Messianic Obama
The Obama campaign is mailing out the flyer below (see backside on page 2) in front of next week’s KY primary.
To columnist David Broder’s request for an explanation of its purpose, the Obama campaign responded via email (emphasis mine):
These fliers are part of the Obama campaign’s sincere effort to communicate the values of Senator Obama’s own Christian faith and the hope that people of all faiths and moral backgrounds will come together to address the needs of the “least of these” in our nation and in our world….
“Sincere”? “Values”? “Christian faith”? Obama’s increasing gall is increasingly galling me.
“Least of these”? I’d like Obama’s definition. I have one. How about live aborted babies left to die in hospital soiled utility rooms? No, the campaign won’t like that one. How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out? No, it won’t like that one either. How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers? Ixnay. Oh, I give up.
And the line used to be “Faith, hope, and charity,” btw. Now Obama’s even trying to rewrite the Bible. Hide the 10 Commandments, quick.
He claims to be “do[ing] the Lord’s work”? The man has cajones, I’ll give him that.
[HT: Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America]
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.
This is too sickening and disgusting for words, even, and I’m just a lowly agnostic.
What sickens me is that so many people are buying it. Doing the Lord’s work…right.
The Lord’s Work as defined by Barack Obama:
1. Passing laws that allow the death of born children if they were targeted for abortion.
2. Solidifying the right to murder unborn children in the womb despite that God has willed their conception and planned their lives from the foundation of the earth.
3. Feeding people even if they refuse to work.
4. Redsitributing my and your wealth earned by hard work, sacrifice, risk, and saving to a “less fortunate” person as long as they vote for Obama.
5. Stealing my money so that someone who refuses to work can have free health care.
6. Legalizing homosexual marriage even though the Bible Barack reads and quotes specifically and without question describes homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God.
7. Loving our enemies even if they want to kill our children and convert to their blasphemous religion.
8. Teaching children that conceiving children is a punishment from God and that is OK to reject and refues that punishment by abortion (if indeed yo belive it is a punishment).
9. Doesn’t matter that millions will be slaughtered by cowardly pulling out of a war. It’s consistent with his view of abortion, I mean, protecting the innocent at my personal expense, forget that.
10. It’s OK to be friends with men that have attempted to subvert the government.
“Woe to you who say evil is good and good evil.”
You know Barack, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
“Least of these”? I’d like Obama’s definition.
He would be referring to actual people, not stem cells.
How about live aborted babies left to die in hospital soiled utility rooms?
It’s a shame that some pregnancies are doomed from the start, but there’s really nothing a president can do about that.
How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out?
You already banned that, remember? There’s nothing more for Obama to do.
How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers?
Obama agrees with most Americans that eleven-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers deserve the option to abort and continue their childhoods.
Jill:
I predict this will be one post that will get quite a few hits.
Excuse me Reality. A born baby targeted for execution in the soiled utility room of a hospital is the least of these.
Jesus’ warning that it would better to not have been born than to have hurt one of these little one is a stern enough warning that should make even a cold hearted person like you quake.
Obama is the Anti-Christ. I think he needs to actually READ the bible.
And reality – the last thing a young girl who was raped by her step father needs is abortion. PP sends them back to their stepfathers and the abuse usually continues. By law, they are required to report the rape, but they don’t.
If a girl is being abused, she doesn’t have a very good childhood, too. :(
Hey everyone. This is the long lost mod Lauren. I’m sorry I’ve been away for so long, but I should be back in the swing of things around mid-june.
I’m just popping on real quick because I know that there are alot of believers on this site, and I have a really urgent prayer request.
My husband’s cousin found out a few days ago that her baby died in-utero. She’s about 6 months pregnant. They’ve been trying to induce her for the past 3 days, but her body just hasn’t been able to let go. She’s finally progressing and it looks like she’ll deliver within the next hour or so.
Please pray for her and her husband. They are in unimaginable pain right now.
LAUREN!
I’m at my office at school. You can figure out the area code. 369-7080
Oh, Lauren,
I am so very sorry. Praying that she delivers soon and God hold them close as they grieve the loss of their precious baby.
Will pray, Lauren.
Lauren,
Prayers headed your cousin’s way. Any known cause for the problem?
Hisman,
Excellent top ten. Thought of submitting it to your local letter to the editor? Or better yet, how about the news magazines?
On second thought, that line about blasphemous religion might not make it to print.
Otherwise, on the money.
Lauren,
That is terrible, your cousin will be in my prayers.
Thank you everyone for your prayers.
As of right now they don’t know the cause. In fact, because of the positioning they’re not even sure of the gender.
She stopped feeling movement so they did an ultrasound which showed that the baby had passed away. I’m not sure if they’re going to do any testing after the baby’s born or not.
“some pregnancies are doomed from the start ”
—————————————–
Reality, who are you to say that?
Yesterday’s post about the miraculous healing of the “doomed” baby should have proven the point that with life, there is hope.
Lauren,
…am including your request in my prayers on my way home…we also had a miscarriage not too long ago.
They will still try to determine what happened to the baby. But we left ours in God’s hands and accepted His Will.
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “The last thing a young girl who was raped by her step father needs is abortion. ”
You think girls raped by their stepfather would benefit from being forced to grow the pregnancy and bear the child???
SOMG,
Do you think young girls benefit from being raped by their fathers, forced to get an abortion and then continue on with their happy childhoods being raped??!!
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit:
Lord, your word tells us to approach your throne of grace boldly in time of need. Lord this is one of those times.
Lauren’s husband’s cousin has lost a child in her womb. Lord, we don’t understand why, however, we know that your will is perfect and all things happen for a reason. Lord, let her not blame herself or you for this or become bitter. Give her a heart of understanding as to why this has happened. Lord let her feel your absolute love wrapped around her.
Lord, I now ask that you heal the mom. Let her body release the baby she so desparately wants to keep. Let this wonderful and faithful and fighting mom know that her baby is in the perfect safety of your arms, being loved and comforted and being prepared to meet her parents someday, never again to face pain, or tears, or cold, never to die again.
Lord, heal the dad. Father, give him the strength to be the leader and priest in his home. Help him to give his life for his wife. Comfort him so he can comfort his wife.
And as Lauren has had the courage to come on this site and ask for prayer, I ask Lord, that you heal her sadness. Be with her husband and give him strength. Father, give him a word of knowldge that his cousin will be OK.
Father, as your follower and your child, you have given me as well as all believers power and authority over situations by the speaking of your word. Lord, I now speak the provisions of Psalm 91 be showered over this entire family.
Psalm 91
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say [b] of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.”
3 Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.
9 If you make the Most High your dwelling
Obama looks like he’s standing at the gates of hell.
SoMG:
“bear the child???”
So it is a child after all? Was it a child before the bearing or after the bearing?
Or, was that a slip of the tongue? Careful now, the pro-choice semantic and twisted sister police are moinitoring the site and you shouldn’t risk your image SoMG as one of the more rabid propoents of child murder on this site.
“Obama looks like he’s standing at the gates of hell.”
Lol. I found that funny since there’s a cross in the background. =P
Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord’s work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of “concern” when it come to separation of church and state.
3. Feeding people even if they refuse to work.
4. Redsitributing my and your wealth earned by hard work, sacrifice, risk, and saving to a “less fortunate” person as long as they vote for Obama.
5. Stealing my money so that someone who refuses to work can have free health care.
You don’t take a positive view on social welfare programs, do you HisMan? Wouldn’t you want to be helped out if you were down on your luck?
HisMan, if you had read my posts, you would know that I consider preborns to be persons (children) but favor the right to abortion anyway.
Calling a preborn a “child” does not bother me at all.
HisMan: SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It’s only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too.
I think Obama only did the ‘Faith’ thing for the state he’s campaigning in – Kentucky IS in the Bible Belt is it not? I doubt he’d use that same thing in Montana or Arizona.
Stephanie, 4:18PM
That’s because social welfare programs have been a dismal failure. The “War on Poverty” initiated by Pres. Lyndon Johnson, spent about a trillion dollars, that’s with a “T”, on social programs that failed to eradicate poverty and in my opinion only trapped people into lives of dependency and poverty.
I am more than willing to donate to charities I know, respect, and who do the job(you can even check their rating on line) and I am happy to help anybody legitimately in need of help.
I’m sorry to say Stephanie that there are people out there with outstretched hand, convinced the world owes them. I’ve encountered, and continue to encounter plenty of them.
Now be fair everyone.
Perhaps after the “fallout” with Rev. Wright, Mr. Obama is planning on opening his OWN church. You know, that way if he loses the election in the secular world, he can make a living preaching in the spiritual one. (God help us)
I don’t deny that there are people looking for handouts.
I’m just saying social welfare is not a bad thing. It’s not perfect, and yes, it needs to be reformed. I would call it unnecessarily harsh to say these people are refusing to work.
I live in Berkeley, and I see homeless people everyday. The majority of them are not the freeloaders you make them out to be. I met several people living in one of the parks when I was handing out food – they look out for each other and care for one another. There was a man living there with his son and pet dog; if he was offered a job, I bet he would snap it up in an instant. I don’t think the problem is that they refuse to do work – it’s that people don’t offer them work in the first place. I mean, if you really think about it, not many people would invite an unknown homeless man to work in their shop.
The kind of social welfare I would like to see is very similar to the one I volunteered at in Alameda – they provided housing and help with food for homeless families for two years until they could find a job and get back on their feet.
Stephanie:
I am for compassion on those that really need it, not those who cheat or don’t work to get it or vote for politicians that bribe them. Those like Obama and Hillary who promise free health care and free this and free that are just bribing people. Why can’t you libs see that. Vote for me and I’ll give you money. Where’s the money come from, thin air?
I give a great deal of my income to the church and ministries. I am a board member of a Phoenix ministry headed by a former NFL player which takes a great deal of my time and money.
The government has taken repsonsibility for what the church or other faith based/charitable organizations should be doing.
It is immoral for the government to forcefully take someone else’s money and just give it to another. Plainly, that is theft.
Charity is done with a cheerful and wiling heart not by compulsion, otherwise it is not charity and the effects of giving it are destructive.
If a person like myself, wants to support the poor through the church is is done much moire efficiently and directly since these types of minitries are run by volunteers and the overhead is nil.
I have never taken welfare, and I have never taken unemployment. I have always worked my way out of problems. If I become disabled my safety net is my savings, my family and my church, NOT the government. The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police.
Beisdes, God promises believers that He will never leave or forsake them and that the righteous will never go begging bread. I believe that. If more people did, we’d have a lot less problems.
I assume you’re young. Do you have nay idea where all this socialism is heading? Have you ever visited the Soviet Union or Cuba or China in the 50’s to the 90’s? That’s where we are headed. Russia and China are becoming freer than we are with all that maniacal, murdering flaming liberal Ted Kennedy inspired state control legislation he is proposing.
It won’t be long until you earn $1,000.00 and you find that your take home pay is $200.00 with 80% of it being taxed. It’s coming quick.
I guess you’d prefer a civil war?
Have a good life. I’ve lived most of mine free and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord’s work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of “concern” when it come to separation of church and state.
Posted by: Mary at May 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Great point Mary. It shows they really care less about justice then they do about their own personal agendas.
The Democrats are on course with another self-destructing presidential candidate.
Lauren, I am praying for them now.
SoMG:
So now there is no question that you support the murder of children as long as they have not yet exited the birth canal? No worry there SoMG, your demonic image is etched in stone. A man is committed to what he confesses.
Do you realize what you promote SoMG? It is so evil, so blasphemous, I don’t know why Jill hasn’t banned you from this site. You are the worst of the worst.
For is it you who wants to turn the threshold of life into the gates of hell. And what are the gates of hell?
The gates of Hades is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death.
Read this gospel passage SoMG and read it thoroughly because in ignoring it’s warning you seal your own fate.
Mark 9
42″And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where ” ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
49Everyone will be salted with fire.
Yes, SoMG, promoting abortion or performing abortions causes a believing mother to sin and turn her body into the gates of hell.
“How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out? No, it won’t like that one either. ”
Well no, I guess its a good thing that’s ALREADY ILLEGAL.
“How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers?”
Well we already know how much more compassionate it is to FORCE an 11 year old to stay pregnant…
But regardless,
did you miss the link that Lisa provided in the McCain thread? McCain supports abortion in rape/incest cases, and believes that in those cases, patients claiming this is the case should be given “the benefit of the doubt” rather than being forced to provide proof. How exactly would that be different from current policy (under Bush), or what Obama’s policy would be?
Stephanie,
If social programs work so well why are these people in the desperate straits you describe?
Many of those homeless people may in fact be mentally ill. Where are the institutions we had for such people unable to care for themselves? They were shut down in the 60’s and this was viewed as such great progress. No one asked what would happen to these poor souls or future generations of the mentally ill. I’ll tell you what happened to them, they live on our streets.
Try to get someone committed for mental health care and see what happens.
Yes there certainly were abuses, but rather than address those abuses the institutions were shut down and no provisions were made for the people turned loose with no schooling, job skills, or ability to even function normally.
Good for you that you volunteered your services! That’s my point Stephanie, its people like you and the charity you volunteered for that make a difference, not gov’t programs.
We have many charities in my town, some for homeless families and individuals, and they are run by private charities, private citizens, and churches. In fact, I’m going to the mother’s and infants shelter in a little while to volunteer child care. This facility is run by the Salvation Army.
The kind of social welfare I would like to see is very similar to the one I volunteered at in Alameda – they provided housing and help with food for homeless families for two years until they could find a job and get back on their feet.
Posted by: Stephanie at May 15, 2008 5:21 PM
I think this would be very good Stephanie. There are lots of people who do need help, especially the working poor today. I was reading somewhere online that apparently, the young generation in Europe falls into this – people who have jobs but just can’t seem to make ends meet. The problem is that there are many people with alot of money but who don’t care to share their wealth.
And sometimes people fall on hard times no matter what. When my husband left me in 1998, I was almost homeless and with 4 children. No one would rent to a single mom with 4 kids and no job. My youngest was 15 months. If it weren’t for a girlfriend I would have been on the street. Some people aren’t as lucky as I was.
Also, many of the homeless do not want jobs or living accomadations. For some reason, they just want to live on the street. Who knows why.
HisMan: “Those like Obama and Hillary who promise free health care and free this and free that are just bribing people. Why can’t you libs see that?”
It’s not free health care, it’s government health care. Like government roads. We all chip in and pay our taxes and the government provides roads for us to drive on. With some exceptions, we don’t get charged for driving on those roads. Roads are important for the economy and for each of us personally. Same with Health Care. Same with the military. Do you complain that the government is trying to give “free military protection to people who can’t afford it?”
Without government, people rich enough could hire their own private protection, build their own roads, and pay for their own medical care.
This is interesting.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1798,55-Origin-of-Life-Paper-Is-Retracted,Cornelia-Dean
Patricia, you wrote: “SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It’s only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too. ”
Nope. That’s stupid. You’re stupid, Patricia.
“HisMan”, you wrote: “So now there is no question that you support the murder of children as long as they have not yet exited the birth canal? ”
Not murder. Justifiable homicide.
“HisMan”, you wrote: “The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police.”
I thought you wanted government to ban abortion. Guess not!
You’re a font of self-contradictions today, HM. First you say God does not exist (see above), now you say you’re against government banning abortion.
“HisMan”, you wrote: “The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police.”
I thought you wanted government to ban abortion. Guess not!
You’re a font of self-contradictions today, HM. First you say God does not exist (see above), now you say you’re against government banning abortion.
“HisMan”, you wrote: “Mark 9
42″And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where ” ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
49Everyone will be salted with fire. ”
It’s all in your mind, HM.
SoMG: you are the quintessential stupid person because you believe in abortion and you OUGHT to know better. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Amanda,
Remember what you are supporting when you cast your vote for Obama.
Coming from Canada I have to say that I like the idea of social medicine. I don’t mind my taxes going into the pot to help those who might need it.
However, what I don’t like is paying for non-essential things like ABORTION and birth control.
Jasper, you and I both know in Massachusetts it won’t make a bit of difference in the end result who either of us votes for.
And if you remember previous conversations, I like John McCain. The rape/incest without being forced to provide proof is the abortion stance that makes the most sense to me personally, and I especially appreciate the potential of a President who will support stem cell research. If it wasn’t for the whole “100 years in Iraq” thing, I’d be voting for him.
Hal,
Hear me out here for a minite. Do you really trust the government that much with your health and the health of your family? That’s really extending the hand of trust to Big Brother.
As much as I like you I don’t want your health to be jeopardized in the future by a government that has demonstrated that it cannot deliver in areas such as these.
Do you really want the government being run like the Post Office, Amtrak, and Social Security? It’s hard for me to understand that peopel who support these notions also diss the military which is well, run by the government. You know, we hear a lot of promises made but exactly how will it be paid for? Do the health insurance companies just go away or become wards of Uncle Sam. What about the jobs that may be lost. What about the loss of doctors and nurses who don’t want to work under that system but also those that won’t even go into those fields?
You know, this is tremendously risky and once we go down that road, you know there’s no turning back.
I am self-employed and I am not wealthy enough to pay for the clinics for the rich that will be established off-shore or wherever when the government takes over. Having said that, I don’t want the government to manage health care. The profit motive goes away and competition goes away and the quality and cost will go up. This is Economics 101.
Besides, do you really want bad doctors exempted from malpractice? You know they essentailly would, since they will, indirectly or directly, all be employees or surrogates of the Feds. I am sure that the government will protect even the bad ones.
Perhaps that would be one good thing. The elimination of greedy, slimy malpractice attornies who put good doctors out of business by filing frivolous lawsuite against them.
When it’s done in other countries the government becomes the arbiter of who lives and who dies, you know, kind of like legalized abortion.
The solution to the health care fiasco is to get the government to get out of the mix completely and let market forces play out and at the same time reform malpractice law. At first there would be difficulties but over the long haul we’d all be better off.
My objection to all this is really not for me Hal. I’m 55. Either way the gov is going to be taking care of me in a few years. I’m more concerned about younger folk.
On the surface Hal, government run health care sounds good and it’s a big carrot, however, do we all really want to risk becoming jackasses so Obama or Hillary can satify their insatiable lust for power?
SoMG: Why does it matter if you kill the baby before cervix or after the cervix. There’s really no difference. You just pretend that there is.
HisMan, this is a huge issue, requiring more time and effort then I have right now. I’m heading out the door. I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow. I understand where you’re coming from.
Yes, SoMG, promoting abortion or performing abortions causes a believing mother to sin and turn her body into the gates of hell.
Posted by: HisMan at May 15, 2008 5:47 PM
HisMan, I think SOMG’s enjoys promoting people into the gates of hell. In fact the more I read his posts the more I think he is a satanic worshipper. I mean, he obviously believes in spirits cause he uses the term spirit as part of his moniker.
Patricia, you wrote: “What I don’t like is paying for non-essential things like ABORTION and birth control.”
By paying for abortion and birth-control you avoid having to pay for labor and delivery care for the indigent, which would cost more than the abortions and birth control you pay for. Thus you are enabled to keep MORE than you pay.
In other words, you would have to pay HIGHER taxes if the government stopped paying for bc and abortion. Government-funded bc and abortion for the indigent enables you to pay LOWER taxes. It’s a lie to pretend that government-funded bc and abortion cost you money because they save you money.
Amanda,
the 100year thing was taken out of context. We’ve been in Germany and Korea fot the last ~50 years.
Thank you for being honest about your support of Obama.
Patricia, you wrote: “Why does it matter if you kill the baby before cervix or after the cervix. There’s really no difference. You just pretend that there is.”
There’s an enormous difference. I’m willing to entertain arguments that abortion is WRONG, but even if it is wrong it’s still different from infanticide. There may be similarities but there are also differences. I bet you could start listing differences between abortion and infanticide youself. If you can’t, you’re stupid.
I agree with Hal, the question of whether or not to nationalize medicine is very big and ought to be on its own thread.
It might look like England or Russia. On the other hand it might look like Germany or Switzerland.
HisMan, you will not deny that the current state of medical affairs in the USA is unacceptable in many ways and rapidly becoming more so?
Mary: 4:18: Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord’s work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of “concern” when it come to separation of church and state.
Can’t argue with that logic. What’s next, a Gospel album?
Hal,
Paying for roads is one thing. Everybody uses them, everybody wants them, everyone is happy to chip in for them.
Not everyone wants abortion. Not everyone wants National Healthcare. Creating roads does not mean that those with more money can choose to ride on better roads, but national health care does mean that the very rich will be getting excellent care, while the rest of us wait in long lines to get a tooth pulled.
Hisman is right on this. It may sound great to have the government take over healthcare, but if the government takes over healthcare, it will CONTROL health care. It’s the fear of the government calling the shots that is the concern.
We are a nation that takes care of itself. We are a people that stand on our own. That’s the definition of America. And of our own free will we help those that can’t stand. But that is NOT the governments job. At least not here in the USA.
When a government gets too much control, you cease to be a free republic. You turn into a socialist country.
Our kids get free lunches and breakfasts (half of which get thrown away), free computers, free school (and you KNOW how I feel about public schools), welfare…
When do people take responsibility for themselves?
SoMG says that it will cost us more in the long run if we stop paying for abortions…I say, it didn’t cost me more in 1971. If people don’t think they will get a free ride, they just might take responsibility for the lives they create.
Let them have sex. Then we’ll kill or pay you to keep em. Either way, you don’t have to do a thing.
It’s nuts!
mk: He’s pretty scary looking, where did you find him?
Honestly Janet,
I don’t remember now.
But an art student here in Chicago did him. At the Art Institute. Yikes!
MK, you wrote: “I say, it didn’t cost me more in 1971. ”
What do you mean by this?
You wrote: “If people don’t think they will get a free ride, they just might take responsibility for the lives they create.”
Then again they might not. Some of them certainly won’t. The indigent ones won’t be able to. That’s very expensive and socially destructive. To have indigent women who can’t afford abortions forced to have babies they don’t want and cannot afford instead! That’s a recipe for a permanent self-propagating underclass. IF we’re going to use force to control women’s reproductive lives, the opposite would be smarter. Require women to prove they can support their babies before allowing them to have them. That’s assuming we’re willing to use force to control women’s reproductive lives either FOR abortion or AGAINST it, which I am not. I am strictly neutral.
SoMG: There is no difference between abortion and infanticide since the result is a dead baby. The only difference is the location of the baby when the act was committed. Your ignorance is profound in this matter.
Paying for abortion and BC does not save me money. Abortion and BC are not without considerable medical and psychological side effects and thus they lead to much increased medical costs. The also have a significant cost on society in ways never forseen. They also result in a birth dearth and an aging population which is unable to support itself. A growing population produces an economically stable and viable society. Abortion and BC lead to death and a dying society like the one we live in today.
“Require women to prove they can support their babies before allowing them to have them.”
With this draconian statement, you should move to China. I’m sure they’d love to have you!
SoMG,
What I meant was that before abortion was legal women weren’t getting pregnant at the same rate.
Are you going to tell me, that without Roe V Wade, we would now have 45 million more children than we do?
I don’t think so. I think most of those women simply wouldn’t have gotten pregnant. Some would sure, just like they always have. I think there were 45 million abortions because feminism, the “sexual revolution”, birth control, sex in the media, and abortion all converged at the same time.
Women have grown careless because they CAN. If they knew that they would have to take care of the children they conceived I think they might just keep their legs crossed.
And I am not forcing anyone to get pregnant. That would be their decision. I’m just asking that they take responsibility for their choice. And killing their offspring is NOT taking responsibility.
MK: Obama looks a little bit buddhist, a little bit Christian!
SoMG,
I guess we’d need to see welfare statistics pre Roe v Wade and after. I’m willing to bet there are MORE people on welfare now, not less.
Patricia,
He looks more like a stand up comedian than the messiah!
SoMG,
Here’s the thing SoMG, you don’t give an alcoholic free wine, you don’t give a drug addict free heroin, and you don’t give able bodied people a free ride.
Short term help in a desperate situation, sure. But I’ve seen welfare moms…it’s a scam. And I’m paying for it.
OH but MK: in Vancouver they give drug addicts free needles!
It hasn’t worked. DUH!
MK: I was thinking of Donny and Marie Osmond.
You know, “she’s a little bit country, he’s a little bit rock ‘n roll!”
P,
He’s a little Messiah/He’s a little antichrist?
P,
Maybe we should line up women for the rapists…wouldn’t want them to work too hard.
And put our valuables on the porch, so the thief doesn’t have to break and enter.
Or give free guns to the gangs. They’re going to get them anyway.
Patricia, you wrote: “The only difference is the location of the baby when the act was committed. ”
Congratulations! You have made the first entry in your list of differences between abortion and infanticide: location of the baby. I bet if you try you can think of more differences.
Location is more important than you seem to think. For instance, if I hold a pencil three inches away from your eye, that’s no crime, no sin, no problem. But if I change its LOCATION by four inches, stabbing an inch of pencil into your eye, that IS a crime. And a sin. And a problem. Even though the only thing that changed is location.
You wrote: “Paying for abortion and BC does not save me money. Abortion and BC are not without considerable medical and psychological side effects …”
Wrong. Both are rare. According to Ronald Reagan’s right-to-life Surgeon General C. Everett Coop, the total cost of “Post-Abortion Syndrome” to society is approximately nil.
You wrote: “…and thus they lead to much increased medical costs. ”
Nope. Wrong again.
MK, you wrote: “Here’s the thing SoMG, you don’t give an alcoholic free wine, you don’t give a drug addict free heroin, and you don’t give able bodied people a free ride.”
What does this have to do with the question of government-provided abortion?
You wrote: “Short term help in a desperate situation, sure. But I’ve seen welfare moms…it’s a scam. And I’m paying for it.”
What does THIS have to do with the question of government-provided abortion? Shouldn’t we do all we can to keep the welfare mom’s family SMALL?
SoMG,
That’s the point. The location shouldn’t really BE an issue. The issue is stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil.
The issue has become where the baby is located, but that is a misdirection. The REAL issue is the killing of a human being NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.
Your analogy is bad logic.
What you’d need to say to make the analogy comparable, is if I stab someone in the eye with my pencil while standing in the kitchen it is not a crime, but if I do it in the living room it is a crime.
OR
Where the suction hose is makes a difference. If I keep the suction hose three feet away from the woman, I am not committing a crime, but if I put the suction hose into the woman, then I AM committing a crime.
I wish we could keep religion out of elections. I don’t want to know about Obama’s theological beliefs, I want to know what he’ll do as president.
That said, I wonder whether he would be putting out such over-the-top literature if the right weren’t busily spreading false and bigoted rumors about how he’s secretly a Muslim (and therefore probably supports terrorists, and his middle name’s Hussein, ya know…)
Amanda,
Do you have no issue with a rapist going unpunished and free to victimize again and again? Unreported rape and incest means just that. Also, why perpetuate the notion the victim has any reason to be ashamed? Why aren’t we giving the victim the message she has no reason to be ashamed?
I would think reporting would be required if nothing else to protect other women from being victims and to punish the perpetrator. Also, to protect an incest victim from being returned to her abuser.
MK, 8:28PM
Absolutely! What better way to make the rape of women easier than to have it to go unreported. The victim has every reason to be ashamed! Far better more women are raped, even tortured, mutilated, beaten, and murdered by a rapist who is free because his crime went unreported than require a rape be reported.
MK, you wrote: “Are you going to tell me, that without Roe V Wade, we would now have 45 million more children than we do? ”
No–pregnant women would have travelled to states where abortion was legal for their abortions, that’s all. Same as with the Irish. The cost of an abortion would have been higher by the cost of a trip to NY or California.
You wrote: “I think there were 45 million abortions because feminism, the “sexual revolution”, birth control, sex in the media, and abortion all converged at the same time. ”
I agree with you. But you should add, that Roe v. Wade was itself a consequence of feminism and the “sexual revolution”.
You wrote: “Women have grown careless because they CAN. If they knew that they would have to take care of the children they conceived I think they might just keep their legs crossed.”
This theory doesn’t seem to work in Nigeria. Or El Salvador. It also didn’t work in South Africa, where deaths from complications from abortion abruptly dropped 90% when abortion laws were liberalized.
You wrote: “And killing their offspring is NOT taking responsibility.”
Yes, getting an abortion IS one way of taking responsibility for your pregnancy. Allowing yourself to be forced by your government to grow a pregnancy you don’t want is not. That’s SURRENDERING responsibility.
You wrote: “I guess we’d need to see welfare statistics pre Roe v Wade and after. ”
Before/after statistics would not answer the question. There are other factors besides availability of abortion which have stronger effects on the size of welfare rolls, and which changed a lot from the ’60s to the ’70s. You would have to control for these effects. In other words, you would need to compare statistics from the time after Roe v Wade against HYPOTHETICAL statistics that WOULD HAVE OCCURRED after 1972 if Roe v. Wade had been decided differently.
Which is, of course, impossible. In the end, one can only speculate. However, there is a role for common sense. Which says, getting back to the earlier part of the conversation, that allowing indigent women to be forced by their indigence to bear children they do not want and cannot afford to raise is a bad idea.
SoMG: it’s the intent of your actions that differ and I KNOW you KNOW this because both Bobby and Chris A. have discussed this with you before. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to grasp this concept of ethics.
The location does not change the fact that this is a baby. The intent in both situations is to kill the child.
It’s pointless to argue with you because you can’t or won’t think for yourself. Too bad for you.
“Wrong. Both are rare. According to Ronald Reagan’s right-to-life Surgeon General C. Everett Coop, the total cost of “Post-Abortion Syndrome” to society is approximately nil.”
Koop’s statements were made when very little research had been conducted into the cost of abortion to society. However, 30 years later it is becoming increasingly evident that killing 1.5 million babies per year has some significant cost. It’s not rocket science. Even proaborts now recognize the problems with abortion and the effect abortion has had on creating the huge problem called the demographic winter as well as the huge gender imbalances seen throughout the world.
Deny, deny, deny is the proabort way. Keep up with your delusions honey. You are one very lost soul.
MK: lol we could keep this Donny and Marie thingy going all night! Have a nice evening. I’m going to get my beauty sleep.
That’s assuming we’re willing to use force to control women’s reproductive lives either FOR abortion or AGAINST it, which I am not. I am strictly neutral.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 8:01 PM
This coming from the twisted mind of somebody who stated they are proud to feel a little responsibility for every abortion out there.
Haven’t read the comments, but..
…throwing stones in glass houses?
How many times did Bush proclaim to do God’s work on earth, or say that he believes “God wants him to be president.”?
Reminds me of this great comic, let me find it…
oh here:
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040804.html
MK, you wrote: “The location shouldn’t really BE an issue. The issue is stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil. ”
They are the same issue. The act of locating the pencil stabs. The act of stabbing locates the pencil.
“The issue has become where the baby is located, but that is a misdirection. ”
Nope. On the contrary, it’s the critical point which wins the argument for the pro-choice side, EVEN for those like me who feel sorry for the aborted fetuses and agree that fetuses are persons, human beings, entitled to all the rights and privileges that already-born human beings are entitled to. Just not SPECIAL rights, such as the right to occupy another person’s body without her continuing consent. That’s not a GENERAL human right–already-born people don’t enjoy it, as I illustrate below. It’s a SPECIAL right which some would award to the unwelcome unborn for no reason except that they need it in order to live.
You wrote: “The REAL issue is the killing of a human being NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.”
So if I tried to locate myself (or part of myself) inside one of your bodily orifices, you would be unjustified in killing me in order to stop me from doing that? Suppose there were no other way for you to stop me? And why should I stop at the orifice? Supposed I tried to locate part of myself inside your abdomen or chest. (Remember you said, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE”.) Would you be justified in killing me then?
You wrote: “Your analogy is bad logic.”
Excuse me but I made no analogy. I cited the pencil as an EXAMPLE of how important location can be (particularly when the location is inside someone else’s body), not as an anology.
You wrote: “What you’d need to say to make the analogy comparable, is if I stab someone in the eye with my pencil while standing in the kitchen it is not a crime, but if I do it in the living room it is a crime.”
Do you really think that the difference between being inside or outside another person’s body is only as important as the difference between being in the kitchen or the living room? If you do, you’re crazy. Again, if I put part of my body in your living room, that might cause you to react a certain way. But if I put part of my body into your chest, or tried to, it would make you react very differently! If your reactions in these two cases would be the same, then you are not a rational person.
Just because you can site an example of location which is unimportant does not show that ALL issues of location are unimportant. Some, like the pencil, and like pregnancy, and me locating part of my body inside your chest, have heavy consequences. In particular, those questions of location INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY, are more important and consequential than most other questions of location.
You wrote: “Where the suction hose is makes a difference. If I keep the suction hose three feet away from the woman, I am not committing a crime, but if I put the suction hose into the woman, then I AM committing a crime.”
Nope. Not a crime. Well, maybe it is for you, because you do not have a licence to practice medicine.
SOMG,
INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY
So you would agree then that a woman carrying a full term pregnancy can kill the baby inside her?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “This coming from the twisted mind of somebody who stated they are proud to feel a little responsibility for every abortion out there.”
Every METHOTREXATE abortion which is CHOSEN by the patient. If methotrexate is used to abort a pregnancy against the patient’s will, I will feel sorry about that.
So far I’ve read about misoprostol being used to abort someone’s pregnancy against her will, but not methotrexate. This could be because you’re more likely to get away with it if you use methotrexate — the effect is delayed, the loss of pregnancy will not be detected until days or weeks after dosing by which time the victim will have flushed the methotrexate out of her system (very short half-life) and (presumably) disposed of the potentially incriminating remains of the doctored food or beverage. Whereas with misoprostol, the effect (cramps, voiding of the uterus) is immediate or nearly so. VERY stupid to use misoprostol if methotrexate is available. Maybe the smart ones are managing to stay out of the news.
SoMG:
For once you’re right SoMG, the Gospel is in my mind, because Christ lives in me and He is the Word made flesh and I have the mind of Christ as does every single believer.
Yes, I do want the Supreme Court to “overturn”, no, obliterate Roe v. Wade, so just add courts to my list of the military and police.
I must correct my error:
Nope. Not a crime. Well, maybe it is for you, because you do not have a licence to practice medicine.
Actually you can DO the abortion without a licence. As long as you don’t COLLECT A FEE for doing it.
Mary, you wrote: “So you would agree then that a woman carrying a full term pregnancy can kill the baby inside her?”
Yes, especially if by doing so (or having it done) she was enabled to reduce the size of the head and thereby lessen the trauma of labor and delivery.
Suppose she did it herself. Aborted her pregnancy with her own hands the day before the due date. How would you punish her for doing that?
In fact, “HisMan”, you want your government to do many things other than preserve the domestic tranquility. Don’t you long for a government based on the Bible?
@PiP: Ahahahahaha! That one is *classic* DC Simpson.
For more about scientists regretting their work, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Every METHOTREXATE abortion which is CHOSEN by the patient. If methotrexate is used to abort a pregnancy against the patient’s will, I will feel sorry about that.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 9:55 PM
SOMG, You block out the other patient from your head. You know who I am talking about. The one who the methotrexate kills.
SOMG, 10:05PM
Say what? To reduce the size of the head and prevent the trauma of labor and delivery? Uh, SOMG, sometimes feet, butt or shoulders come first. You’re not making a lot of sense.
Would I want to see her punished? I would have to know the circumstances? Is the woman mentally ill? If not I would want to see her punished like I would want to see the woman who kills her newborn punished. Its the same difference to me. However I think it unlikely she would be since the fetus would not be considered legally a person. How about you? Do you think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn’t want it?
Lord’s work? I’ve never heard of such heresy! How is he doing the Lord’s work when he aborts an entire generation of his own ethnicity? Doesn’t he know that Klanned parenthood enjoy aborting black children? Doesn’t he know that abortion is killing black children 2 to 1 to that of other ethnicities? Looking at his track record looks like the racist democrats bought him off.
SOMG, You and Obama have a lot in common. You both are go through the morally wrenching discussions about abortion and come out happy to assist women in killing their babies.
“Truthseeker”, the fetus is not the abortionist’s patient.
Rae,
isn’t it?! I have so many favorites…
SOMG, Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?
It would be no different then selling them a gun when you knew they were going to use it to kill right?
Adlyn,
Do you mean the same Democrats who supported slavery, founded the KKK, opposed anti-lynching laws, established Jim Crow and segregation, put American citizens of color(Japanese Americans) into concentration camps, put a klansman on the Supreme Court, opposed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid 1960’s, and presently have a former Klansman and Klan recruiter in the US Senate?
Why would you ever call Democrats racists?
Mary, you wrote: “Say what? To reduce the size of the head and prevent the trauma of labor and delivery? Uh, SOMG, sometimes feet, butt or shoulders come first. You’re not making a lot of sense.”
The head is (usually) the widest and least squish-able part of the emerging neonate. The open fontanelles give it a little squishiness but only a little–it’s still the widest part, the part that determines how far the cervix must open. Which determines more or less how traumatic the labor and delivery is. (Did you really not already know this? Have you ever WATCHED a childbirth?)
You wrote: “Do you think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn’t want it?”
No, I think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn’t want it AND it is located inside her body, AND it has no right to force her to endure the trauma of full labor-and-delivery if she prefers to avoid or reduce that trauma by means of abortion.
SOMG, the only medical license you desreve is as a witch doctor. Some doctors administer methotrexate to cancer patients to save their lives and they regret the harm that the methotrexate causes the person they administer the methotrexate to. You on the other hand would administer methotrexate for the purpose of killing. NO abortionist should ever have a license to practice medicine. The fact that you do is an oxymoron.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?”
