If atheists continue to deny science which proves the existence of spirit and soul, God and the supernatural, it will eventually make it possible for no one to have faith in anything other than what can be tested, all the time, and approved by “science” to be used, or traded, or relied upon as a basis for human cultures to progress. Science cannot possibly be all things to all persons at all times; only God has those qualities. Atheists believe in a god that is a lesser god than God.
When atheists are presented with scientific proof of miracles of God, they deny science by rejecting scientific proof of God in Eucharistic miracles. – not true. There is no scientific proof of god or eucharistic miracles. Presenting something unproven as evidence for something else which is also unproven isn’t how it works. It certainly isn’t scientific. It is science which paves the road to atheism.
Atheists are making themselves out, then, to be God, which is impossible – that is impossible, on both fronts.
because no atheist has yet been able to create something out of nothing, – why would we need to?
as it is obvious that everything didn’t come from nothing; – are you sure about that?
infinite regress , pure logic, insists that everything had to have something greater than it for it to exist at all.– science disagrees.
Saying the words ‘science’ and ‘eucharistic miracles’ in the same sentence doesn’t actually amount to evidence of miracles or god.
Dr Castenon set out to disprove miracles. He was able to disprove some, but many others are impossible to disprove as being miraculous. It is important for Christians to expose hoaxers, even though our faith doesn’t rely on physical proof, it is always good to be able to have inexplicable events and artifacts which baffle atheists; it keeps the atheist in a position of having to deny until denial doesn’t satisfy any more. Only God can completely satisfy our desires.
Science uses philosophy to advance science all the time. Science uses theory to advance science all the time. What is philosophy but thinking about thoughts? What is theory except imagining what can exist? Science cannot replicate what already exists; science can only use what already exists and theorize and imagine. “Information” is extracted from the “stuff” that already exists; Science doesn’t create even knowledge, it discovers it. Science can’t create anything without something already being there to extract the “stuff” out of it. Theology and science both “Think God’s thoughts after Him.”
“Why anything rather than nothing?”
If we’re just a product of random chance, why would anyone even believe in any of their thoughts as having any meaning other than randomness? Why do we believe anything is everything is random?
Why would atheists have to make something out of nothing?
To prove God is NOT Creator, and therefore cannot exist, science would have to provide a duplicate of God which creates something out of nothing. Not only that , from that thing which is created, all other things which exist must be created from that thing. ALL other things. Not just some, but all. That would be the only way I can imagine atheists could ask everyone to rely on science for guidance on every one of the “difficult questions of life, ” for if science can replicate God, then there must never have been a God, and there never was nothing at all, only, like Carl Sagan said, “The Universe.” And mankind then can have all the “difficult questions of life ” answered, because that which can create everything must be greater than which cannot exist, and this thing can answer all possible questions about the “difficult questions of life.”
No, atheists expect Christians to perform miracles, – that simply is not true. We do not expect anyone to perform an impossibility. Your kinda letting te whole logic thing fall over right there.
but it’s not based on unrealistic expectations, it’s based on Magical Thinking – atheists aren’t the ones who indulge in ‘magical thinking’ .
MT says “Eventually, mankind will know how to perform these miracles, and therefore all miracles are just proof that mankind hasn’t ‘evolved’ far enough yet. ” – it’s proof that we don’t know everything yet. You don’t seem to get the whole ‘miracle’ thing. Firstly, miracles are unobserved, unexplained or misrepresented events. Many have come to be explained, the rest will be as knowledge grows. Apart from the bogus ones of course. Secondly, mankind will not and cannot always ‘perform these miracles’. Some are climatic events, some are astronomical events, some are geological events. Not stuff that mankind will always be the cause of. Many are already understood, the rest will be.
It’s faith in something that doesn’t yet exist. At least Christians can see a Eucharistic Miracle, – faith in something which never existed.
and present it to atheist for scientific examination to support our faith. – let me know when that ‘examination’ becomes confirmation.
hiding evidence of the Miracle of Human Life in the Womb. – miracle? Dude, don’t you read the scientific stuff presented here, even that by anti-choicers?
If atheists continue to deny science which proves the existence of spirit and soul, God and the supernatural, – there is no science there to be denied.
it will eventually make it possible for no one to have faith in anything other than what can be tested, all the time, – yes. It’s called reason.
and approved by “science” to be used, or traded, or relied upon as a basis for human cultures to progress. – ‘proved’ not ‘approved’.
Science cannot possibly be all things to all persons at all times; only God has those qualities. – only to a believer.
