Per the quote of the day:

Why would you adorn your personal car with stuff like that? This is not just me being anti-gross out protests, but just in general why would you want to drive around in something like that, or in a cow patterned chick fil a car, or once I saw a Red Bull themed car with a giant can of Red Bull on top of it.

For me, I would rather drive around a nice low key vehicle.

"I wonder what they'll serve. Baby back ribs? Kiddie cocktails?"

That could on the menu, I heard abortionist Krishna Rajanna was the cook:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44777

You know what's funny? We've had a lot of PCers who have said that the clinic will open, and that people find us RTLfers "silly." I don't think that the clinic would remain closed because of a group of silly fools who aren't to be taken seriously. Think about it.

Posted by: heather at September 18, 2007

oops, I tried to move my other post up. Sorry about the date and time.

jasper, lol!

They're serving pork roast in stay-out-of-my-frilly panties http://www.zenreich.com/ZenWeb/images/crownpork1.jpg, balut, and an array of condoments.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/250/the-pentecostal-church-and-the-holy-ghost-want-you-to-wear-pig-panties

"Why would you adorn your personal car with stuff like that?"

Several reasons, but first of all, let me assure you, on behalf of truth truckers everywhere, that we are also "anti-gross out" in that we aren't engaging, when we publicly display graphic images of legalized abortion carnage, in gratuitous affrontery; we don't get some perverse kick out of showing gory images just to show gory images. Confronting a nation soaked in innocent blood, however, is quite another matter.

Any intelligent person knows that the mainstream media isn't at all coy or sqeamish about showing gory images in the service of a cause they support. However, there is almost (occasionally a tiny bit of light breaks through) total media blackout on showing such photos of the main victims of the war on the unborn. This suppression of truth aids and abets the killers, and does a huge disservice to the women and babies they savage and kill.

Graphic images have been used effectively to right a number of wrongs: photos of the scarred backs of whipped slaves moved many to action on their behalf in the abolitionist movement; photos of hangings, burnings, and other atrocities perpetrated against African Americans after slavery was outlawed fueled the Civil Rights movement (at least as far at that went;1,452 African American children are currently put to death daily and legally in abortion chambers, so it seems we haven’t come so very far after all, seeing that more blacks are legally killed every week in America by the child-killing cartel than the KKK lynched in the 30-50 years of its active history..) graphic images of dead, tuskless elephant carcasses did the ivory trade no good...etc. And, of course, there is the carnage shown of wars to which the media is opposed, which has never failed to impact public sentiment as desired by the media.

Speaking of slavery, Frederick Douglass, born into slavery to escape it as a young man and become fully redeemed from it a few years thereafter, and devoted his life to exposing, denouncing, and fighting that brutal trade in human flesh, said this:

I feel it my duty to cry aloud and spare not. I am not averse to having the good opinion of my fellow creatures. I am not averse to being kindly regarded by all men; but I am bound, even at the hazard of making a large class of religionists in this country hate me, oppose me, and malign me as they have done—I am bound by the prayers, and tears, and entreaties of three millions of kneeling bondsmen, to have no compromise with men who are in any shape or form connected with the slaveholders of America. I expose slavery in this country, because to expose it is to kill it. Slavery is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death. Expose slavery, and it dies.

Light is to slavery what the heat of the sun is to the root of a tree; it must die under it. All the slaveholder asks of me is silence. He does not ask me to go abroad and preach in favor of slavery; he does not ask anyone to do that. He would not say that slavery is a good thing, but the best under the circumstances. The slaveholders want total darkness on the subject. They want the hatchway shut down, that the monster may crawl in his den of darkness, crushing human hopes and happiness, destroying the bondman at will, and having no one to reprove or rebuke him. Slavery shrinks from the light; it hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds be reproved. To tear off the mask from this abominable system, to expose it to the light of heaven, aye, to the heat of the sun, that it may burn and wither it out of existence, is my object in coming to this country. I want the slaveholder surrounded, as by a wall of anti-slavery fire, so that he may see the condemnation of himself and his system glaring down in letter of light. I want him to feel that he has no sympathy in England, Scotland, or Ireland; that he has none in Canada, none in Mexico, none among the poor wild Indians; that the voice of the civilized, aye, and savage world is against him. I would have condemnation blaze down upon him in every direction, till, stunned and overwhelmed with shame and confusion, he is compelled to let go the grasp he holds upon the personhood of his victims, and restore to them their long-lost rights.”