If someone shoots you, should you hold the people who tested and developed the make of gun he used responsible?
Mary,
So true. I don’t understand it though, how can Obama support these people let alone the democratic party? However, let’s not forget that the Democrats blackmailed MLK Jr, so that they could get their hands on the black vote, and Klanned parenthood only gave MLK Jr, that “award” so he wouldn’t suspect them of wiping out black children. Something that pro-aborts will never tell you. The Democrat party is drenched with blood.
*****
Obama wake up! The Democratic party is just using you! They aren’t with you, they are laughing at behind your back all the way to the bank!
*****
P.S. His niece Dr. Alveda King is constantly telling PP to stop using her uncle’s name but of course they refuse to listen and continue to bring MLK Jr, good name down in the mud.
But hey! that’s progression for ya!
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Some doctors administer methotrexate to cancer patients to save their lives and they regret the harm that the methotrexate causes the person they administer the methotrexate to. ”
The chemotheraputic dose of methotrexate is five times more than the abortifacient dose. (Think of the difference between drinking one liter of vodka vs drinking five liters.)
Patients with rhumatoid arthritis take methotrexate regularly for most or all of their lives. I don’t know what their dose is.
No, I think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn’t want it AND it is located inside her body.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 10:43 PM
Then in some ways you are not quite as radical as Obama cause he thinks she should be able to kill the baby if she meant to abort but gives birth to a live baby by accident.
SOMG,
Yes I have witnessed births and I have seen shoulder and butts come out first, causing more trauma than a head would and determining how wide the cervix must dilatate. Shoulders and butts are bigger and less malleable than a head, especially when the legs are folded straight up and are trying to come out along with the butt. The head is in fact more “squishable”, to use your high tech term since the skull bones are not fused which is often why you may see “coneheads”.
Did you really not already know this? Have you ever WATCHED a childbirth?
So you do in fact support the killing of a full term baby in the womb.
@PiP: I find this one pretty funny:
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041207.html
Barack Obama has a lot of nerve.
imagine if Pres. Bush or McCain ran an ad like this? The MSM would be all over it.
Not a peep from the liberals….
Adlyn,
I have no idea how Obama and 92% of black Americans can support the Democrats.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?”
If someone shoots you, should you hold the people who tested and developed the make of gun he used responsible?
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 10:45 PM
If the maker of the gun created it for the specific purpose of killing people like me and takes pride in it when people like me get killed, then yes.
Jasper,
Like I asked before, where are the separation of church and state police?
“Truthseeker”, In that circumstance, I would be against deliberately killing the neonate, but I wouldn’t take any extraordinary measures to save it either. Especially if I didn’t know who was going to be responsible for the costs. Since unintended live birth is most common (or rather, least rare) in second-trimester abortions, refusing to take extraordinary life-saving measures means an almost-certain death sentence. (Third trimester abortions are themselves rare events, so the complication of a third-trimester unintended live birth is even more rare.)
“NO abortionist should ever have a license to practice medicine.”
Correct TS.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine:
I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
SOMG,
You would take no effort to save the neonate, an almost certain death sentence, but would not deliberately kill it. The difference is what?
You sound like the perpetrators of the Tuskegee experiment. They didn’t deliberately kill the men by infecting them with syphillis, they just took no measures to medically treat those already infected, an almost certain death sentence.
Mary, you wrote: “I have seen shoulder and butts come out first, causing more trauma than a head would and determining how wide the cervix must dilatate.”
I said “typically”. You are describing atypical births.
“Shoulders and butts are bigger and less malleable than a head,”
Nope. The shoulders have have greater length but less width than the head. The net result is less stress on the cervix. The shoulder is only dangerous if the emerging neonate tries to pass the shoulder and head at the same time. The pelvis (which determines the width of the butt) of a typical neonate is narrower than its head.
You wrote: “…especially when the legs are folded straight up and are trying to come out along with the butt. ”
Again, I said TYPICALLY.
“Truthseeker”, In that circumstance, I would be against deliberately killing the neonate, but I wouldn’t take any extraordinary measures to save it either. Especially if I didn’t know who was going to be responsible for the costs.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 11:04 PM
Judging from what you say SOMG it appears you justify killing babies based upon the financial costs society would incur. A large part of why you believe it is o.k. to kill babies is because the mother doesn’t want to care for them and therefore they would be a burden/financial cost to society. Is that a fair assesment?
Neonate?
what do call the baby whe he is born SoMG?
Homo-sapien?
I’ve seen six live births of my own children and don’t see how anybody can use the trauma of the birthing process to justify the pre-emptive killing of the child. Especially with the pain killers and epiderals available today. My wife recovered from birth almost immediately hold our babies and begin breast feeding. SOMG, it sounds more like an excuse or a way to scare a woman into getting an abortion than a rational reason for one.
Jasper, no one takes the original Hippocratic Oath today except a few cranks. It’s been modernized. The original Hippocratic Oath includes, among other oddities, a pledge to train the sons of other physicians for free and a pledge never to do any surgery (“even on sufferers from stone”!) but to leave it to barbers. The barbers were the ones who knew how to use sharp instruments like razors and things.
When I was in school, most or all of the students who opted to take the original Hippocratic Oath were right-to-life Christians. You’d think they’d object to swearing in the name of Apollo. Isn’t there something in the Bible about not having any other gods but God?
@Jasper: Do you even know what “neonate” means?
Hel-loooooo…”Neonatal Intensive Care Unit” = NICU- who goes to a NICU, Jasper?
SOMG,
A shoulder presentation often requires a C-section because it is too difficult and dangerous to deliver normally. I was referring to the type where the shoulder and head are emerging together since the head obviously isn’t going to be too far behind.
I’ve seen some nerve wracking feet first deliveries. Butt presentations deliveries can also be more difficult and result in planned or emergency sections. I have seen these deliveries and I’m sure the women weren’t sitting down for a week. They were plenty traumatic.
Where did you say “typically”?
SOMG, doctors specialize in healing, not killing. A doctor administers methotrexate as a medicine to heal people. Doctors do NOT administer methotrexate to kill people. See the difference. Your obsession with money has you blinded. You even use the woman’s lack of money as a reason to justify the killing of her child.
Repent SOMG. The hour is late for you.
@TS: Not always true. There are doctors who are so bloody incompetent that they *do* kill their patients.
My grandma was in labor to give birth to her first child in 1946, my grandfather was not there because he was in the Philippines finishing “clean-up work” from WWII.
So anyway, my grandma was in labor, and the doctor was not at the hospital she was at- so he told the nurses to TIE HER LEGS TOGETHER so that she couldn’t push until he got there.
Useless bastard got there so late, the baby died in the birth canal from stress and suffocation.
That doctor killed my grandmother’s otherwise perfectly healthy little girl because he was lazy.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Judging from what you say SOMG it appears you justify killing babies based upon the financial costs society would incur. A large part of why you believe it is o.k. to kill babies is because the mother doesn’t want to care for them and therefore they would be a burden/financial cost to society. Is that a fair assesment?”
No. The patient’s wish for an abortion (along with her body-ownership rights) is what justifies it. WHY she wants the abortion is irrelevent. The fact that abortion is financially beneficial to the woman who chooses it and the society that allows it is irrelevent to its justification; I would consider it justified even if it were financially harmful.
That’s why I oppose laws which seek to criminalize abortion for the purpose of sex-selection. I would consider it morally unacceptible to force a woman to grow and bear a girl (or a boy) if she didn’t want to.
Anyway, I think the dangers of sex-selection are exaggerated. So some societies have more men than women. So what? Most likely their scarcity will make women more desirable and then people will sex-select the other way. But this is by-the-way.
Patricia, you wrote: “SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It’s only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too. ”
Nope. That’s stupid. You’re stupid, Patricia.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 6:11 PM
SOMG, Patricia is not stupid. You are in denial. You continually justify your killing of babies because of the financial costs to society. It is not such a “reach” to see you justifying killing children outside the womb since they are still a financial cost to society. Maybe just the orphans for starters huh?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Doctors do NOT administer methotrexate to kill people. ”
Wrong. Some docs prescribe it to be taken orally, so I guess you could say they don’t administer it. However, some docs prefer to administer methotrexate for abortion in their own offices by intramuscular injection. And we both agree that abortion is killing a person.
Rae,
I love that one too!
Hey all of you bitching about people getting “up in arms about it” just because the msm isn’t doing it (they’re so up in arms already about his taste in breakfast food) doesn’t mean that responses aren’t happening.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/madness_this_is_america.php
Also if you haven’t noticed Republicans have been doing the same stuff! You didn’t notice Bush’s divine mandate in 2000 and 2004? You haven’t noticed the Republican commercials?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: ” Patricia is not stupid. ”
I’d say the jury is still out on that.
You wrote: “You continually justify your killing of babies because of the financial costs to society.”
No I don’t. See my previous post above, where I wrote: “The patient’s wish for an abortion (along with her body-ownership rights) is what justifies it. WHY she wants the abortion is irrelevent. The fact that abortion is financially beneficial to the woman who chooses it and the society that allows it is irrelevent to its justification; I would consider it justified even if it were financially harmful.”
You wrote: “It is not such a “reach” to see you justifying killing children outside the womb ”
It is if you understand my position correctly. Which justifies killing children only when they are located inside another person’s body, and the other person doesn’t want them there.
Doctors are healers. Rae, the person that killed your grandma’s baby should have lost his license to practice and never be called a doctor again. SOMG and the rest of the abortionists should never have gotten a licese to practice cause they are killers, not healers. It is very simple, doctors are people who heal other people.
Here, Rae:
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050204.html
Oh and this
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050218.html
It is if you understand my position correctly. Which justifies killing children only when they are located inside another person’s body, and the other person doesn’t want them there.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 11:53 PM
SOMG, what if the baby is totally dependent on the mother and has severe birth defects that have ruined the mother’s life. She doesn’t want the baby. Why should the mother have to bear the burden? The baby might as well be inside her body cause noone else is offering to help and it is wearing her to the point she can’t care for the baby anyway. Shouldn’t she be allowed to put methotrexate in the baby’s bottle?
@PiP: I like this one too:
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050114.html
Did you hear what happened in California? Heeeell yeah!
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050413.html
this is possibly my favorite of all of them
Hell Yeah Rae! I’m super excited!
Truthseeker, No, I would not consider killing it justified after it was born.
And putting an abortifacient dose of methotrexate in a baby’s bottle wouldn’t kill it. You’d need a very high dose of methotrexate to do that. Cyanide would be more effective, and more humane. It would be better to inject it all at once than to put it in the bottle where it would be consumed gradually. A sub-lethal dose of cyanide could be very nasty.
Maybe you see it as semantics but…..
It never needed to be legislated. The government recognized marriage in order to support men and women who were having children and raising families together. No matter how many times you say the phrase “gay marriage” it will never be possible. Marriage is a “special” relationship between a man and a woman.
Probably the most humane way to kill a neonate, or for that matter any person, or for that manner any mammal, is by rapid cervical dislocation–separating the spine from the base of the skull. That’s what hanging does if the rope is long enough and the platform is high enough. If the rope is too short death occurs by slow strangulation which is INhumane. If the rope is too long and the platform is too high the head is torn from the body, which is humane but aesthetically displeasing.
Go for the intermediate in all things, as Aristotle said.
OK SOMG. Would you kill somebody who was going to kill you even if they were not inside your body?
“Truthseeker”, sure I would, if there were no other way to protect myself.
Location inside another person’s body (without their consent) is not the ONLY circumstance that justifies homicide. War, self-defense, capital punishment (if you believe in capital punishment).
TS,
gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage
;)
Rae and PIP. I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together. It’s not a secular thing. For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don’t respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?
Oh yah, you believe in Obama too. Naivette? Change is not good when it brings chaos along with it. Some day you will likely se that.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together. ”
Me too. That’s a great idea.
Marriage should be a private contract between individuals. Its meaning, obligations, and goals should be determined by the signers. Except to enforce the terms of the contract like any other contract, government should have nothing to do with marriage.
Then we wouldn’t have to have these fights about what marriage means. Everyone would decide for themselves. The American way.
SoMG:
I want a government based on the Bible? Not in this lifetime, but, ah, the next…….
Every studied believer knows that Jesus Christ will riegn as King of King and Lord of Lords forever. What is so, so, so sad SoMG, is the absolute self condemnation you will realize in the fullness of time. It is truly tragic…..
The hell that you will occupy forever, if you continue in your unbelief, will be of your own making.
Isaiah 9
1 Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory.
2 The people who walk in darkness
will see a great light.
For those who live in a land of deep darkness,
a light will shine.
3 You will enlarge the nation of Israel,
and its people will rejoice.
They will rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest
and like warriors dividing the plunder.
4 For you will break the yoke of their slavery and lift the heavy burden from their shoulders.
You will break the oppressor
TS, we believe that they shouldn’t be legally different–otherwise that’s called discrimination.
And I agree, I’d rather we all go to civil unions and leave marriages a religious institution so we can give gay people their rights and do away with all the religious stuff.
Marriage is already less of a covenant because it is regulated by the state. I say everyone goes to civil unions but its going to take a while for other people to hop on our bandwagon.
“For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don’t respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?”
I do believe it.
I’ve seen *multitudes* of straight couples making a complete and utter MOCKERY of “marriage”. As far as I’m concerned, marriage is nothing more than a tax agreement- so why the hell should gay couples be exempt from it because of their sexual orientation?
You do know that just 50 years ago it was ILLEGAL in some states for whites and non-whites to marry…
SOMG, Your rationale for killing a person based upon said person being inside another person’s body can only exist in the case of a pregnant woman. Would you agree?
Crap, I misspoke…Loving vs. Virginia was in 1967…
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
“And I agree, I’d rather we all go to civil unions and leave marriages a religious institution so we can give gay people their rights and do away with all the religious stuff.
Marriage is already less of a covenant because it is regulated by the state. I say everyone goes to civil unions but its going to take a while for other people to hop on our bandwagon.”
@PiP: Agreed.
Rae,
I totally agree and…
THERE IS TOTALLY AN IDT COMIC ABOUT THAT
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040308.html
gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination
http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040216.html
Blow it out your @$$, HisMan.
ts said,
“For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don’t respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?”
***
“I do believe it.”
Posted by: Rae at May 16, 2008 12:37 AM
How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn’t that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?
“How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn’t that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?”
No, it doesn’t.
Being able to pop out a kid does not make you anymore special than those who cannot.
The real trial is raising a child in a manner that keeps them from being a spoiled little prick like 99% of the people I went to high school with and raising said child to not be selfish in an overly self-indulgent world.
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
“How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn’t that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?”
No, it doesn’t.
Rae, come on now. Lets at least engage in honest debate. Admit that only a man and woman can produce a child so we can go forward here.
*yawn*
Is that really the best you can do?
Please.
Over half of marriages between men and women are complete jokes- how can gay folks possibly make it even more pointless than straight folks have already made it?
HisMan, you wrote:”The people who walk in darkness
will see a great light.”
Don’t you mean “…HAVE SEEN a great light”? That’s a terribly difficult aria (from Handel’s MESSIAH) to sing. The best realization of it I have heard is performed by Donald McIntyre in a recording conducted by Karl Richter. Donald McIntyre was a true Wagnerian power-baritone used to making himself heard over enormous orchestras in huge halls like Bayreuth and the Met where he played Wotan and Hans Sachs–do you right-to-lifers know Wagner?–as well as lower-pitched roles like Gurnemanz. He has no problem with Handel’s long melismas which are (probably) more challenging than Wagner’s lines.
You wrote: “For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us.
The government will rest on his shoulders.
And he will be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
That’s “the government will BE upon his shoulders. And HIS NAME SHALL be called…” etc. The choral numbers like this one are adequate, especially “And He Shall Purify”, but the soloists, rather than the chorus, are the reason to buy this recording (Richter) rather than any other MESSIAH.
Art and music are two of Christianity’s redeeming features. Then again Freeasonry (in the person of Mozart) and anti-Christianity (The Ring of the Nibelung) haven’t done too badly either.
TS,
You think marriage is a covenant that a man and woman make WITH GOD.
Therefore, atheists should not be able to get married.
To call marriage a committment or contract is an offense to God. Marriage is a blood covenant. In biblical terms, a blood covenant is defined as a promise entered into with and before God, that shall not be broken and is sealed in blood. When a blood covenant was broken, the ensuing consequence was death. And even today, when the covenant of marriage is broken by divorce, a form of death occurs.
God created covenant relationship so that a bond of promise indicated a right standing with Him, which would place one in a positon to receive blessing, destiny and wholeness from God. God designed marriage as a covenant to bless man and make him more spiritually mature.
Why do you think God wants to bless a marriage? It’s for one sole purpose. So that He might be glorified. If the Church is the bride of Christ, then each and every marriage should aspire to the the physical manifestation of the invisible reality of Christ and His bride.
A good marriage is two individuals individually seking after God. As a result, they come together, in addition to having a common spiritual foundation with which to weather the storms of life.
@Truthseeker: Sure, a man and woman can produce kids- doesn’t mean they will or that they’re actually capable of it.
But why does having your own biological spawn more special than say adopting said spawn?
I don’t think the ability to have biological children is important- what IS important is that they are capable of raising their children in a loving, moral, environment and teach their children that it’s important to care about the rest of the world and that the planet does not revolve around them.
@HisMan: *eyeroll*
The purpose of the government recognizing marriage to begin with is that they recognized the unique relationship between a man and a woman to bear children and raise a family together. It was in their best interest to help them suceed and raise productive members of society. If you give the same rights to gays, then you should give the same rights to unmarried heterosexual couples or that is discrimination too, right PIP?
Well there’s the thing ts,
any heterosexual couple can get married. There is no “test” you have to pass. It is not hard. That whole “discrimination” rant was unfounded.
HisMan,
That is why I say I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together cause as a secular institution they cannot recognize it as a union between a man, and a woman, and God. Just another attack on the traditional family. But what God joins together, no man can break apart. Hallelujah
The Christina church of the first two centuries sought to avoid any mixing of pagan musical practices with their own religious experiences. Clement, for instance, forbade the singing of psalms and the reading of Scriptures in profane meetings so that Christians would not be confused with the “wandering minstrels, singers and tellers of tales of high adventrue, who perform their art for a mouthful of bread.” All instruments were banned from Christian worship due to their association with pagan ceremonies and the low reputation of instrumental musicians. Although there are numerous references in the Old Testament to instrumental accompaniment in Jewish worship, by the end of the first century even the Jews no longer featured instruments in their liturgy. Musical instruments were absent from the synagogues since the Exile, and with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD instruments disappeared from Jewish liturgy altogether.
Unlike the mystery cults that believed in the power of musical incantations, the early church Fathers affirmed that the word (logos) held primacy over the music. The early church Fathers often admonished musicians to keep the words audible and to avoid excessive musical elaboration. Solo songs and unison chants were preferred features of musical worship in that day. Writings by Basil indicate that men, women, and children all participated in singing. The texts for the songs were based upon Old Testament scriptures (principally psalms) or drawn from Christian doctrine found in writings comprising the New Testament.
One distinguishing feature of the early church was its devotion to musical improvisation often connected with charismatic utterances. In the first letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul writes about singing with the spirit (I. Cor. 14:15). Tertullian later noted that in second-century Christian gatherings, “anyone who can, either from holy Scripture or from his own heart, is called into the middle to sing to God.” In succeeding centuries, however, this musical improvisation was abandoned in favor of a codified collection of chants or melodies.
Church music changed in several respects in the next millennium. In the ninth century part-singing contained two melodic lines sung in fifths or fourths. Centuries later independent melodies were sung in counterpoint to the main vocal line. At first instruments were introduced into Christian worship sparingly. One of the first instruments in liturgical services was the organ, which would reinforce the main melodic line–the tenor part. Later other instruments were introduced, but not just because they were popular in secular settings. In the 1500s the violin was considered an instrument appropriate only for dances or weddings, yet within a century it displaced its string counterpart of the viol family and became an important instrument in sacred music. By the sixteenth century instrumental music was fully welcomed in Christian liturgy and a variety of instruments would often perform with or without soloists or choirs. St. Mark
Well there’s the thing ts,
any heterosexual couple can get married. There is no “test” you have to pass. It is not hard. That whole “discrimination” rant was unfounded.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 1:00 AM
Not true PIP and not a rant. To we who believe in the sanctity of marriage, we could no remarry. But you who don’t believe could have civil unions over and over again. Say Julie is “married” to John. John passes away and he was the breadwinner. Now Julie is a widow without health insurance for her family. She meets Mike who would like to support her but Julie will NOT break her marriage vows by marrying a second time. Why should Mike and Julie be denied the benefits of civil unions just because they are heterosexual?
TS,
I really have no idea what you are ranting about. Legally someone can remarry if they are widowed. There is no problem and it has nothing really to do with their heterosexuality or not.
TS: That doesn’t even make sense. Julie’s the dumb one who feels her so-called “spiritual well-being” is more important than getting decent health care for her children. She should just suck it up, “sin”, and keep her kids healthy and well cared for.
I would think God would understand why she did what she did.
And if a civil union isn’t a “marriage” and Julie is no longer legally partnered to anybody as said partner is deceased, she has every right to enter a civil union with Mike.
Really PIP, it is VERY MUCH discrimination against unwed heterosexuals. They deserve the same benefits and opportunities of gays. You seem less concerned about discrimination and more concerned about sympathy for gays.
Actually Thrutytoothy, many states have adopted Covenantal Marriage Laws which counter the devastating results of “No-Fault Divorce”.
Inevitably, no mtter how well intentioned or in love a couple is, they will have difficulties. The world’s solution when hard times come is always the easy way out, hence abortion. No-Fault Divorce is simply the legalized abortion of marriage.
Couples that know this and are committed to God will enter into a Covenantal Marriage and when things get tough, it becomes very difficult to divorce, especially for the man, making “working it out” a much more sensible proposition. Arizona has Covenantal Marriage Laws and to counter the fruit and nut capital of the world the Legislature has reworded the marriage definiton referendum and most likely it will be put before voters again in Nov. 2008.
You know my toothytruthy, the world is screwd up supreme isn’t it? Our Lord wasn’t kdding when He called us to be “Salt and Light” in a dying world.
Do you think the “Go Ye” includes blogging on a pro-life, anti-abortion site? I mean the lost come here. Isn’t God good?
@TS: How is it discrimination? You haven’t even explained that, and instead you continue ranting.
Get to the point: Why is letting gays marry discrimination against unwed heterosexuals?
And if a civil union isn’t a “marriage” and Julie is no longer legally partnered to anybody as said partner is deceased, she has every right to enter a civil union with Mike.
Posted by: Rae at May 16, 2008 1:11 AM
That’s my point exactly Rae. And you seem to agree. Heterosexual couples should be allowed civil unions too in any states that allow gay couples civil unions. Otherwise it is bigotry against the heterosexual lifestyle.
UMMM TS,
You are bending over backwards to make your argument sound better.
If we are talking about the right to marriage (or equal legal status thereof), and unwed heterosexuals have that right, then it is not discrimination, they just aren’t using it.
Truth:
The Bible does not forbid a widow to remarry. Did I hear you right?
1 Cor 7
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
“That’s my point exactly Rae. And you seem to agree. Heterosexual couples should be allowed civil unions too in any states that allow gay couples civil unions. Otherwise it is bigotry against the heterosexual lifestyle.”
@TS: Are you trying to be foolish on purpose?
HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES CAN ENTER CIVIL UNIONS WHEN THEY WISH IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION.
HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES CAN NOT ENTER CIVIL UNIONS WHEN THEY WISH IN NEARLY ALL OF THE STATES.
How hard is that to understand? Heterosexual couples can and DO get civil unions instead of “marriages” because of the religious connotation of “marriage”.
Marriage is essentially just a gussied up and overly “praised” institution. It’s nothing more than a fancy-shmancy word for a civil union- only with religious connotations.
I say this: Dump marriage as the economic institution that it is in favor of EVERYBODY just getting a legal civil union and have the “marriage” bit be the cherry on top of the sundae for the religious folks that desire it. That way we don’t have this idiotic “confusion” between marriage and civil unions (which legally are the same friggin’ thing).
Good grief- it’s not a hard concept. And yes, I am being condescending. And no, I’m not sorry for being punchy.
SoMG wrote: You(mk) wrote: “Women have grown careless because they CAN. If they knew that they would have to take care of the children they conceived I think they might just keep their legs crossed.”
This theory doesn’t seem to work in Nigeria. Or El Salvador. It also didn’t work in South Africa, where deaths from complications from abortion abruptly dropped 90% when abortion laws were liberalized.
I don’t see how your comment answers mk’s point. She’s talking about sexual promiscuity.
SoMG, I have heard your pencil in the eye argument several times now and see no relevance to anything except as an example of location. I could make up any number of situations regarding location that have absolutely no relevance to abortion. For example, I can park my Moms’ car safely in her driveway. That’s a good thing. Or I could leave her car in the middle of a busy intersection to be smashed up by a passing car. The second situation would be stupid and wrong, because of the location of the car. What’s the difference between my example of location and your example of putting a pencil in someone’s eye? Nothing. IMO, both are examples of location but irrelevant to abortion.
Rae-
should be said that civil unions do not confer all the federal rights conferred to marriage. And the rights they are given can vary from state to state.
THANK YOU DOMA!
PIP,
Why discriminate? You say heterosexuals should just get married instead but marriage is not the same thing as a civil union. It is plain and simple. Civil unions should be available to all couples or it is discrimination against couples who are NOT allowed the benefit, in this case, heterosexual couples. Think it through. A couple 20 year old males living in a frat could enter a civil union and get mucho benefits without marrying while a heterosexual couple would be forced to marry. You can;t see the discrimination in that?
TS,
where was it stated that heterosexuals couldn’t get civil unions?!
@PiP: Aw crap, really? I was always under the impression civil union = marriage but without all the religious mumbo-jumbo.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Your rationale for killing a person based upon said person being inside another person’s body can only exist in the case of a pregnant woman. Would you agree?”
In practice, sure, but in principle, no, we can imagine putting ourselves inside another person’s body. I can imagine being shrunk and injected into your blood stream like in FANTASTIC VOYAGE, (and if you haven’t seen FANTASTIC VOYAGE, you should be ashamed of yourself and put it on your netflix list immediately. It inspired a generation of doctors and biologists. You see Raquel Welsh getting immunoprecipitated. Donald Pleasance getting phagocytosed. In FV the patient was unconscious and it was all done for his benefit in order to break up a clot in his brain using a miniature laser (In fact, laser light in the blood would probably CAUSE additional protein precipitation, not break up a clot–this is only one of a whole list of interesting physical/chemical/biological errors in FV. Another is: if you shrink a mammal in size, its heat-generating capacity (which is proportional to volume) will drop more than its heat-loss rate (which is proportional to surface area) and it will freeze to death. Also, antibodies do not occur in the inner ear. One day someone will go through it carefully and publish an exhaustive list.) But I digress.
By the way, location isn’t the WHOLE story. There’s also the matter of living by taking material (oxygen, nutrients, some antibodies, transferrin, and a few other macromolecules) from the patient’s bloodstream and injecting metabolic end products INTO her bloodstream. In the case of pregnancy it all occurs via the placenta, but it could also be accomplished artificially. I think that no one, born or unborn, should be permitted to take material out of, or put material into, another person’s bloodstream, by natural or artificial means, without his or her continuing consent. This is a separate issue from location.
@TS: Heterosexuals can and DO get civil unions all the time! But most choose NOT too because civil unions are apparently legally inferior to “marriages”- so most heterosexuals choose “marriage” instead because it offers greater benefits tax-wise than a civil union.
Homosexuals don’t get the option of a legal marriage (except in Massachusetts and now California, apparently). Nor do they even get the option of a civil union in most states.
Rae,
You are saying that heterosexual couples can enter into civil unions in all states? I know the company I work for won’t allow unmarried heterosexual couples to add health insurance benefits for their partners. But unmarried gay couples can get health insurance benefits for their partners. How unfair is that?
@SoMG: That sounds like a really interesting movie, what year was it made? I’ll look for it at Blockbuster. :D
SOMG, lets try this again:
“Your rationale for killing a person based upon said person being inside another person’s body or using the blood and nutrients of another person can only exist in the case of a pregnant woman. Would you agree?”
@TS: Okay…I’m trying *veeeery* hard not to become abusive here…but I’m just letting you know now, you are reeeeeeeeally starting to piss me off.
Again: Heterosexuals can get civil unions if they so choose, BUT because civil unions are legally inferior (fewer benefits) to marriage, most heterosexual couples choose marriage instead as they are allowed to.
Now here’s the rub: homosexuals cannot get married. It is illegal in all but two states. They can get civil unions but civil unions offer FEWER benefits than marriages. Civil unions are INFERIOR to legal marriages.
The reason your company gives benefits to homosexual couples that have civil unions but not heterosexuals that get civil unions is because civil unions are the ONLY way homosexual couples can be legally recognized. Very few heterosexuals get civil unions because of their legal inferiority to legal marriage- an institution heterosexuals are allowed.
So no- it’s not discrimination against heterosexuals as they’re allowed the superior legal institution, unlike homosexuals.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Rae, come on now. Lets at least engage in honest debate. Admit that only a man and woman can produce a child so we can go forward here.”
OK, let’s go forward. The first obvious consequence is that sterile people should not be allowed to get married. RIGHT?
And by the way that fact, that only a man and a woman can produce a child, will not be true forever. Quite possibly not even for much longer. It could very well cease to be true while you and I are still alive.
Rae, it was 1966. My mom took me to an early screening in NYC when I was of single-digit age and it made an impression on me.
@SoMG: Ah cool! Thank you. To me, it sounds like a more intelligent version of “Innerspace” :). I will definitely check it out.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Your rationale for killing a person based upon said person being inside another person’s body or using the blood and nutrients of another person can only exist in the case of a pregnant woman. Would you agree?”
In practice (real life) yes but in principle no. There’s no reason to be afraid of hypothetical cases, even cases involving miraculous new technology, when discussing moral questions.
SoMG:8:01: wrote: You (mk) wrote: “If people don’t think they will get a free ride, they just might take responsibility for the lives they create.”
SoMG wrote: Then again they might not. Some of them certainly won’t. The indigent ones won’t be able to. That’s very expensive and socially destructive. To have indigent women who can’t afford abortions forced to have babies they don’t want and cannot afford instead! That’s a recipe for a permanent self-propagating underclass. IF we’re going to use force to control women’s reproductive lives, the opposite would be smarter. Require women to prove they can support their babies before allowing them to have them. That’s assuming we’re willing to use force to control women’s reproductive lives either FOR abortion or AGAINST it, which I am not. I am strictly neutral.
The problem is that you and anyone who supports abortion is looking at unwanted pregnancy as a societal problem that needs to be “fixed” by the government and the medical professionals, when in fact, it is an individual woman’s problem. Talking about a poor pregnant woman as part of a “self-propagating underclass” is about as degrading as one can get. Nevertheless, it’s always the pro-lifers who are accused of degrading women by “forcing them” to carry a pregnancy to term. Pro-lifers see the dignity of each and every woman and the baby inside of her no matter what her social class and make great efforts at a very intimate level to help her.
Who is the uncaring party here?
No pro-lifer is forcing a woman to surrender control of her body. That’s a falsehood and scare tactic created to keep the need for abortion in the minds of women. SoMG, there is no way you are neutral on any abortion issue, by default. How can you say that you are?
mk, Patricia, Mary, SoMG: Excellent posting, please continue!
Also, my comment was not addressed–atheists shouldn’t be allowed to get married right?
Rae–
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
@PiP: Thanks. I don’t understand legalese well- so I’m probably not going to understand a word that DOMA says. :(
Also,
many states don’t even offer civil unions or anything of that kind to homosexual couples.
lol Rae, it’s okay, I’ve just read articles about it :P
Wikipedia has a good article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
SOMG, should I be able to invite somebody into my house for dinner, and then kill them for invading my house and eating my nutrients?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Rae, come on now. Lets at least engage in honest debate. Admit that only a man and woman can produce a child so we can go forward here.”
OK, let’s go forward. The first obvious consequence is that sterile people should not be allowed to get married. RIGHT?
And by the way that fact, that only a man and a woman can produce a child, will not be true forever. Quite possibly not even for much longer. It could very well cease to be true while you and I are still alive.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 1:44 AM
SOMG, You could never understand the love of marriage because part is based upon going through pregnancy and caring for the life you create together. Only a person who understands those babies as being precious and worthy of protection could even begin to comprehend the special love they share together.
Rae,
Not to pis you off…BUT
To require marriage for heterosexual couples to get health benefits for their partner while gay partners don’t have to be married is discrimination. To say hetero’s have other options does not make it o.k. Marriage may be no more an option to a heterosexual couple as a sex change operation would be for one of the gay partners. Just cause you don’t think people should have a problem getting married to get benefits does not mean it’s not discrimination.
“Truthseeker”, In that circumstance, I would be against deliberately killing the neonate, but I wouldn’t take any extraordinary measures to save it either. Especially if I didn’t know who was going to be responsible for the costs. Since unintended live birth is most common (or rather, least rare) in second-trimester abortions, refusing to take extraordinary life-saving measures means an almost-certain death sentence. (Third trimester abortions are themselves rare events, so the complication of a third-trimester unintended live birth is even more rare.)
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 11:04 PM
“Unintended live birth” – The abortionist’s term for a premature-birth, AN ABORTION GONE BAD.
So, in our great country:
It’s fine for doctor A to allow a premature baby to die on the table because he’s an ABORTIONIST.
It’s a crime for doctor B to allow that premature baby to die on the table because he’s an OB/GYN.
An abortionist has a good day when there are no unintended live births.
An OB/GYN has a good day when all his births are live births.
What a country!
@TS: *sigh*
Fine, it’s discrimination. Happy now?
You know what else is discrimination? Not allowing homosexuals to marry and have their unions recognized by the Full Faith and Credit clause.
And just so you know…there are MANY states where civil unions are not even recognized for homosexuals- yay for more discrimination.
That and the whole concept of “civil unions” for gays and “marriage” for straights just REEKS of “Separate but Equal”- even more discrimination!
Also, my comment was not addressed–atheists shouldn’t be allowed to get married right?
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 1:57 AM
PIP, It depends if you are talking about the covenant of a sanctified union between a man and a woman and God, or a state sanctioned marriage.
TS: 2:06: SOMG, should I be able to invite somebody into my house for dinner, and then kill them for invading my house and eating my nutrients?
Of course, but don’t get too close to them with a pencil or you’re in trouble!
Reminds me of the movie “Arsenic and Old Lace” about the crazy little old ladies who “entertained guests” at their house.
Good job on the posts tonight as well! (I forgot to mention your name with the others earlier.)
No argument there Rae. Discrimination is abounding…
Janet, you wrote: “The problem is that you and anyone who supports abortion is looking at unwanted pregnancy as a societal problem that needs to be “fixed” by the government and the medical professionals, when in fact, it is an individual woman’s problem.”
No, I agree with you that it is the individual woman’s problem, which she should be free to handle as she chooses. If that happens also to be the way that most benefits society and lowers YOUR taxes, that’s nice too but it’s not the justification for abortion rights.
You wrote: “Talking about a poor pregnant woman as part of a “self-propagating underclass” is about as degrading as one can get. ”
It is not degrading to state the facts. It is a fact, distinct from any value judgements we may or may not attach to it, that indigent pregnant women being forced by their indigence to grow and bear children they do not want and cannot afford to raise is a recipe for creating a permanent self-propagating underclass. It has a documented track record of success in this regard (read Engels, THE CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASS IN ENGLAND).
You wrote: “Nevertheless, it’s always the pro-lifers who are accused of degrading women by “forcing them” to carry a pregnancy to term.”
Rightly so. That’s what right-to-lifism does. Pretty much by definition. I mean, isn’t it? Doesn’t it?
“No pro-lifer is forcing a woman to surrender control of her body.”
Fortunately not so far, except in parts of South America and other Third-Worldy places but they are TRYING to do so everywhere.
You wrote: “That’s a falsehood…”
Nope.
You wrote: “… and scare tactic …”
A justified one.
“….created to keep the need for abortion in the minds of women.”
Without the availability of abortion, women are less free. The lost freedom: they cannot have abortions. It’s just too obvious for words, isn’t it?
You wrote: “SoMG, there is no way you are neutral on any abortion issue, by default. How can you say that you are?”
Well, I oppose the right-to-life position that pregnant women should be forced by government to grow their pregnancies and give birth to live babies. But I also oppose the pro-abortion position, taken for instance by the Chinese government, that some pregnant women (those who have given birth before) should be forced to have abortions. I don’t think ANYONE should be forced to have an abortion. So I oppose pro-abortionism.
I believe that pregnant women should decide for themselves whether to grow or abort their pregnancies. Some will grow, some will abort. Thus I am in the middle–the neutral position– between right-to-lifism and pro-abortionism, both of which disgust me equally.
As far as the question whether any particular given pregnant woman should have an abortion or not, I am neutral (unless of course there’s something wrong with the pregnancy).
Somg: OK, let’s go forward. The first obvious consequence is that sterile people should not be allowed to get married. RIGHT?
Sterility has no bearing on the ability for a heterosexual couple to marry in the Catholic Church.
SoMG: I know it doesn’t mean anything to you, but, hopefully some day it will….I pray for all pro-aborts that their hearts will change on abortion. God bless you.