Atheists believe in a god that is a lesser god than God. – why do you bother even writing stuff like this.
He was able to disprove some, but many others are impossible to disprove as being miraculous. – so, none proven to be miracles. Just not fully explained yet.
It is important for Christians to expose hoaxers, – LOL, where could we go with that one.
even though our faith doesn’t rely on physical proof, – no argument there.
it is always good to be able to have inexplicable events and artifacts which baffle atheists; – science is borne of bafflement. Is it still good when inexplicable events are explained and you’re the one left baffled?
it keeps the atheist in a position of having to deny until denial doesn’t satisfy any more. – it’s not about denial, it’s about truth, facts, knowledge, understanding and reason.
Only God can completely satisfy our desires. – I think I saw that on a leaflet. God is used as an excuse to deny people their desires.
What is theory except imagining what can exist? – what, like gravity?
Science cannot replicate what already exists; – where have you been living?
Theology and science both “Think God’s thoughts after Him.” – no, theology might. Science finds out how and why. And the further it goes, the less room is left for god.
Why would atheists have to make something out of nothing? – why indeed? The universe does it itself. And a few scientists.
To prove God is NOT Creator, and therefore cannot exist, science would have to provide a duplicate of God which creates something out of nothing. – why do we need to prove there is NOT a creator? Its up to you to prove there is. Something which no one has yet achieved. Meanwhile, the odds of doing so get longer and longer.
Not only that , from that thing which is created, all other things which exist must be created from that thing. ALL other things. Not just some, but all. – yep, that’d be stardust.
That would be the only way I can imagine atheists could ask everyone to rely on science for guidance on every one of the “difficult questions of life, ” – tut tut. Some of the “DQOL” are cogitated in our brains.
for if science can replicate God, – why would it need to? There is no god to replicate. The universe does what happens. Scientists don’t plan to replicate that on any scale beyond some experiments and tests which will provide additional knowledge and understanding
then there must never have been a God, and there never was nothing at all, only, like Carl Sagan said, “The Universe.” – correct.
And mankind then can have all the “difficult questions of life ” answered, – not a deep thinker are you. The universe doesn’t provide all the answers on the “DQOL”. It doesn’t do philosophy.
because that which can create everything must be greater than which cannot exist, – what greater than which cannot exist? What’s that, a get out of jail free card or something?
and this thing can answer all possible questions about the “difficult questions of life.” – I decide and act on what I spread on my toast, not the universe.
God limits choice, that’s for sure. And He does that because he wants to expand our happiness. God doesn’t want us to destroy humans in the womb. Those humans have a right to find happiness just like anyone else. How can science-supported abortion expand happiness when it removes all potential happiness of 55 million through direct abortion alone?
To use science-supported abortion to prove human happiness can be found through science and not faith in God is proving to be a harbinger of the inability of science to ultimately solve ANY of life’s biggest questions, not just some.
God limits choice, that’s for sure. And He does that because he wants to expand our happiness. – well that’s at cross purposes for a start! Is that part of the whole ‘the more you suffer here the happier you’ll be in heaven’ theory?
God doesn’t want us to destroy humans in the womb. – you can’t know that. It’s not a possible concept anyway.
Those humans have a right to find happiness just like anyone else. – not if it overides the happiness of the women concerned. Not having it start is better than taking it away.
How can science-supported abortion expand happiness when it removes all potential happiness of 55 million through direct abortion alone? – ‘potential’ being the operative word. Because it protects the happiness of 55 million who already exist.
To use science-supported abortion to prove human happiness can be found through science and not faith in God is proving to be a harbinger of the inability of science to ultimately solve ANY of life’s biggest questions, not just some. – science it is then.
Reality, as usual, is in denial mode. As always, if science points one direction, and it is not the desired direction, just deny. If faith points in one direction, go the opposite, because hey, faith has been labelled blind (just as justice, prior to the rule of emotion, once was). Philosophy, duh, deny, deny and deny. It really is blind faith to think there is no evidence or reason to expect intelligent design. Of course, we expect life to have happened by accident. Intelligent life happened by extreme accident. This is scientific. So, there is no reason to expect other solar systems to behave the same as ours. Why does frozen H2O float. Accidental accident, of course. Just imagine, 70,000 people, including harsh skeptics, witnessing the “miracle of the sun” foretold one month earlier. It is reasonable to expect people 20 kilometers away from the event were part of a mass hysteria or hypnosis. Must have been some sort of fluke accident. Yes, deny, deny, deny.