Abortion is the modern counterpart to slavery, our generation’s obscene, barbaric grisly and lucrative trade in human flesh. Like the negro slaves, the unborn have been reduced to non-human legal status, which permits the born to treat them as slaveholders and overseers treated slaves, like disposable property. They have no rights, and it is legal to kill them on a whim at any time they are yet unborn; and the words spoken by Douglass against slavery express the sentiments of any person of conscience towards induced abortion, especially such rampant, decriminalized induced abortion as presently flourishes without legal let or hindrance in contemporary America.

For any ongoing, societal wrong to be righted, any gross human rights violation to be stopped, it is necessary to show both the humanity of the victims, and the inhumanity of their victimization. The first step in implementing any genocidal campaign is a propaganda campaign dehumanizing the targeted victim group, and legitimizing (“humanizing- causing to appear humane) their destruction. Hitler's mass murder of Jews, Christians, the handicapped, etc., began with the systematic characterization of his intended victims in the media as sub-human or non-human, dangerous, and expendable. They were referenced as "criminally insane", mentally disabled, human weeds, useless eaters, diseases (recall that when the Jews, especially, were being herded like cattle into the gas chambers, they were told that they were going for a "delousing shower". What their oppressors neglected to mention was that the lice to be killed were themselves; they were considered "lice" on an otherwise "healthy Germany"; this turned genocide into "national therapy"), masses, parasites, etc. Much of this same language has simply been transferred to the unborn by Planned Parenthood and it's child-killing competition/allies to justify the mass slaughter of innocent little boys and girls (sex is determined at fertilization, and can be discerned in the first trimester of pregnancy). And no wonder; at the end of WWII, the grisly, rotting contents of the Nazi concentration/death camps were exposed for all the world to see (and for all the Germans to smell, touch, and bury). This gave the eugenicists/socialists/darwinists behind Hitler some VERY bad publicity they had not anticipated. What to do? Go underground until the storm blows over, meanwhile slipping into something more respectable looking but just as wicked: exit “ethnic cleansing”, presto chango and voila…enter “Family Planning”, aka, Planned Parenthood, the American Birth Control League, et al, ad nauseam. It’s all documented; you can learn it for yourself at www.eugenics-watch.com.

Speaking of Hitler, the Third Reich was characteristically strenuous in their efforts to suppress any graphic evidence of their genocidal atrocities…the better to deceive, rob, and kill even more, my dear, because such suppression helped ensure that their bloodbath could continue unabated. As William Brennan relates in his excellent (though currently out of print) book, “The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution”:

“The Nazis issued special communiqués to prevent soldiers, the media, or anyone from taking and distributing pictures of the exterminated victims. “To every normal person,” read one such order, “it is a matter of course that he does not take photographs of such disgusting excesses.”

Fast forward to America, 9 years into our own abortion holocaust, the body count of which has long since dwarfed that of the Third Reich:

“In February 1982 officials from the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office and the Department of Health Services told press photographers and television crews that “no photographs” could be taken of aborted bodies found in a huge cargo container in Wilmington, California. “A lot are partially dismembered,” explained coroner office representative Mason Johnson. “You wouldn’t want to photograph that…” (Erma Clardy Craven also noted that of the 17,000 bodies discovered at this site, some 12,000 - the vast majority- of them were observed to be black babies. Racial genocide? You think?)

Suppression of the truth does not help victims, it aids and abets the perpetrators of these atrocities; that is why child-killers everywhere go to such lengths, from lawsuits to slander, to try to discredit and suppress these images.

However, let’s discuss this matter of the effect of “those pictures” on children. As horrific, as disgusting as these photos appear to any reasonable person of conscience of any age, what is at least equally disgusting is the way adults (well, chronologically) invariably trot children out as human shields in their various wars against the truth. Bear in mind that all of the children thus exploited are survivors of the holocaust the graphic images expose and lessen…

For one thing, innocent children don’t process these images as do guilty adults. Most of my own detractors have never driven anything remotely resembling a truth truck, whether it is a professional rolling billboard like the ones used by Operation Rescue or the Center for Bioethical Reform, or the rougher versions adopted by some of us; if they had they would see the reactions upclose and personal and this is what I see, for the most part; the children are not turning their heads to avoid seeing these photos. They are the ones doing the rubber necking, pointing, and drawing their parents’ attention to see what they see. It is the parents who are looking away, covering the eyes of the children, or telling them to lower their heads until out of sight of the graphic images. They accuse us of “traumatizing” their children, of “harming” them, of destroying their innocence, even of “raping” them! This is insane! Any normal child will have questions about what (s)he sees, and will find it revolting. Some of them, knowing that the pictures represent extreme harm done to a baby, will cry and I’m told this is bad but I can’t help wondering, Where are the church’s tears for these children, what adults are mourning their loss, other than their mothers grieving?