“Truthseeker”, you quoted me: “OK, let’s go forward. The first obvious consequence is that sterile people should not be allowed to get married. RIGHT?”
And then you wrote: “You could never understand the love of marriage because part is based upon going through pregnancy and caring for the life you create together. Only a person who understands those babies as being precious and worthy of protection could even begin to comprehend the special love they share together.”
That’s all? That’s your only response to my claim that your position logically implies that sterile people should not be allowed to marry? Insults and appeals to emotion? Aren’t you going to say no it doesn’t imply that or right it does and so it should?
You must be getting sleepy.
And by the way I do “understand those babies as being precious and worthy of protection.” Just not UNLIMITED protection.
Janet, you wrote: “Sterility has no bearing on the ability for a heterosexual couple to marry in the Catholic Church. ”
This is one of the (many) inconsistancies and self-contradictions in Church policy.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “SOMG, should I be able to invite somebody into my house for dinner, and then kill them for invading my house and eating my nutrients? ”
I think we discussed this example, and why it is different from abortion, in a previous thread. In fact I’m quite sure we did.
Without the availability of abortion, women are less free. The lost freedom: they cannot have abortions. It’s just too obvious for words, isn’t it?
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 2:42 AM
SOMG, What is too obvious for words is that any baby girl that gets killed by abortion is losing not just to abortion but to all her freedoms . That is even more obvious and too sad for words.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “SOMG, should I be able to invite somebody into my house for dinner, and then kill them for invading my house and eating my nutrients? ”
I think we discussed this example, and why it is different from abortion, in a previous thread. In fact I’m quite sure we did.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 2:57 AM
Sorry I don’t recall. I’m guessing I could wait and let them leave without killing them, but should I have to?
Somg: OK, let’s go forward. The first obvious consequence is that sterile people should not be allowed to get married. RIGHT?
Wrong SOMG. What I said is that a man and a woman can join together and start a family together through intercourse and making babies. That is just one aspect of “marriage” though.
At that point I was just stating an obvious difference between the relationships of heterosexual and homosexual partners
And by the way I do “understand those babies as being precious and worthy of protection.” Just not UNLIMITED protection.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 2:52 AM
For you say that you would kill a third term baby jsut to make the delivery easier on the woman and then say you find same baby as precious and worthy of protection doesn’t make sense. I think you jsut showed compassion. Maybe because you are getting sleepy too. Perhaps you should stay awake the rest of your life.
Here’s a hint: inviting a person who already exists into your home is different from conceiving someone who does not yet exist. WHOM did the now-pregnant woman invite into her uterus by having sex? The unborn baby? But there was no unborn baby to invite when she had sex. How could she invite someone who didn’t exist yet? Even if she could, why should the obligations incurred by doing so be the same as the obligations incurred by inviting a person who DOES already exist (and therefore has a life to lose) into your home?
It sort of makes one wonder: which is worse, to be conceived and aborted before birth or not to be conceived at all? At least the one who is conceived and aborted enjoys a few weeks of intrauterine life. The non-conceptus doesn’t even get that. A woman who was a true right-to-lifer would not let a single egg pass unfertilized.
Anyway, I think if you were to tell your invited guests that they were no longer welcome and you wanted them to stop eating and leave immediately, and they refused to go or ignored you and went on eating, then you would have a strong case for getting rid of them by force.
How could she invite someone who didn’t exist yet?
SOMG, Cause she knows ahead of time that inviting the sperm in could create new unknown person therefore she is inviting possibility said new person into her body with full knowledge that said baby will need her once created. And she knows that said baby cannot get up and leave if asks her to.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “For you say that you would kill a third term baby jsut to make the delivery easier on the woman and then say you find same baby as precious and worthy of protection doesn’t make sense. ”
Yes it does. I consider the unborn baby precious and worthy of protection GENERALLY (for instance I support the Unborn Victims of Violence Law, which protects the unborn from marauders who cause the woman to miscarry by beating her; also I support government paying for vitamins and folic acid supplements for pregnant women) but not worthy of protection SPECIFICALLY from its mother’s decision to cease life-support. That particular decision overrides the unborn’s rights to protection. But I do consider the unborn precious, worthy of all protections except for that one very special one.
SoMG,
Engels was a socialist. The word for working class, “proletariat”, comes from the Latin word for “offspring”.
Pro-lifism as you call it, does not separate people into classes as socialism does. All people have equal dignity from fertilization to natural death. Life has meaning beyond the here and now, which means more than any perceived freedoms you might see emanating from the right to abortion. That’s obvious to me.
***************************
SoMG: 2:55 said: Janet, you wrote: “Sterility has no bearing on the ability for a heterosexual couple to marry in the Catholic Church. “ This is one of the (many) inconsistancies and self-contradictions in Church policy.
I don’t agree. We are each created for our own purpose. Some to have children, some to be religious, some to stay single. We accept God’s will for us. God is love, marriage is but one sign of sign that love which puts a man and a woman in union with God’s love. There is no contradiction.
The baby, unlike your invited guests, loses nothing by its association with her. Before conception it didn’t exist. After conception and abortion, it’s dead. What has it lost by the whole transaction? Nothing. On the contrary, it’s enjoyed a few weeks of intrauterine life. Ended (in the enormous majority of cases) by a painless death. We should all be so lucky.
Whereas your guests were alive and happy before you invited them into your home and then killed them. That makes the entire situation totally different.
Obama wake up! The Democratic party is just using you! They aren’t with you, they are laughing at behind your back all the way to the bank!
Posted by: Adlyn at May 15, 2008 10:51 PM
Very insightful Adlyn.
Janet, you wrote: “Pro-lifism as you call it,…”
Actually I almost always call it right-to-lifism. I consider myself pro-life, but not a right-to-lifer.
You wrote: “… does not separate people into classes as socialism does. ”
Socialism does not separate people into classes. Socialist theory starts by OBSERVING that people are separated into classes and tries to understand how it happens.
Socialism is the observer-and-documenter, not the cause, of class separation. Just as evolutionary biology is the observer-and-documenter, not the cause, of evolution in nature. In spite of what some Creationists seem to think.
Somg : 3:15: It sort of makes one wonder: which is worse, to be conceived and aborted before birth or not to be conceived at all? At least the one who is conceived and aborted enjoys a few weeks of intrauterine life. The non-conceptus doesn’t even get that. A woman who was a true right-to-lifer would not let a single egg pass unfertilized.
Eggs are not human life. It seems like some pc’rs mistakenly think they are. Why do you call an egg a non-conceptus? As opposed to a conceptus?? It’s still just an egg???!! What’s the point of that? and how is it that you can even pretend to project what a true-pro-lifer should think?By doing that you just distract from the discussion at hand. We are not scientific morons because we are pro-life.
Whether it’s worse to be not conceived at all….that’s God’s decision, not ours. Abortion involves the taking of a life, OUR decision – that’s worse. Does that answer your question?
Janet, you wrote: “We are each created for our own purpose. Some to have children, some to be religious, some to stay single. ”
Why not add, some to marry members of our own sex? The exclusion seems to me arbitrary.
You wrote: “We accept God’s will for us. God is love, marriage is but one sign of sign that love which puts a man and a woman in union with God’s love. There is no contradiction.”
Excuse me, but if you deny marriage to gays on the grounds that the ability to have children is central to marriage (as “Truthseeker” did above) but also allow sterile heterosexual couples to marry, then there IS a contradiction. A bad one. One that causes intelligent people to reject your religion and your position.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “For you say that you would kill a third term baby jsut to make the delivery easier on the woman and then say you find same baby as precious and worthy of protection doesn’t make sense. ”
Yes it does. I consider the unborn baby precious and worthy of protection GENERALLY (for instance I support the Unborn Victims of Violence Law, which protects the unborn from marauders who cause the woman to miscarry by beating her; also I support government paying for vitamins and folic acid supplements for pregnant women) but not worthy of protection SPECIFICALLY from its mother’s decision to cease life-support. That particular decision overrides the unborn’s rights to protection. But I do consider the unborn precious, worthy of all protections except for that one very special one.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:23 AM
What happened SOMG, did you have a cup of coffee? You lost your compassion. You can’t have it both ways. You know the birthing process well enough to understand that it is not “that” traumatic. Especially since todays hospitals provide epiderals and other comforts to the mother. You would kill a baby and crush her skull to provide a “more” comfortable deliver for the woman. That’s just not something you do to a person who you consider to be precious. You may have actually convinced yourself that you think babies are precious, but your morbid support of helping women kill their babies means you do not consider them to be precious. Change your reality to one where the unborn ARE precious and stop participating in your very special exception of killing them.
Somg: The baby, unlike your invited guests, loses nothing by its association with her. Before conception it didn’t exist. After conception and abortion, it’s dead. What has it lost by the whole transaction? Nothing. On the contrary, it’s enjoyed a few weeks of intrauterine life. Ended (in the enormous majority of cases) by a painless death. We should all be so lucky.
This makes me so sad, I just want to look you in the eye and hear you say this, because I can’t believe you are serious. Really.
“Nothing lost in the transaction”? A BABY is lost, and do you know what makes that lost life so SPECIAL?? The fact that so FEW pregnancies actually survive and are BORN!!!
Babies are not a dime a dozen, a commodity to be bought and discarded when not needed anymore. They aren’t recyclable either, once a baby is gone, it’s gone. No other will ever be exactly the same. What a shame you can’t see this.
*************************
Excuse me, but if you deny marriage to gays on the grounds that the ability to have children is central to marriage (as “Truthseeker” did above) but also allow sterile heterosexual couples to marry, then there IS a contradiction. A bad one. One that causes intelligent people to reject your religion and your position.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:52 AM
It’s not hard to understand, if you are familiar with Catholic theology. I’m sure you aren’t so I won’t go into that now. Contradiction is an often misused word, especially when one doesn’t see the whole picture. May be some other time….. One other thing to think about, not all so-called “intelligent” people will necessarily make it to heaven.I can only tell it as I see it. To each his own.
Socialism does not separate people into classes. Socialist theory starts by OBSERVING that people are separated into classes and tries to understand how it happens.
Socialism is the observer-and-documenter, not the cause, of class separation. Just as evolutionary biology is the observer-and-documenter, not the cause, of evolution in nature. In spite of what some Creationists seem to think.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:42 AM
Funny, but the observer of classes in socialism also seems to end up placing themselves in the ruling class at the top. He’s never at the bottom.
Excuse me, but if you deny marriage to gays on the grounds that the ability to have children is central to marriage (as “Truthseeker” did above)
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:52 AM
Wrong SOMG, ythat is twice you stated that and I already twice explained that to you that is not what I said. Here iit is one more time for you
The post you are taking out of context was just stating an obvious difference between the relationships of heterosexual and homosexual partners. A part of marriage that is recognized by both the Church and the State is having children and raising a family, BUT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. Got it SOMG. The only requirement for a sanctified marriage is that it be a covenant made between a man and a woman and God. and these requirements will never change. Requirements for state recognized marriage is always changing as seen in the Califirnia Supreme Court gay marriage ruling. Got it now?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 16, 2008 3:06 AM
I consider the unborn baby precious and worthy of protection GENERALLY (for instance I support the Unborn Victims of Violence Law, which protects the unborn from marauders who cause the woman to miscarry by beating her; also I support government paying for vitamins and folic acid supplements for pregnant women) but not worthy of protection SPECIFICALLY from its mother’s decision to cease life-support. That particular decision overrides the unborn’s rights to protection. But I do consider the unborn precious, worthy of all protections except for that one very special one.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:23 AM
Can you define precious as it refers to a baby?
SoMG: Freedom is not being allowed to do whatever you want. Think about it a while.
I’ll go with dictionary.com:
1. of high price or great value; very valuable or costly: precious metals.
2. highly esteemed for some spiritual, nonmaterial, or moral quality: precious memories.
3. dear; beloved: a precious child.
I suppose the example of the third definition makes it circular. Oh well. If you don’t know what I mean by “precious” I doubt I can explain it to you except by reference to synonyms.
Anyway the whole question of parenthood is about to change as I said above. We will find a way to get chromosomes from women and package their genomes (or rather half-genomes since sperm are haploid) into de-nucleated sperm. Then two women will be the genetic father and mother of a brand-new baby. And nothing you can do will stop it from happening. Eventually people will react to your distaste for it the way they react to your distaste for IVF today. People created by the new technology will come forward and ask reproachfully why you tried to prevent their conceptions.
Janet, you wrote: “Funny, but the observer of classes in socialism also seems to end up placing themselves in the ruling class at the top. He’s never at the bottom.”
Yes, being an economist is a rare privilege, and a socialist economist an even rarer one.
So what?
SoMG: 4:27: If you need to use a dictionary to define precious as it refers to a baby, I don’t think you really mean it. Can you do it without a dictionary or thesarus?
SoMG 4:42:………………………………………………………..
And nothing you can do will stop it from happening.
Now that’s funny. You sound like Dr. Frankenstein. It sounds like a really cool experiment to me. I look forward to the movie version.
SoMG: How are you related to Martin Gardner?
Anyway the whole question of parenthood is about to change as I said above. We will find a way to get chromosomes from women and package their genomes (or rather half-genomes since sperm are haploid) into de-nucleated sperm. Then two women will be the genetic father and mother of a brand-new baby. And nothing you can do will stop it from happening. Eventually people will react to your distaste for it the way they react to your distaste for IVF today. People created by the new technology will come forward and ask reproachfully why you tried to prevent their conceptions.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 4:42 AM
Earth to SOMG. Come in SOMG. New technology that makes men unnecessary for procreation. Fighter for the rights of female sperm. I think you may have watched Fantastic Voyage a few too many times. Please come out of your fantasy world long enough to realize you can’t kill the unborn and at the same time say they are precious. It is illogical. Does not compute. HELLLOOOO! Anybody home?
Janet, you wrote: “Funny, but the observer of classes in socialism also seems to end up placing themselves in the ruling class at the top. He’s never at the bottom.”
Yes, being an economist is a rare privilege, and a socialist economist an even rarer one.
So what?
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 5:10 AM
It’s easy to make observations and judgements when one puts oneself above the fray.
It’s been fun. Hasta la vista.
SOMG,
Ecce crucem Domini!
Fugite partes adversae!
Vicit Leo de tribu Juda
Radix David! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Do you want to understand the meaning of the special love between a man and a woman? Repeat that over and over and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to remove the scales from your eyes and show you the true meaning of the words “precious child”
Ecce crucem Domini!
Fugite partes adversae!
Vicit Leo de tribu Juda
Radix David! Alleluia! Alleluia!
nighty night Janet. Or should I say good morning and get some rest. Wherever your headed
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
GO JANET!
GO TS!
I consider the unborn baby precious and worthy of protection GENERALLY but not worthy of protection SPECIFICALLY from its mother’s decision to cease life-support. That particular decision overrides the unborn’s rights to protection. But I do consider the unborn precious, worthy of all protections except for that one very special one.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 3:23 AM
This statement REALLY shows how far gone you are SoMG. What’s the point of ANY other protection if the unborn baby is not protected from the marauding woman who seeks to destroy him/her.
The brave new world that you have us pointed towards will never happen. Already there is fall out from IVF with studies showing that IVF simply breeds more IVF. Studies have now shown that men who are conceived through IVF have very low sperm counts meaning that if they want to have children themselves they likely will also use IVF. Researchers are now saying that the widespread use of IVF is perpetuating the cycle of infertility and is responsible in part for the significant rise in infertility. There is a reason people can’t have babies – they are infertile or have genetic problems and these problems are being passed on to the next generation through IVF when they otherwise wouldn’t be.
Other problems include the fact the IVF babies have significant medical problems including brain deformities. They also have more medical interventions than babies conceived naturally.
It wouldn’t surprise me if someday the use of this procedure is much more restricted.
If IVF brings about this, one can only wonder at what will be wrought with newer techniques. God will not be mocked.
That was a sad sad homosexuality debate.
Can anyone say, clearly and without contradictions, why homosexual couples should not get married?
(Having sex differently doesn’t count — certainly the disabled have sex differently; nor does the ability to recreate … and since atheists can get married that argument is void…)
Oh, and I forgot to add… saying the Bible says it’s wrong doesn’t count either, as we live in a secular country. (Remember the Lemon test!)
Can anyone say, clearly and without contradictions, why homosexual couples should not get married?
Because men and women were designed to be complementary to each other. Their bodies (not just sexually) are designed to be a gift to each other in a way that homosexuals can never be. Their love is futile.
Because homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder.
nor does the ability to recreate … and since atheists can get married that argument is void…)
I was unaware that atheists were sterile and unable to procreate. You learn something new…:)
Asking us to define marriage outside of a religious constraint is like asking us to define Easter without bringing Jesus into the picture.
Marriage to Catholics is a “SACRAMENT”, a rite in the Church, a religious covenant.
It is NOT the same as a civil union.
Men have penis’. Women have vaginas. It is possible for them to reproduce.
If they are sterile, they are still open to the possibility of procreation. They are still following natural law. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen, but it is not their “choice”.
It is God’s choice.
It’s all about God and His will. Obedience. Submission. Joining our will to His.
Homosexuality, cannot do this. Choosing to engage in homosexual behavior is contrary to Natural Law and contrary to Gods law.
Well mk, you’re correct. Certainly the whole homosexual movement is in open rebellion against God and deeply hate ANYONE espousing (no pun intended!) Christian views. Their hatred is satanic, IMO.
Edyt: nor does the ability to recreate … and since atheists can get married that argument is void…)
I’m still trying to figure this one out.
Did you want to say pro-create?
My quick easy answer to your question would be “No”. Whatever floats your boat. But don’t make me teach my children it’s a good/normal thing either.
Janet,
Ahh yes. Forgive me, I’m normally not awake this early. :)
Edyt said Can anyone say, clearly and without contradictions, why homosexual couples should not get married?
Yes – because by creating a legally recognized sterile union the state establishes a market in humanity.
Essentially, the state reestablishes slavery. People as products.
It’s true too – look up at SoMG’s post and he’s stating the truth – nothing will stop the attempt to use IVF to create human beings, who wouldn’t have moral rights from the moment of conception on. Because the foundation is morally relative, the state is only one step away from condoning a kind of slavery once more.
Wash away the warning with political liberalism, then suffer the consequences and complain.
MK, okay, but America is not a theocracy. For the rest of us who don’t care one way or another what the church thinks, why should homosexuals not be given the right to live as they please?
Chris,
People have been products for a long time.
Are you saying that heterosexuals should be allowed to be products but not homosexuals? What’s the rationale?
So Edyt – you have a price tag? How much?
Hey, I didn’t set the prices.
I work in media, right? So I’m pretty much working next to advertisers and have had some pretty interesting conversations about it.
Check out a few books about advertising tactics. It’ll blow your mind. Then research the history of television and ask yourself, “Why do we put celebrities on a pedestal?” and “What are the differences between celebrities in America and those in other countries?”
Then think about Vegas, and what people will do to feel like a celebrity.
People choose to be products. Especially in America, because the product is what keeps our country going. In our society, everything is disposable, including marriage. All I’m asking is, why don’t homosexuals get the same ability to get married?
Because people like MK and Patricia find it “unnatural”? Going through surgery and domesticating wild animals are unnatural, but no one seems to be trying to make laws against those things.
MK, okay, but America is not a theocracy. For the rest of us who don’t care one way or another what the church thinks, why should homosexuals not be given the right to live as they please?
Posted by: Edyt at May 16, 2008 8:07 AM
Except that’s not what they want Edyt. They want us to ACCEPT their lifestyle and they want the right to promote their lifestyle to our young. They know they can’t procreate, so they recruit.
Believe me, homosexuals do much more today than live as they please.
It’s true too – look up at SoMG’s post and he’s stating the truth – nothing will stop the attempt to use IVF to create human beings, who wouldn’t have moral rights from the moment of conception on. Because the foundation is morally relative, the state is only one step away from condoning a kind of slavery once more.
Researchers have a vested interest in seeing that embryonic persons never have rights. This will allow embryonic research to go on unchecked and apparently there seems to be no end to the freakish proposals that they can conjure up.
Edyt – Agreed – people do treat each other as products. But IVF takes this to a different, more culturally lethal level, so please do not switch the context of what I said. People may choose to be products, but they are also treating each other as products which is morally wrong. Growing children as products is morally wrong.
You asked a simple question and demand others show justification for their rejection of same-sex marriage. However, given the status quo, the incumbency is on those who propose/impose same-sex marriage to show it poses no harm to society. I showed a single harm, which defeats the proposal.
Again just like Roe, judicial fiat is being used to corrupt the state. Left unchecked, the state will fall.
I’m sorry Edyt – I can’t really have a deep conversation with you. I have work to do, and I simply don’t have the time to go through exhaustive explanations with you today. Cheers.
A few things here… The flyer says “are active members of their church in Chicago”. I thought they were not active enough members to have heard the Rev. Wright’s crazy sermons? They were surprised by his outrageous views?
SECONDLY…
Obama says if his daughters make a mistake, he doesn’t want them punished with a baby.
Well, I have never heard of someone having sex by mistake? I suppose he is saying they are making a mistake by having sex while so young. It is a “mistake” because they are too young to understand the concequences of their actions. Thus, a mistake.
However, if this is true — if they are too young to understand that unprotected sex can lead to a (punishment) baby how can they be old enough to determine if a baby should live or die? I mean, they already made one bad decision so now we think they have the understanding to make a good one?
To me it is pretty obvious that a teen girl who gets pregnant made a bad decision. So WHY should we leave it up to her to make another BAD decision?
The blatent homophobia and attempts at justifying blatent discrimination from the pro-life community in this thread is astounding and depressing to me. All things considered, you are alienating a community that could (and I believe still will) prove to be an incredibly asset to preventing abortions. Here are a few reasons why:
Since gay couples cannot biologically produce children together, they create a tremendous population of willing adoptive parents who can provide loving homes to children who may have otherwise been aborted. If abortion truly is a Holocaust and a genocide to you, it seems incredibly hypocritical of you to turn away and reject couples who WANT to be parents.
– Just in my small circle of friends and congregation members, I know 3 gay couples who have adopted, and have happy healthy kids. 4 of these children would have languished in orphanges in China and Vietnam, 1 of them has Downs, and very likely would have been aborted if not for the financial and emotional support provided to the mother from the adoptive parents, a gay couple, and 2 of them are brothers – adopted together at ages 5 and 7, who had been in foster care for 2 years and could have ended up being separated if not for the gay couple at my church who took them both in.
Put aside your preconcieved notions and stereotypes for a second and THINK about that. Just in the tiny little circle of people in my life, I know of NINE children who have been given a better shot at life because of gay couples.
– Just in terms of numbers, about 1 in 10 Americans are gay. That adds up to a few million voters in each state. If ending abortion is the most important issue to you, do you REALLY want to be known as a general population opposed to gay rights? Do you really want a gay person to be thinking “you know, I’d really like to vote for this guy because I’m pro life, but he wants to prevent me from marrying my partner and this pro choice guy support civil unions…” when they are standing in that ballot booth??
– The “gay gene” discussion. Could you even imagine how many gay people would become pro life if there became some way of identifying homosexuality in utero? But how many gay people are going to want to join a cause where the majority of people they’d be standing next to in protest of abortion think that their relationship with their partner is “an abomination”?
I’ve stated a dozen times that this attitude baffles and saddens me, and in all of my inner dialogue about abortion, it just keeps coming back to me that I cannot and will not join a cause that would have me joining hands and welcoming people in to my life who express nothing but HATE and the desire to deny rights to so many people in my life whom I love.
PiP and Rae – in the immortal words of Princess Lea, “you are my only hope”. =)
So you are a proabort because some prolifers disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? If if weren’t for that you would be standing up for the unborn?
Amanda,
“in all of my inner dialogue about abortion…”
Could you share with us some of your inner dialogue?
It seems you are torn, to what extent I don’t know, but there is a hint of that.
If you’ll allow me, Carla, I’ll reword your question because I’m curious.
What would it take for you to stand up for the unborn?
Certain individuals on this blog feign compassion for the unborn, but I gather that you have an atom of “maybe this isn’t 100% right”.
SOMG is absolutely right.You anti-choicers are dead wrong.And those of you who advocate a
theocracy in America are really frightening.
This is absolutely contrary to everything the founding fathers wanted for America.And in the
18th century,abortion was a non-issue.It happened
then,as it happened now.Nobody mentioned it.
If any one of the founding fathers had even
mentioned abortion,let alone making it illegal,
the others would have thought he had gone out of his mind.
If we become a theocracy,what about the
rights of all the Jews,Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists,
Wiccans,atheists and agnostics? They will
probably go down the toilet,as in countries
such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.And the Wiccans
are not evil in any way.They are just plain
silly,and are not a threat to any one.
They do not worship the devil;they don’t even
believe in him! Homosexual marriage would not
interfere in any way with heterosexual couples
getting married and having children.What’s all the fuss about? Gays do not”recruit”.That’s
just a myth made up by homophobes.
You are either gay or you are not.(I’m not).
The vast majority of gays do not molest chil-
dren.If you conservatives dissaprove of Obama
and what he stands for,that is your right.
But please get your facts right about him.He does not”advocate” infanticide.Another myth.
He merely opposes certain restrictions on
abortion,which is not the same thing as advo-
cating infanticide.And it’s not his fault that
some children are molested.That happened
long before he was even born.
Amanda,
I would like to start by saying that I have no strong feelings for or against gay people. I am certain a relative very near and dear to me is gay, and I idolize him no less.
I remember several years ago a large gay rights rally in Washington, probably around 1993 since I was still in our old house.
Amanda, I was aghast. Thousands of people prancing around naked, in women’s underwear, S&M garb. The speakers were as appalling. The sexual innuendo they were spewing, screaming and swearing, one talked about finally having a first lady you’d like to —-.
It would be as if during the Civil Rights movement, instead of conducting themselves with dignity, Dr. King and his followers had been doing SteppinFetchit routines and promoting the most outrageous stereotypes of black people.
One routine had some drag queen talking about being on a ship at sea with all those “pretty boys”. What a disgrace to gay military men and women who have served honorably and do now.
Have you ever seen some of those antics on public display in San Francisco? Not exactly family oriented parades and street events.
Let’s face it, displays like this do nothing to promote a positive perception of gay people and who was doing more to promote the worst stereotypes of gay people than these gay demonstrators? Opponents of gay people should have been applauding after watching this.
I don’t shock easy but watching this left me speechless, talk about giving people enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.
I’m sure you, like I, know any number of gay people who would have been mortified to see this.
HOwever this was a demonstration played out in full on national TV, uncensored.
Gay people were done a tremendous disservice by, well, gay people.
Robert Berger,
A theocracy in America in America is frightening? Tell that to Obama as he campaigns from the pulpit.
Thank you everyone for your prayers.
She delivered the baby last night. It was a little boy. Apparantly the cord wrapped around his little body and became compressed. He was perfect and beautiful. The doctor said he had only seen this happen one other time, and that there was no way it could have been prevented.
They are a bit worried about the mother because they aren’t sure she delivered the placenta completely, so they’re watching her closely today. Please continue to keep them in your prayers.
@MK, Doug, Bethany, and others,
first off: I wish that Rae’s and Elizabeth’s visit with MK this Saturday be filled with love and joy!
The extensive posting above clarified many things for me. As many of you know, my abrupt departure did not please many friends. I’ve had some severe computer problems lately …. (these are likely fixable, but am I so easily fixed?) … MK and Doug were kind enough to assist! These woes gave me the excuse to bow-out gracefully.
But there is ‘other stuff happening here’. I perceive that the phenomenon of abortion is only a small (even if it is over a billion worldwide) part of the competitive aspect in thinking: “I ‘win’ if I can rid myself of opposition.” Like HisMan, I too understand the abortion issue as mainly a spiritual battle and like the soldiers in WW I – both sides are ‘entrenched’. The more verbage that piles up year after year just gives that much more time to killing babies.
It is obvious that SoMG is very smart and that he is most articulate AND HE IS OK WITH KILLING THE UNBORN-(humans). So are most PC … after all it’s a pregnant woman’s decision and NOT THEIR OWN LIFE being ended.
In some way PC are like the Roman soldiers who scourged and crucified Jesus. Never do they ask ‘why’ nor “have I got this right?” And Jesus never does vocalize to ‘save’ Himself. He who is Truth is killed that day … and we do not listen for His heartbeat. We ‘win’ with stopping the beat/music … “whatever you do to the least of these …” Will Obama die? Will SoMG die? Seems kinda like when JFK was assassinated but now Lee Harvey Oswald is our ‘winner’.
It’s time … for me to withdraw and die … (be Resurrected)/to live. How does becoming a hermit sound?
If I do get this machine fixed, I will probably remain off-line.
snail mail welcome:
John McDonell,
#109 – 506 Lonergan Blvd.,
Timmins, ON P4P 1C9
CANADA
Laura –
Reading that made me cry.
But thanks for posting it, it puts a real event to the statement I made earlier.
Chris: A few things here… The flyer says “are active members of their church in Chicago”. I thought they were not active enough members to have heard the Rev. Wright’s crazy sermons? They were surprised by his outrageous views?
I noticed the little disclaimer box on the front of the flyer. “you can sit in church and pray all day….. He’s a “member” but he’s out doing “God’s work”, so you may not see him actually sitting in a pew much (or listening to sermons).
He’s got all of his bases covered.
To me it is pretty obvious that a teen girl who gets pregnant made a bad decision. So WHY should we leave it up to her to make another BAD decision?
Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2008 9:08 AM
Homerun!
Fortunately, I can report that PLAGAL has marched for the last several years without incident. Nellie Gray hasn’t gotten any happier about it, I’ve no doubt, but she’s stopped having them arrested.
Yes – because by creating a legally recognized sterile union the state establishes a market in humanity.
Essentially, the state reestablishes slavery. People as products.
You skipped about 23894 steps in reasoning there. That doesn’t follow in the slightest.
Chris,
People have been products for a long time.
Are you saying that heterosexuals should be allowed to be products but not homosexuals? What’s the rationale?
Posted by: Edyt at May 16, 2008 8:09 AM
Edyt, you really should do some reading on business ethics, medical ethics to get a feel for the basics. One doesn’t have to be religious to be ethical….
“some pregnancies are doomed from the start “
—————————————–
Reality, who are you to say that?
Stillbirths happen every day, RSD.
John McD:
….But there is ‘other stuff happening here’. I perceive that the phenomenon of abortion is only a small (even if it is over a billion worldwide) part of the competitive aspect in thinking: “I ‘win’ if I can rid myself of opposition.” Like HisMan, I too understand the abortion issue as mainly a spiritual battle and like the soldiers in WW I – both sides are ‘entrenched’. The more verbage that piles up year after year just gives that much more time to killing babies.
John, I can’t agree with you more. Your thoughts are perfect for the makings of a “political” cartoon; I can picture the piles of of verbage now.:)
Thanks for coming back for a bit. Your words of wisdom challenge us like no other can. In your own way, you bring so much energy to this blog!
It’s been such a pleasure to know you, keep in touch from time to time. God bless you!
~Janet
P.S. When is your birthday, John?
Amanda:
in all of my inner dialogue about abortion, it just keeps coming back to me that I cannot and will not join a cause that would have me joining hands and welcoming people in to my life who express nothing but HATE and the desire to deny rights to so many people in my life whom I love.
A lot of us pro-lifers have the same problem, actually. You might be interested in this: Pro Every Life, Pro Woman, Pro Reproductive Justice for All.
April 1, 1947
ty for the kind words, Janet
Jen R 11:43am
I’m very pleased to hear that.
Jen R @ 11:46 AM
Visit http://www.growinggenerations.com/
then seriously tell me such a company wouldn’t profit from laws that promote same-sex marriage. It makes sterility, egg harvesting, surrogacy and such brokerage desirable. Markets seek to expand.
Yes – their services can be employed right now. Yet enacting law simply codifies and condones a known sterile union – establishing (entrenching) a market in humanity. Their services are purchased to “create life”. Unnaturally. Each child literally has a price.
(23894 steps of reasoning? My head would explode!)
Notice too that they are building families of “Choice” – of course – it’s all about personal choice.
The add says that Obama needs to do do God’s work and not just pray. So when will Obama start work on ending legalized abortion? Or will he only pray about it and not go to work on it?
“PIP, It depends if you are talking about the covenant of a sanctified union between a man and a woman and God, or a state sanctioned marriage.”
AH we are getting somewhere! You admit that it is different! You DO realize that making homosexual marriage legal, noone is forcing churches to accept it, right?
Patricia-
Your views on homosexuals are frightening.
How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out?
You already banned that, remember? There’s nothing more for Obama to do.
Posted by: reality at May 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Sure there is, and he plans to do it.
He will repeal the law that banned the procedure.
A quick skim of this thread reveals that Barack Obama is a recruiting homosexual marriage abortionist syphillis infecting antichrist who crucified Jesus, all with a millstone tied around his neck. It is always good to know that you right-wingers are in true form, alienating the majority of the population with your extreme views. Watch out! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that he is secretly a Muslim, and he is coming after our guns!
Seriously, on a civil rights note, I think the government has no business endorsing a discriminatory practice such as “marriage” as we now know it. Instead, the government should only issue civil union licenses to any two consenting adults (but not animals, as Rick “man on dog” Santorum would have you believe) who want one. Churches would be free to perform a “marriage” ceremony for whomever they want, or not, but all the legal aspects would be covered in the civil union license. It will happen when pigs fly, but I believe it is the just thing to do.
How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out?
You already banned that, remember? There’s nothing more for Obama to do.
How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers?
Obama agrees with most Americans that eleven-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers deserve the option to abort and continue their childhoods.
Posted by: reality at May 15, 2008 2:36 PM
The problem here is that taking the young woman for an abortion and allowing the stepfather to continue to use her for sex means that she is not continuing her childhood, rather it enables the abuser. Naturally when he takes her for the abortion he will say that the baby is from some boyfriend. The clinic will give her contraceptives and he will be having sex with her again within a week.
Chris – thats a HUGE stretch.
First of all, if you do some research, you’d find that the largest population of people utlizing fertility services are STRAIGHT couples.
Second of all, there is absolutely nothing preventing gay couples from using these services right now, even if they’re not married. Or single people for that matter. Should we stop letting single women use these services too?
To assume that just because they could get married, gay people would use those services more than they are right now is just that – a total assumption on your part.
All the gay couples I know who have children had them without being married or even having a civil union.
and Patricia – ALL these gay people in my family and circle of friends – and I’m still straight! What gives??? The “recruiting” is failing something awful!! Better get them back on track! I’ll be sure to let them know that you know what their daily lives are about better than they do. Wasn’t it you who told me a good Christian home should have more than 3 children? Well one of the lesbian couples at my church has 4. 3 adopted, and one biological from a previous heterosexual relationship. Trust me Patricia, they’ve got their hands far too full with providing for their family to be out “recruiting” people. That is just a sickening, demented dillusion in your head that gives you an excuse to hate something you OBVIOUSLY don’t understand.
You already banned that, remember? There’s nothing more for Obama to do.
Posted by: reality at May 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Sure there is, and he plans to do it.
He will repeal the law that banned the procedure.
**************
Uhh… he has stated no such thing.
and since when can a president “repeal” a Supreme Court decision?
You’re fantasizing. Absolutely NOTHING in that sentence is even remotely true, or even possible for that matter.
Amanda said All the gay couples I know who have children had them without being married or even having a civil union.
And these are their own natural children?
John, Just missed it, Happy Belated Birthday!
Coming from Canada I have to say that I like the idea of social medicine. I don’t mind my taxes going into the pot to help those who might need it.
However, what I don’t like is paying for non-essential things like ABORTION and birth control.
Posted by: Patricia at May 15, 2008 6:36 PM
……………………………………………….
What else would you consider non-essential? Pregnancy? Preventative care?
Lauren’s relative is undergoing an abortion today. Yes, terminating a pregnancy is an abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion. Many PL have stated that women should not be allowed this procedure. Woman should be forced to continue doomed pregnancies at risk to their very lives until the dead fetus arrives ‘naturally’. Where is the moral PL outrage over this abortion?
Where do you draw the line between what you think is non-essential and what medical professionals know?
Amanda,
I know, right? It totally reminds me of the movie Saved! Which is brilliant by the way.
It might look like England or Russia. On the other hand it might look like Germany or Switzerland.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 7:27 PM
Good point. Germany forces everyone to buy insurance and if you can’t the gov’t pays the premiums. It is not socialized medicine like Canada where doctors are not allowed to operate outside the system. The German program is an absolute gravy train for the insurance industry since it collects premiums through gov’t enforced payroll deductions kind of like FICA. I think Clinton’s plan would basically be like this. The main problem we will have is that the gov’t will still have a lot to pay for undocumented folks who come here because they won’t be paying the premiums but will still be accessing services.
Forcing people to buy insurance will have the greatest impact on folks who make just enough to pay the premiums but not enough to qualify for assistance. Upper income folks who get employer based insurance will be unaffected. They will just have their taxes increased but techinically that is not part of the deal although practically it is.
AH we are getting somewhere! You admit that it is different! You DO realize that making homosexual marriage legal, noone is forcing churches to accept it, right?
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 12:55 PM
Right PIP, But insistence on changing the “definition” of marriage to include homosexual unions is the source of a lot of the animosity from the church and from heterosexual couples. We are offended by their insistence that both homosexual and heterosexual couples must be defined “identically” or the “same”.