So, here is a question for you, “Reality”. When you see the pictures of what abortion is, do you see the reality of the act, or do you deny this as well? Who’s faith is blind? Who is trying to force others to their own beliefs? You state potential is the key point, but we are all potential to whom we will become. Those children most innocently so.
David
Reality, as usual, is in denial mode. – oh look, an ad hominem as an opening gambit. And you’ve launched straight into unscientific, non-evidential, faith-based mode.
As always, if science points one direction, and it is not the desired direction, just deny. – uh huh, care to enlighten me on exactly what science I am denying.
If faith points in one direction, go the opposite, because hey, faith has been labelled blind – meaningless. But if you think so, so what. Those of faith can’t even agree on one direction.
Philosophy, duh, deny, deny and deny. – you think philosophy is black and white? A fixed science? Has ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers? LOL
It really is blind faith to think there is no evidence or reason to expect intelligent design. - not when we know there is no evidence or reason to ‘expect'(?) intelligent design. Blind faith is clinging to ID when the science quite clearly says otherwise.
Of course, we expect life to have happened by accident. – do we? Why?
Intelligent life happened by extreme accident. – why?
This is scientific. – well science has shown us that it is but I’m not sure where your whole ‘expectation’ thing comes from.
So, there is no reason to expect other solar systems to behave the same as ours. – your point?
Why does frozen H2O float. Accidental accident, of course. – no accident. Some things we know, some we are still to know. That doesn’t mean it was an ‘accident’ (you really are getting a bit god of the gaps aren’t you). Knowledge is relentless.
Just imagine, 70,000 people, including harsh skeptics, witnessing the “miracle of the sun” foretold one month earlier. It is reasonable to expect people 20 kilometers away from the event were part of a mass hysteria or hypnosis. Must have been some sort of fluke accident. – you’re trying this one?? Seriously?
Yes, deny, deny, deny. – a field you seem well versed in.
When you see the pictures of what abortion is, do you see the reality of the act, or do you deny this as well? – some of the pictures are real. So what. Have you seen pictures of hip replacement procedures? Amputations? How about organ transplants?
Who’s faith is blind? – yours.
Who is trying to force others to their own beliefs? – that’d be you again. No one is trying to stop you living as per your beliefs yet people such as you are constantly trying to force others to live as per your beliefs.
You state potential is the key point, but we are all potential to whom we will become. Those children most innocently so. – some already are. Their rights prevail.
Oh goody. More meaningless one-liners from ‘Reality’. Troll away, Troll. As you have no argument to offer, just a glaring lack of logic or reason, I will no longer waste time on you.
David
You’ve already made it plainly obvious why answers based on facts, science, evidence and reality would be something you find meaningless. Logic and reason are not a successful support system for your beliefs and assertions.
You might want to double-check what constitutes ‘one-liners’ too. If anyone’s a ‘troll’ in this particular situation, it’s you.
I agree, your time might be better spent constructing an argument not based solely on belief.
Carl Sagan’s ghost.
I responded to both your comments and your questions David.
Rather than respond to my responses or even my questions to you, you have a little tanty. Guess what I take from that….. ;-)
Einstein (as officially appointed by Mr. Thomas R.)
Religious rambling aside, I sincerely hope my home state of Massachusettes allows/upholds the buffer zones. The bullying done by the anti choice crowd is disgusting and should be limited.
I am sure you have video footage of the bullying.
Please get it to Jill Stanek ASAP!!!
Preborn children don’t have a political agenda, they don’t hate, and are not aware of any controversies concerning bullying, but they get selected out for death at our nation’s abortion chambers. A political hate campaign against the advocates for the preborn by our government, putting them on the “Domestic Terrorist” watch list, emerges from the legal hatred of the preborn written into law by “Roe v. Wade.” The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees equal justice under the laws of our nation, except for the preborn and their advocates, who are targeted for destruction and discrimination by unjust laws.
“A nation divided against itself cannot stand.” ~Abraham Lincoln. The sidewalk counselors’ intent is to heal our nation’s wounds, not cause further division. Reconciliation of mother with child, and our nation with it’s just laws, is a noble cause that is being bullied by the advocates for death, division and destruction .
Non-violent civil disobedience in the cause of healing our nation’s wounds is not hate speech, it is love speech, favoring just laws for all. “Roe v. Wade” is hate speech and is an unjust law, selecting out as outlaws the preborn and individuals who advocate love and justice for all.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/will-pro-life-terrorists-be-named-to-obamas-assassination-list
Can a mod please tell me why my comments on this thread are awaiting moderation? Thanks.