I heard once of a little girl, probably about 5 years old, who was walking through a fair with her mother, who was strongly pro-“choice”. There was pro-life booth set up along their path, prominently displaying a photograph of the dismembered remains of baby brutally killed by induced abortion. The little girl, with the simplicity of innocence, pointed at the picture and asked the older woman, “Who broke the baby?”

While children, by reason of their immaturity and innocence, typically process the images differently than do adults, I think that the discovery of a corpse, whether you find one shown on film or in the bushes behind your house, raises certain questions in normal people of any age. The first is, of course, “What happened?” You know somebody done somebody wrong. Then you want to know who the victim is (if you don’t recognize him/her). You want to know who the perpetrator is, why (s)he did this; you want to know if the perp is still at large, has the crime been reported, are those responsible doing all they can to bring the perp to justice and protect any other prospective victims…You naturally want to know if you are in danger, too, and what measures, if any, should be/are being taken to protect you and others from a similar fate. These questions, if they are answered satisfactorily, will greatly reduce the trauma of the discovery, and turn a tragedy into at least a productive lesson in prevention. These are natural things, and they are not bad; it is the ignorance, or guilt, of adults that makes them embarrassed at addressing these issues; it is not the fault of the ‘prophet’, or of the child; and I think it is very wrong to try to set them over against one another to cover one’s own bloodguilt, incompetence, cowardice, or disingenuousness. What one generation tolerates, the next one will champion; this is a general rule which seems, mercifully, to have backfired somewhat in that the generations who have lost about 1/3 of their members to induced abortion seems to be less inclined to champion what their parents tolerated…nothing like a vital, personal interest to put things into proper perspective…!...but given many other encounters this writer has had with this generation, it’s scary to think what their offspring-if they have any- will champion, given that they themselves tolerate just about anything…except intolerance of evil.

The bottom line here is that, while anyone who is not psychopathic will find the images disturbing, children of all ages can not only get over, but be better for, having seen these photos. What they will never recover from, nor be bettered by, is BEING “those pictures”, and I consider putting the temporary discomfort of children who are not in immediate mortal danger, who still have legal protection over the lives of children who have no legal rights and who therefore ARE in immediate mortal danger a concession to the “quality of life” (over “sanctity of life”) anti-ethic that destroys any culture that embraces it. It occurred to me while standing outside Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, FL, as Terri Schiavo was being deliberately starved to death, only those cultures survive who view life as similar to a tree. The root of that tree is sanctity, and the fruit of it is quality. You cannot reverse the two; and if you try to do so, the tree will die. If you cut the tree off from the roots, there will be no fruit worth eating and soon, no fruit at all. Ask any honest Auschwitz survivor.

If we allow the feelings (real or imagined)/comfort/quality of life of the already born and legally protected to take precedence over the lives of those not born yet, and not legally protected, then we have sided, essentially, with the strong over the weak. We have betrayed not merely the image and order(s) of Him Who left the ninety and nine to seek and save the one in peril, Who came to bring liberty to the oppressed, health to the ailing, freedom to the captives, etc., but we have perverted the essential order of any optimally free, humane, just, and civilized society and that is to encourage the strong to use their respective advantages to defend, protect, and empower the weaker ones, rather than to abuse them to oppress, exploit or destroy them.

In a word, we show the images because they expose the evil works of darkness for what they are; they inform deluded, endangered women; they educate a blinded and deceived populace; they save innocent lives; and they pierce the darkness of a cruel, unjust media blackout.

There is cost to this activity; one becomes a target of occasional acts of police harassment, vandalism, threats, and general scorn; it has always been costly go rescue the innocent from harm’s way, especially if that involves getting between a killer and his/her target.