Hal,
Are you voting for Obama because he wants to do the Lord’s work?
How do you feel about a candidate who says in a political context that he is doing what God wants?
How are Obama’s statements different from George W. Bush’s statements about his faith and looking to God for guidance?
Will Obama be sending these flyers out in San Francisco, and New York and LA? Why or Why not?
Chris:
Yes, the state recognizing same-sex marriages might lead to more people using assisted reproductive technologies — couples might feel more secure about having kids if they’re legally married. But your argument that marriage equality = the state “creating a market in humanity” falls down in multiple ways. First of all, the vast majority of people using those technologies are and will continue to be heterosexual couples with fertility problems, but apparently it’s perfectly OK for the state to recognize those marriages. Second, as you note, same-sex couples use ART even if the state doesn’t recognize their marriages. Third, getting married doesn’t mean someone will necessarily have kids, and doesn’t mean they will use ART if they do — they might adopt, for instance. And that’s not even getting into whether you’re correct in your characterization of ART.
If your problem is with ART, then tackle ART. Try to persuade people of your belief that it’s dehumanizing. Try to persuade people that IVF can be done without creating and destroying “spare” embryos. (It can, and in some countries that’s required.) But denying same-sex couples the many legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage is a very indirect and inefficient way of attacking ART, with a lot of collateral damage.
If there were no such thing as ART, and same-sex couples simply didn’t have children, or adopted, or raised kids from previous relationships, or whatever, would you still oppose same-sex marriage?
What else would you consider non-essential? Pregnancy? Preventative care?
Lauren’s relative is undergoing an abortion today. Yes, terminating a pregnancy is an abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion. Many PL have stated that women should not be allowed this procedure. Woman should be forced to continue doomed pregnancies at risk to their very lives until the dead fetus arrives ‘naturally’. Where is the moral PL outrage over this abortion?
Where do you draw the line between what you think is non-essential and what medical professionals know?
Posted by: Sally at May 16, 2008 1:45 PM
Sally, “health” care should be defined as services that “heal”. Any service whose purpose is to “KILL” life would definitely fall way outside the definition of health care.
Notice Sally that the “health” professionals who helped Lauren’s cousin did NOT kill the baby. Their purpose was to make every effort to “heal” both baby and mother if at all possible. You really must be able to see the difference between aborting a baby that is already dead and aborting a baby that is alive.
Hal,
Are you voting for Obama because he wants to do the Lord’s work?
How do you feel about a candidate who says in a political context that he is doing what God wants?
How are Obama’s statements different from George W. Bush’s statements about his faith and looking to God for guidance?
Will Obama be sending these flyers out in San Francisco, and New York and LA? Why or Why not?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2008 1:55 PM
Good questions. I’m supporting Obama DESPITE his statements about doing the Lord’s work, etc. I don’t like those statements and wish he didn’t make them. I assume he’s sincere, and I’ll manage to support him anyway. Never met anyone yet I agree with 100% of the time. If I have to wait for an athiest canidate for President I can support, it will be a long, long time.
Chris –
The lesbian couple I referred to earlier has 1 child from one of the women being married previously. They’ve been together for 14 years now and adopted 3 children from China.
My neighbor and his partner have been together about 8 years, and recently adopted a boy from Vietnam, which caused me to re-think my position on abortion.
Another gay couple from my church have 2 adopted two boys – brothers – who had been languishing in the foster care system because 1 of them has Downs.
My uncles sister (not a blood relative) – not sure if she’s gay or straight – is single, and has 2 children from sperm donors.
My aunts have been together for 11 years, and they’ve adopted furry four legged “kids”. They also took care of a family friend’s child for a year while she went through rehab for a drug problem.
Amanda 9:19: The “gay gene” discussion. Could you even imagine how many gay people would become pro life if there became some way of identifying homosexuality in utero? But how many gay people are going to want to join a cause where the majority of people they’d be standing next to in protest of abortion think that their relationship with their partner is “an abomination”?
Because identifying a gay gene might increase abortion of identified gays? Wouldn’t it be more noble to care because babies are being aborted everyday already?
And for the zillionith time in the last 35 years – being pro-life isn’t a cause like “save the whales” or the baby seals. It would be so nice to see a sobbing hollywood starlet wrap her arms around a pregnant woman crying for her baby’s life to be saved instead of a baby whale’s.
What else would you consider non-essential? Pregnancy? Preventative care?
Lauren’s relative is undergoing an abortion today. Yes, terminating a pregnancy is an abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion. Many PL have stated that women should not be allowed this procedure. Woman should be forced to continue doomed pregnancies at risk to their very lives until the dead fetus arrives ‘naturally’. Where is the moral PL outrage over this abortion?
Where do you draw the line between what you think is non-essential and what medical professionals know?
Posted by: Sally at May 16, 2008 1:45 PM
SALLY WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DID I MISS SOMETHING IN LAUREN’S POSTS?
Establishing gay marriage is a burden on the state.
The original point of legally registering marriages was the establishment of entitlement of children to inherit their father’s property and to a lesser extent to establish the wife’s entitlement to her husband’s property. Over time these entitlements grew as people had more resources.
Family courts are already overburdened with divorces and custody cases.
Social Security is also overburdened by spousal claims.
These would all be increased by allowing more people to claim benefits by having a “committed relationship”
To some extent gays want to tap into some of these benefits originally designed to provide for the needs of heirs and spouses even though they are neither.
People in homosexual relationships can already bequeath property, share bank accounts, mortgages, etc. so marriage wouldn’t make much difference there either.
I just don’t think the gov’t needs to regulate people’s friendships regardless of the nature of them.
Children’s rights to support and inheritance are now protected by other laws so marriage is not even necessary to protect their interests anymore.
Marriage is a sort of social artifact and religious custom.
Come on Sally, really, can you see the difference? It is important you understand that you don’t have to be afraid of losing your right to services like the ones Laurens cousing needed.
Stephanie,
If social programs work so well why are these people in the desperate straits you describe?
Many of those homeless people may in fact be mentally ill. Where are the institutions we had for such people unable to care for themselves? They were shut down in the 60’s and this was viewed as such great progress. No one asked what would happen to these poor souls or future generations of the mentally ill. I’ll tell you what happened to them, they live on our streets.
Try to get someone committed for mental health care and see what happens.
Yes there certainly were abuses, but rather than address those abuses the institutions were shut down and no provisions were made for the people turned loose with no schooling, job skills, or ability to even function normally.
Good for you that you volunteered your services! That’s my point Stephanie, its people like you and the charity you volunteered for that make a difference, not gov’t programs.
We have many charities in my town, some for homeless families and individuals, and they are run by private charities, private citizens, and churches. In fact, I’m going to the mother’s and infants shelter in a little while to volunteer child care. This facility is run by the Salvation Army.
Posted by: Mary at May 15, 2008 5:51 PM
…………………………………………………..
Mary,
I’m happy to hear that you support the Salvation Army. My grandmother became an officer back in the 1920s and there have been officers in the family every since. Of course you know that what the SA does is just a drop in the bucket of need. The SA certainly is not funded to provide for all in need in any community. It’s shameful that a nation’s need is not being addressed by it’s own government.
TS,
Then why wouldn’t you have a problem with marriage being defined as a contract without God? If God is most important in the covenant, then those evil atheists should not demean the sanctity of marriage like that.
Hippie-
I love you, but can I ask you a sincere question? How can you define yourself as a hippie when the only really liberal/hippie-ish thing I’ve heard you discuss was animal rights? You don’t want to support the equality of homosexuals because it would be a “burden to the state” for example.
Okay,
I am cracking up at this Harvard lawyer (Obama) standing in front of a cross lit up with light bulbs. Next to a neon Jesus sign, that has to be the hokiest thing I have ever seen.
What is next, McCain in a tie dyed shirt with headband and peace sign?
Where is Hal? I bet he wishes he could get his picture taken next to Obama in front of that light bulb cross.
Hilarious!!!
Most entertaining election season in some time.
Anon,
I have tremendous respect for the Salvation Army. Their service to our community is beyond measure. From what I have read, to be an officer in the SA requires some very rigid standards. Its no small accomplishment. You should be very proud of your family members that have achieved this status.
I do not think our nation’s needs can be addressed by the government. Its been tried and in my opinion, failed miserably. I believe our nation’s needs can be best met by such organizations as the SA as well as well as any number of programs, run by both secular and religous organizations and individuals. We have numerous such charities in our community for the homeless, battered women, and crisis pregnancies to name a few. In fact I was at the mother’s and infants shelter last night providing child care. That wore me out!!
AND you support the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
“Establishing gay marriage is a burden on the state.”
So is proving food and shelter for families after disasters.
So would be saving babies from being aborted.
So is an endless war in Iraq.
So is funding humane law inforcement to stop people from starving or abusing animals.
So is keeping our roads and bridges from falling apart.
Should I go on?
Thats a real cop out of an excuse to be against gay marriage.
Pip,
Like I said, marriage is social artifact. It isn’t legally necessary to protect the most vulnerable, so why is it necessary to protect the least vulnerable? I have friends who are not married and have kids and share assets etc. if they break up, they have rights, so marriage doesn’t make much difference. Marriage is a social and religious custom and the legal aspects have largely been supplanted by other laws. I would argue that religious people could be satisfied by having their relationships registered by their places of worship and leave the state out entirely.
Creatively speaking, people, even gays could be allowed to be listed as parents on a birth certificate to establish parental obligations, etc.
As for my views on any given subject, I am a free spirit, always have been, and don’t subscribe to anyone’s authority or orthodoxy, liberal or otherwise.
hippie-
So you DO think they should be able to adopt? That’s good to hear!
Hi Amanda,
Woud you be able to respond to my 9:31 and 9:34am posts from this morning? Even if it’s nothing other than to say “That’s none of your business, Carder”?
Thanks.
Obama with that cross reminds me of emporer Constantine and his “vision” of conquering under the symbol of the cross.
Truthseeker.
Aside from the fact that it is ill mannered at best to use my cousin’s suffering to further your cause, your statement is also factually inaccurate. There is no one in the world who would object to inducing labor of an already dead child. What we object to is the killing of a child by inducement. Surely you can see the difference between delivering a dead child and delivering one who will die as a result of being born too soon.
Tragic situations abound in our life here on earth, but that does not excuse us from doing everything within our power to prevent them from happening, and most certainly does not give us license to kill.
Oops, it looks like my statement should have been directed to Sally instead of Truthseeker. Sorry about that confusion.
Hippie,
I think that “neon sign” is a church stained window.
I just noticed the light bulbs on the cross. Definitely very tacky looking.
SoMG,
“At least the one who is conceived and aborted enjoys a few weeks of intrauterine life.”
Enjoy?
There’s been much chatter about the lack of “feeling” on the unborn’s part the earlier in pregnancy. Doug and Texas Red are fanatical about that.
How can a “Non-viable, insensate, etc. piece of tissue” ‘enjoy’ anything?
Would that not asume the ability to “feel”?
Sally
Lauren’s relatives baby boy died in utero because the cord wrapped around his neck.
He was delivered naturally and was perfect she said.
PIP, Rae, Amanda,
Do you support other alternative marriages too?
There’s talk now about 3 gay men wanting to marry each other, they say they’re in love.
Since forever, there have been gay people and they have lived together and raised kids together and provided for those kids etc. Yeah, they were “in the closet” so to speak, but their friends pretty much knew they had a “special” friendship. Then, like now mostly no one felt threatened by the situation. And then as now most folks hoped their kids would not be gay mostly because they just couldn’t understand it and partly because they were taught it was “wrong”. Sure there were crazies who wanted to kill gays but they probably would find someone else to hate if there weren’t any gays because the problem was really with them not those they hated.
Legal adoption is important because it specifically gives children rights and they are too vulnerable without those protections.
Adults, gay or straight, have plenty of legal protection and rights without marriage, that marriage has become somewhat superflous. Consider especially two adults with no kids, separate accounts, etc. With modern accounting, banking and paper trails it is pretty easy to establish whose assets are whose.
So anyway since gays have always been around and had families and kids, they have always been adopting and caring for kids, and leaving them their assets etc. There have always been plenty of orphans and mostly if you had visible means, you could adopt kids. Laws don’t really change that. Certainly a gay marriage law won’t.
Jen R @ 1:58 PM
Actually Jen I could easily refute every counterpoint you raised.
However, Edyt had asked for one logical reason why SSM should not be made legal. I gave it to her. I have numerous other reasons, but at this point, I don’t have the time to address this issue.
(I’m preparing for a funeral among other things.)
Amanda – unfortunately I need to tend to other things now. Thanks for responding.
I would argue that it’s not a logical reason, but I don’t feel the need to pursue this line of discussion if you don’t. I’m sorry about the funeral.
Carder –
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. I was honestly feeling sick inside from reading Patricia’s statements, that members of my family and some of my closest friends are “Satanic”.
My neighbor and his partner went through the adoption process last Fall, which resulted in them pulling in the driveway with a beautiful little boy from Vietnam and being greeted by nearly 100 family members, friends, and neighbors to celebrate. I got to hold this chubby, happy little baby – and see his parents crying – overwhelmed with joy and pride. This boy’s biological parents know their child is safe and loved. It was pure joy all around (unless of course, you’re a virulent homophobe).
Thinking about that, and thinking about several of the teen moms I worked with who decided to go through with their pregnancy and give custody to their parents so they could still finish school and go to college…
The optimist in me wonders if the result of more unwanted pregnancies could be that joy – rather than abortion. I dispute the notion that every single girl who has an abortion regrets it – in fact I know several girls who don’t regret it at all – but all the same, I wonder if they could witness the kind of joy I witnessed with adoption, if maybe they’d reconsider. Its certainly the ideal outcome – a pregnant mother being given financial support through a pregnancy, giving birth, and having that child live and be loved by adoptive parents.
The problems that come to mind though – are that I could never reconcile a rape or incest victim being forced to continue a pregnancy if they don’t want to, and that nearly every single politician, along with the majority of the pro life movement in the US population, who advocate restricting abortion are also against gay adoptions, gay marriage, and civil unions.
The thing is, I can UNDERSTAND being against abortion on demand. Its a logical and emotional idea that does make sense to me. Denying gay people the right to marry the person they love, calling their relationships “futile” and “satanic” and wishing to deny them the right to adopt children makes NO SENSE to me. I can’t even begin to comprehend how people can have so much hate for people who are living their lives, loving, working, and trying to get by – like we all are.
Discussing the reduction/elimination of abortion with pro lifers is something I can do with a level head and an ability to examine balance.
On the other hand, reading some of the things said about gays in this thread and elsewhere in my life make my heart and my stomach sick. I end up white knuckled and crying. It was this line of discussion that made me leave this discussion board for 6 months or so – when a commenter stated that a child is better off dying of starvation in Darfur than to be adopted by gays. I still feel a lump in my throat just TYPING that – and knowing people actually think things like that…
those are not people I could join hands with and fight for something with. Those are not people I could vote for.
… and that…is a tidbit in to the inner dialouge of Amanda. Sorry it took so long to reply.
Hippie,
I think that “neon sign” is a church stained window.
I just noticed the light bulbs on the cross. Definitely very tacky looking.
Posted by: Mary at May 16, 2008 2:56 PM
I was not referring to any neon sign picture here, but I have seen such a sign and it struck me as funny. No offense to anyone who appreciates the aesthetic value of either neon Jesus signs or crosses adorned with light bulbs.
Establishing gay marriage is a burden on the state.
So is giving women and black people the vote. All those extra polling places to accommodate all those extra people cost money! This is a reason not to do it?
Do you support other alternative marriages too?
There’s talk now about 3 gay men wanting to marry each other, they say they’re in love.
Leave it to a “conservative” to raise the specter of polygamy. We were talking about two consenting adults, not three or four, Jasper. Although if gay fundamentalist Mormons want to secretively perform three-way marriages in private compounds in Arizona and Texas, I don’t know how likely we are to stop them. Did you get my joke? Gay fundamentalist Mormons? How likely is that!
Not to mention that to date, it is the supposedly straight folks who seem bent on polygamous marriages, not the gay ones. How do all you “go forth and populate the Earth” folks feel about men impregnating their third or fourth fourteen year old wife? Is it still a wonderful and beautiful thing?
Back to the origins of the thread, are you going to try to pin polygamous marriages and statutory rape of minors on Barack Obama, too?
Amanda,
Do you think polygamie should be legal?
Ray -Obama is a monster who supports infanticide.
“We were talking about two consenting adults, not three or four, Jasper.”
why not, these people love each other, why shouldn’t they be able to marry? how is it effecting your marriage?
Ahhh the good ol Slippery Slope. Had to know that would get dragged out at some point.
And no, for the gazillionth time, I don’t think its okay for people to marry animals, and I don’t think polygamy should be legal either.
But trying to connect a MONOGAMOUS COUPLE, regardless of their genders, to polygamy and beastiality is not just a slippery slope, its a slippery Mount Everest.
(I know you didn’t bring up the animals, but that usually comes right after I refute the whole polygamy thing by saying that it has always been and will always be a FRINGE group in this country, of HETEROSEXUAL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Not gays. And if there is a handful of gay couples out there who are in to it, chances are they won’t be looking to get married, and even if they are, that doesn’t make it a valid point -you connecting polygamy to gay marriage is like me connecting a pro life serial killer with all pro lifers)
We are offended by their insistence that both homosexual and heterosexual couples must be defined “identically” or the “same”.
Kind of like those pesky black people wanting to be identified as the “same” as white people. The nerve.
Thanks, Amanda, for your honesty.
Yes, a major difference between abortion and allowing the child to live is that one brings about joy, the other is lifeless for at least one of the individuals involved, no pun intended.
I have yet to see anyone have an “abortion party” for a gal coming home from the facility.
Although stranger things have happened…
Oops, it looks like my statement should have been directed to Sally instead of Truthseeker. Sorry about that confusion.
Posted by: lauren at May 16, 2008 2:55 PM
Undersood Lauren. I actuall went through a 23 week D&E of a baby named Gabriel who my wife and I buried. It is a sad situation that took my wife years to get over but I think the burial helped her a lot. God bless you. ts
So, Jasper, are YOU advocating polygamy? Do YOU approve of what was happening on that fundamentalist Mormon compound in Texas? Do YOU get a warm and fuzzy feeling when you think about men inpregnating their third or fourth fourteen year old wife?
I reiterate, we are talking about two consenting adults. Two. Not three. Not four. Not a man and a dog, as Rick Santorum suggests. Two consenting adults.
Well, how are 3 people getting married effecting your marriage? why discriminate against them or polygamists? They love each other.
Like the Massachusetts SJC said when ruled homosexual marriage legal: “marriage is an evolving paradigm”
Ray, who are you to say that marriage has to be for only 2 consenting adults? If 3 people all love each other and want to get married, why not? how is it affecting your marriage?
TS,
Then why wouldn’t you have a problem with marriage being defined as a contract without God? If God is most important in the covenant, then those evil atheists should not demean the sanctity of marriage like that.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 2:25 PM
PIP, Because a man and a woman have two the pieces of the definition and all they need is the Holy Spirit and they could get the third piece. It is never even possible for same sex partners.
Re Obama, I agree with Hal when he said “Good questions. I’m supporting Obama DESPITE his statements about doing the Lord’s work, etc. I don’t like those statements and wish he didn’t make them. I assume he’s sincere, and I’ll manage to support him anyway. Never met anyone yet I agree with 100% of the time. If I have to wait for an athiest canidate for President I can support, it will be a long, long time.”
Gay marriage- when I see how happy these people are, I wonder how anyone can be against it. It’s like being against puppies and rainbows.
In Rosieland, though, the government would only issue civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.
It sounds an awful lot like you are advocating polygamy, Jasper. You can have it…it’s not my thing.
why can’t you answer my question Ray?
“PIP, Because a man and a woman have two the pieces of the definition and all they need is the Holy Spirit and they could get the third piece. It is never even possible for same sex partners.”
Ah but if the partners want to enter a covenant with God, they are only missing a small piece, too.
“We are offended by their insistence that both homosexual and heterosexual couples must be defined “identically” or the “same”.
Kind of like those pesky black people wanting to be identified as the “same” as white people. The nerve.”
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 16, 2008 3:43 PM
Wooooo hooooh Elizabeth for the win!
You’re a pro lifer down with the “Satanic”, “recruiting”, “evil” , and “offensive” gay people wanting to get married too?
I didn’t know that.
+13847238473 awesome points.
=)
Sorry I make you sick Amanda. But I do believe that the homosexual movement has satanic elements within it. I am not saying that individual homosexuals are themselves satanic. Please don’t project your own bias onto my sentences.
I strongly disagree with homosexuals who try to portray their lifestyle as fulfilling and as another possible way to live.
I don’t hate them – in fact, it is what they promote that I do not like. Homosexuality is destructive to society and the family which is the backbone of society.I simply do not believe that homosexuality is normal.
As for Amercia becoming a theocracy – those liberal thinkers who post on this board would do well to consider that secular materialism and liberalism is in itself a religion – only a Godless one.
As for Amercia becoming a theocracy – those liberal thinkers who post on this board would do well to consider that secular materialism and liberalism is in itself a religion – only a Godless one.
Totally!! And bald is a hair color! And freedom is slavery!
If there are arguments against polygamy other than “it’s not one man and one woman” (and there are), then those arguments will still be valid if same-sex marriages are recognized. So one does not have to lead to the other, unless the *only* problem with polygamy is that it’s not one man and one woman.
Hey Jasper, what Jen R said. And you still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so hot for polygamy?
“Totally!! And bald is a hair color! And freedom is slavery!”
LOL
“Their love is futile.
Because homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder.”
“Except that’s not what they want Edyt. They want us to ACCEPT their lifestyle and they want the right to promote their lifestyle to our young. They know they can’t procreate, so they recruit.
Believe me, homosexuals do much more today than live as they please.”
“Certainly the whole homosexual movement is in open rebellion against God and deeply hate ANYONE espousing (no pun intended!) Christian views. Their hatred is satanic, IMO.
******************
Followed by:
“I am not saying that individual homosexuals are themselves satanic. Please don’t project your own bias onto my sentences…I don’t hate them…”
Bias?? Who has the bias here?
You must take me for an idiot Patricia. Your hatred is as clear as day, but far more than I am sickened by it, I pity you and thank God you have no influence over anything that could allow your hatred harm the people I love.
Please do not make assumptions here Amanda!
I do not consider homosexuals “less” of a person than heterosexuals, in any manner. Homosexuals are people who deserve respect, love and to be treated with dignity like any other human being.
That being said, I do not consider homosexual unions equivalent in any manner to marriage which is between a man and a woman. I do not consider this a human rights issue which is how they have framed this issue. I love them but cannot support their behaviour in any way.
And yes, Amanda when you have homosexuals going into a church and desecrating something considered holy, such as the Eurcharist because they don’t like what that church teaches – that to me is satanic.
PS: NO LOVE IS EVER “FUTILE”.
and thats it for the day for me, I’ve had my daily ration of reading pathetic rationalizations for blatent bigotry.
Have a good weekend everyone.
But I do believe that the homosexual movement has satanic elements within it. I am not saying that individual homosexuals are themselves satanic.
Patricia, if individual homosexuals are not satanic, then what are these mysterious “elements” within the homosexual “movement” that you have indicated must exist?
Homosexuality is destructive to society and the family which is the backbone of society.
Just how is homosexuality destructive to society and family, exactly?
“Homosexuals are people who deserve respect, love and to be treated with dignity like any other human being. ”
Because having their relationships called Satanic and an abominiation, and having their love called futile, and wanting to deny them the same rights you and I have is CLEARLY treating them with love and dignity.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth is a great talent. Too bad they’re completly contradicting each other.
Amanda, too bad for you. It is the homosexual movement which is filled with hatred of God and of things filled with beauty – namely the love between a man and a woman.
I am glad you love those whom you know are homosexual. That is the right and most wonderful thing to do. But if you really truly, loved them, you would help them to find their way out of the situation they are in.
And by the way, I do know a man who was an active homosexual and who sought treatment and is now living a very good life.
Funny how the homosexuals want the choice to live their lifestyle, but are vehemently opposed to anyone trying to leave it. They won’t even allow the APA to debate this, shutting down open forums on treatment as recent events have shown.
I pity YOU Amanda because you can’t see the forest for the trees. And I’m glad people like you don’t have any influence over the people I LOVE!
Concerning marriage being a contract with God, I do believe that for many centuries marriage was strictly a civil matter and religious institutions did not involve themselves with it.
Also, marriages for the most part had nothing to do with love,etc and everything to do with sealing agreements between families, tribes, peoples, or nations.
Am I wrong or did the biblical kings practice polygamy? Was it not a custom to take a new wife if one’s wife was barren? Also, were Joseph and Mary an arranged marriage, an agreement between families?
It was expected in European royal courts that the king and the other nobility would have their mistresses, wives for the most part were only a business or reproductive arrangement. And let’s not forget harems and concubines that usually belonged to the very married kings and nobility around the world.
I was going to get married and pop out 2.5 kids in the suburbs, but then homosexuals were allowed to be treated equally, and now I guess I have to take part in wild lesbian orgies.
Pro-aborts Jen R, Ray and Amanda,
why are so against other alternative marriages? again, how will 3 people getting married affect your marriage?
You can’t answer is can you? It seems like your only for gays and lesbians having alternative marriages but not others.
The hatred and intorence is overwhelming. Who are you people to force your moral views on others?
“I pity YOU Amanda because you can’t see the forest for the trees. And I’m glad people like you don’t have any influence over the people I LOVE!”
Very original. Did you come up with that one all on your own?
*eyeroll*
I’m on several committes at the local and national level to imrpove gay rights and advocate for gay marriage and gay adoptions. I’ve been working with a State Rep here in Mass to create a bill to provide funding to adoption agencies who adopt to gay couples. I may have more influence than you’d like to believe, and I’ve got a LONNNNG way to go.
Back when black people weren’t allowed to marry white people, haters like yourself were saying the same things you’re saying today about gays. Hate is sad and pitiful. Hate always loses in the end.
Jasper,
Jen R is pro life!!
Pro-aborts Jen R, Ray and Amanda,
Hey!
(thanks PiP!)
Patricia,
You couldn’t be more true about the Satanic elements in the homosexual movement. They’re a hateful, evil bunch. (not all gay people of course, but there are large elements who are )
“Jen R is pro life!!”
I don’t think so PIP, she’s voting for Obama….
Whatever, Jasper, if “pro-life” means voting for people who claim that they will pass laws against abortion (whether they actually do or not), who don’t favor making the unborn legal persons, who don’t want to do anything effective to prevent abortion, but who do favor bombing everybody who looks at us cross-eyed, letting the CIA torture people, and continuing economic policies that kill people and are turning the US into a third-world country, then you can HAVE it.
I was going to get married and pop out 2.5 kids in the suburbs, but then homosexuals were allowed to be treated equally, and now I guess I have to take part in wild lesbian orgies.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 4:52 PM
Yep, the pink mafia is definitely coming for you PiP….I’m pretty sure I saw your name on the most recent copy of the homosexual agenda.
Item #1: Legalize gay marriage in California.
Item #2: Hit St.L and recruit PiP.
Item #3: Be fabulous!
You’ll be indoctrinated in no time. I think you get a nice prize for joining though, like a new toaster oven and some AWESOME decorating tips from your new gay male comrades.
::sigh:: “means NOTHING BUT voting for people…”
“Jen R is pro life!!”
I don’t think so PIP, she’s voting for Obama….
Posted by
: Jasper at May 16, 2008 5:09 PM
There are pro life people voting for Obama you know
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27956
No, hal, they’re not REAL pro-lifers, because pro-life is all about voting for the person who says the right words, no matter how horrible they would be for the country and the world.
I’m busily breaking my “no posting when angry” rule, because it makes me sick to think of the damage that has been wrought by “voting pro-life”.
“who don’t want to do anything effective to prevent abortion, but who do favor bombing everybody who looks at us cross-eyed”
WHAT A LIE. a disgrace.
“letting the CIA torture people, and continuing economic policies that kill people and are turning the US into a third-world country, then you can HAVE it.”
Jen, anybody who compares the unborn to convicted terrorists or murderers is not pro-life.
Have fun voting for pro-infanticide Obama :)
Sweet, Hiero…as long as I get some tips on how to decorate my apartment…
Oh, OK, the bombing thing was a bit of hyperbole. But McCain favors the type of belligerent foreign policy that has gotten into the mess we’re in now.
anybody who compares the unborn to convicted terrorists or murderers
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
a pro-lifer does not vote for pro-abortcandidate when a pro-lifer candidate is running also. sorry
Jasper and Patricia, would you care to elaborate on these satanic “elements” within the homosexual “movement”, and who these hateful, evil people might be? I hope you aren’t suggesting that it is satanic to be fabulous, or there is a whole lot of popular culture that has been spawned by the devil.
Seriously, the gays that I know are wonderful people looking for the same things the rest of us want…to settle down with someone and be able to visit them in the hospital if they are sick, perhaps raise kids, to not lose their home or kids if their partner dies, even to go to church.
The only hateful, evil people I can see are the ones that would deny them these pursuits of happiness.
Hal:
So now the agenda is to hijack the meaning of “pro-life”?
As “pro-choice” could mean that a baby dies, calling oneself “pro-life” but voting for those that will not lift a finger to change laws that legalize abortion is patently dishonest.
And if one is “pro-life” they are by definition and inference “anti-abortion”. Hence for a “pro-lifer” to vote for a candidate that is not “anti-abortion” is a dishonest vote.
Oops, the anon post at 5:32pm was me.
Sweet, Hiero…as long as I get some tips on how to decorate my apartment…
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 5:30 PM
But of course! Mind you, you’ll have to give up shaving, cut your hair short, and you need to become a humorless (straight) man-hater.
Have I missed any stereotypes yet? I’m sure that Patricia and Jasper could help me out with more….
Ray,
I agree that there are gay people who are nice, I know some. But there is an element that are very hateful and radical, look at some of their blogs..
I really envy Jasper and HisMan and all of the other people who have always been able to find candidates who agree with every important stance they hold, and have never had to compromise any of their values because there are no good choices available. Must be nice.
Jen R,
I just can’t understand how someone can vote for Obama and be pro-life. He has a 0% rating from the NRTL. Having you been reading Jill’s stories about him with BAIPA, etc ?
But of course! Mind you, you’ll have to give up shaving, cut your hair short, and you need to become a humorless (straight) man-hater.
Have I missed any stereotypes yet? I’m sure that Patricia and Jasper could help me out with more….
You aren’t kidding, Heiro. While escorting at a clinic, antis have called my wife, the mother of my child, who happens to wear comfortable shoes, have short hair and not wear much makeup, a lesbian. And the word wasn’t uttered in the spirit of Patricia’s claim that “Homosexuals are people who deserve respect, love and to be treated with dignity like any other human being.”
When it comes to their treatment of people who don’t agree with or meet their exacting moral and fashion standards, my experience (and my wife’s) is that antis don’t behave in a very Christian manner.
Ray,
your wife is an escort at a death clinic? how sad.
Not to mention that to date, it is the supposedly straight folks who seem bent on polygamous marriages, not the gay ones. How do all you “go forth and populate the Earth” folks feel about men impregnating their third or fourth fourteen year old wife? Is it still a wonderful and beautiful thing?
Posted by: Ray at May 16, 2008 3:27 PM
Are you saying you are only against 14 year olds having sex if they are married and not using birth control?
Are you also against unmarried 14 year olds having sex while they use contraceptives?
Does a 14 year old have a right to access to contraceptives?
Does she have a right to have sex only as long as she does not marry or get pregnant?
Do we really believe that the only 14 year old girls who want to have sex are the ones who live in the mainstream community and they all want to avoid both a commitment from their partner and pregnancy?
Are the only men who pressure 14 year olds into sex dirty old men? or do teen aged men do the same?
If she is a victim when her partner is an abusive 30 year old, is she not a victim when he is an abusive 16 year old?
Do you think that no 16 year old man would have the opportunity or desire to pressure a 14 year old into sex?
Are the only abusive men those who want to marry and have children or are some of the guys who only want to have sex for fun with no babies also abusive?
Basically, if it is okay for a 14 year old to have sex while using contraceptives, then it should also be okay for her to marry and not use contraceptives. If she is old enough to make her own decisions then she is old enough to make her own decisions.
Jasper, yes, so am I. When the opportunity to put our bodies where our mouth is, helping ensure womens’ access to health care to which they are legally entitled, neither one of us hesitated.
Ray,
are you a Christian?
Don’t you know that you are collaborating in evil? Please stop doing this.
Jasper,
In the homily from mass today the priest said you should be able to tell a Christian without them ever needing to tell you they are Christians. You should know by their actions. The other thing they said was that you should not speak unkindly about others unless you know what they have been through and put yourself in their shoes. Just thought I would share that with you. God bless you. ts
We are offended by their insistence that both homosexual and heterosexual couples must be defined “identically” or the “same”.
Kind of like those pesky black people wanting to be identified as the “same” as white people. The nerve.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 16, 2008 3:43 PM
No, not kind of like that at all Elizabeth. An analogy that interracial marriages were not guaranteed by the US Supreme Court until about fifty years ago would be a more honest analogy.
Thank you TS.
“PIP, Because a man and a woman have two the pieces of the definition and all they need is the Holy Spirit and they could get the third piece. It is never even possible for same sex partners.”
Ah but if the partners want to enter a covenant with God, they are only missing a small piece, too.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 4:11 PM
Come on PIP. Be honest. You understood what I was saying. Any person can accept God and get that piece. By definition it is impossible for a gay couple to get the hetero piece. Oh wait. That’s it. Start working on changing the definition of hetero. Raedy, lets start repeating it over and over till the next generation believes t\it.
same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals.
same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals. same sex heterosexuals.
Just keep it, I think it’s working.
Sorry I make you sick Amanda. But I do believe that the homosexual movement has satanic elements within it. I am not saying that individual homosexuals are themselves satanic. Please don’t project your own bias onto my sentences.
I strongly disagree with homosexuals who try to portray their lifestyle as fulfilling and as another possible way to live.
I don’t hate them – in fact, it is what they promote that I do not like. Homosexuality is destructive to society and the family which is the backbone of society.I simply do not believe that homosexuality is normal.
As for Amercia becoming a theocracy – those liberal thinkers who post on this board would do well to consider that secular materialism and liberalism is in itself a religion – only a Godless one.
Posted by: Patricia at May 16, 2008 4:19 PM
Patricia,
You are coreect. I see that Satanic element parading down the streets at Mardi Gras every year. Disrespecting Jesus in ways I won’t even post here in order to feel good about themselves.
I don’t think Amanda would deny it if she really knew.
Mardi Gras parades are Satanic? Who are you, the Church Lady? Get a grip.
Mardi Gras parades are Satanic? Who are you, the Church Lady? Get a grip.
I agree. Satanic is WAY too strong of a word, here. It’s like saying the gun killed a person, not the person who pulled the trigger!
The participants though? (i.e, both Mardi Gras & homosexual lifestyles) I’ll have to go with unrighteous, sinful and an outright abomination according to the Word of God, in a heartbeat, on this one!
What else would you consider non-essential? Pregnancy? Preventative care?
Lauren’s relative is undergoing an abortion today. Yes, terminating a pregnancy is an abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion. Many PL have stated that women should not be allowed this procedure. Woman should be forced to continue doomed pregnancies at risk to their very lives until the dead fetus arrives ‘naturally’. Where is the moral PL outrage over this abortion?
Where do you draw the line between what you think is non-essential and what medical professionals know?
Posted by: Sally at May 16, 2008 1:45 PM
What in heavens name are you on about? Nobody in Laurens family had an abortion!
I’m on several committes at the local and national level to imrpove gay rights and advocate for gay marriage and gay adoptions. I’ve been working with a State Rep here in Mass to create a bill to provide funding to adoption agencies who adopt to gay couples. I may have more influence than you’d like to believe, and I’ve got a LONNNNG way to go.
Back when black people weren’t allowed to marry white people, haters like yourself were saying the same things you’re saying today about gays. Hate is sad and pitiful. Hate always loses in the end.
Posted by: Amanda at May 16, 2008 4:57 PM
AHHH so that explains your touchiness Amanda! Big hairy deal!
I don’t advocate gay adoption either. I think this is paramount to putting a child into an abusive situation. A child needs two parents of the opposite sex who are role models. Homosexual couples cannot model the complementarity of the sexes, nor model the normal relations between grown adults of the opposite sex.
And don’t worry Amanda there are lots of people working hard against your proabort liberal agenda.
BTW, to complare the gay rights movement with the black civil rights movement is shameful. African Americans were denied the basic human rights that we all take for granted – homosexuals are not. We are far, far past this situation. The homosexual agenda is to indoctrinate our children in their perverse lifestyle – they want society to grant that what they do is NORMAL. It is far from normal – it is harmful to themselves, their families and to society at large.
And while we are on the subject of hate AMANDA, some of the most hateful actions have taken place against very innocent heterosexual people in their places of worship and against their basic rights to run their own businesses – all in the name of so-called homosexual activism. Your movement LIVES hate.
The homosexual agenda is to indoctrinate our children in their perverse lifestyle – they want society to grant that what they do is NORMAL. It is far from normal – it is harmful to themselves, their families and to society at large.
Wooooo hooooh Patricia for the win!
All right, Now it’s my turn.
Amanda, Pip, Ray, Jen R, you guys have been accusing Patricia, Jasper and TS of making generalizations and you’ve been pretty merciless.