In light of all the foregoing, though, I think the appropriate question is not why anyone would thus embellish one’s personal vehicle, but why on earth,WHY, in the name of all that is just, right, fair, honest and genuinely compassionate, one would NOT do so. It takes some doing; you may lose your job, if you have one; best to prepare for that eventuality beforehand, and arrange any other affairs that may conflict or hinder your work…and then get going. Good resources for some appropriate materials are antiabortionsigns.com, cbrinfo.org, and victorywon.com; the feminists for life and afterabortion.org have some excellent ads you can enlarge, or you can create your own using various images available online.

In any case, these photos are the loudest voice these endangered, innocent, voiceless children have. You cannot call yourself an ally of theirs, or of any life that touches theirs, or of anything remotely resembling a sane, just, compassionate, and optimally free society if you are trying to silence or discredit it.

As to the Red Bull cars, etc., most people that do that are getting paid to, and they don't always use their own personal vehicles. But I'm sure they'd be very inspired that you asked; I know I've been, as you can probably tell(!)

L'Chaim!

If one is going to cruise around NYC all the time, it's one thing. I'd say not driving much in, for example, Enid, Oklahoma, wouldn't be nearly so lucrative.

What's the catch with "get paid to drive" programs?

In order to qualify for a "get paid to drive " program, you must be at least 18 years old, have a valid drivers license, have a clean car, and have an excellent driving record. You must sign an agreement that specifies how and where you will drive, for how long, and under what conditions. You usually pay for your own insurance and maintenance. If you fail to live up to your part of the deal, your agreement can be terminated.

You may or may not be able to select the type of advertisement that goes on your car, depending on the company and the type of ads it handles. Of course, if you don't like an ad, you can turn it down and wait for a better one. Most ads are attractive and professionally designed so that you shouldn't be embarrassed to be seen with it on your car.

Many companies place a GPS location system in your car so that they can periodically verify that you have driven where you said you would drive, and determine the number of miles you've driven. Occasional inspections may also be necessary to check the condition of the ad.

Remember that the advertisement remains on your car 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You are not permitted to remove it. You must be willing to drive the car everywhere you normally drive ? to the mall, to your job, to school, to church, and everywhere else.

"baby back ribs" and "kiddie cocktails"..perhaps junior burgers/bites? They will deny this, of course, but they are devouring the children that go to make up the future strength of any nation they can get their bloody hooks into.

I once found myself at a concert, seated next to a PP deathscort with whom I had interfaced a number of times while picketing our local killing chamber. This older man, partially blind, did not recognize me, and asked if I would be going to PP's party...I told him that since I was a protester, not a supporter, I was sure that the only way I'd be welcome was in effigy; and besides that, I'd be ever so nervous about who might be in the hors d'oeuvres...so generous as his invitation was, I was sure it was a mistake, and I'd have to decline it...

Here are some interesting shots one might find in a PP restaurant, or gourmet deli...

http://www.trosch.org/lif/cannibalism.html

KYRIE ELEISON, CHRISTE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON.

Laura, Doug, & J Keller (2nd post)

OBJECTION: RELEVANCE?!

Laura, Doug and JKeller:

Let's get back on topic. You posts are out of line...

Laura, Doug and JKeller:

Let's get back on topic. You posts are out of line...

Posted by: valerie at September 18, 2007 1:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, let's discuss someting germane - you know - like midnite's boyfriend.

Speaking of this gathering PP is having this evening, please remember that this might be a ploy. PP may be looking to incite the PL-ers, because if even one small act of violence is committed against them, that can help sway the judge. So EVERYONE, be on your best behavior. They have cameras EVERYWHERE at PP. Anything you do that can be construed as violent or damaging to their property or whatever they will certainly use it against you in court. So I hope there will be some pro-life staffers there so they can help keep order. (I know PL-ers are usually calm, but that’s partly because they haven’t had much opposition yet in Aurora!) I’m sure this has already been thought of, but I just had to post.

Laura -

We will not stop helping people who ask for it. We never have and we never will because we actually care about the people on here.

We will stop senseless attacks and needless offensive jokes that serve no purpose.

We will stop senseless attacks and needless offensive jokes that serve no purpose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excuse me?

The theme of this thread implies that pro-choicers eat babies, and the sub-thread is about driving grisly, bloody fetusmobiles.

Needless attacks and offensive jokes are what we live for!

Yeesh, people, stop being so touchy, people stray off topic all the time on this board.

And anyway, it's you all who are talking about putting fetii in appetizers.

And lifelynx, this is an internet site, not a court of law, you don't have to keep with procedure....