And yet you are also making generalizations. You paint gays as these wholesome, monogamous couples that have been given a bum rap.
Sure there are probably a lot of couples out there that are looking for a lifetime relationship with one partner. But there is a dark side to homosexuality. When the attraction for someone of the opposite sex crosses over into addicition to sex, it ceases to be Mr. and Mr. Cleaver.
Look at the Folsom Street Fair. Look at gay pride parades. This is not what I want my children growing up believing is an “equal” alternate lifestyle. It’s perverse. If you have any doubts, look at this link.
http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/
Or look at this link, of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence receiving communion in a Catholic Church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrDbgjLKoxU
Mocking Nuns and thumbing their noses at our Church.
Or this one of the Easter Hunky Jesus Contest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CUTIrdiV0w
Now we might not know that many gay people, and we might be making assumptions, but when Jasper and Patricia talk about a Satanic Element, I think this is what they mean.
Cut them some slack.
They have tried to explain that the act is what is sinful in our faith, and that the people have as much dignity as you or I. You guys have been really hard on them, and I think it’s because you’re not really “hearing” what they are saying.
All of them have agree to civil unions, they just resent the term “marriage” being used, as it changes the definition of a word that has been around for thousands of years. It represents something to them. To have it taken away is very disconcerting.
“I strongly disagree with homosexuals who try to portray their lifestyle as fulfilling and as another possible way to live.”
You can’t “disagree” with a fact. Who knows if their lifestyle is fulfilling, You? or those who are in it? If they say it’s fulfilling, how can you “disagree?” And, it is beyond dispute also that it is indeed “another possible way to live.”
I know a lot of people who seem to be very much enjoying fulfilling gay “lifestyles.” Whatever that means. I guess it means “life.” Yes, they are living life and enjoying it, and their lives seem pretty normal to me in every way.
JLM, would you call a float that shows Jesus carrying his cross and engaging in homosexual acts satanic?
Satanic is too strong a term? I think not! Anyone who has watched a homosexual parade and seen the naked men and women, the simulated sex acts, the bondage and so forth – I’m sorry but satan comes to mind.
I’ve never seen a homosexual parade that doesn’t feature this.
I know a lot of people who seem to be very much enjoying fulfilling gay “lifestyles.” Whatever that means. I guess it means “life.” Yes, they are living life and enjoying it, and their lives seem pretty normal to me in every way.
yeah, and aborting your own children so you can enjoy your life more is normal to you in every way, also. So what’s your point?
truthseeker: I would call that blasphemous.
JLM, would you call a float that shows Jesus carrying his cross and engaging in homosexual acts satanic?
Oh, Satan is DEFINATELY behind every move, there! However, I don’t believe the people are satanic…they are blasphemers and lack knowing Jesus and being cleansed of their repulsive sins. Jesus loves them and died for them just as much as He did for me & you.
After I throw up, I pray for each and every one of them.
I don’t know JLM. Mardi Gras has deep tradition in the occult and many may actually desecrate as part of their voodoo.
I posted something about 10 posts up…but I had to “okay” it, and now I think everyone has missed it. It has some very interesting links.
Satanic is too strong a term? I think not! Anyone who has watched a homosexual parade and seen the naked men and women, the simulated sex acts, the bondage and so forth – I’m sorry but satan comes to mind.
I’ve never seen a homosexual parade that doesn’t feature this.
Patricia,
I hear you…I do! It makes me sick, angry, etc. However, I don’t believe that their “sin” is any worse than someone stealing a candy bar from the am/pm. If one is guilty of one sin, they are guilty of them all. Sin is sin. I don’t think sin is necessarily satanic…but it does need cleansing!!!! I thank the Lord every day that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to take away the sins of the world!!! What an AWESOME God is He!
And yet you are also making generalizations. You paint gays as these wholesome, monogamous couples that have been given a bum rap.
Sure there are probably a lot of couples out there that are looking for a lifetime relationship with one partner. But there is a dark side to homosexuality. When the attraction for someone of the opposite sex crosses over into addicition to sex, it ceases to be Mr. and Mr. Cleaver.
…and how exactly is that any different at all from heterosexual relationships? Are you claiming that there isn’t a “dark side” to hetero relationships? Are you claiming that there aren’t heterosexual counterparts to every link that you provided in your post?
Are there some deeply creepy and clearly disturbed people who are gay? Yep! Are there some deeply creepy and clearly disturbed people who are heterosexual? Yep again!
Do groups of gay people get a little frickin’ tired of constantly being told that their lifestyle is evil, that the love they feel for each other is perverse, and that they are sick for feeling the way they do, and because they’re tired of it, turn around and get in your face with some explicit parading about? Yep again.
By the way, from what I understand, there are a heck of a lot of heterosexual attendees at things like the Folsom Street Fair. I know that the gay pride parade here in Chicago has a big het contingent too. It isn’t a gay thing, it’s a people thing.
I don’t know JLM. Mardi Gras has deep tradition in the occult and many may actually desecrate as part of their voodoo.
Well, if it’s Satan worship, then it is Satanic!
You’d think Katrina would have woken them up, you know???? How much louder can God say, “And then they will know that I am Lord”
Wake up people!!!!
By the way, from what I understand, there are a heck of a lot of heterosexual attendees at things like the Folsom Street Fair. I know that the gay pride parade here in Chicago has a big het contingent too. It isn’t a gay thing, it’s a people thing.
It’s kindof like the freak show, Hiero…people go to see the freaks.(and laugh a LOT, too, if I may add!)
Freak shows have been around for ages.
Heir,
I hear what you’re saying, but it is a HUGE parade, it is what is visible to the general public, it is what we SEE, because it is what is shown to us.
There is NO heterosexual pride parade where heterosexuals are half naked, wearing fake organs, and simulating sex on floats!
They have CHOSEN to present themselves in this fashion. If a group of heterosexuals took part in a parade like this and called themselves heterosexuals that eat bagels, I would be just as outraged.
You have to understand, that this is the only exposure some people have to the gay movement.
Trust me, they’d get a lot farther if there parade was filled with well (or at least fully) dressed, couples, saying “SEE, WE’RE JUST LIKE YOU”…but they don’t. So what we see, is this perverted and not very flattering view of homsexuality. It does more harm than good for their cause.
btw, Wikipedia says the freak shows have been around since the 1630’s!
It’s kindof like the freak show, Hiero…people go to see the freaks.(and laugh a LOT, too, if I may add!)
Freak shows have been around for ages.
Posted by: JLM at May 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Uh huh. That’s totally why they’re attending. Suuure.
There is NO heterosexual pride parade where heterosexuals are half naked, wearing fake organs, and simulating sex on floats!
MK, have you ever been to Mardi Gras? Or Carnivale? Or to any university campus during Halloween? You can see heterosexuals doing the same thing pretty much any of those places…
Patricia,
I hear you…I do! It makes me sick, angry, etc. However, I don’t believe that their “sin” is any worse than someone stealing a candy bar from the am/pm. If one is guilty of one sin, they are guilty of them all. Sin is sin. I don’t think sin is necessarily satanic…but it does need cleansing!!!! I thank the Lord every day that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to take away the sins of the world!!! What an AWESOME God is He!
Posted by: JLM at May 16, 2008 8:47 PM
Sorry JLM but some sins are bigger than others and more destructive to the soul. Stealing a candy bar from the local dollar store is really a very minor thing (which can of course lead to bigger sins). Some sins kill the soul and are so serious that we are often left with spiritual remnants of them even years later. Some sins weaken the soul and predispose it to be weak in that area for the remainder of our lives. This is a theological fact.
Jasper, I was raised Catholic, but left the church in my late teens, unable to reconcile the hypocrisy that I observed with the beliefs it professed. That, and I really didn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God, nor give much credence to the bible.
It would take paragraphs to explain my current belief structure, but suffice it to say that while monotheistic, I am not Christian.
I do believe that evil exists, but I do not believe that abortion is evil. Sad, yes, but not evil. If I thought it was evil, I wouldn’t be out there defending with my physical presence.
Heir,
I’m not denying sexual freaks of the heterosexual bent…but it is not a heterosexual pride parade.
It is a parade that celebrates sex…among other things and people of all persuasions take part in it.
We are talking about a parade that tells the world, specifically, we are gay. This is what we look like!
Now I know gay people, and they are horrified by the parade because it feeds the mindset that JLM just put forth. It makes them look like freaks.
I know they aren’t freaks. But the general public, ie: my mother, does not know this. Because all she sees is stuff like the parade.
I am not as freaked out by this as some, but am nowhere near as comfortable with it as others. I recognize that the behavior is wrong, but as I have said before, my own kids have had sex outside of marriage and we just move on. They are sinning too. But I don’t hate them.
I think you are having a hard time understanding that while we believe a behavior is “bad” it does not mean we hate the people partaking in the behavior. Any more than I hate you because you are prochoice. I HATE abortion, but I don’t hate you because you support it. You hate the prolife stance, right? You hate John McCain and George Bush. I don’t. Do you hate me?
Heir,
Quite honestly, I have felt very uncomfortable even calling the gay community, “they” as if they were a different species. “They” are just people and no different than “we”…I don’t like the division. And I feel that things like the gay pride parade just make it wider.
And no, not that I think of it, other than satanists, I have never seen heterosexuals go up to communion dressed in costumes that mock the very church they claim to believe in. Nor have I ever seen heterosexuals have a “Hunky Easter Jesus Contest”…but if I did, I’d be sickened. The fact is, this IS a gay group. And it puts them in a very ugly light.
Sorry JLM but some sins are bigger than others and more destructive to the soul. Stealing a candy bar from the local dollar store is really a very minor thing (which can of course lead to bigger sins). Some sins kill the soul and are so serious that we are often left with spiritual remnants of them even years later. Some sins weaken the soul and predispose it to be weak in that area for the remainder of our lives. This is a theological fact.
the theological fact, Patricia, is that Jesus came not only to cleanse us of our sins, but also to heal our wounds from sin! Jesus makes us whole again! Isn’t that beautiful! He takes away the sin & makes us whole! We don’t have to be a prisoner to sin anymore! He removes every attachment (shackles) that we have to sin. What an AWESOME God we have, huh???
James 2:10-11, says, “For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles at just one point, is guilty of breaking them all. For the same God who has said, “you shall not commit adultery”, also said, “you shall not murder” If you do not commit adultery, but you do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker”,
Romans 6:23 “the wages of SIN is death” (Sin, is sin, is sin). Reguardless what we call it, the punishment is still the same. No matter what the sin is, it’s still sin in God’s eyes. To us, one may seem bigger than another, but to God, they are all the same….SIN! To say otherwise, to try and minimize one sin as greater than another, is only to justify “the smaller sin”.
I think you are having a hard time understanding that while we believe a behavior is “bad” it does not mean we hate the people partaking in the behavior. Any more than I hate you because you are prochoice. I HATE abortion, but I don’t hate you because you support it. You hate the prolife stance, right? You hate John McCain and George Bush. I don’t. Do you hate me?
Posted by: mk at May 16, 2008 9:05 PM
I think that many people have a hard time believing that I don’t hate homo’s. The fact is that I really hate this sin because it is so destructive and I feel deeply sad for people who live this lifestyle.
In fact, one of my bosses is a lesbian. She is a wonderful lady in many ways but I really think her lifestyle is morally wrong and what she has done has been extremely hurtful to her son (she left her husband for this relationship) who is now a very confused young man. I am not alone in how I feel about her – a few people have come up and expressed these views in a guarded way to me. Yet I treat her no differently than anyone else I meet and neither do any of my co-workers. She is a human being to be treated with dignity. But, she is sadly misguided.
I beg to differ JLM. To blaspheme to the extent these SPI members do, IMO, is to grieve the Holy Spirit. And to reject the Holy Spirit in this grave a fashion likely leads them to perpetual blindness of the true faith; which ultimately leads to an eternity of damnation. And I cannot even pray for them. I will not submit myself to even watch the wickedness of the blasphemy. I do not know what brought them to the point they are at. I do know I could not stand to put their blasphemy before my eyes. They are the lost souls and satanic is NOT too strong a word. And I do not wish their kind present in the house of our Lord on this earth or the next. I am not the judge, thank God, for my shoulders could not bear the burden. But are they satanic, DEFINITELY.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
Matthew 12:31-32
JLM, their actions may very well mean they are no longer sealed with the Holy Spirit.
the theological fact, Patricia, is that Jesus came not only to cleanse us of our sins, but also to heal our wounds from sin! Jesus makes us whole again! Isn’t that beautiful! He takes away the sin & makes us whole! We don’t have to be a prisoner to sin anymore! He removes every attachment (shackles) that we have to sin. What an AWESOME God we have, huh???
I agree, JLM. However, sin does have consequences in this life (and for the next too). It has both physical and spiritual consequences. This is not to say that we are not forgiven but these consequences remain.
As an example, premarital sex is considered a sin by the Catholic Church. A person who has had premarital sex can be forgiven this sin if they repent and are truly sorry for what they have done. However, there can be physical and spiritual consequences resulting from this sin. A physical consequence may be a pregnancy or and STD. A spiritual consequence may be the tendency to be weak in this area of sexual temptation more than in other areas such as being truthful, for example.
An example I read many years ago is this: When a sin is committed imagine driving a nail into a plank of wood. When the sin is forgiven, the nail is removed, but the hole still remains. This does not mean Gods grace and Christ’s death and resurrection were not sufficient, it just means that there are consequences which remain in this life and we will only be perfect in the next.
Theologians will tell you that each soul has 2 significant weaknesses. One of our jobs while on this earth is to try to overcome those special weaknesses. Of course, we have God’s wonderful grace which he always gives us in abundance.
Very well put, Patricia.
An example I read many years ago is this: When a sin is committed imagine driving a nail into a plank of wood. When the sin is forgiven, the nail is removed, but the hole still remains. This does not mean Gods grace and Christ’s death and resurrection were not sufficient, it just means that there are consequences which remain in this life and we will only be perfect in the next.
I think I remember you (or someone else) posting that before! I do agree that there are consequences to our actions here on earth. Definately! I’m living proof of that! But God already knew the sin I would be committing, long before I did! He also knew that I would accept Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord and that He would heal me. I tend to not look back at my past ways. I know that I’m not on the original path God intended for me to be on, but I know…deep, deep down in the pit of my heart that He is with me every single step of the way on my current path. I put my complete trust in Him, and I know that He is in charge, and everthing that happens to me is for my good, and part of His plan. I am no longer held hostage to the consequences of my past sin. I have closed that chapter and moved on to the next one. Every single step that I take on my current path is for His glory.
JLM,
I agree. We certainly do move on and must move on. All I am saying is that sin does have consequences. God bless you!
I remember reading about a saint (maybe Catherine of Sienna) who was having visions of Christ. Her local bishop was very skeptical and so he asked her for proof that she was in fact, speaking with Christ. His requirement was that she ask Jesus what sins he had confessed earlier that week in his last confession! When Jesus appeared to this woman again she asked Him this question to which he replied, “I cannot say. I have forgotten them as they were forgiven!” (something along those lines!)
Thank you mk!
Well, I’m sure glad I avoided this thread for a while!
MK,
What time u and Rae coming to get me so we can see the fishies tomorrow?!!
A spiritual consequence may be the tendency to be weak in this area of sexual temptation more than in other areas such as being truthful, for example.
Here’s some comforting words from our Awesome God!!!
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Isaiah 41:10
Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Powerful promise, huh?!? These words from Isaiah give me the chills!
“Well, I’m sure glad I avoided this thread for a while!”
why?
Sweet JLM!
Jasper, since you asked nicely, and since I’ve had time to cool down (playing with the baby is good for that), I’ll respond in kind.
I don’t think that the political strategy as practiced by NRTL and similar organizations over the past few decades has a chance of ending abortion. By the political strategy, I mean the plan to get Supreme Court justices appointed who will overturn Roe v. Wade (almost certainly on grounds other than the legal personhood of the unborn), and then trying to get states to pass laws against abortion. I don’t think this strategy can end abortion because it does nothing to get at the core of why abortion happens and why many people think it is necessary and even just.
Furthermore, I think that many of the values embodied in today’s Republican Party are fundamentally opposed to the continued development of a healthy society, one that is willing to and can afford to care for its most vulnerable members.
Obama’s stand on abortion is horrible. He’s completely wrong about the humanity of the unborn, and I would be remiss in my duty if I supported him without challenging it. It’s fair to ask why someone who is opposed to abortion would vote for him. But just about the only thing about McCain that isn’t a disaster is that he opposes abortion, and I don’t even think he opposes it in an effective way, so I have no qualms about not voting for him. I don’t think we can build a pro-life society on a rotten and crumbling base, and that’s what we’ll have if we keep electing Republicans. Obama, though he has an enormous and tragic blind spot, at least favors policies that would make society healthier in general.
It’s a vote I cast with a heavy heart, but I believe every alternative is worse.
Patricia,
:)
I read this today….VERY interesting….
545 People
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we still have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we still have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don
Jen R:
I think you are probably right about some of the stuff in your post @ 10:08.
I really think that the only thing that will bring about a change re: abortion is a conversion of heart – and it looks more and more like that will require the direct intervention of God.
A country cannot murder 10’s of millions of it’s children and expect there will be no consequences.
However having said that, laws do control morality to a degree. So having a law in place that would restrict abortion even to only certain circumstances would see the number of abortions decline.
However, what will help abortions decline is to help women who are in a difficult pregnancy, encourage abstinence until marriage, make stronger marriages etc.
Rae just got here…10:00 sound good?
I don’t think that the political strategy as practiced by NRTL and similar organizations over the past few decades has a chance of ending abortion. By the political strategy, I mean the plan to get Supreme Court justices appointed who will overturn Roe v. Wade (almost certainly on grounds other than the legal personhood of the unborn), and then trying to get states to pass laws against abortion. I don’t think this strategy can end abortion because it does nothing to get at the core of why abortion happens and why many people think it is necessary and even just.
Posted by: Jen R at May 16, 2008 10:08 PM
JenR,
You are discounting the good we do for our society by restricting abortion while we are working to stop it.
You hate the prolife stance, right? You hate John McCain and George Bush. I don’t. Do you hate me?
Oh gosh MK, I most certainly don’t hate any of those things. Especially not you :-)
I disagree heartily with the idea that someone else has more of an interest in the contents of my uterus than I do, and I’ll fight to keep my autonomy, and for other women to maintain theirs.
I think that McCain is an egotist who just cannot imagine that he will never get to be president. I think GWB is an overgrown frat boy with a bad case of myopia. I don’t hate them though.
I guess what really bothers me about the anti-homosexual justifications that are being presented is that they’re just not accurate for the entire population of gay people, and I think that you recognize that. For instance, you said this:
Quite honestly, I have felt very uncomfortable even calling the gay community, “they” as if they were a different species. “They” are just people and no different than “we”…I don’t like the division. And I feel that things like the gay pride parade just make it wider.
But the thing is, you know that it’s a mistake to judge all gay people by a gay pride parade. It would be like judging all 18 year old girls by the chicks who “perform” in a Girls Gone Wilde video. It’s just nonsensical.
It isn’t just a mistake to call the gay community “they” because of the reasons you stated above, it’s also a mistake because they aren’t a monolithic construct with only a single thought process. They’re a group of people whose one common trait is that they share a particular sexual orientation. They’re not a Borg collective, if I can return to the Star Trek references for sec :-)
I just can’t sit here and watch people I know and love get trashed over their “destructive” lifestyle, when I know that while some gay people may have a destructive lifestyle, most of them don’t. Not to mention that having a destructive lifestyle is hardly unique to the gay community. Hets do a pretty good job of it themselves.
I don’t think I’m making any sense any more…I hope you got the gist of what I was trying to say. I’m going to shove one last load of laundry in and go to bed. Sweet dreams everyone.
And Obama wouldn’t just leave us at the status quo, he would be like having the CEO of PP as president.
Jen R:
Abortion is my political litmus test because it’s the gravest threat our country has ever faced.
Why? Because the shedding of innocent blood cries out for justice. And God will deliver.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3722098690652929884
Jen R,
I didn’t mean to raise your blood pressure. I do believe that you are pro-life. …and congrats on your baby!
You raise the argument that society has to change first (PIP does too). I disagree. There will always be people who will murder, steal, have abortions (95 % for convienance), etc. Thats why it has made illegal.
Chris A, you wrote: “[Gays should not be allowed to marry because] by creating a legally recognized sterile union the state establishes a market in humanity.”
So should sterile HETEROSEXUAL couples be allowed to marry or not?
What do you mean by a “market in humanity”, and how do sterile marriages cause one?
Patricia, you wrote: “What’s the point of ANY other protection if the unborn baby is not protected from the marauding woman who seeks to destroy him/her.”
You think lack of protection from ONE danger means that protection from OTHER dangers is not valuable?
Even if you’re not protected from, say, cancer, it’s still valuable to be protected from, say, assault.
This seems very obvious to me.
Elsewhere, you wrote “God will not be mocked.”
Wrong. I make fun of “God” FREQUENTLY.
Several posters here, as well as Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum, have suggested that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.
This seems to me misplaced, since nearly all polygamists in the USA are members of cults WHICH WORSHIP JESUS CHRIST. Early-style Mormons, and remember the David Koresh people?
If ANYTHING has been shown in the USA to lead to polygamy, it is the worship of Jesus Christ, not gay marriage.
truthseeker:
You are discounting the good we do for our society by restricting abortion while we are working to stop it.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. I honestly think the pro-life cause is doomed to failure (and might take our country down with it) as long as it remains yoked to the backwards and destructive ideologies that reign in the Republican Party today. It’s not that I don’t think restrictions can do good, but I don’t think they can do enough good to overcome that.
This seems to me misplaced, since nearly all polygamists in the USA are members of cults WHICH WORSHIP JESUS CHRIST. Early-style Mormons, and remember the David Koresh people?
SoMG,
I may be wrong here, but most cults that I have heard about think their leaders (here on earth in the cult) ARE Jesus Christ. Most of the cult leaders proclaim to be the Messiah. The certainly do not worship the same Jesus Christ that I do.
Elsewhere, you wrote “God will not be mocked.”
Wrong. I make fun of “God” FREQUENTLY.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 10:47 PM
SoMG,
I am very afraid for you. Please, please, please….DO NOT go outside when there is lighting nearby!
/
\
/
:O
“If ANYTHING has been shown in the USA to lead to polygamy, it is the worship of Jesus Christ, not gay marriage.”
SoMG, that wasn’t my point.
I simply asked the gay marriage supporters if they supported other alternative marriages as well. They keep asking us “how is gay marriage affecting your marriage” and “it’s all about love”. So I posed the same question to them but they wouldn’t answer.
Jen R,
It seems as though your hatred for Republicans is getting in the way of your pro-life position. In other words, you seem to hate Republicans more than abortion. Thats not good or well.
Jasper, you wrote: “SoMG, that wasn’t my point.”
Correct. It was MY point.
JLM, you wrote: “Most of the cult leaders proclaim to BE the Messiah.”
Some cult leaders claim to be the SECOND COMING of Jesus Christ. They don’t deny the original. Their members are still Christ-worshippers.
SoMG,
do you suppotive alternative marriages? polygamie and homosexual “marriage”?
Jasper: thanks. I appreciate it!
The reason I think that society needs to change first — well, one reason, or I’ll be here all night — is that unlike the other things you listed, abortion has a victim who is not generally acknowledged to *be* a victim. I don’t think it’s ever been the case that the unborn child has been considered a full person under the law. And the unborn child is also very difficult to empathize with. Every single one of us was once an unborn child, so they are *us*, but they seem very *other*. They don’t look the way we’re used to people looking, we can’t have conversations with them, we (mostly) can’t interact with them, they haven’t yet developed the capacities we expect persons to have. Basically, when we ask people to accept that the unborn child is a person, we are asking them to accept a philosophical (and/or theological) proposition that is in conflict with most of their experience of what a person is. And if they don’t accept that proposition — and it’s not hard to understand why a lot of people don’t — then we’re asking them to potentially make major changes in their lives for the sake of a being that they see as akin to, at best, an animal. Imagine if vegetarians tried to pass a law saying that nobody was allowed to eat meat or wear leather. Even if they somehow managed to pass it, how long would it last? If it was hard to enforce, how many people would follow it? And when it got overturned, it would *stay* overturned. Granted, there are more pro-lifers than vegetarians in our society, and pregnancy is more serious than not being allowed to eat meat, but you see my point.
Jen R, you wrote: “I honestly think the pro-life cause is doomed to failure …”
It has already failed. It is doomed to CONTINUE failing.
Jasper, you wrote: “do you suppotive (sic) alternative marriages? polygamie and homosexual “marriage”?”
Not to sound too pretentious, but I support all marriages and none. What I mean is, I think marriage should be a PRIVATE contract between (or among) consenting individuals. Its meaning, goals, conditions, expectations, and obligations should be spelled out specifically in each marriage contract. Except for enforcing the terms of the contract (like any other contract) I think government should have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with marriage, including, government should not attempt to DEFINE marriage. If I had my way, the words “marriage” and “spouse” would not appear AT ALL in the entire body of US law. People should be free to make whatever life partnerships are right for them, and no particular life-partnership should be elevated by government above any other.
In other words, yes, I do.
I read the book. In the end, eternal life wins over all death.
It seems as though your hatred for Republicans is getting in the way of your pro-life position. In other words, you seem to hate Republicans more than abortion. Thats not good or well.
I hate much of the ideology and actions of the Republican Party; I hope I do not hate Republicans as people. That said, what would constitute not letting that get in the way? Working from within to change the party would be a possibility, and I respect those who do, but I think that working from within the other party to try to convince it to embrace the unborn is equally valid.
It has already failed. It is doomed to CONTINUE failing.
If it continues on its present course, yes.
Some cult leaders claim to be the SECOND COMING of Jesus Christ. They don’t deny the original. Their members are still Christ-worshippers.
The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, is Jesus Christ returning a second time, SoMG. It’s the same Jesus, not two different ones.
Their members do not worship Jesus Christ, but a mere man instead.
The bible warns about these people:
Luke 21:8
He said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Matthew 24:5 AND Mark 13:6
Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
“People should be free to make whatever life partnerships are right for them, and no particular life-partnership should be elevated by government above any other.”
When society debates what children need to grow into healthy, happy, productive, well-adjusted adults, many things are listed as essentials: access to healthcare, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods, love and plenty of encouragement. All of these are important to proper child-development, but the discussion often ignores the one factor that is prior to all these others: marital status of parents.
All things being equal, children with married parents consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who have single, cohabiting, divorced or step-parents, and this is a stronger indicator than parental race, economic or educational status, or neighborhood. The literature on this is broad and strong.
Pitirim Sorokin, founder and first chair of the Sociology Department at Harvard, proclaimed the importance of married parents some fifty years ago.
The most essential sociocultural patterning of a newborn human organism is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioral, mental, moral and sociocultural characteristics of practically every individual.
I honestly think the pro-life cause is doomed to failure (and might take our country down with it) as long as it remains yoked to the backwards and destructive ideologies that reign in the Republican Party today. It’s not that I don’t think restrictions can do good, but I don’t think they can do enough good to overcome that.
Posted by: Jen R at May 16, 2008 10:53 PM
JenR,
I am not personally tied to any party. I have been looking for any sign of pro-life in the Democratic party to vote for but I have been unable to find any. I have never been active politically except to cast my vote and I vote where I can find pro-life support. You could help everybody out if it you could get a viable pro-life movement started in the Democratic. It seems Democratic candidates think the pro-life platform is taboo.
JLM, that makes no difference in the end. The majority of cults in the USA are biblical (Gospel-based), and the LARGE majority of POLYGAMIST cults are biblical. Why? Because the Bible supports polygamy.
JLM, you wrote: “The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, is Jesus Christ returning a second time, SoMG. It’s the same Jesus, not two different ones. ”
That’s an interpretation. Nothing says He couldn’t come back in another person’s body.
Jen R, you wrote: “I honestly think the pro-life cause is doomed to failure …”
It has already failed. It is doomed to CONTINUE failing.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 11:18 PM
SOMG, keep your head buried in the sand while we repeal your license to kill and pass laws so we can track your kind down like hired killers.
Jen R and SoMG:
You are two people who literally have no vision, people who think that their short stay here on earth will be forever.
I’ve got news for you, the author of life, Jesus Christ has already won the victory! Those that believe and trust in Him to eternal life and those that don’t to eternal death.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”.
SoMG:
You say you are proud of mocking God, and that frequently, worshiping Jesus Christ leads to polygamy, etc…..you’re not getting away with anything SoMG. He’s got just a few hundred milllion, milloon, billion, zillion years on you Mr. Probababble. (Focus on verses 8-10, 14). You are literally screwed SoMG.
Jude 1
1Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:
2Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home
“but I think that working from within the other party to try to convince it to embrace the unborn is equally valid.”
no it’s not equally valid Jen, the D party does not welcome pro-lifers at all. you have a better chance changing what you don’t like about the R party…
truthseeker: I think there’s been some progress for pro-life Democrats, albeit slow. There are a lot of pro-lifers in the Democratic grassroots, but it’s hard to translate that into actual elected officials for a variety of reasons. I think the influence of money in politics is part of it, and also the real activist core is still pretty hardcore for abortion.
A lot of Democrats also just plain don’t trust anyone who identifies as pro-life, because they look across the aisle at the folks who call themselves pro-life, and don’t like what they see. I think those of us who are consistent life ethic adherents and/or and/or feminists and/or pro-contraception and pro-sex-ed probably have the best hope of reaching them, because we share a lot of their values.
you have a better chance changing what you don’t like about the R party…
Well, obviously, I don’t agree. :) And if there’s any chance of bringing the Democrats around, don’t you want people to try?
JLM, that makes no difference in the end. The majority of cults in the USA are biblical (Gospel-based)
No, they are not. They take a few verses out of the bible and form a religion out of it.
btw…HERE is the gospel:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
That’s an interpretation. Nothing says He couldn’t come back in another person’s body.
You’re right. It doesn’t. But I don’t think any of those whack-jobs made an entrance quite like my Lord will!:
Matthew 24:30-31
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Posted by: Jen R at May 16, 2008 11:52 PM
Best wishes on your mission JenR. But at least skip them when they nominate a rabid pro-abort like Obama. The Democrats sure know how to shoot themselves in the foot. Whoever said Obama is a “unifier” is loony.
HisMan, it’s all in your mind.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “we [will] repeal your license to kill and pass laws so we can track your kind down like hired killers.”
I’m not worried, (not very worried anyway–I guess I was worried enough to work on methotrexate). Even if Roe vs. Wade goes down and is not replaced by pro-choice federal legislation, in order to do what you said (ban abortion in the USA, “repeal [the] licence to kill”, or even accomplish anthing beyond raising the cost of abortion by the cost of interstate travel) you would need to accomplish one of two extremely difficult political tasks: EITHER pass a federal law against abortion OR pass state laws against abortion in every state. California. New York. Vermont. Massachusetts. Connecticut. Colorado. I don’t think you can do that. That leaves a federal law. OK, in order to pass a federal law against abortion, you need to accomplish one of two extremely difficult political tasks: EITHER get a simple majority in the House of Representatives AND a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (SIXTY Senators) AND a President who will sign it ALL AT THE SAME TIME, OR get veto-proof majorities (67%) in BOTH the House AND the Senate at the same time.
Do you appreciate how unlikely each of these convergences is?
I’m not even talking about REPUBLICAN majorities–I’m talking about RIGHT-TO-LIFE majorities. There are many pro-choice Republicans in the House and at least three in the Senate (Arlen Specter (R-Pa), Susan Collins (R-Me), and Olympia Snowe (R-Me). You will say that there are “pro-life” Democrat senators as well, like Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Robert Casey Jr. (D-Pa) but Reid and others consistantly VOTE pro-choice even if they are personally “pro-life” and Casey is not a very enthusiastic right-to-lifer, I bet he will vote to break the filibuster against FOCA even if he does not vote for the act.)
There, that’s a free civics lesson for you.
I do believe that evil exists, but I do not believe that abortion is evil. Sad, yes, but not evil. If I thought it was evil, I wouldn’t be out there defending with my physical presence.
Posted by: Ray at May 16, 2008 9:02 PM
Ray, I can think of nothing more intrinsically evil then a woman intentionally killing the child inside her womb. What is your definition of evil?
There, that’s a free civics lesson for you.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 12:09 AM
Like I said SOMG. Keep your head in the sand.
JLM, you wrote: “No, they are not. They take a few verses out of the bible and form a religion out of it. ”
First of all that’s not true, most of them have regular daily (multiple-times daily) Bible study and no part of the Bible is excluded. Secondly, even if you were right that they based their religions only on a few verses of the Bible (I’m sure SOME of them are like you say) I would still call that being Bible-based.
If our goal is to prevent polygamy in the USA, we should target LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, not gay marriage.
Also, as I said before, Christ-worship.
Oops–I left out one other way you could ban abortion in the USA: Get the Supreme Court to rule that fetuses are persons and therefore entitled by the Equal Protection Clause to protection from abortion. Even Scalia and Long Dong Silver (I mean Clarence Thomas) don’t agree with that.
SOMG,
You really do make claim’s about Jesus that are just completely off base all the time. Here is part of what Jesus taught about marriage. I don;t know how you interpret it but it is seems to stress monogamy and fathfulness forever. No offense intended cause I assume you were just not priviledged with a Christian background but in the future you might want to pose questions about what Jesus thought instead of making assertions about things you don’t know. Otherwise you are made to appear a fool.
****
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Matthew 19: 3-12
And where in that verse does it say a man may have only one wife?
I guess you could argue that “whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” implies it.
What about the man who marries another wife WITHOUT divorcing his first one?
read it again and you will see.
Were you able to see it?
SOMG, If the two become one flesh and a man re-marrying and lying with another woman is adultery, does that give you a clue?
Here is another teaching of Jesus about marriage that you may find interesting SOMG:
Sex and procreation will not play a role in the afterlife but the union of the spirits in sacramental marriage will last for eternity.
Maybe all three become one flesh.
Jen R, I definitely see a kindred spirit.. let me know more ways to support the cause as they arise :)
How about that group by the way? The alternative to Feminists for Life that you were discussing?
Like the Trinity, ya know?
Maybe all three become one flesh.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 2:27 AM
SOMG, If you want to understand Jesus’ teaching on marriage then the key here is to look at Jesus’ teaching and focus your understanding on that, not to come up with your own iterations of union.
Like the Trinity, ya know?
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 2:44 AM
SOMG, the Trinity is a beautiful concept:
I grow tired though.. please see following:
http://tinyurl.com/4tymjt
Go get em PIP
Jen R and Heir,
I hate much of the ideology and actions of the Republican Party; I hope I do not hate Republicans as people.
I disagree heartily with the idea that someone else has more of an interest in the contents of my uterus than I do, and I’ll fight to keep my autonomy, and for other women to maintain theirs.
Now, you have just stated my position on homosexuality.
I hate much of the ideology and actions of the homosexual lifestyle; I hope I do not hate homosexuals as people.
I disagree heartily with the idea that someone in a same sex relationship has more of a say in what my children will think than I do, and I’ll fight to keep my parental rights, and for other parents to maintain theirs.
I believe homosexual behavior is disordered (not a disorder) just as I believe ALL premarital sex is disordered. I am just as upset that my children are being taught that heterosexual sex is acceptable outside of marriage as I am that they are being taught that homosexual sex is acceptable.
I have to constantly fight the images that they are bombarded with on a daily basis. I must constantly remind them that we don’t believe Victorias Secret, Abercrombie and Fitch, Abortion, Sexualizing themselves, drug use, underage drinking, etc. is behavior that our family indulges.
I don’t single out homosexuality, but if confronted with it, yes, I will say that I believe it is wrong. Just as I believe all the other things are wrong.
But hatred, meanness, etc., NEVER enter the picture.
Does this make more sense to you now? Do you understand that it’s not about “hating” homosexuals, but disagreeing with “behavior”?
I would never point out a homosexual person and say “They are bad”, but if I saw a public display of homosexual behavior, I would speak up. I do when any overt sexual behavior is in front of them. Always focusing on the behavior, and never the people partaking in it.
Elsewhere, you wrote “God will not be mocked.”
Wrong. I make fun of “God” FREQUENTLY.
Posted by: SoMG at May 16, 2008 10:47 PM
That’s very sad, SoMG. Because He loves you very much and he died for you. But it’s your choice as to whether you believe in God and choose to love Him and live by His word. God forces no one.
SoMG:
My reference to God not being mocked was that God will only allow man’s defiance of his laws to go on for so long. The killing of millions of innocent babies will not go on forever. We will be brought to our knees one way or another. This happened to the Israelites time and time again in the Bible. When they strayed away they were enslaved or punished in some way. God will not be mocked.
Also, as I said before, Christ-worship.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Not the same Christ I worship!
We have had discussions on here about why/who are people sent to hell.
There are people on this board that see things differently, and perhaps just don’t “get it” yet. Especially people who say they “believe” but continue to support abortion. These folks still have a great chance of entering heaven, because they are doing wrong things for misguided reasons.
But when you look at people like SoMG, who outright reject…even mock…the concept. Well, this is what we mean by people “choosing” hell.
I’m sure JenR, Jess and PiP are not “choosing” hell, but rather believe that in their own way they are doing what is “right”. But SoMG doesn’t even put up a pretense of trying to do the “right” thing. He is knowingly CHOOSING the path to hell…
MK,
Hope you have fun at the aquarium!
Your comment about “choosing” a path to Perdition…
I’ve read your posts about sociopaths being born without a conscience. They are at a disadvantage from the get-go. If they have no conscience, then how can they be faulted for the evil they commit? They don’t have the capacity, so is that expecting too much from them?
Been running through my brain…
And since this is the most I’ve seen SoMG post while I’ve been a regular here (one year), I’m trying to connect the dots.
It’s a beautiful day in Chicago, a little windy, but sunny! Have fun in the city, guys!
I honestly don’t know why ANY of you are so concerned about SoMG and what he believes or doesn’t believe. He has NO desire to see things any other way (i.e. THE TRUTH ) so he has made his bed, and will have to sleep in it.
Isn’t it obvious that this individual is starved for attention?
You social conservatives are always quoting the Bible.Fine.But you consistently disregard
one of the most important sayings in the that
book.”Judge not lest ye be judged”.
It’s for god to judge other people,not you
or me.This is not to say that we should condone
obviously immoral conduct,such as cruelty,
greed,lying,cheating etc,but what consenting
adults do in private is no one else’s business,
certainly not the governments’s.Homosexuality is
something which I neither approve nor disapprove
of.I simply realize that it is an inescapable
fact of life that some people are gay.
Disapproving of it will never stop certain
people of being that way.You can speak out
against it until you are blue in the face,
but you can never stop it.You might as well
disapprove of people being left-handed,
which I am.Did I choose to be a south paw?
Of course not.It just turned out that way.
Yes,lefties have often been forced to
write with their right hands in school.
There has long been superstitious prejudice
against these people.Traditional Muslim belief
considers it a curse to be left-handed.
The Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the
family of the last Shah was cursed because
his eldest son was a leftie.
Why should you be concerned about what gays
do in private if no one else is harmed?
Yes,if gays are promiscuous there is great
risk.But the same is true of straight people.
We must all face the consequences if we
are irresponsible sexually.Some gays are a
threat to themselves,but they are not usually a threat to others.
And what some one said about Obama’s goals
with taxes etc is false.Conservatives think
that if the government reduces taxes enough,everything will be hunky dory in
America.They are deluded.This NEVER increases
general prosperity.We don’t tax enough.
This is not socialism.Just look at the
Scandinavian countries,and other prosperous
European countries.Yes,taxes are sky high.
But this has great benefits.Do you see
Swedes,Norwegians and Danes losing their
homes ifsthey loose their jobs,and struggling
to support their families,as is common in the
US?Absolutely not.Do they have high abortion rates? No.There is far,far less abortion
there than in America.Why? Women who have
the means to take good care of children are far less likely to have abortions.
Are these countries paradise? No.They have
their problems.But let’s face it,people are
in general much better off and secure.
We could learn a lot from Europe.
MK, you wrote: “But SoMG doesn’t even put up a pretense of trying to do the “right” thing. ”
Wrong. I just believe the right thing is different from what you believe it is.
Somg,
You give me the creeps. The hair stands up on the back of my neck then I see your name posted. You have aligned yourself with evil. You have made a covenant with death.
Patricia is right. God is right now holding back is wrath from us. He will not do that forever. He will judge us all one day.
Carla, you wrote: ” God is right now holding back is wrath from us. He will not do that forever. He will judge us all one day.”
Bertrand Russell (Google him if you don’t know who that is) was once asked how he would answer if after he died an angry God reproached him for his lifelong unbelief and asked why he (Russell) never acknowledged His (God’s) existance. Russell answered: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.”
“Russell answered: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.””
This coming from a man who took 1000 pages to prove that 1+1=2.
Yes, BB, that’s right. Have you read Russell? I usually turn to Wittgenstein for that sort of thing, but Russell’s acid wit is more entertaining.
SoMG,
I know you catch alot of flack on this board, but I would like you to know that I do admire the way that you share your thoughts and beliefs so openly and honestly. I don’t always agree with you, as I’m sure you don’t with me as well! That being said, you have always been more than polite in your answers to my questions to you, and for that, I thank you. I honestly have been in more “adult conversations” with you than some of the PL’ers here.
Now that that’s out of the way, I would like for you to do something, if that’s ok?
I know you don’t believe in God, and believe that there isn’t proof. That’s ok…many people feel that way. I did for a short time in my life as well. It’s all so….WOW! Really? How?? you know? All of the believers that I have talked to, including myself, can attest that the “proof” people look for, is found AFTER believing. I know that sounds wierd, but for many people, they just start by saying, “God…if you’re real….show me”. That’s all they do, honestly from their hearts, and God does “prove” Himself to them. As one “grows” in their faith, they simply cannot deny His existence. I sure can’t! I know for an absolute fact that He is real. If someone told me to deny Him or they will cut my head off…I wouldn’t deny Him. Way too many things have happened in my life for me to ever deny the existence of God.
SoMG…can you PLEASE just ask Him to reveal Himself to you? PLEASE??? As much as I don’t agree with your line of work, I do care for you as a person. I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I have prayed so many times for you. Not to change your line of work, but for you to desire God.
I’m sorry if what I said offended you. That was not my intention at all. I just always wanted to tell you these things, and I don’t know how much more time I would have had to tell you that.
Have a wonderful day!
:)
JLM, you wrote: “… and God does “prove” Himself to them. ”
I’m glad you put “prove” in quotation marks.
You wrote: “As one “grows” in their faith, they simply cannot deny His existence.”
That’s not an effective recipe for getting to the truth of a question.
You wrote: “I sure can’t! I know for an absolute fact that He is real. ”
No, you don’t “know” this. You psych yourself into believing it without evidence (that’s called “faith”.)
And no, you don’t offend me.
Some things are knowable but not provable — like God.
SoMG,
I’m relieved that I don’t offend you.
There have been many times here that I quote a bible verse and it offends a “believer”!
Anyway, thank you for choosing to not be offended!
Hey SoMG. I haven’t read any of the Principia. I did read his Philosophy of Mathematics, but that was a while ago.
Some things are knowable but not provable — like God
On the contrary, Brian….ISRAEL is proof of God!
Why should you be concerned about what gays
do in private if no one else is harmed?
You’re right Robert! Why be concerned? Because morality is rarely private. It always manifests itself in some way in a person’s life publicly. I’m sure Eliot Spitzer can attest to this.
Patricia,
I forgot to tell you yesterday….the high school by me had that “Day of Silence” thing a few weeks back. The GOOD NEWS, is that only a handful of students (literally, less than 10) participated in it! Not to mention, the general concensus of the students that didn’t participate in it thought that the one’s that did were foolish!
I find that very refreshing that our high school kids have not been as indoctrinated by the homosexual movement as we are led to believe!
oh, in addition, the high school has 3,000+ students!
Very nice JLM. But too bad they have that sort of day. I wonder if heterosexuals will get their own day?
I can tell you that the boys in my son’s high school are not supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. Despite all the indoctrination in the media, many kids do know that this lifestyle is not a good one.
I wonder if heterosexuals will get their own day?
Patricia,
yes, right!
Many high school kids have told me that the very, very few homosexuals in their school are just doing it for attention, and it’s an act, because the one’s that “are” think it’s “cool” to be gay these days.
It’s amazing how many “gay” students have reverted back to their God-given heterosexual origins throughout their high school years!
hippie-
So you DO think they should be able to adopt? That’s good to hear!
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 2:45 PM
Pip,
Adoption requires the legal obligation to provide for the child till 18 years of age and gives the child rights to inherit to property to other survivors benefits, to make medical decisions for the parent when he or she can’t etc. It is big commitment and one that people have made to orphans throughtout the ages.
Now as for gays being allowed to adopt, I still think the birth mother has the right to choose an adoption agency that will promise to place her child with a catholic or jewish or hindu couple etc. if she chooses. However, not all states want to give that latitude to the agencies. Some states require all adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt even though it goes against their commitment to the community.
Just because a woman gives her child for adoption doesn’t mean she should not be able to do so through an agency that does not place children with gays.
Like I said, gays have always adopted and it doesn’t seem to have been a problem, rather it saved kids from being entirely without a loving family.
There has to be balancing of interests. Gays have rights, but so do others.
But SoMG doesn’t even put up a pretense of trying to do the “right” thing. He is knowingly CHOOSING the path to hell…
Posted by: mk at May 17, 2008 8:10 AM
MK , He states he doesn’t believe in heaven or hell; not that he chooses hell. Does he really convince himself babies are precious and would support crushing the heads of late term babies just to make delivery easier. Or is he just here to have some fun mocking us with totally absurd statements disrespecting the unborn while claiming they are precious, likely, we should know soon.
SOMG, were you ever taught about God, if so then where? Also, did you read the info about the Trinity that I linked you to?
“SoMG…can you PLEASE just ask Him to reveal Himself to you? PLEASE??? As much as I don’t agree with your line of work, I do care for you as a person. I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I have prayed so many times for you. Not to change your line of work, but for you to desire God.”
SoMG, many of us have prayed for you..please reconsider…
Okay, I’m sorry Ts and Jasper, but you guys must be from Planet Pluto.
Please, do you really think that the man who posed this comment:
“Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 4:04 AM
is actually going to critically read and think about what YOU post?
As far as he’s concerned, you’re snake-oil salesmen. He’s sitting at his computer laughing his a$$ off at you both. Give it up and spend your time praying for the poor man. Faith is a gift and a person has to be open to the gift.
“is actually going to critically read and think about what YOU post?”
We don’t now Patricia. What we do know is that SoMG has partaken in abortions and maybe still does….and he’s visting a pro-life blog.
He may not be telling us, but it could be weighing on his conscience.
I for one, do not believe that SoMG’s conscience is in any way active. I think it’s likely very malformed and completely stifled.
He’s not visiting this blog – he’s here for a reason, maybe the same as Laura.
Have you ever considered Jasper this: Jill has a medical background. So supposedly does SoMG. Just enough that he can maybe, just possibly shed some doubt on anything medical that Jill might post. Just enough to make some people maybe doubt, or those who just might reconsider their positions, hesitate.
But whenever he’s pushed to the wall, he vanishes. Or he posts something so incredibly outrageous. Or completely off-topic.
Very interesting…..Mr. Watson.
“But whenever he’s pushed to the wall, he vanishes. Or he posts something so incredibly outrageous. Or completely off-topic.”
That’s true Patricia….
Interesting observation, Patricia.
I get MANY rude comments directed my way from a couple of prolifer’s, here. SoMG has always been polite to me. And you have to give him credit for actually reading and comprehending our thoughts before posting his. He doesn’t “twist” what we said for his own benefit. I don’t usually agree with him, but at least I can have a civilized conversation with him!
btw…he isn’t the first to think Christianity is some sort of fantasy, and he won’t be the last. God CAN change his heart and mind.
My God is BIG!!!!
Well, JLM check out the proliferations post on May 16
Jasper and I were discussing with SoMG this evening and Jasper asked SoMG whether he was a man or woman (something SoMG brought up himself)
and he has ignored the question and vanished into the land of the lurking……
No doubt he will wait until we are gone and then begin reposting.
Patricia,
Regardless of his “purpose”, his posts will speak for themselves. For instance, his post about thinking babies are precious but still be willing to crush the skulls of late third term babies just to make delivery easier. It could actually make “pro-choice” reader’s on this blog second guess themselves and see the hypocrisy of their own position that unborn children are precious and they should not be killed. In other words, see that they are making the same hypocritical “special exception”.
As far as dialogue about Christianity and the Bible. It is clear he has animosity and vulnerability because his inability to discern Jesus’ teachings. I’ll admit it sometimes feel like I trying to teach college level course to somebody with 2nd grade understanding of the faith, but as long as he shows honesty in questioning about Jesus, then I will give him honest answers.
Patricia, did you notice SOMG doesn’t really have a grasp on the English language..eg, he called a corpration a “person” instead of an entity. I’m seeing an Asian in my head when he posts.
yes, truthseeker, I noticed that too
Also many of his posts are during the night
There have been many times here that I quote a bible verse and it offends a “believer”!
JLM,
It does not offend anyone here when you quote a bible verse or two. But that is not what you do. All you do is recite scripture and do not put forth your own words/opinions on the matter. You have no arguments that would appeal to the people on this board who are not religious because all you do is quote the Bible. To be honest, one of my goals this summer is to start reading the Bible..but reading all the scripture on here that is used to justify condemnation of people who are unlike yourself really makes me want to not read the Bible. Just my opinion and how I feel at times..even though I’m sure I will take up reading the Bible this summer.
Truthseeker,
doesn’t really have a grasp on the English language..eg, he called a corpration a “person” instead of an entity. I’m seeing an Asian in my head when he posts.
Maybe you really have no clue at all how racist and ignorant this sentence sounds, so I just thought I’d bring it to your attention…
Well thank you Elizabeth for your opinion. Do you speak for everyone, or just yourself?…since you have been the only one that has told me that so far. (third time, btw!)
I find it ironic that non-believers haven’t even had the gall to write what you just did.
I have had PLENTY of conversations without quoting scripture with other adults on this board. I’m sorry (well, no…not really) that you seem fixiated on only those posts that have scripture in them.
Anyway…how was the aquarium? Did you bring your daughter?
I find it ironic that non-believers haven’t even had the gall to write what you just did.
Well, the people who care about you are the ones who also critique you, so take what you will from that. I just thought I’d share some of my thoughts. And yes, I just speak for myself..who else could I possibly speak for? But when you justify your positions on issues solely by quoting the Bible, how would you honestly believe non-religious people are going to get what you’re saying? Or even see where you’re coming from. I always see where Mk is coming from because she explains her ideas from many different angles to help EVERYONE understand what she means. I really don’t get why you’re so offended when I merely say what I think..or do you not think it’s beneficial to explain yourself so that everyone understands what you mean? I really would be able to see where you’re coming from better if I didn’t have to read Bible passages all the time. I’ve read the Bible, I know what’s in it, I don’t need it repeated endlessly for me. I’m really not trying to be mean here, just help you to see it from my perspective.
Oh, and the aquarium was fantabulous by the way. My daughter had a blast and she made everybody smile cause she just lights up the room with her personality. We also went to Ed Debevic’s which was delicious..and Mk and Rae pretty much rock my world.
Proof that SoMG backs out EVERY time when confronted:
Again, are you a man or woman? Why avoid this question? Or do you plan to disappear for the next half hour?
Posted by: Patricia at May 17, 2008 11:18 PM
You have not answered my question SoMG?
Are you a man?
Posted by: Patricia at May 17, 2008 11:19 PM
Actually yes, I do have to go edit a lab report. (It’s true.) Sorry. Good night.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 11:19 PM
be honest and simply answer the question.
Posted by: Patricia at May 17, 2008 11:19 PM
I love it.You backed out again.You are not honest! This is wonderful!
Posted by: Patricia at May 17, 2008 11:20 PM
Typical SoMG: typical proabort.You are dishonest, intellectually dishonest and back down every time when confronted. Too bad.
Lab report – my foot – at 11:20 pm.
Elizabeth,
I guess God just uses me differently than he uses others. I use the bible as my instruction book for life. It’s come in handy more times than I can name. Why wouldn’t I want to share the joy I have found with others as well? Even if they aren’t believers, and may not be for many, many years if ever…at least it plants a seed!
We all have unique talents and gifts, and I think that’s a good thing. I’m glad that you like and can relate to mk’s posts. She is truly gifted in that respect! I went through all of my posts here, and out of 26 posts, I used scripture in 5 of them. Maybe you can just skip over the one’s that have scripture in them? I’m sure many people do!
I am so glad you guys had such a great time! Your daughter sounds (and looks) like an absolute gem! She wouldn’t be lighting up rooms so often if she didn’t have a great mom to show her how. You should be very proud of yourself as well!
Thank you JLM…I’m sure Rae or MK will be posting some pictures from our adventures in Chi-town..it was truly one of the greatest days I’ve had in a LONG time!
doesn’t really have a grasp on the English language..eg, he called a corpration a “person” instead of an entity. I’m seeing an Asian in my head when he posts.
Maybe you really have no clue at all how racist and ignorant this sentence sounds, so I just thought I’d bring it to your attention…
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 17, 2008 11:00 PM
Elizabeth,
I kinda felt it could be interpretted that way when I posted it Elizabeth. But it was not intended that way. I had noticed his english was broken in an Asian way. Just a deduction. It was not meant to be racist. SOMG wouldn’t answer wether he was a male or female and doesn’t like to answer personal questions. Saying somebody is Asian from their English is no different then saying somebody is from the South because of their accent. There are lot of racist terms I could use to describe Asians if I had meant to be racist. Just like there are a lot of derogatory terms I could use to describe somebody from the South. But I didn’t. All I said is that from the broken English I had an idea SOMG could be Asian. I have never posted anything racist in my previous 500 posts on this blog.
BTW Patricia, I would also guess SOMG is a man based upon the way he addresses people. And I agree the excuse that he had a lab report was dishonest. Even if he had a lab report to do he could have answered your question.
JLM, you are an inspiration the way you let Elizabeth’s attack on you about having nothing to post slide right off. God has blessed you with great self-confidence and humility.
Elizabeth, dspeaking of unjustified attacks when posting, id you realize the way your post attacked JLM unfairly?
Elizabeth, speaking of unjustified attacks when posting, did you realize the way your post attacked JLM unfairly?
Specifically your post:
It does not offend anyone here when you quote a bible verse or two. But that is not what you do. All you do is recite scripture and do not put forth your own words/opinions on the matter.
Just thought I’d point that out to you. BTW – I am glad you had a great time at aquarium too. Does Rae drive as fast as she says?
ts:1:05:With all due respect, I think you are being unfair to Elizabeth to say she “attacked” JLM about quoting too much from the bible, instead of just using her own words. That word seems a bit strong. We all have a right to our opinion, right? We’ve had enough verbal “attacks” today (look further up on this thread), without creating more unnecessary friction (in my humble opinion).
SoMG and everyone else,
Honestly, I wasn’t trying to insult SoMG when I wrote that post. I was just using him as an example to show that God doesn’t SEND people to hell, they actually CHOOSE it.
I wasn’t making a comment on whether SoMG was a good person or a bad person, because I don’t think that has much to do one way or the other with where a person spends eternity.
I just think that even if he had “PROOF” of Gods existence and was given a choice to spend eternity with Him or without Him, he would CHOOSE to spend it without Him.
I could be wrong. And I’m sorry if that came across as making personal judgment on SoMG’s worth. I wasn’t. We have often discussed on this BLOG, why God would send people to hell, and tried to explain that He doesn’t. People choose it, and I thought SoMG was a good example of someone that would do that.
JLM is right however, the fat lady hasn’t sung as far as our friend SoMG is concerned. One never knows and it sounds like I’m not the only one praying for him…
SoMG, I hate what you believe in, but I don’t hate you…You’re just so honest with your beliefs that I figured you wouldn’t mind me using you as a poster child for people who outright reject God, which is different from someone that just doesn’t believe. Sort of how you admit that the unborn are persons but reject the idea that they have a right to life.
So feel free to correct me and tell us that given “proof” you’d choose God. Or confirm that even with proof, you’d reject Him and what He stands for…
I don’t think we’ve attacked SoMG. I think we’ve called him in on the fact that everytime he’s backed into a corner – he leaves.
He’s done this on at least 4 or 5 different occasions with me.
He was the one who asked me how I knew he was a man. So Jasper asked him. He refused to answer. If he didn’t want to answer, just say so. But don’t run away!
Mk you didn’t insult SoMG. You are quite right that God doesn’t send people to hell, we choose to go there. In fact, once we meet God face to face, we KNOW that’s where we belong if we have chosen evil in this life. Nothing evil can ever enter heaven.
In fact SoMG’s post about Christianity was profane.
I kinda felt it could be interpretted that way when I posted it Elizabeth. But it was not intended that way.
TS,
Well, the obvious solution would be to not post or say things that you think could be racist! I saw it immediately too and it REALLY angered me that you decided to go ahead and say it. I lost a lot of respect for you.
Patricia,
Sometimes arguments get intense but not all of us have the time to sit around for hours on end. Besides, what does it matter to you whether SoMG is a man or a woman? Get over yourself.
Well it mattered to him? Enough to post about it? So I asked him. Why not? Get over yourself honey!
Also, Edyt, it might help us to understand SoMG’s positions.
Truthseeker,
Thank you. You have no idea how much that meant to me!
;)
I find it interesting that just telling people how they may come off at times is viewed as an attack. I even explained my reasons for telling JLM why I think that way. In a very honest way..not using insults! I was not attacking or insulting her, just trying to get her to see how she can come off sometimes. Even if that’s just how she comes off to me! I wasn’t speaking for anyone else, just myself.
Feel free to critique me at anytime you think I’m coming off to people in bad way, though. In fact, I welcome it, because I know I am not perfect, and there is always room for growth/change in how I deal with people..even over the internet.
TS,
I didn’t find your statement racist. I knew what you were saying. This is a common liberal tactic to yell rasicm at almost anything. Elizabeth and Edyt do it quite often.
I find it interesting that just telling people how they may come off at times is viewed as an attack. I even explained my reasons for telling JLM why I think that way. In a very honest way..not using insults! I was not attacking or insulting her, just trying to get her to see how she can come off sometimes. Even if that’s just how she comes off to me! I wasn’t speaking for anyone else, just myself.
Elizabeth, maybe this will help:
It’s the third time you have posted this to me. I get it…really, I do. You explained how YOU like to read posts with just original thoughts like mk’s and I assume your own. Your posts about me posting scripture do not insult me. It’s more like, “who does she think she is telling me how to write my posts?” I never took it as an “attack”. I just think it’s a bit anal of you to tell people how to write posts to pacify you.
I am who I am and I’m happy with me. I have given my life to God and my world revolves around Him. I see the world through the third lens of scripture. His word is like a sword…it cuts through the b.s. His word is the truth, like it or not. God says it better than I ever could!
If my posts make you not want to read the bible, don’t blame it on me…that’s your choice Elizabeth. I don’t have one iota of power in me to make you do or not do something. Don’t put the blame on me.
And again…if you see a post from me with a verse in it…SKIP IT if you don’t want to read it. The second Jill makes a rule that we can’t post scriptures, I will stop immediately. Until that day comes…honestly…just skip over posts with scripture in them!
When Truthseeker and HisMan post scripture, I am so grateful to them for doing so! It strengthens my faith each and every time. They always seem to post the right thing at the right time. If I’m a believer and it helps me, just imagine the seeds that are planted with the unbeliever! The verses may not help you, Elizabeth, but they do help others. It’s a good thing for some of us.
I wouldn’t dare for a second tell someone what they should or shouldn’t say. Look at the flipside…it would be like me telling you to post scripture in YOUR posts when you’re making a point, because I like to read posts with scripture in them. I don’t like to see original thoughts, I like to see what God has to say about it.
See what I mean? I would NEVER do that!
I didn’t find your statement racist. I knew what you were saying. This is a common liberal tactic to yell rasicm at almost anything. Elizabeth and Edyt do it quite often.
Haha, Jasper..you yourself have said some racist things so I wouldn’t think you would have a problem with TS’s racist comment. I guess not being a racist means I’m liberal? If so, I’m cool being a liberal.
TS even said that it was on her mind at the time when it was written! I guess Asian people=broken English? Do you really NOT get that is a racist comment? Ahh…well, I guess it’s true what they say..birds of a feather.
JLM,
It is not that I’m telling you how to post/what to post, etc. I don’t want to tell you how to post or whatever. It may have come across that way but that’s now what I meant. I like debating/having converstaions with you. I don’t really converse with HisMan or TS because quoting scripture is not really a conversation to me. It’s just copying and pasting. I was just trying to help you get your point across better in a way that would allow people on either side of the issue to understand you. It’s because I think you have valid arguments to contribute and debate upon. I once heard a quote somewhere that said, “Your critics are the people telling you they still love you.”
It’s because I think you have valid arguments to contribute and debate upon. I once heard a quote somewhere that said, “Your critics are the people telling you they still love you.”
How can that be when I never have an “original thought” and I always post scripture?
Elizabeth,
You throw the “racist” word around too easily. That is not racist what TS said. Many Asians do speak broken English, it’s not demeaning to their race or anything, we can’t speak Mandarin or Cantonese. If just a fact.
I find people use the “racist” label so easily are very mean people.
Elizabeth…in addition to my previous post, here’s what you said:
“It does not offend anyone here when you quote a bible verse or two. But that is not what you do. All you do is recite scripture and do not put forth your own words/opinions on the matter. You have no arguments that would appeal to the people on this board who are not religious because all you do is quote the Bible.”
Just because many do..does that mean they ALL do? If not, then it’s a stereotype, and therefore, racist if you apply it to ALL asians. Do you know all Asians? Do they ALL have broken english? If not, don’t supply them with that label and I won’t have anything to say about it.
I find people who defend racist comments to be very mean people.
Yes, JLM..I am aware of what I said. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I apologize..that was a blanket statement.
Refer to my 11:15 post because I don’t really want to type that all out again.
Then what did you mean? In your 11:15 post you said that you think I have valid arguments to contribute and debate upon, but for the third time now, you said that all I do is quote scripture and I never have an original thoughts or valid arguments to post. Then you tell me that you apologize because it was a “blanket statement”. Three blanket statements?
Sorry if I’m confused, but honestly, if all I do is post scripture and never have an original thought, how can you possibly think that I have valid arguments to contribute and debate upon?
So if we make any comment about a race, it’s racist? Thats basically what your saying..
..I have to go cut the grass and do my chores, I check back later..
The “all” was a blanket statement..In the comments I read that don’t contain scripture there ARE points that I can debate/converse with you on. There’s really no debating on scripture, because, well, it’s scripture lol. Do you get what I am saying now? I’ve already apologized for the “all” statements.
So if we make any comment about a race, it’s racist? Thats basically what your saying..
No, Jasper..that’s not what I am saying.
TS does not know if SoMG is an Asian or not, correct? So to assume that because he used an incorrect word means somehow he has “broken English” and therefore, is Asian, is a stereotype. He could have just misspoke too, or not reread what he wrote before he posted. There is a HOST of reasons for the incorrect using of the word. But to apply it to the fact that he “might” be Asian sounds stereotypical and racist to me.
JLM,
I suppose we could debate on scripture or its interpretation, but that’s whole different ball of wax. :)
4,000 posts anyone?
The “all” was a blanket statement..In the comments I read that don’t contain scripture there ARE points that I can debate/converse with you on. There’s really no debating on scripture, because, well, it’s scripture lol. Do you get what I am saying now? I’ve already apologized for the “all” statements.
Thank you. I’ll look forward to not seeing a “fourth” comment about my posts.
btw…feel free to get my e-mail address from Bethany or Jasper if you ever feel the need in the future to “critique” my posts. I’m sure we will both be more comfortable discussing my “flaws” privately rather than on a public forum.
Okedoke JLM, will do.
And we won’t have to waste everyone else’s time by making them read all of our stuff. lol.
That’s why I don’t bring it up in the first place on a public forum!
Have a wonderful day & it’s been nice “conversing” with you!
:)
That is true.
:makes mental note for future:
You have a nice day too.
Thanks Elizabeth!
:)
Gosh, Jasper,
Could you please come to Canada and cut MY grass? Darn it anyhow, it’s about 5 inches long. All it’s been doing here is raining!!
Oh, and Jasper..I’m not defending SoMG in.any.way. But I don’t think us as pro-lifers using racial stereotypes in any way will make people want to be pro-life. Plus, it just looks/sounds reallllly bad, and it offends me..so I will say so even if you don’t agree.
Ah yes. Because I’m a liberal I’m just using the “racist” card. Not that I have friends (and my boyfriend, actually) who are people of color and would be very offended by some of the things I’ve heard you say, Jasper.
When you insult my friends and boyfriend, yeah, I’m gonna take it personally and call you out on it. Using stereotypes like Asians can’t pronounce words correctly or all black women are angry are RACIST STEREOTYPES. TS hesitated before posting that, and that should have been a red flag that maybe she shouldn’t have posted it at all.
In the other thread, Mary said something to the effect of “if we ignore it [racism] it’ll go away.”
But the thing is, you and TS just demonstrated that it won’t, because you don’t even know when you’re being racist!!!
That’s sad and pathetic and I’m not saying that as a liberal but as someone who actually cares about people who aren’t white!
TS does not know if SoMG is an Asian or not, correct? So to assume that because he used an incorrect word means somehow he has “broken English” and therefore, is Asian, is a stereotype. He could have just misspoke too, or not reread what he wrote before he posted. There is a HOST of reasons for the incorrect using of the word. But to apply it to the fact that he “might” be Asian sounds stereotypical and racist to me.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Jasper hit the nail on the head earlier when he said:
“Many Asians do speak broken English, it’s not demeaning to their race or anything, we can’t speak Mandarin or Cantonese. If just a fact.”
In my line of work I talk with people oversees on a daily basis so I can understand peculiarities in English phraseology more than most. And though I had pointed to just that one example, it was not just one word that led me to my deduction.
Now I am going to use a couple of actual racist words here in order to make my point, and at this juncture in our conversation I assume nobody will take them out of context. If I had said, “SOMG’s broken english makes him sound like a gook”, that would be racist. If I hear someone speak with a Southern drawl and say that sound like they are from the South, that is NOT racist. If I said their southern drawl it makes them sound like a “redneck”, then that would be racist.
Like I said previously, I am sensitive about not being racist and that is why I thought twice before posting the comment about having perceived “Asian” in SOMG’s phraseology. And I made the determination, for the reasons stated above that it was not racist. Anyway, I hope you can see the difference and appreciate you letting me know if you think my posts are offensive.. I see it as being
above post was ts
The truth is not racist, Edyt. Guessing somebody’s nationality by the way the speak or write is NOT racist Edyt. Your hypersensitity to being PC is blinding you from being able to think rationally about my comments. I did think twice, and it wasn;t racist, so I posted it.
btw, the PC in above post stood for Politically Correct and not Pro Choice
What truth?
I agree 100% with what Elizabeth said. If that’s being “hypersensitive” then so what? At least I care enough about my Asian friends to not let them be demeaned by people who think Asians speak with broken English.
Sometimes people make typos or don’t say things clearly. That doesn’t make them a certain ethnicity. And you don’t have to call them a bad name to imply demeaning things about them.
Edyt,
What bad name did I call him?
Just because many do..does that mean they ALL do? If not, then it’s a stereotype, and therefore, racist if you apply it to ALL asians. Do you know all Asians? Do they ALL have broken english? If not, don’t supply them with that label and I won’t have anything to say about it.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Elizabeth, If you want to be PC to the point where you do not enage in honest dialogue, that is o.k. But don’t salnder other people who are not PC by calling them racist. When you do that you are being unfair. Nowhere did I say ALL Asians speak with broken english. Why are you twisting my words and calling me a racist and saying I siad ALL Asians speak broken english. That is not fair. I talk with Asians almost every day and the fact that many speak broken english. The fact that I know that and say that does NOT make me a racist and I dare say that the majority of people, who are not in a persistant PC state, would understand that and would agree with me andthey would not believe it to be a racist slur.
Edyt,
Is saying foreigners usually speak broken english racist?
What about the other way around? If you went to the Philipines and they said you spoke broken Phillipino, would you consider that to be a racist thing to say to you?
Ts,
I never twisted your words or called you a racist. I said your comment was racist. If you look at the comment you posted, I was talking to Jasper, not to you. It was in response to Jasper’s comment.
What exactly did you mean that “Oh, SoMG said a wrong word, so he speaks in broken English, and that made me think he was Asian.” COME ON! I even went to the thread and reread what SoMG said that caused that comment by you..and ALL it said to me was that he probably mistyped..NOT that he was Asian. That thought would have never crossed my mind, especially over the internet. Plus, TYPING and speaking broken English are 2 different concepts..one can have trouble speaking English because of their accent, but typing it? Not necessarily.
I do not live in a constant PC state…I just read your comment and thought, “Wow, maybe you don’t understand that that comment sounds racist.” So I thought I’d bring it to your attention..
There are plenty of people out there that stereotype that aren’t necessarily racists..but in order for you to not be perceived in that light, don’t you think not pointing out you “think” someone is a certain race because of what they say would be a good idea? I mean, why didn’t you just ask SoMG if he was Asian, if you thought his grammar signified that? THAT would have been more appropriate.
Oh and p.s…I’ve lived with an Asian person that didn’t speak very good English, and I know several that have trouble because of their accent, that doesn’t mean I would apply that to every Asian person OR that I would even think someone over the internet was Asian because they possibly mistyped a word.
Being Asian does not make someone a foreigner.
Nor does being a foreigner make you speak broken English.
Both are stereotypes that you have used to engage in racist dialogue and it should not be tolerated.
TS,
If many that you know do, does that mean they all do..and that you could infer because of someones internet comment that someone was in fact a certain ethnicity?
That’s like me saying, “Well, jails are mostly filled with black men, so if somebody committed a crime, and they don’t know who it is, that person is probably black.” Get it?
While it MAY BE TRUE that there are lots of black men in jail, that doesn’t mean every black man I encounter in everyday life has/is/ever will be in prison..so for me to make that assertion is in FACT a stereotype.
Truthseeker,
I wouldn’t waste much time with Edyt, she’s an evil person and a bold face liar as well. It’s best to aviod them.
Ouch, Jasper…as a mod you really should be setting a better example.
Awww, poor Jasper. Does being called a racist make you feel uncomfortable and victimized? Do you feel like people are picking on you because you’re just a poor white male who never meant anyone harm by those wittle things he said?
/end babytalk
I don’t care if you think I’m evil for pointing out your racist comments but there’s no lie in the fact that what you said was racist.
Ok, people..seriously.
Let’s argue in a civilized manner, please.
And I’m sickened that at least two of you on this board think being politically correct and respectful to other people is disdainful and “liberal”.
Well, if you want conservatives to be given handed the racist card, by all means, continue what you’re saying without apology. We “liberals” don’t care if you shame yourselves … (why do you think so many people of color vote Democratic? Some people actually care to be respectful toward them! Wow!) but others, like Elizabeth, can spot how it doesn’t just hurt people, it hurts your entire cause.
Sorry, Elizabeth. I’ll be nicer.
Elizabeth, I do understand where you are coming from, and if it made you feel like I was making a racist comment then like I said before, thanks for pointing it out and I’ll leave it at that. Let’s find some love.
And thanks for holding me in high enough regard to be shocked that I would make what you considered to a racist comment (even though it wasn’t).
Elizabeth,
You came back from the aquarium on fire and itching for a fight. I think a part of it was your your wanting to find a non-religious way of getting pro-aborts over to the pro-life side. And perhaos your desire to do so is actually causing you to strike out unfairly against people of faith. 90% of the scripture I have posted on this blog lately was in defense of scripture that people like Edyt have been posting as “evidene” that God is evil. I actually enjoy rebutting them, but in case you didn’t notice, recently atheists have been posting as much scripture as the pro-lifers on this site so chill “sweetie”…. oops, I forgot, that is offensive coming from a conservative. lol
Truthseeker,
I wouldn’t waste much time with Edyt, she’s an evil person and a bold face liar as well. It’s best to aviod them.
Posted by: Jasper at May 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Jasper, Edyt strikes me as somebody who comes to this site to try and get a rise out of people who love babies in the womb and/or get a rise out of people who love God.
TS! Woo hoo!!! I think you nailed it!
You came back from the aquarium on fire and itching for a fight. I think a part of it was your your wanting to find a non-religious way of getting pro-aborts over to the pro-life side.
hmmmmmmm….I wonder where that came from?????
I think I remember a discussion previously that involved…yes, three people….discussing this very same thing! How ironic!
While it MAY BE TRUE that there are lots of black men in jail, that doesn’t mean every black man I encounter in everyday life has/is/ever will be in prison..so for me to make that assertion is in FACT a stereotype.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 18, 2008 4:05 PM
That would be a stereotype, because being black is not a characterisitic that should be used in determining wether or not somebody would be in jail. But if you said somebody has an “afro” hair-do, then it would not be racist for your first perception to be that they were black, even though people other than blacks have afros. Get it? Sorry, I just had to post that response to help you see the difference.
TS, I challenged my own mother’s beliefs this morning.
At least she was honest with me and explained her beliefs and why she believes them, and allowed me to provide counterarguments. If she didn’t have an answer, she just said she didn’t know, rather than belittle me for challenging her faith.
So far, my challenges to you have been ignored and disregarded. Not one Bible-following Christian* on this site has had the guts to actually explain any of the verses I’ve posted, or had any evidence to prove they meant something different than what I interpreted. Instead of the “you need the holy ghost to read it for you” cop-out, she said she didn’t believe the Bible was the word of God.
I actually enjoy talking about scripture with people. I’m a literary critic, so I’ll talk about anything I’ve read, to be quite honest. If you like Hidden Place by Shawn Shiflett, I’d have about 1,000 reasons to tell you why it’s a totally horrible book from start to finish. Ditto the Bible. If you aren’t secure enough in your faith to be able to justify why you believe what you believe, then maybe you should re-examine why you believe it. I’m not trying to stir up trouble, but I do wonder why so many people enjoy picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe, all the while saying the whole book is perfect.
*By Bible-following Christian I mean anyone who believes the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God that should be followed to the letter.
Edyt, Here we go again. But I’m ready. Which of your challenges to me have been ignored and disregarded?
Oh, and by the way, I don’t care what people believe (be it in God, Jesus, Holy Ghost, Zeus, whatever) but I do think books have a very real impact on how people behave and when a book advocates violence it should be held accountable for that.