Mullets!!

Laura -

I am NOT commenting on the responses to those topics. I am however responding to the Pentacostal attacks and "dick" conversation.

Oh, come on, Val. What if an atheist formed a circle around your truck to drive out the god? Wouldn't you find that pretty absurd?

Okay, what is the difference between someone making fun of someone for doing something they believe to be absurd and someone making fun of someone for doing something they believe to be absurd?

Erin and JKeller:

The comments were out of line. Just as a story that tells of athiest surrounding a car and another commenter saying "Athiest are hilarious". I would consider that rude as well and unnecessary to the discussion.

Laura, JK: Comments being deleted. Stop whining about it. You went over the line. Move on.

PS: and Doug.

Well then, let's just continue our discussion of the theory of how people who work at Planned Parenthood serve fetus parts at dinner functions......because it just screams tact and class.......

How over the line is it than the other stuff that people have been known to say on this board (eating fetus parts aside, even)?

Guys,

You know that we rarely delete anything on here...but we're going to delete the posts that crossed the line on Christianity...

If you can't handle that I'm sorry. We have been getting a ton of traffic lately, people checking in from all over on the Aurora news, and quite honestly discussing pig panties, stoned wiccans and The Gene Simmons Family Jewels is just tooooooo out there...

You guys know that we accept quite a lot of off topic stuff, but for days now you have been attacking our Church, and not in a respectful way, and I just don't think you'd be doing that to any other religion.

When I see you attack the Jewish Faith and Muslim Faith with the same zeal that you attack Our Lord, we'll talk, but until then, some of those posts are going to disappear.

Quite frankly, I'm a little tired of hearing Our Lord being referred to as our "little imaginary friend" and "the god"...

One of the reasons this site works is that we respect each other and each others beliefs when it doesn't involve abortion. Granted we walk a fine line, but you guys are just button pushing right now, like kids, trying to see how much you can get away with...

I'm sorry again, if this rubs you the wrong way, but it's our call, and we're making it.

I don't allow blasphemy, I don't allow any positive discussion of anything coming close to satanism (wiccanism), I don't allow crass words (d***), and I don't allow coarse talk about sex. Clear?

I see there's a bit of collective PMS today.

When did I ever slander the Lord? Never.

We're expected to just "suck it up" when you all want to make fun of people who work at Planned Parenthood, but its "over the line" if we try to make light of anything and we're chastised like a damn 2 year old when we try to point out the hypocrisy of it.

I don't allow any positive discussion of anything coming close to satanism (wiccanism)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Satan is a Christan entity.
Wiccans don't believe in the ex-angel Satan, Christians do.

Jill- then I ask that you also delete the post from g mcnutt saying that choicers eat babies. That's pretty over the line in my view.

Erin, Our views don't matter, clearly.

Guys,

You know that's not true. Obviously calling planned parenthood out when there is a HUGE situation going on right now makes more than a little sense on a PRO LIFE site.

We bite our tongues all the time when you guys attack our faith.

Yesterday it was PIP and Doug going on about sodomy and oral sex, today it's nuns in frilly panties...you really don't see that this is just button pushing?

We care very much what you have to say. You know that. But you're truly started to hurt us with some of this stuff. It threatens the integrity of Jill's site and it attacks us, not the issue.

I have never, not once, attacked you guys for being atheists. I have attacked atheism, but not you. I have never attacked you being wiccan. I have attacked paganism, but not you.

You are attacking us and you know it. We expect crudeness and base humor from Laura. But Erin and JKeller and PIP, you are our friends. And friends just don't treat each other that way...or so I thought.

Oi, I have been a good girl today. I don't think being annoyed at the implication that we eat babies is unreasonable.

Erin,

What he posted about eating babies in China has been debunked on Snopes. However what Jasper said about dr. Rijanna is true and deserves to be part of this topic. And that is what Jill was alluding to with her cracks about their menu.

Perhaps, that was pushing it too. But Dr. Rijanna has been accused of eating aborted babies by a nurse that worked with him, and there are pictures of these babies in his refrigerator next to his lunch.

You were here when that whole post went down, so you know this. It probably was a low blow, but abortion is a nasty business.

MK- I'm not talking about jasper's link. I'm talking about that g mcnutt person.

*Edited out by Bethany *

Actively comparing choicers to cannibals? Not OK.

Plus, even the most polite pro lifer is always deleted from most PC sites. I look at it this way. I didn't come here to make friends. It was sure nice to make some though. I am also offended when you mock my God! I try to respect the fact that we have non believers here. I don't think I'd be a very happy person if I didn't believe in an afterlife. I want to see my dad again. I want to see my deceased friends again. I know I will. I'd hate to think that all goes dark in the end. It sure doesn't give one much to hope for, does it?

Erin,

His first comment was not about literally eating babies, it was figurative.

The second one is because he read that website on cannibalism and isn't aware that it's bogus. I'd delete it, but I have to check with Jill first.

I can't excuse everyones behavior, and I kind of resent being put in the position of playing referee (for both sides). But for now, please, can we just pretend that it didn't happen and move on.

I don't think Jill would have deleted stuff if it wasn't for the actual phrases that were being used. D*ck, and glorifying drugged out wiccans.

This is Jills site, bottom line, and I know talk of Satanism and Wiccans just doesn't fly. I have to respect that, and so do you.

Let's just go forward. Please? I like you guys too much to leave this with a bad taste. Okay?

I've never attacked you, I have no reason to, and I wouldn't do that. I am not atheist, pagan, or wiccan, either, btw. I saw Doug and PIP's comments about oral sex and sodomy and I found them to be purely for humorous reasons, and not malicious, especially not overtly towards any pro lifer on this board. My comment about Pentecostals was just for humor too. I've never known someone on this board to say that they were Pentecostal, so in making my comment I couldn't have been doing it to maliciously insult anyone. I think Pentecostals are kind of funny after seeing some of the stuff that they do, and seeing them on the movie Borat. Also, I was flipping channels and I came across Benny Hinn's program and he had his jacket and was wacking people in the face with it. If that's not hilarity I don't know what is.

I say this when I see you mocking.......Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. I don't care if you want to worship a watermelon. Please don't mock us because we worship and love the lord.

Also, comparing Wicca to Satanism shows a gross misunderstanding of the basics of both religions.

Heather- I think that no afterlife makes this life that much more beautiful and meaningful. And there are several sites, especially on facebook, where lifers are totally welcome to debate, as long as they don't openly demonstrate ignorance about the issues. The language might be a little harsher, but it's largely focused on a different generation.

Also, the reason that a lot of choicers find the need to be a bit abraisive on occasions is because we are outnumbered. You have to talk louder to be heard.

and quite honestly discussing pig panties, stoned wiccans and The Gene Simmons Family Jewels is just tooooooo out there...

:: laughing ::

There was a good natural flow to the discussion, but no problem - fine with me.

Doug

Erin, I must respectfully disagree. I am looking forward to the day when I believe I will see my loved ones again. If I didn't think this way, I don't think I could live.

Yesterday it was PIP and Doug going on about sodomy and oral sex, today it's nuns in frilly panties...you really don't see that this is just button pushing?

We care very much what you have to say. You know that. But you're truly started to hurt us with some of this stuff. It threatens the integrity of Jill's site and it attacks us, not the issue.

Ouch - MK, if I have done that, then I am sorry.

I do not know where I was "going on" about sodomy and oral sex. I must be very forgetful today....

Agreed that it's Jill's site, and in no way do I mean to hurt anybody that way.

Doug

Guys--

When I said that I was joking but it was not intended for an attack or even directed at anyone in particular. I thought his comment was funny so I just practically said "What a GREAT idea!!" for another laugh.

Will not happen again...

Erin,

Also, comparing Wicca to Satanism shows a gross misunderstanding of the basics of both religions.

Erin,
I was a wiccan for 14 years. Believe me I know that they don't believe in satan. But as Christians we believe that satan is behind all paganism. So, from our point of view, the two are inseparable. As a matter of fact, we believe that one of satans greatest weapons is that people don't believe in him. Makes them much easier to control.

JKeller,
It wasn't about being funny or not. Discussing a nuns underwear and using crude words is not accepted by Jill. Period. The one is crass and the other is irreverant.

Seriously, JK, Erin and Doug,

How many times have I had to hear that I "pretend" to believe in a fairy tale, or that the pope is a satanist, or that priest like little boys...and I never complain...so just this once, let it go...

Basically, our (Christianity's) position is...
You may not believe in Satan, but he believes in you!

He's the father of Lies, and sometimes he lies by omission.

Milehimama,

Amen.

Well put, Milehi!