Challenging the Bible is one of the easiest things to do, but when people don’t believe the whole Bible I ask about why they chose their particular religion — whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. over any other option.
The reason I tend to sound like I’m stirring up trouble is because I don’t take lame excuses and dodges from the question.
MK and a few others have been really straightforward about why they think Catholicism is the right path, and I appreciate that. Saying “I believe in God because the Bible told me so” is circular reasoning and no better than saying “I believe in unicorns because I read Unicorns I Have Known.”
So if you’d like to discuss my questions and why I ask them in more detail, feel free. If you want to continue attacking me rather than taking the time to actually think about your faith, feel free to do that as well.
TS,
Well, I believe I brought up Deuteronomy chapter 13 before, correct?
Edyt, Here we go again. But I’m ready. Which of your challenges to me have been ignored and disregarded?
Edyt, In the olden days people had no salvation through Jesus so they were “doomed” because all they had was God’s law and they were unable to follow it. What part of that needs clarification?
Would you like to get more specific about any of the verses in particular?
The part where God commands anyone who disobeys God’s laws to be killed, not by God but by man. It doesn’t say that they are doomed to burn in hell for eternity; it quite clearly says that those people are to be put to death. Another similar verse from Exodus (which is still relevant because much of Deuteronomy is a rehashing of laws from Exodus) is Ex. 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. which was used to justify the witch hunts of the middle ages and 15th-17th centuries in Europe, as well as the Salem witch trials in America.
Are you saying these commands aren’t to be taken seriously today because of Jesus?
[The reason I mention the witch hunts is to show how these verses can be applied in modern times; apparently not everyone got the salvation memo!]
Edyt, Before God sent his only Son down with his commandment for us to love one another, God’s judgement came down upon idolators here on earth.
The problem comes in that you see that as evil and it is not. You fail to understand that before Jesus, death of the flesh was merciful if it keeps one from committng idolatry which would lead them to death eternal.
For instance, if I were a drunkard and destined to kill innocents through my drunkeness, God could show mercy on me by having me crash and kill myself before hurting others. I would consider that a blessing from God. Does that make any sense to you?
TS,
I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying, so correct me if this is wrong.
You’re saying it was okay for people in the past to kill others who were committing sins? God’s judgment, in a sense, is by the way he commanded armies of people to kill and destroy cities and individuals guilty of sin, right?
Not to go back to that “you need the Holy Spirit to understand” thing, but you may actually need the Holy Spirit to understand. Without faith in God as the giver of life, you may not understand how I could think losing my life is actually saving it.
Edyt,
The bible is divided into two parts. The old testament, and the new. The old testament contains the laws God gave to Moses or, the Hebrew law. The new testament is the five historical books, or the four Gospels, which describe the life of Jesus and the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church, (mostly through the work of Paul). Then, there are the 13 letters all written during the early decades of the church, and the last book in the new testement is Revelation..the prophetic book.
The Jews lived under the law (old testament). You can’t apply the law to us these days, because we live in the age of grace. Jesus fulfilled the law. He paid the penalty for sins, unlike the old testament days, when rituals needed to be followed (by command of God) in order to cleanse the Jews of their sins.
The witches that you described in Exodus, and the people in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 13 were killed because God so totally abhors the worship of false gods, that He cammands any city among the Israelites worshipping them to be destroyed, along with the false prophets, family memebers, or any inhabitans of the cities that tried to lead the Israelites into idolatry to be destroyed. False worhip is a very serious matter to God, one that He totally hates.
Please do not make the mistake that many people make when reading the bible. They mix law & grace together. It’s like mixing oil & water…you can’t. It’s no wonder many people have found so-called “inconsistencies” in the bible. The mix law & grace.
I hope that answers a part of your question. If there’s anything else that I can try to answer for you, I will. I believe deep in my heart that the verses in the bible will never contradict each other, and that every word is the Word of God and is the truth..the whole truth…and nothing but the truth!!!
TS, you are not answering any of my questions.
JLM, so essentially what you are saying is that the Old Testament is no longer applicable to today’s standards and should be taken more as a historical document rather than a message on how to live?
Elizabeth,
You came back from the aquarium on fire and itching for a fight.
What does one have to do with the other?
I just got on and read certain comments and replied to them. I was gone all day, so I couldn’t really respond to them at the time they were written.
Frankly, I don’t see why you’re still hammering on about this because JLM and I have squashed it, but if you wish to continue, you may do so without me. Thanks.
That would be a stereotype, because being black is not a characterisitic that should be used in determining wether or not somebody would be in jail. But if you said somebody has an “afro” hair-do, then it would not be racist for your first perception to be that they were black, even though people other than blacks have afros. Get it? Sorry, I just had to post that response to help you see the difference.
I don’t associate an “afro” hairstyle with being black because I just don’t. My brother is the whitest white boy there is and has a fro when he grows his hair out..I mean it’s crazy for real! Maybe other people do associate “afro’s” with black people, but that is still a stereotype to me. It makes no difference what the stereotype IS. Hair is hair, straight, curly, it’s all the same to me.
And so someone having broken English is characteristic of being Asian then? Because that’s what I got from this statement. You can twist stereotypes however you want to so you can claim that YOUR’S was not one, but I know it was.
I do not deny that there are differences between races, physical differences, because that’s just the way it is. But what you were talking about had nothing to do with a physical difference, it had to with some misprint that turned into “broken English” and then associated it with Asian people. I didn’t do that. You did. Own up to it and move on. I don’t think it makes you a horrible person..we all say things that are incorrect or frankly prejudice at times. It happens.
Patience Edyt, my post to you at 6:46 was actually written before you had posted your 6:46 post. Maybe you could go back answer my posts too :) My one’s asking you if you understood each of the concepts I am taking the time to explain to you along the way.
JLM, so essentially what you are saying is that the Old Testament is no longer applicable to today’s standards and should be taken more as a historical document rather than a message on how to live?
Yes! However, we need to look to the old testament to see how God reveals Himself to His people.
I know many times I talk about “can’t mix law & grace”. It’s simple to me because I have been taught that, but let me take a second so you can see where I’m coming from.
The ONLY payment for sin (old testament & new) is blood. A blood sacrafice has always been required by God. In the old testament days, the people needed two things for their salvation:
1. Faith in God
and
2. Blood sacrafice (animals on the altar)
Jesus came to make one final payment for sin. His blood. He sacraficed Himself and took the payment for our sins.
So, today, we need to do these two things for salvation:
1. Faith
and
2. Nothing
We don’t need to make a blood sacrafice anymore because Jesus has already done that for us.
Old Testament = law
New Testament = grace
So, when you see these verses, you know why it is a gift from God!
Ephesians 2:7-9
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
See? Faith plus nothing!
Edyt,
One more thing in regard to my 7:05 post:
When Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, you can easily see what He meant. He fulfilled the law (faith plus sacrafice) by BEING the sacrafice! No more law is required. Just faith!
For your car crash scenario, yes, I understand why that would be a blessing. But that would be an act from God not from man which I think is a key difference in the commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
What I’m getting at is that these people were being punished on earth by other people. You can say they were doing God’s will, but if God wanted to destroy them himself, he could have (thus the Flood story). Why is there the need for humans to punish other humans, particularly with death?
But what you were talking about had nothing to do with a physical difference, it had to with some misprint that turned into “broken English” and then associated it with Asian people.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 18, 2008 6:55 PM
Elizabeth, I believe that I already told you that it wasn’t a single post or misprint that lead me to my determination. I understand how at first you may have thought it was just a single post that lead me to my determination, but I already told you that it was NOT a single post but a pattern in many posts. So why do you keep referring to it as a single post or misprint?
JLM, that reminds me of an interesting statement my mother said earlier today. She was hesitant to say it, but she said she thought God “changed” over time. Interesting perspective, I thought.
Why is there the need for humans to punish other humans, particularly with death?
The Israelites were God’s chosen people. He didn’t want them corrupted by their idolatrous neighbors. These people (Isralites neighbors) were also given the choice to obey God or choose death. Did you know that it was common practice for their neighbors to have sex with animals? Not to mention the worship of the golden calf!
The penalty for sin IS death. When people choose not to obey God, death is their choice. I know that sounds harsh, but God despises sin. He cannot look upon it. He couldn’t look upon Jesus when he took the sins of the world upon Him when He was hanging on the cross.
JLM,
Everyone dies. Where does heaven and hell fit into this punishment for sin?
JLM, that reminds me of an interesting statement my mother said earlier today. She was hesitant to say it, but she said she thought God “changed” over time. Interesting perspective, I thought.
I would love to talk with your mom! There’s this lady at work that was having a hard time understanding the bible and God as well. I print Les Feldick’s teachings for her to help her understand. She is always so grateful to me that I print them for her, because Les talks in “simple English” that anyone can understand. He’s been a God-send for me!
If your mom has the internet (my mom doesn’t, so that’s why I said that!), you can give her this website to help her if she wants it. There’s plenty of answers to FAQ’s on it. It’s free, too!
http://lesfeldick.org/lesqa.html
I’ve just been reading the banter.
Isn’t it awesome to see a reprobate reveal himself and his true colors? The un-semanticized face of pro-aborts is revealed by SoMG. If Jill could expose the abortion mindset as explicitly as SoMG does, great harm would be done to their Sanger inspired movement.
Jill, I suggest that your next WND article highlight SoMG and his positions. Especially about his position that it is a baby in the womb and can still be murdered. I am sure the public will really jump on that one. Maybe he’ll be forced to come out of his cave, identify himself and even pro-aborts would cannibalize him.
Like I said, the guy is screwed and doesn’t even know it. His denial and self-deception is so complete, that the only solace and self-preservation his sub-conscious knows is to dig the hole deeper and deeper.
But oh, so, so, tragic.
“Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, I will repay”.
Everyone dies. Where does heaven and hell fit into this punishment for sin?
If one can admit they are a sinner, and has faith that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures they will spend eternity in Heaven with their Lord. FREE GIFT!
If one does not admit they are a sinner, and doesn’t believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures, they will spend eternity in Hell.
Sin cannot enter heaven. The payment for sin is death. Jesus took that payment when He died on the cross for our sins, thus we have eternal life through Him. So, if one doesn’t receive payment for their sins, they die an eternal death.
JLM, like I said before, she no longer believes the Bible is the word of God, so I don’t think she’d be very interested in a link of Bible verses supporting various notions. She believes people who follow the Bible are as bad as idolaters because they are not truly seeking out Jesus’ heart. They are merely picking out answers to what they want to believe.
JLM (7:27):
Then why the need for earthly death? Couldn’t the sin (living in hell) be applied to sinners before Jesus as well?
Did all the people who lived in the time of the Old Testament go to heaven after they died?
JLM:
Very good posts. Just keep lovin’ Edyt.
Edyt,
No, they didn’t go to hell. Hell hasn’t been “opened” yet.
Before Jesus died, there were two “holding areas” for people who died an earthly death. Torments was on one side, and Paradise was on the other. In between them was the Great Gulf fixed. No one could cross from one side to the other. When Jesus died, he went to “paradise”, closed the Great Gulf fixed, and brought the people in paradise (the people who obeyed God’s law i.e,. faith in Him plus sacrafice) to heaven with Him. (His blood, again, was the payment for ALL sin – past, present and future).
Those who rejected God, the one’s in torments, remain there even today until after Judgment Day when they will receive their judgement and be thrown into hell for not believing (having the required faith).
Edyt,
Thank you for taking the time to finish this concept before jumping on to ither questions. It is very important to make sure we don’t infer each other’s understanding of the subject matter and end up with no understanding at all. Now lets move on with your next question
******
For your car crash scenario, yes, I understand why that would be a blessing. But that would be an act from God not from man which I think is a key difference in the commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
What I’m getting at is that these people were being punished on earth by other people. You can say they were doing God’s will, but if God wanted to destroy them himself, he could have (thus the Flood story). Why is there the need for humans to punish other humans, particularly with death?”
Posted by: Edyt at May 18, 2008 7:08 PM
You say you understand how God having a drunk driver crash and kill himself could be a blessing, so lets continue with the same drunk driver analogy and see if we can eventually get to a point where you can understand God allowing human’s to kill other humans.
Can you see where it could be a blessing if God killed that same drunk driver by having a deer run in front of his car and causing him to crash and die? Or an even further out analogy of the same drunk driver. What if the same person was beligerent and leaving the bar to get into his car and drive and God knew he would end up killing a group of innocent children walking home from a birthday party if he left, so God had another one of the patrons in the bar confront him and get in a fight with him that lead to the drunks death. Could that be a blessing?
TS, Then I suggest you ask SoMG whether or not he/she is Asian so you could clear the air for yourself and won’t make presumptions. It doesn’t matter to me whether he/she is Asian or not and I don’t speculate on it either way.
It doesn’t really matter to me either Elizabeth. I was just trying to play detective.
This has been an interesting thread…I wonder how many comments it will get up to.
Work’s without faith cannot save you, but faith without works is dead.
See James 2:
TS,
Would that be works BECAUSE of salvation, or works TO EARN salvation???
JLM, I would say more likely….BECAUSE
TS,
Me too!
great posts today, btw!
thx JLM. the Holy Spirit moves me sometimes.
Edyt, I can’t wait up any longer for your answer.
I’ll check back again tomorrow.
The comparison between gays and their
private conduct with former governor Spitzer
is not valid.Spitzer did harm to his family
as a public official.His foolish and hypocritical
conduct can’t be compared with what gays do in
private.Spitzer was involved with prostitution,
which is illegal.But just look at the Nether-
lands.It’s legal there.The red light district
in Amsterdam is out in the open,with prostitutes
on view to the public.Let’s give credit to
the Dutch.They may be decadent,but you can’t
accuse them of hypocrisy! And the Netherlands
has the world’s LOWEST abortion rate.
Can you see where it could be a blessing if God killed that same drunk driver by having a deer run in front of his car and causing him to crash and die? Or an even further out analogy of the same drunk driver. What if the same person was beligerent and leaving the bar to get into his car and drive and God knew he would end up killing a group of innocent children walking home from a birthday party if he left, so God had another one of the patrons in the bar confront him and get in a fight with him that lead to the drunks death. Could that be a blessing?
I’m following along with you, but again, there’s a big difference between someone deciding to start a fight with a drunk guy, and someone deciding to murder his wife for committing adultery because he felt the Bible wished him to do so.
Before Jesus died, there were two “holding areas” for people who died an earthly death. Torments was on one side, and Paradise was on the other. In between them was the Great Gulf fixed. No one could cross from one side to the other. When Jesus died, he went to “paradise”, closed the Great Gulf fixed, and brought the people in paradise (the people who obeyed God’s law i.e,. faith in Him plus sacrafice) to heaven with Him. (His blood, again, was the payment for ALL sin – past, present and future).
Those who rejected God, the one’s in torments, remain there even today until after Judgment Day when they will receive their judgement and be thrown into hell for not believing (having the required faith).
Ah, right, you’re referring to Hades. (From Luke 16, I assume)
Still, I cannot understand why it is necessary for humans to kill other humans?
Furthermore, I get the idea of punishment, but why an eternal one? For example, parents love their children enough to punish them for what they do wrong, but if a parent were to continue punishment for eternity, that’s nothing short of child abuse. And parents should take responsibility for their children’s behavior as well; in the Bible, it seems God takes no responsibility for the actions of his creation, even though he is responsible for their behavior.
I’m following along with you, but again, there’s a big difference between someone deciding to start a fight with a drunk guy, and someone deciding to murder his wife for committing adultery because he felt the Bible wished him to do so.
Posted by: Edyt at May 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Edyt,
The fact that their can be justification for God allowing humans to kill humans is all I was looking for from that analogy and we seem to be in agreement.
Now you are asking what about “someone deciding to murder his wife for committing adultery because he felt the Bible wished him to do so.”
Well, I may just kill someone for commiting adultery with my wife, but for me it would be an act of passion, not because the scripture told me so. Jesus teaching is that I would be justified in leaving her for her adulterous act, but Jesus is also clear that I should not kill. Many believe that killing in self-defense is justified because each life has value and deserves protection. But in this adultery scenario, unless the person felt justifiable threatened with bodily harm or death it could not be justified. Perhaps in a way that is how I do justify killing an adulterer, because I would meet him with physical force to redress the adulterer’s disorder. But today, Christians need to justify their actions by looking at Jesus’ example and teachings, not just any single passage. We should understand taht God’s actions and thoughts are so far beyond our own, and today our best chance at understanding God is by centering our own thoughts and actions around the the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ.
TS, I’m not sure I follow that there can be justification for humans killing other humans. ESPECIALLY because while I would consider “sin” to be something to the effect of lying, killing, stealing, etc… the Bible includes such sins as idolatry, worshiping other gods or having no god, and witchcraft.
For example, many Christians believe the 10 Commandments should be followed. (Nearly all the punishments for breaking those commandments are death by stoning or hanging) Those commandments are from the Old Testament, however, not by Jesus. In fact, as far as I can tell, Jesus doesn’t have a list of commandments or rules for the people; simply more preferable ways to live. Even if you don’t follow his teachings, even if you sin, as long as you still follow Jesus as savior and repent, those sins are forgiven.
Anyway, what I was saying was that people still do follow the Old Testament and use it along with the New Testament to justify all sorts of horrible things. Fred Phelps and his family… for example. And pro-lifers at abortion clinics screaming horrible things at women. Jesus himself sometimes acted out in anger.
Is it okay for people to do such things, as exemplified in the Bible? And what of Christians that find the Bible the literal word of God, all passages from front to back relevant to today’s society?
Ah, right, you’re referring to Hades. (From Luke 16, I assume)
Impressive! Yes, I am.
Still, I cannot understand why it is necessary for humans to kill other humans?
Because God is more concerned with the eternal soul than the earthly body. God saw that the Israelites neighbors were “messing with their eternal souls”. Everyone knew what God commanded, and their neighbors CHOSE to turn from God and worship a false god. These neighbors were having a bad influence on His chosen people, the Israelites, so He commanded they be killed. Remember…it’s all about choice, here. They could have turned from their wicked ways, but they didn’t. They were warned and ignored the warnings.
Furthermore, I get the idea of punishment, but why an eternal one? For example, parents love their children enough to punish them for what they do wrong, but if a parent were to continue punishment for eternity, that’s nothing short of child abuse. And parents should take responsibility for their children’s behavior as well; in the Bible, it seems God takes no responsibility for the actions of his creation, even though he is responsible for their behavior.
Again, it’s all about choice. God doesn’t per se “punish” them…He gives them what they wanted. Unfortunately, when they realize what their destiny is, it’s too late. At that point, people will SEE God…so, it’s easy to believe at that point. The whole ball of wax here is FAITH. Either you have it or you don’t. It’s each individuals choice.
God cannot allow sin to enter heaven. Sin isn’t paid for in heaven, it’s already been paid for here on earth by Jesus. When one is on earth, that’s the time to either accept Him as Lord and Savior or not. That’s why I for one try so hard to show people the truth and love that Jesus has given us as a gift. Please don’t ever think that I write things to offend. I believe 110% in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, if I truly believe it, I’d be a jerk to not want to share it.
Edyt..thank you for being so nice. I really do appreciate it!
Edyt,
Re: your 4:34 pm post. You’ve got it! You know, because you’ve read it before. How will you know that someone is truly a Christian??? By their FRUITS! I think many people will be shocked on judgment day, because they claimed to know God, but really didn’t. That’s why faith has to come from the heart…not the lips!
The bible tells us this also!
Matthew 7:21-23
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
JLM,
I have no problem being nice, but as soon as I mention hypocrisy in the Bible or Christians, the daggers come out. Like I said earlier, I read a lot, and no book is immune to my criticism. :)
I understand your post about false Christians, and … were I a Christian, I’d hope a certain section of hell was reserved for the Phelps family … but those people have more faith than I do. And I’ve been told, read, understood that all you need to get to heaven is to repent and believe in Christ.
So what happens to the Phelps?
And why does God have no regard for the good, kind people of the earth who don’t have faith?
I’m sorry, but there’s something sadistic and narcissistic about a God whose only desire is to have everyone worship him and everyone who doesn’t (regardless of how good a person they were) should go to hell.
I have no problem being nice, but as soon as I mention hypocrisy in the Bible or Christians, the daggers come out. Like I said earlier, I read a lot, and no book is immune to my criticism. :)
I hope I never brought out a dagger. I just read a few books myself in the last few weeks. My favorite was Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg. Have you read that one yet?
Anyway, I can totally understand how one can think that there’s hypocrisy in the bible. Many people don’t have good pastors, priests or teachers that actually will teach them ABOUT the bible…i.e., bible STUDY. It’s one thing to read a verse, pull one out for good measure, or find the ones that suit one’s needs at the time, but I believe that it’s a book as a WHOLE, that should be studied thoroughly as a whole. I read and memorized verses for over 20 years, and it wasn’t until I studied it as a whole (with lots of help from a WONDERFUL teacher), did I finally say…OH! I get it now!
I understand your post about false Christians, and … were I a Christian, I’d hope a certain section of hell was reserved for the Phelps family … but those people have more faith than I do. And I’ve been told, read, understood that all you need to get to heaven is to repent and believe in Christ…..So what happens to the Phelps?
I’m not familiar with who the Phelps are. I probably should, but I don’t. But yes, you are correct that all you need to get to heaven is to repent and believe (have faith) in Jesus’ finished work on the cross. Edyt…I can’t stress enough that it has to come from the heart. God doesn’t want lip service, He needs one to have faith that comes from the heart. I don’t know the Phelps at all, and I can’t read their heart. They can say they believe until they are blue in the face, but that doesn’t matter to God. If it’s not coming from the heart…it just isn’t there. People can fool other people, but they can’t fool God.
And why does God have no regard for the good, kind people of the earth who don’t have faith?
It’s not about good or bad…it’s about sin. Even good, kind people need a savior. They were born with the curse of sin. No, they couldn’t help it, but it happened. They too, hear about Jesus…they are making the choice not to believe in Him. Not everyone murders and not everyone bows down to idols. There’s extremes on both sides…good people, and really, really bad people. We can see this in many facets of politics as well. Again though, it’s not about good vs. evil…it’s about sin.
I’m sorry, but there’s something sadistic and narcissistic about a God whose only desire is to have everyone worship him and everyone who doesn’t (regardless of how good a person they were) should go to hell.
okay…really, really bad example, but it’s the only one I can think of right now: put a dog into the scenario above. You being the master of the dog, and wanting the dog to obey you because you knew what the plan for the dog’s life would be. If the dog did the exact opposite, and didn’t trust or obey you…wouldn’t that make you upset? okay, again…really, really bad example.
Contrary to some beliefs God is love. He has the ultimate plan. His mind is so far beyond ours, that we cannot comprehend Him. I believe in Him and put my trust in Him. Edyt…there are SOOOOOO many things that I don’t understand, and make me say “why…that doesn’t make sense…why would God do that?”…but I simply put my trust in Him that He knows better than I, and He’s much, much smarter, too! I keep telling myself that He loves me and wants the best for me. You may think that’s the silliest thing you’ve ever heard, but I can’t explain the amazing feeling I get when I just “let go and let God”. It’s the strangest thing…it’s like a wave of comfort and tons of heavy weights being lifted off of me. I do feel real peace and comfort when I let go and let God.
I don’t walk around in this peaceful trance at all times, I want to let you know! I’m just learning this “let go and let God” thing. Five years ago you’d think I was the biggest worry-wart and stressed out person you could ever meet. I still get like that to this day, …but it’s getting easier and easier to let go and let God, because I know the real comfort and peace I feel inside when I do. I remember that feeling. It’s definitely supernatural…I can’t deny His love for me.
I’m sorry if I babbled. It’s what I do!
:)
JLM,
If I’m not mistaken, the Phelps are the founders of the Westboro Baptist Church. This “church” goes around and protests at gay people’s funerals holding signs that says “God hates fags” and “A fag dies, God laughs.” Stuff like that. Google them, you’ll find loads of info. They also protest at soldiers funerals with signs like “Thank God for dead soldiers.” They basically believe that everyone else but THEM will go to Hell. They also tried to protest and hold those similar signs at the NIU shooting funerals and the shootings of those Amish school children. They are a very sad and sick group of people. They have been declared a “hate group.”
Edyt: FYI: “Hypocrisy” is a LOADED word, not to be thrown around lightly, which is why people get bent out of shape when they hear it. Personally, I don’t like to use it unless I’m using it hypothetically, since it can be offensive.
JLM: You’re doin’ great on some good questions from E.!
Edyt,
Ohhhhhh, the Phelps! I can’t stand them. They are horrible, horrible people, that are severely misguided. Yes, you will know them by their fruits. Their fruits are rotton and digusting. That should tell you something about their hearts (if they have them). I think they are way beyond sick. If you look into that woman’s eyes you can really see the evil in her.
People like that remind me of people who are led by Satan to use the bible to do exactly what you have said about the bible. Satan knows the scriptures, too!
Sad…truly sad lot, that Westboro clan.
JLM, I’ll respond to your comments in more detail later, but I think I just understood why I’m not big on the God-beliefs.
I’m a cat person!!
I don’t want my cats to obey me and do everything I say. I just want them to be nice and not bite or scratch or knock stuff off the shelves. But it doesn’t matter to me whether they look up to me or worship me. That’s not why I have them. I have them because they’re pleasurable, and I have no desire to punish them for eternity, even if they don’t believe I’m their owner.
I have no desire to punish them for eternity, even if they don’t believe I’m their owner.
Haha, Edyt, didn’t anybody ever tell you? Your cats own YOU! lol.
TS, I’m not sure I follow that there can be justification for humans killing other humans. ESPECIALLY because while I would consider “sin” to be something to the effect of lying, killing, stealing, etc… the Bible includes such sins as idolatry, worshiping other gods or having no god, and witchcraft.
OK. I had moved forward with answering your other questions cause I thought we were in agreement on that. Lets go back and review my post again and you can tell me why their is no justification for God to use this man to kill the drunk:
You say you understand how God having a drunk driver crash and kill himself could be a blessing, so lets continue with the same drunk driver analogy and see if we can eventually get to a point where you can understand God allowing human’s to kill other humans.
Can you see where it could be a blessing if God killed that same drunk driver by having a deer run in front of his car and causing him to crash and die? Or an even further out analogy of the same drunk driver. What if the same person was beligerent and leaving the bar to get into his car and drive and God knew he would end up killing a group of innocent children walking home from a birthday party if he left, so God had another one of the patrons in the bar confront him and get in a fight with him that lead to the drunks death. Could that be a blessing?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 18, 2008 7:37 PM
Edyt, I am awaiting your answer so we can move forward onto the other questions including
“DEATH for ETERNITY”
And a world of hurt
While I am waiting for your answer, here is a little preview of what lies ahead. God’s endless compassion for His children. Logic of acknowledging God. Why God is not to be mocked. Understanding with free will comes responsibility and we can’t blame others, including God, for our failure to accept His gifts. That would be like a cat blaming it’s master for not caging it to protect it.
Edyt & Elizabeth,
LOL – cat comments!
While I am waiting for your answer, here is a little preview of what lies ahead. God’s endless compassion for His children. Logic of acknowledging God. Why God is not to be mocked. Understanding with free will comes responsibility and we can’t blame others, including God, for our failure to accept His gifts. That would be like a cat blaming it’s master for not caging it to protect it.
I disagree.
Say I create a robot with the ability to do something wrong. The robot knows what is right and wrong, but he sometimes does things wrong because he is a simple machine. Well, one day the robot goes out and kills someone.
Who does the cop come after?
The robot? Or me, for creating something flawed that I knew was going to do something wrong, yet I did nothing to fix his wiring?
Who is really to blame for the fact that the robot messed up?
It’s not about good or bad…it’s about sin. Even good, kind people need a savior. They were born with the curse of sin. No, they couldn’t help it, but it happened. They too, hear about Jesus…they are making the choice not to believe in Him. Not everyone murders and not everyone bows down to idols. There’s extremes on both sides…good people, and really, really bad people. We can see this in many facets of politics as well. Again though, it’s not about good vs. evil…it’s about sin.
But what if you don’t believe in Original Sin? See… the trouble I have with this is it sets up a lot of different notions you have to believe in before you get to the point of “needing” Jesus. Therefore, if I don’t believe I have original sin, then why do I need Jesus? See, when you’re a Christian, it’s not enough that you just believe in Jesus. You have to also believe in Original Sin, and the story of Jesus’ life, and God’s wrath and a whole slew of stories.
I’m still struggling to see why a god (any god) would feel the need to punish even those who act peaceably. Particularly those who don’t believe sin is generational.
Contrary to some beliefs God is love. He has the ultimate plan. His mind is so far beyond ours, that we cannot comprehend Him. I believe in Him and put my trust in Him. Edyt…there are SOOOOOO many things that I don’t understand, and make me say “why…that doesn’t make sense…why would God do that?”…but I simply put my trust in Him that He knows better than I, and He’s much, much smarter, too! I keep telling myself that He loves me and wants the best for me. You may think that’s the silliest thing you’ve ever heard, but I can’t explain the amazing feeling I get when I just “let go and let God”.
I don’t want to downplay your experience, but atheists can feel the same way without the existence of God. It’s like that song “Que sera sera” (Whatever Will Be, Will Be).
And like I’ve said before, I have an endless sense of curiosity. That’s what drives me to read so much. That’s what drives me to be a reporter and find information and ask questions. When I don’t find an answer, I don’t think there must be a higher power responsible, I simply think I haven’t found the answer yet. Perhaps our science isn’t advanced enough to be able to understand the beginning of life, but I’ve actually interviewed several scientists who are working on recreating the Big Bang on a small scale using cold temperatures rather than hot. (Chemicals react similarly in extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures)
I think everyone has to find their own inner peace. While some reach out to a “higher power” of sorts, others reach out to an outside, equal power, like in animism or pantheism. Still others find the power within themselves. I don’t think there’s anything silly at all about finding your own sense of peace, but I don’t think everyone will find it in the same place. I know when I was a Christian, I never felt peaceful. Now, I do. It just works better this way.
Okay, as far as the Phelps go… Elizabeth explained them pretty well. I have no doubt in my mind that they believe 100% in Christ and believe they are doing his bidding.
But now you’re attaching another clause — the fruits. So you’re saying even if someone does believe in Jesus and repents and so forth, they can still be denied?
Okay, as far as the Phelps go… Elizabeth explained them pretty well. I have no doubt in my mind that they believe 100% in Christ and believe they are doing his bidding.
Which is what should scare us all…
I think everyone has to find their own inner peace. While some reach out to a “higher power” of sorts, others reach out to an outside, equal power, like in animism or pantheism. Still others find the power within themselves. I don’t think there’s anything silly at all about finding your own sense of peace, but I don’t think everyone will find it in the same place. I know when I was a Christian, I never felt peaceful. Now, I do. It just works better this way.
Sounds like you are talking about some one like Oprah. She’s a prime example of a person who had a rough childhood and has been looking for peace all of her life and is now creating her own mix of religions to try to come up with something new. She’ll probably be on her deathbed and it’ll dawn on her, “Hey He (Christ) was here all along and I didn’t see Him”.
In my opinion, we lose our way when we think we are in complete control. From the movie Bella, “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans”
You wonder why God punishes us. He’s our heavenly Father. Like an earthly father, He loves us and wants what is best for us, but wants us to have the freedom to choose to follow his teachings or to turn away. We mess up when we turn away (don’t listen) and suffer consequences in the way a father disciplines a child. He loves us so much, that he lets us say “sorry” and he takes us right back into the fold. It’s always our choice whether we stay there or not. It all depends on the choices we make in our lives. If we want to turn from God, it’s our prerogative, but we will have to suffer the consequences as well. Here on earth and in the next life.
Oops, that was me.
(me)
No offense, Janet, but you’re being really vague in replying to my questions while ignoring other ones. JLM and TS are doing a much better job.
Like I said earlier… I understand punishment. I don’t understand eternal punishment. That’s not loving. That’s sadistic. That’s child abuse. Loving parents still love when their children disobey or refuse to talk to them. Loving parents don’t wish eternal hell on their kids.
BUT… if that’s the kind of “love” Christians are talking about when they talk about God, then my point that Christianity is vindictive and evil stands. Cruelty is not love.
But now you’re attaching another clause — the fruits. So you’re saying even if someone does believe in Jesus and repents and so forth, they can still be denied?
If they are repenting from their lips and not their heart, then yes. I can stand on the street corner for three hours proclaiming that I am purple. It doesn’t make it so. I think (and I could be wrong, it’s just my thoughts) is that the Phelps use the bible to promote their hatred. I beleive the hatred came first, then they pulled bible verses out to, what they think, defends their actions. I don’t believe for a moment that they have ever accepted Christ. You’ll know them (true Christians) by their fruits.
But what if you don’t believe in Original Sin? See… the trouble I have with this is it sets up a lot of different notions you have to believe in before you get to the point of “needing” Jesus. Therefore, if I don’t believe I have original sin, then why do I need Jesus? See, when you’re a Christian, it’s not enough that you just believe in Jesus. You have to also believe in Original Sin, and the story of Jesus’ life, and God’s wrath and a whole slew of stories.
You’re absolutely correct. If one does not think that they are a sinner, one will not need a Savior.
People that believe in Jesus believe FIRST that they are sinners and need a Savior. Nobody NEEDS to read the bible. It is not required. However, when one becomes a true believer, God puts a “fire” in their hearts to know Him more. Bible reading becomes a craving. However, it’s not required.
Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
That’s all it takes. You don’t have to do ANYTHING but believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Faith plus nothing!
Like I said earlier… I understand punishment. I don’t understand eternal punishment. That’s not loving. That’s sadistic. That’s child abuse. Loving parents still love when their children disobey or refuse to talk to them. Loving parents don’t wish eternal hell on their kids.
BUT… if that’s the kind of “love” Christians are talking about when they talk about God, then my point that Christianity is vindictive and evil stands. Cruelty is not love.
Posted by: Edyt at May 20, 2008 5:24 PM
Edyt,
I see your point. I really and truly do. It does seem cruel. I wouldn’t send my worst enemy there. But I’m not God.
God is going to do everything that He can to keep every person from going to hell. And God has done that, and He’s made it so available. God has done everything that He could possibly do to keep people from it. He’s given us The Word, He’s given us men who are willing to preach and teach it so we can understand that all we have to do is “BELIEVE”!
Faith plus nothing!
There is no energy involved in believing, it’s just accepting what God has said. No questions asked. It’s a free gift! That’s a loving God….He doesn’t require us to jump through impossible hoops to avoid hell. He could have, but He didn’t. He gave His own Son to be brutally, unmercifully killed as a GIFT to us. That sounds like a loving God to me! I wouldn’t wish Jesus’ death on my worst enemy!
But the problem is people don’t want to do believe. They simply don’t want to believe what God has said concerning Salvation. Honestly, there is nothing more that He can do. At this point, don’t you see…it’s the person’s choice? It’s your choice not to believe. You were shown the truth and you CHOSE not to believe it. (please don’t be offended…I see it as the truth, and I understand that you do not. That’s the point I’m trying to make.)
Carder: There’s been much chatter about the lack of “feeling” on the unborn’s part the earlier in pregnancy. Doug and Texas Red are fanatical about that.
How can a “Non-viable, insensate, etc. piece of tissue” ‘enjoy’ anything?
Would that not asume the ability to “feel”?
Of course, Carder, and I imagine if you ask SoMG, he will tell you that he does not think there is any such perception on the part of the unborn to a point in gestation.
No offense, Janet, but you’re being really vague in replying to my questions while ignoring other ones. JLM and TS are doing a much better job.
Posted by: Edyt at May 20, 2008 5:24 PM
Edyt, ever here of “the pot calling the kettle black. You have been avoiding answering my post. First you said you followed it. Then you said your not sure you followed it. Then you ignored it. You are avoiding answering it. Try just being honest and letting it bfly even iot it disagrees with your previous thinking. Funny thing is that this thread about scripture started cause you claimed people weren’t answering your questions about scripture. lol
How many times do I have to post the same question to get you to answer it? I’ll post it again for your bebefit.
******
TS, I’m not sure I follow that there can be justification for humans killing other humans. ESPECIALLY because while I would consider “sin” to be something to the effect of lying, killing, stealing, etc… the Bible includes such sins as idolatry, worshiping other gods or having no god, and witchcraft.
OK. I had moved forward with answering your other questions cause I thought we were in agreement on that. Lets go back and review my post again and you can tell me why their is no justification for God to use this man to kill the drunk:
You say you understand how God having a drunk driver crash and kill himself could be a blessing, so lets continue with the same drunk driver analogy and see if we can eventually get to a point where you can understand God allowing human’s to kill other humans.
Can you see where it could be a blessing if God killed that same drunk driver by having a deer run in front of his car and causing him to crash and die? Or an even further out analogy of the same drunk driver. What if the same person was beligerent and leaving the bar to get into his car and drive and God knew he would end up killing a group of innocent children walking home from a birthday party if he left, so God had another one of the patrons in the bar confront him and get in a fight with him that lead to the drunks death. Could that be a blessing?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 18, 2008 7:37 PM
Posted by: truthseeker at May 19, 2008 11:53 PM
TS, I answered that post before. I said there’s a big difference between a random fight and a person choosing to kill another person because they felt God wanted him or her to do so.
No offense, Janet, but you’re being really vague in replying to my questions while ignoring other ones. JLM and TS are doing a much better job.
Edyt, Then I will gladly let JLM and TS continue. If I forget, and post by mistake, just feel free to ignore me.
You have so many questions, there isn’t enough time to get them all answered on a blog like this. I’ve suggested this before – you need to start reading the Catholic Catechism to understand the deeper questions. If what you really want is just hours of debate, I’m not the person who can do that.
JLM,
I get your point. And all that sounds nice and lovely. I’m sure it appeals to a lot of people.
But this is how I look at it. I’m at a store in the “religion” aisle, checking out all the packages.
“Hmmm… Christianity sounds cool,” I say, picking up the box and reading the label. “It says all I have to do is repent and believe in Christ? Then I’ll go to heaven! Good deal.”
The next box over is Islam. “Very cool. I get to kill people who don’t believe in my faith, and I’ll be judged by my heart rather than my actions. Oooh, but praying 5 times a day? I don’t know…”
Then there’s Baha’i. “Sweet, unity of all religions! Best of all worlds! Oh wait, what about the afterlife? Travel in the spirit world? I guess it’s no heaven.”
Up and down the aisle, I look at the beliefs and the customs and the rules, weighing my options. There are thousands of different gods, and the prices on the boxes are different. There are even dozens of sects within those religions. Oh, and a coupon with a link to a design-my-own religion. Nice.
And as I wander down the aisle, I start to think: Hey, if I could create my own religion, couldn’t any of these religions been created by man? And with so many versions, how am I supposed to know what works best for me?
I guess I could check out Amazon.com for reviews of these religions, but everyone seems to think theirs is best and the only right religion. But I’m a careful consumer. I know that advertisements lie and there’s always a catch, whether it’s the warning labels read quietly at the end of the commercial, or the part that wasn’t included in the box.
What’s worse is that the more I check out all these different beliefs and read about how they were made, the more certain I feel that people invented them to give themselves purpose and answers to questions.
So when you come up to me and say “Christianity! You have nothing to lose!”
I think about that and go… “Well, according to all these other religions, I’m sacrificing the chance to go to that particular heaven, but if I sacrifice your heaven I could still be wrong.” (Remember the scene in The Mummy when the guy pulls out the necklaces with religious symbols and starts praying in different languages to different gods until the Mummy stops? That’s how I feel about religion)
Sorry for rambling. Does that make sense?
Janet, I’ve read quite a few from some of the links you’ve posted. Catholics have a unique perspective of Christianity, however. ;)
Janet, I’ve read quite a few from some of the links you’ve posted. Catholics have a unique perspective of Christianity, however. ;)
Posted by: Edyt at May 20, 2008 10:26 PM
A few what? Whatever it is, it’s not enough….
Enough for what, Janet? To convince me Catholicism is the right path?
You didn’t answer my question, “a few what”?
I have no desire to try to convert you. You’re twisting and assuming again……
….Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Chapters? Sections? It’s online so is it still proper to call them chapters?
Quite a few paragraphs?
What are you looking for here?
Enough for what?
TS, I answered that post before. I said there’s a big difference between a random fight and a person choosing to kill another person because they felt God wanted him or her to do so.
Posted by: Edyt at May 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Edyt,
I know you “answered the post. The problem is yin five posts you haven’t yet answered the question I am asking you. Try really hard to listen cause this is the fifth time I am asking you and you. Try really hard not to lose focus now. You have said many times in the past that it is not justified for God to use a human to kill another human. I gave you a scenario where God uses a human to stop a drunk human from crashing his car into a group of kids and killing them. Here comes the question again. ready. Try realy hard to answer it YES or NO. If No then please specically why NOT.
Is God justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children?
Notice Edyt, I said is “God” justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then Why not?
Is it a “blessing” if God uses a human to kil a drunk human in order to save lives of siad children? If no, then why not?
Is God justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then why not.
Edyt, if yes, then you are admitting God can be righteous and justified even in having a human take the life of another human. If no, then why?
Edyt,
To say yes would mean to rebuke your own blasphemous statements. But don’t let that stop you from answering. The question again is very striaght forward and simple:
Is it a “blessing” if God uses said human to kill said drunk human in order to save lives of said children? If no, then why not?
Lets not lose sight of the question here Edyt:
Is God justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then why not?
TS, calm the hell down!
I never said it was a blessing to have a drunk guy killed to save some kids. I said I understand how a person could see it as a blessing.
I can understand how you can see a human preventing another human from causing harm is a blessing.
I’m saying I understand your point, not that I agree with it.
TS, you said:
The fact that their can be justification for God allowing humans to kill humans is all I was looking for from that analogy and we seem to be in agreement.
I understand that murder can sometimes be justified. Someone rapes your daughter, you kill him. I’d call that justified murder. I wouldn’t say you’re innocent or that what you did was right but I’d say there was some justification.
Killing someone because their religious beliefs are different is not justified. You’re trying to justify the mass killing sprees throughout the Bible by saying those people (the sinners) were a threat to the righteous’ religious beliefs, their morality.
While that belief may not be manifesting itself at present in Christianity (though it has in the not-so-distant past), the devastation caused by the threat to Muslim belief is widespread and obvious. Muslims kill others because they are afraid their beliefs are being threatened. Furthermore, they believe they will be rewarded for killing sinners, infidels. We recognized this threat immediately, and have persecuted many Muslims for it.
Essentially, what Muslims (and Christians) have done is used the Bible and the Koran to justify religious intolerance and homicide.
I understand justified murder. I do not, and will not, believe religious intolerance is justified. If a person is not strong enough in their faith, they should not have to eliminate opposition to gain strength.
Edyt,
You said that a human killing another human can sometimes be justified, great…but that isn’t what I asked you. Lets try this again, really, really, realy slowly……….
*****
Is “God” justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then why not?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 21, 2008 12:07 AM
Edyt,
I read your last post to me. However, I’m going to be busy ALL day today. I promise I’ll get back to it later this evening. I do see your point, and you explained your thoughts in a very unique yet astounding way!
I’ll “talk” to you later.
GOD WILL JUDGE HIS SORRY SOUL :(
Edyt said: 10:26: Janet, I’ve read quite a few from some of the links you’ve posted. Catholics have a unique perspective of Christianity, however. ;)
Janet said:10:49: A few what? Whatever it is, it’s not enough….
Edyt, I think I see where the confusion is…the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is a BOOK, not just an online source. I am saying to read a few lines from comments is not enough.
You need to read the whole book. Then we can talk.
Edyt: There lots of “pseudo-catechisms” out there. Be sure you get the official one…
“Catechism of the Catholic Church”
Paperback, ISBN# 0-385-47967-0
826pp $7.99
Ahhh, I see, Janet.
I’ve been reading this one. Is that not correct?
Is “God” justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then why not?
No, because an omniscient being should have the ability to prevent the drunk from killing the children. The notion that God needed to kill someone just to save the lives of those children is ridiculous. He could have just as easily saved the life of the drunk, and chose not to.
It either makes one question God’s omniscience or his compassion.
Edyt: Yes, the Vatican site is good. Just wanted you to realize that the Catechism is a real printed book that needs to be studied as a whole, not as individual sections. It would be easier to read off-line, IMO, because you could switch back and forth from one section to another more easily.
Edyt,
oke doke…here I go. I apologize in advance for my rambling….
Up and down the aisle, I look at the beliefs and the customs and the rules, weighing my options. There are thousands of different gods, and the prices on the boxes are different. There are even dozens of sects within those religions. Oh, and a coupon with a link to a design-my-own religion. Nice.
Only one belief (and I don’t like to use the word “religion”, because I feel that religion is the worst thing that has happened to this world)
teaches that Jesus died on the cross for ALL sin, and paid the price IN FULL. I look at it this way…Religion is MAN’S attempt to reach God in Heaven. True faith is knowing that there is nothing..not a single thing that man can do to get to God. It is only through Jesus and His finished work on the cross that we can get there. Jesus IS God. Only God’s blood is pure enough to cleanse us of sins.
If you’ll notice, all of the religions of the world will know that they sin, or do “bad” or “wrong things”. All religions seek to find a way to do the right thing or pay somehow for it to get to Heaven. Most all religions have a belief in a god of some sort. There can only be one. Which means, that only one belief is correct. Most religions also, if you notice, do believe in Jesus. However, they don’t believe that He is the Son of God…God Himself. That’s all of the difference in the world.
And as I wander down the aisle, I start to think: Hey, if I could create my own religion, couldn’t any of these religions been created by man? And with so many versions, how am I supposed to know what works best for me?
I look at it like I wasn’t created for me. It’s not about me. I was created by God and for His glory. I am His creation. The responsibility of a “creation” is to be pleasant in the eyes of the “Creator”, and to adore or be thankful to its “Creator”. There’s nothing a creation can do in itself to become righteous FOR the Creator. Righteousness has to come from the Creator, and be imputed TO the creation. So, there is nothing YOU can do to get to God, except have faith in Jesus and have His…God’s righteousness be imputed to YOU and from Him ALONE. Creator TO creation. There’s only one way to do that, and that is through God’s (Jesus’) pure and righteous blood. It’s already been done…it’s a free gift….all we need to do is receive it.
But that doesn’t really answer your question. It’s coming from my perspective, not yours. The only that I can think of if you are ever searching or even wondering if there is a God and what God it is that is the one and only TRUE God…I’d say ask him. I’m telling you….my mom was a devout atheist. She wondered some of the same things as you have. There was a point in her life when she wondered if there was really a God. So, she said, “God…if there really is a God….please show me.” Out of all of the gods in the world religions, the One true God showed up to answer her. There can only be one, right?
I hope that makes sense!
Only one belief (and I don’t like to use the word “religion”, because I feel that religion is the worst thing that has happened to this world)
Hehe, I completely agree on that fact!
teaches that Jesus died on the cross for ALL sin, and paid the price IN FULL. I look at it this way…Religion is MAN’S attempt to reach God in Heaven. True faith is knowing that there is nothing..not a single thing that man can do to get to God. It is only through Jesus and His finished work on the cross that we can get there. Jesus IS God. Only God’s blood is pure enough to cleanse us of sins.
True. And not even all Christians follow that belief. Some believe you must obtain salvation through sacraments and ceremonies (Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican churches), others believe you obtain salvation through good works (various Protestant sects). Often Christians believe in predestination. What I’m getting at is that even the Christian notion of “through Jesus Christ you will be saved” there are different ideas of what “through” means. Make sense?
If you’ll notice, all of the religions of the world will know that they sin, or do “bad” or “wrong things”. All religions seek to find a way to do the right thing or pay somehow for it to get to Heaven.
I actually find that idea really intriguing. I’ve read a couple books that touched upon the subject. What made the most sense to me was the theory that primitive humans, in an attempt to understand chaos and order in the natural world, internalized concepts of good and evil, thus labeling things like death and pain “evil” and pleasure and life “good.” It became “good” to eat animals, because that fed humans. Of course, humans are natural storytellers, so they made up a whole myth on the subject of where good and evil (order and chaos) came from. Over the years, we’ve changed and differentiated our moral beliefs on what is good and evil (for example, Hindus believe eating cows is immoral).
And then heaven was invented as a construct to take away the fear of death. Most religious beliefs differ on what heaven actually looks like. I remember reading books about how the streets would be “paved with gold” … Obviously that comes from the idea of gold as a precious metal and very valuable. Others, especially in cartoons, depict heaven as fluffy clouds — coming from the idea that heaven is in the sky.
Anyway, back to your points.
Most all religions have a belief in a god of some sort. There can only be one.
How do you know? How do you make that assertion?
Which means, that only one belief is correct.
Again, how do you know?
In a conversation I had with my mother over the weekend, she spoke about how she believed God worked in different ways to reach out to people. I asked if that meant God may use Jesus to reach out to some people, and Zeus or the prophet Mohammad to reach out to others. She said she didn’t know for sure, but it was a possibility. So what do you think of that — the idea that God may manifest himself in various forms to “collect” people, so to say, who will all end up in the same place anyway?
Most religions also, if you notice, do believe in Jesus. However, they don’t believe that He is the Son of God…God Himself. That’s all of the difference in the world.
Well, it certainly is different. Most religions have unique beliefs, though. We don’t really recognize prophets in Christianity, but in other religions they are the earthly “voice” of God.
I look at it like I wasn’t created for me. It’s not about me. I was created by God and for His glory. I am His creation. The responsibility of a “creation” is to be pleasant in the eyes of the “Creator”, and to adore or be thankful to its “Creator”. There’s nothing a creation can do in itself to become righteous FOR the Creator. Righteousness has to come from the Creator, and be imputed TO the creation.
It’s interesting that you say that, because evil would then have to come from the Creator as well. I don’t know if I agree that the creation has responsibility though. Scroll back up to my post about the robot. Perhaps I would like my robot to worship me, but if you never impart the idea to the robot (say I never wire it to believe it should worship) then it will not. That is not the robot’s fault. That is the creator’s fault.
As far as soul searching for God… I’ve been watching my mother go through that journey, and I’ve never been happier to see her step away from the organized, institutionalized religion that indoctrinated her since birth. By most Christians, her position would be nothing short of heretical.
Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with people who seek out religion and find a belief they agree with. I believe everyone should have the chance to seek out their own inner peace.
The problem I think lies in the issue of believing that 1. One true religion exists and 2. All other religions are wrong (therefore should not be respected/should be exterminated) Those beliefs combined are destructive and detrimental to human freedom, expression and creativity, not to mention human life itself. And like my example with the Phelps and Muslim extremists, certain religious texts have been used to create harm rather than peace, because of those two ideas put into practice.
What I’m getting at is that even the Christian notion of “through Jesus Christ you will be saved” there are different ideas of what “through” means. Make sense?
Oh, absolutely! I totally agree. I find it sad and very troubling. Hence my statement that religion is the worst thing that happened to this world.
I said: Most all religions have a belief in a god of some sort. There can only be one.
You said: How do you know? How do you make that assertion?
Don’t most religions answer to some type of higher power, or have a higher power that is the cause of certain events?
So what do you think of that — the idea that God may manifest himself in various forms to “collect” people, so to say, who will all end up in the same place anyway?
I believe that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. People change. People’s ideas change, but God is a constant and doesn’t change. I think God uses different WAYS to “speak” to people. Some people are brought to Him by various ways. I think God uses different believers to lead others. Again, in some very different ways and situations but through it all God remains the same.
It’s interesting that you say that, because evil would then have to come from the Creator as well. I don’t know if I agree that the creation has responsibility though. Scroll back up to my post about the robot. Perhaps I would like my robot to worship me, but if you never impart the idea to the robot (say I never wire it to believe it should worship) then it will not. That is not the robot’s fault. That is the creator’s fault.
God did create evil, and He does allow it and He knew what would happen if man didn’t obey Him. That’s the free will that we speak of that is God-given. You may think that He is domineering, but Him giving us a choice, to choose to follow Him (the Creator) or not is love, not domination which would indeed be narcissistic. He always provided a “way out”, from the beginning of time. He gave man a choice between good and evil. No one is to blame but the individual. It’s the individuals choice, not the Creator’s.
The problem I think lies in the issue of believing that 1. One true religion exists and 2. All other religions are wrong (therefore should not be respected/should be exterminated) Those beliefs combined are destructive and detrimental to human freedom, expression and creativity, not to mention human life itself. And like my example with the Phelps and Muslim extremists, certain religious texts have been used to create harm rather than peace, because of those two ideas put into practice.
I agree. One true “religion” doesn’t exist. But I also believe that one true faith does. As far as all other religions are wrong and therefore should not be respected/should be exterminated), I would disagree. Although I’m 100% supportive of people making their own decisions on who or what they want to follow, because they have their God-given free will, I know deep in my heart that the followers in other faiths will not find what they are searching for. I fear their eternal demise. That being said, I don’t think the people should be disrespected or exterminated, but I believe the people need to hear the truth and false religions by all means should be exterminated. I know that sounds harsh, but if they (false religions) didn’t exist, more people would come to know the one, true God, and would enjoy an eternal life, instead of an eternal death (or seperation from God). But again, that’s coming from me as a believer of Jesus. I’m sure other religions would think the same about me.
I could never be one of those extremists, though. I know that you can’t force your beliefs on anyone. Look at the abortion issue as another example. I can’t force someone to believe that a baby shouldn’t be killed. I can’t force someone to believe that it’s a baby at even 4 weeks old. I’ve learned alot about myself and my beliefs from being on this site for as long as I have. I’m actually beginning to see the pro-choice side. Not that I agree with it, but I see where you guys are coming from. I put that together with my beliefs in God, and I’m realizing that they are very similar. It’s what belief lies in the person’s heart. I can’t change a person’s heart, i.e, force someone to believe something that I do. The person has to make that personal decision for themselves. It’s all part of our God-given free will. For me to say that one doesn’t have free will regarding abortion, to me, is just hypocritical. Again, I wish everyone was pro-life, just like I wish that everyone knew the One and only true God of the bible. But I’m also realistic enough to know that it’s not going to happen.
I hope I didn’t throw you into a state of shock here, but this is just how I feel.
JLM: I think you are very good at expressing your thoughts! It was hard to see that beyond all the bible quotes in the past.
Oh, absolutely! I totally agree. I find it sad and very troubling. Hence my statement that religion is the worst thing that happened to this world.
Well, “religion” itself is not the only thing to blame. Historically, if you look at where all the protestant sects came from, you’ll see they divided because of belief. The formation of religion followed belief.
For example, over time we’ve seen churches become more liberal. Now pastors can marry and have children. Now women can be pastors. Now homosexuals can be pastors. Through all these different sects of religion are varying notions of belief. Without those beliefs, different religions would not exist. So you cannot necessarily separate the belief from the religion.
Don’t most religions answer to some type of higher power, or have a higher power that is the cause of certain events?
Not necessarily. Many do, but then again, historically Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths (which are very similar) have spread faster and wider than other religions, so it’s natural to see the reoccurring theme of one higher power. Many religions have been wiped out or assimilated into those major religions as they have spread. (Dec. 25 was once a pagan holiday before it was changed to Christmas)
Other religions have beliefs in a spiritual realm, of which we all are equal part; some believe in gods, who may or may not act like humans; there are many ideas of one supreme god and lesser gods, similar to the structure of a king and his lessers; some believe in a higher power that has no form and no involvement in our lives, no real “consciousness” about what we do.
That’s a pretty short list of all the varieties of the spiritual I’ve heard, but I’d definitely recommend reading more about various religions. I first got interested through ancient Egyptian deities, which are a fun bunch.
I believe that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. People change. People’s ideas change, but God is a constant and doesn’t change. I think God uses different WAYS to “speak” to people. Some people are brought to Him by various ways. I think God uses different believers to lead others. Again, in some very different ways and situations but through it all God remains the same.
Hmm… that’s a possibility. That’s not quite what I asked though. Let me see if I can rephrase it.
Do you think that God may use other forms of religion to draw people to him? That perhaps he allows Buddhists to believe meditation is the path to spiritual enlightenment, while it is actually another pathway to God? Whereas Jesus is how he reaches out to Christians to bring them to him? And he reaches out to Muslims through the prophets?
It’s okay if you don’t have an answer. I’ve just been curious since my mother brought it up.
(This is long so I’m breaking it into multiple posts.)
I agree. One true “religion” doesn’t exist. But I also believe that one true faith does.
Why do you believe that? Is that something you’ve been taught or something you’ve learned through personal discovery/exploration?
As far as all other religions are wrong and therefore should not be respected/should be exterminated), I would disagree. Although I’m 100% supportive of people making their own decisions on who or what they want to follow, because they have their God-given free will, I know deep in my heart that the followers in other faiths will not find what they are searching for.
What if one is not searching? How do you know others are searching for something? (and what is it they are searching for?)
I fear their eternal demise. That being said, I don’t think the people should be disrespected or exterminated, but I believe the people need to hear the truth and false religions by all means should be exterminated.
By what means should they be exterminated? Historically, the extermination of other religions has been nothing short of brutal, to put it nicely. I know missionaries have often done peaceful work, but how to you propose to do that kind of work on a religion such as Islam, which is so large and widespread, and its followers are equally as convinced that they believe in the “one true faith”?
I know that sounds harsh, but if they (false religions) didn’t exist, more people would come to know the one, true God, and would enjoy an eternal life, instead of an eternal death (or seperation from God). But again, that’s coming from me as a believer of Jesus. I’m sure other religions would think the same about me.
Hehe. I’m sure they would. Such is the nature of belief.
I could never be one of those extremists, though. I know that you can’t force your beliefs on anyone.
THANK GOD! :) Sometimes I sit around and wonder about extremists. I wonder if I went public with my atheism, you know, started working for an atheist publication or something, I wonder if I would be targeted by extremists trying to eliminate my worldview. It’s scary to live in a world where people do exterminate others for having a different point of view or lifestyle.
Anyway, thanks for not being crazy. That’s all.
Look at the abortion issue as another example. I can’t force someone to believe that a baby shouldn’t be killed. I can’t force someone to believe that it’s a baby at even 4 weeks old. I’ve learned alot about myself and my beliefs from being on this site for as long as I have. I’m actually beginning to see the pro-choice side. Not that I agree with it, but I see where you guys are coming from.
Awww, thanks. Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually listens to our views. I think I’ve been seeing the pro-life side a little clearer too. And while there are some things I obviously disagree with (banning contraceptives, for one), I can really understand where you’re coming from and agree with some parts. I would love love love to see people electively choose not to have abortions. I just still can’t get over the idea of someone’s body being used against their will, whether that’s pregnancy or sterilization or rape. But this isn’t about abortion. I just wanted to say I get your side too.
I put that together with my beliefs in God, and I’m realizing that they are very similar. It’s what belief lies in the person’s heart. I can’t change a person’s heart, i.e, force someone to believe something that I do. The person has to make that personal decision for themselves. It’s all part of our God-given free will. For me to say that one doesn’t have free will regarding abortion, to me, is just hypocritical. Again, I wish everyone was pro-life, just like I wish that everyone knew the One and only true God of the bible. But I’m also realistic enough to know that it’s not going to happen.
Do you think making abortion illegal would force someone upon your beliefs? (I don’t want to get into a whole abortion debate, but I’m really interested in what you mean)
I hope I didn’t throw you into a state of shock here, but this is just how I feel.
Not at all. I’ve very much enjoyed discussing this with you. People really do have very different beliefs, even when they’re part of the same “type” of belief.
Is “God” justified in using said human to kill said drunk human in order to prevent death of said children? If no, then why not?
No, because an omniscient being should have the ability to prevent the drunk from killing the children. The notion that God needed to kill someone just to save the lives of those children is ridiculous. He could have just as easily saved the life of the drunk, and chose not to.
It either makes one question God’s omniscience or his compassion.
Posted by: Edyt at May 21, 2008 12:10 PM
Edyt, Are you saying that instead of allowing the drunk the freedom to choose drunkeness, instead he should strip the drunk of free will and force the drunk to sobriety? Wouldn’t that would make us closer to programmable robots then humans?
You call God evil or a narcissist for punishing people who make wrong choices. Tell me then, if there were no punishment for making wrong choices then what would you have God do with people who step all over other people with total disregard for the welfare of anybody but themselves?
TS,
I feel like you’re not really listening to me. I didn’t say make the drunk sober. He could even get in a fight at the bar. But why would God choose death?
Again, I repeat: I understand punishment.
I do not understand eternal punishment.
Let me ask you another question.
Is your faith in God the only reason you don’t go out and steal or kill people?
Do you think that God may use other forms of religion to draw people to him? That perhaps he allows Buddhists to believe meditation is the path to spiritual enlightenment, while it is actually another pathway to God? Whereas Jesus is how he reaches out to Christians to bring them to him? And he reaches out to Muslims through the prophets?
I’m sorry. I misread that the first time. My bad.
No, I don’t believe that God does that at all, because I know (or believe) that Jesus IS God. So, any religion that does not proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God, and God Himself, is not a religion that would lead people to God. God wouldn’t lead people astray. He leads them TO Him. Was that better?
I said: I agree. One true “religion” doesn’t exist. But I also believe that one true faith does.
You said: Why do you believe that? Is that something you’ve been taught or something you’ve learned through personal discovery/exploration?
I did realize this through experience and research. So many religions exist to try to “get it right”. Each one proclaims to be the one true religion. It’s just my opinion, of course, but I’ve found that religion is man’s attempt to reach God. Faith is knowing that God reaches out to man. To me, that’s a HUGE difference.
By what means should they be exterminated? Historically, the extermination of other religions has been nothing short of brutal, to put it nicely. I know missionaries have often done peaceful work, but how to you propose to do that kind of work on a religion such as Islam, which is so large and widespread, and its followers are equally as convinced that they believe in the “one true faith”?
They will be exterminated. Not by man though, but by God Himself. In the meantime, all I can do is pray and try to share the truth. Again, I don’t expect people to listen or believe, but I honestly can’t stand idle believing what I believe. Call me crazy!
Awww, thanks. Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually listens to our views. I think I’ve been seeing the pro-life side a little clearer too. And while there are some things I obviously disagree with (banning contraceptives, for one), I can really understand where you’re coming from and agree with some parts. I would love love love to see people electively choose not to have abortions. I just still can’t get over the idea of someone’s body being used against their will, whether that’s pregnancy or sterilization or rape. But this isn’t about abortion. I just wanted to say I get your side too.
I do listen to your side’s views. Believe it or not, it has calmed me down a bit. I didn’t know much about the abortion industry before PP came to Aurora. Before they opened, I came here and learned so much! At first, I threw myself into it thinking somehow realistically that I could somehow change the world. My, have I come a long way in a short time! I don’t think it will ever end or become illegal. At least not when there’s so much money involved. This world’s gone mad with greed, and according to the bible, things will get much worse (and sad) before the return of Jesus. I’m glad you get my side, too! We don’t have to agree, but the understanding is a key to not having “crazies” on either side!
Do you think making abortion illegal would force someone upon your beliefs?
Absolutely not. I’m a firm believer in “where there’s a will, there’s a way”. If (and I don’t think it ever will, unless the “almighty dollar” wasn’t involved) abortion ever became illegal, woman/girls will still have them. It will just cost them more money. IMO, of course!
Not at all. I’ve very much enjoyed discussing this with you. People really do have very different beliefs, even when they’re part of the same “type” of belief.
wshew! I’m enjoying discussing this with you as well. And, tell me about it!!!! However, I think that your side is a much more consistent in beliefs on various issues than ours!
I’m going to butt in here on this comment for a second, because I wanted to say something about it before, but didn’t. If I’m out of line, let me know!
I do not understand eternal punishment.
You’ve said this before, that you can’t understand how a “loving God” could do such a thing. The way I see it, is that if one doesn’t want God, one doesn’t want to be with Him eternally, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with Him…how can you call that an eternal punishment? It’s giving you EXACTLY what you’ve asked for. God gave the perosn the choice, and will give that person exactly what he/she wants. He tries to reach out to each and every person, giving everyone a free gift. All people have to do is accept it. If they don’t. It’s their choice, and shouldn’t be considered a punishment by them. Does that make sense? If one wants eternal seperation from God…they’ve got it! He’ll give you what you desire.
God wouldn’t lead people astray. He leads them TO Him. Was that better?
You position makes sense, but this line (above) still leads me the conclusion that God may use other means to gather people. If God believes prophets are one way to reach out to people, why wouldn’t he use them? He’s not leading them astray, he’s just using different means to gather them to him.
We don’t have to agree, but the understanding is a key to not having “crazies” on either side!
Hehe, I fullheartedly agree.
You’ve said this before, that you can’t understand how a “loving God” could do such a thing. The way I see it, is that if one doesn’t want God, one doesn’t want to be with Him eternally, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with Him…how can you call that an eternal punishment? It’s giving you EXACTLY what you’ve asked for. God gave the perosn the choice, and will give that person exactly what he/she wants. He tries to reach out to each and every person, giving everyone a free gift. All people have to do is accept it. If they don’t. It’s their choice, and shouldn’t be considered a punishment by them. Does that make sense? If one wants eternal seperation from God…they’ve got it! He’ll give you what you desire.
To some degree, that makes sense.
On the other hand, I can say it would make more sense if God wandered around on earth every once and awhile and made his presence known. What we have now is a bunch of people claiming God spoke to them, and we all know some people are outright mad.
So from my perspective, it’s still sadistic for God to be invisible, yet expect people to believe in him, then punish them for not believing in him.
To make it a little more apparent:
Imagine if a bunch of people are running around saying “If you don’t believe in the invisible pink unicorn, you’ll be trampled for eternity after death.”
Oh really? What invisible pink unicorn? Why should I believe in it?
I know some people have said there is historical evidence for Jesus, and while there may be there is no reason to believe he is the son of God. He could have been just another hippie trying to do good for the world and claiming to be God. See what I mean? Good for him and all, I’m sure he was a nice guy, but that doesn’t quite make him the son of God.
(And I don’t say this to discredit your beliefs, I’m just trying to present it through my eyes.)
So from my perspective, it’s still sadistic for God to be invisible, yet expect people to believe in him, then punish them for not believing in him.
I see what you are saying, but I see God in everything. If you look for Him, He’s really not invisible. The proof is in every aspect of the seen and unseen things in our lives. If you look, you’ll find Him.
You position makes sense, but this line (above) still leads me the conclusion that God may use other means to gather people. If God believes prophets are one way to reach out to people, why wouldn’t he use them? He’s not leading them astray, he’s just using different means to gather them to him.
Your original question was this.
Do you think that God may use other forms of religion to draw people to him? That perhaps he allows Buddhists to believe meditation is the path to spiritual enlightenment, while it is actually another pathway to God? Whereas Jesus is how he reaches out to Christians to bring them to him? And he reaches out to Muslims through the prophets?
I see where the confusion is when I’m trying to answer this, I think. Remember when I said before that Jesus IS God? So I don’t think God will us people like Muslim prophets to lead people to Him, because from what I gather, Muslim’s do believe in Jesus, but that He was just a prophet and NOT the Son of God, or God Himself. There are many prophets in the bible that foretold about Jesus before He came to earth, and some that spoke about His second coming as well. Now those prophets….yes, I think God does use them to lead people to Him. However, it is God working THROUGH those people to do it, so it’s hearing God’s actual words.
The bible tells us that there is only one way to the Father, and that is through Jesus. Although Buddhists may mean well in their spritual journey, if their journey isn’t leading them to Jesus is fruitless. Again…that’s my belief because I believe that the bible is God’s word.
He could have been just another hippie trying to do good for the world and claiming to be God. See what I mean? Good for him and all, I’m sure he was a nice guy, but that doesn’t quite make him the son of God.
…and let’s not forget about all of those miracles…including raising people from the dead! Oh, and Jesus was seen by many resurrurecting! And the prophets foretelling of who He is, what town He will be born in, etc….Thousands of years BEFORE He was born. I don’t know…I think there is overwhelming evidence of God, and also the bible being an accurate, historical document. I think it’s easier to have faith than to not. But, that’s just me!
(And I don’t say this to discredit your beliefs, I’m just trying to present it through my eyes.)
Thank you, and me as well! I understand where you are coming from.
Edyt:
Try praying. The only way you will truly come to know God is by praying…just talk to Him, and ask Him to show Himself to you.
JLM:
Awesome posts! Good to see you back!
Edyt: Imagine if a bunch of people are running around saying “If you don’t believe in the invisible pink unicorn, you’ll be trampled for eternity after death.”
Oh really? What invisible pink unicorn? Why should I believe in it?
Now we all know there’s no such thing as a pink unicorn. :)
>http://www.growingtreetoys.com/. ../bg/012246.jpg>
Edyt: Imagine if a bunch of people are running around saying “If you don’t believe in the invisible pink unicorn, you’ll be trampled for eternity after death.”
Oh really? What invisible pink unicorn? Why should I believe in it?
Now we all know there’s no such thing as a pink unicorn. :)
http://www.growingtreetoys.com/images/products/bg/012246.jpg
Janet,
Thank you.
BTW….right on with your 5:32 AM post, you early riser, you!!!
:)
Thanks JLM, God bless you.
I see what you are saying, but I see God in everything. If you look for Him, He’s really not invisible. The proof is in every aspect of the seen and unseen things in our lives. If you look, you’ll find Him.
That’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. If I want to see invisible pink unicorns, I’m sure out of the corner of my eye I could see a mysterious pink shadow every once in awhile. If I think about the invisible pink unicorn, I’m sure it will appear in my dreams to talk to me. And I can only look at the large number of pink flowers and plants, the sunset and sunrise pink of the sky to know that the pink unicorn had something to do with it.
If you want to believe something badly enough, there is no limit to what amount of proof you will ignore in order to allow yourself to see that reality. How can you explain the vast number of people ignoring the science of evolution because it doesn’t align with their religious beliefs?
It’s not even a matter of ignorance. It’s willfully believing what you want to believe no matter what evidence there is against it.
I don’t think there is evidence that God doesn’t exist, but there certainly is no proof of his existence and “seeing God in nature” is not exactly an argument for his existence any more than seeing invisible pink unicorns in nature is.
I’ll use another example, particularly dealing with scripture.
Like Janet said, above, if I just prayed God would show himself to me. Others have said, if I allowed the Holy Spirit in, he would make me understand the Bible.
I find the study of poetry equally difficult to understand. It is filled with meaning, mixed messages, and sometimes ancient wording that is difficult to grasp in our time period. But as someone who has read quite a few books of poetry and has taken some literary criticism and creative writing classes, I like to think that I could understand a good portion of poetry.
Think of my “education” as the Holy Spirit. With Education I understand poetry. With the Holy Spirit I understand the Bible. (Just to be clear where I’m going with this.)
However, my “education” does not guarantee I will understand the Bible, any more than believing in the Holy Spirit guarantees an accurate and truthful reading of the Bible. One only needs to look at the centuries of antisemitism, justifications of slavery and women’s oppression, hatred of homosexuals and wars, to understand that God’s message (that is, the one you’re telling me) is not at all clear, even to those who profess to have the Holy Spirit at hand to interpret those messages.
Like others, I could claim my “education” helps me to understand poetry better than others and therefore hold a supreme view, but again … if I am looking for something, I will find it. I may believe the Holy Spirit guided me to the answer that says … “People should not eat shrimp” and use it to justify my beef restaurant’s existence… but that message was fully self-found. It is only in my delusion that I actually believe the Holy Spirit guided me to that passage.
Correction: my “education does not guarantee I will understand poetry
Edyt,
Your pink unicorn didn’t die for you.
I don’t think I see God in everything because it’s a figment of my imagination that became a reality to me because of something “I did”. God reveals Himself to His children. I know it as fact, but can totally understand how you see it, because He hasn’t revealed Himself to you because you don’t want Him in your life. You’re not alone. It’s your choice, Edyt. No one can force you to believe something you don’t want to believe. I totally understand that.
If one day you did happen to decide to accept God, I think the bible would be opened to you in a way you never dreamed possible. It’s happened that way for millions of people. I have no doubt it would happen to you as well. Again, it’s your choice, though.
If one day you happened to accept Him, it’s not like you have to change your way of thinking. There’s no “rule book” to follow once someone becomes born again. The only time a person will change their belief on something, or living a different type of lifestyle, is if God shows the person, and changes the person from within. It’s something that would happen naturally. Not all believers will believe the same thing about homosexuality, evolution, etc. It’s again what God reveals to the believer.
The link that I gave you before is a wonderful teacher that can help you to understand the bible. I believe the Holy Spirit works through Les to be a “teacher” to God’s children. Here it is again: http://lesfeldick.org/lesqa.html
God is there if you want him, Edty. The bible tells us “ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you”. It’s up to you. If you don’t ask, you won’t receive, if you don’t seek, you won’t find Him, and if you don’t knock, the door remains closed to you.
btw….lots of poetry in the bible!
If you want to believe something badly enough, there is no limit to what amount of proof you will ignore in order to allow yourself to see that reality.
If you DON’T want too believe something badly enough, the same holds true.
I’m not trying to be difficult here, but for every argument you have against believing, I have the same FOR believing. That’s why it’s a personal decision, a choice, that one has to make. Either you decide to believe or you don’t. Either side can have oodles of arguments that support it.
Prayer is not asking.
Prayer is putting oneself in the hands of God,
at his disposition,
and listening to his voice in the depths of our hearts.
M.T. – in her own words.
I feel like you’re not really listening to me. I didn’t say make the drunk sober. He could even get in a fight at the bar. But why would God choose death?
Again, I repeat: I understand punishment.
I do not understand eternal punishment.
Let me ask you another question.
Is your faith in God the only reason you don’t go out and steal or kill people?
Posted by: Edyt at May 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Edyt,
Sorry for the delay, I have been recovering from
ankle reconstruction surgery. Anyway, to answer your question, my faith in God abd acceptance of Jesus Christ as my saviour have brought the Holy Spirit to my being, which has given me great cause and guidance to NOT steal or kill people. I feel I would be much more likely to steal and kill people if I did not have my faith in God, but I can’t really answer your question about wether or not it is the only thing because my faith has become an integral part of me as a person.
Some in the government, like Barack Obama, are seeking to limit the American peoples’ access to on-demand, short term financial assistance. Some cities and towns are trying to impose restrictions on where these legitimate businesses can set up shop. Even worse, several states, including Georgia and North Carolina, have successfully imposed all-out bans on the industry, with several more attempting to follow suit. Citizens all across the nation are seeking to have their voices heard by fighting legislation that would obliterate the payday loan industry nationwide; misinformed political officials are pushing for a complete ban in the name of personal political gain, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of potential lost jobs in an already turbulent economy.