On Satan, sometimes he speaks/works through people too.

Seriously, JK, Erin and Doug,

How many times have I had to hear that I "pretend" to believe in a fairy tale, or that the pope is a satanist, or that priest like little boys...and I never complain...so just this once, let it go...

Grrr.... MK, I understand where you are on this, and I am aware this is Jill's site. But I haven't done any of the three things you mentioned there. I accept that you believe as you say you do - no pretending involved there.

Doug

Likewise, I haven't done any of the three things. I don't believe Christianity to be a fairy tale, I don't believe the pope to be a satanist (though I keep other opinions I have of him personally to myself) and I wouldn't stereotype all priests to rape little boys, but it's no insult to say that the ones that did, did.

Yes, I must say, I don't know how Doug's name got thrown in there. He always seems to be polite (not that Erin and JK aren't), although I haven't read everything.

And besides, I thought sodomy was allowed int he church in a monogamous relationship. Unless I"m wrong on this. Is oral sex (etc) allowed in the church within marriage? Or do they only sanction acts that involve copulation?

Hi PIP. (Jill: I apologize if this post is inappropriate. Delete it if necessary) According to Catholic theology, any sexual act (between married spouses) must be both unitive and procreative. So according to Christopher West (Good News about Sex and Marriage) who is an expert in JPII''s Theology of the Body, a married couple may engage in oral or anal sex so long as it is ordered toward "culminating" in the conjugal act i.e. sexual intercourse. In other words, it may be permitted as a type of foreplay, but it must "end" in sexual intercourse. It is my understanding then that, yes, you are correct. God love you, PIP.

Thank you, Bobby.

From this point on, any posts that serve no good purpose or are intentionally offensive will be deleted. I'm also going to delete a few right now that have already been posted.

I don't know if you all realize this, but this blog is Jill's "home" on the web. You wouldn't walk into someone's home and insult them, and you shouldn't do it here.

And Jkeller, Jill did not say anything about any random pro-choicers eating fetuses. She obviously kept her jab directed soley to those who's lucrative business is in killing those babies. How is eating them an insult when they shove them down garbage disposals every day?

Unless you are out there actually doing the killing of the unborn babies every day, I doubt you're the target of the joke, nor do I think she intended to insult you.

That being said, let's get back on topic, or if you want to discuss something irrelevant (no problem with that), make sure it's something uplifting or profitable to others, or else your post will be deleted.

Thanks.

I also removed the post by G. Mcnutt since it offended many and what was in the link was disproved.

Thank you Jill, MK and Bethany,

I didn't mean to leave ya'll with the mess.. I didn't have any food in the house and something told me the kids would be wanting to eat for dinner. ;-)

Oops... I didn't mean that anyone here was a "mess" just the situation.

Oh I understand, Valerie. ;)
I've been gone all day or I would have been here to help you out earlier. :)

Oh, I didn't think Jill was accusing any of us of eating fetuses, its just I was clueless as to how discussing cannibalism is fine and good and discussing the eccentricities of Pentecostals is crossing a line.

Anyway......

I didn't mean to be rude, yet accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often.

It's easy to do on the web, I understand. :)

I just don't want us fighting instead of debating...it just gets everyone down.

It's okay EVERYONE...just try to understand that Jill get hundreds of thousands of hits on her site and more now than ever with the Aurora thing. Her integrity is on the line.

Doug, I'm not going to argue with about what you have or have not done. If you feel that I lumped you in there unjustly then I apologize.

JK, you are usually so respectful. But you really need to stop aligning yourself with Laura. She'll get you into trouble every time. I don't even dislike her, but she loves to push our buttons and when it's just her it's not too bad, but when we see you guys circling it gets a little tricky...you know I love you, and care very, very much about what you think...

Erin,
We talked yesterday. Enough said. I love you too. Loved the line about the mullets by the way!

Now then, what in the heck is this post about anyway ?

Oh yes, barbeques and whatnot...the whole party is probably over by now anyway...I suppose it would have been to much to ask for a little rain...or a tornado! Kidding, I'm only kidding....

joke time:
"

My girlfriend's grandmother say, "Never spoil a good story with the truth."

"When Nathan Radlich's house was burgled, thieves left
his TV, his VCR, and even left his watch. What they did
take was "generic white cardboard box filled with greyish
-white powder." (That at least is the way the police
described it.) A spokesman for the Fort Lauderdale police
said "that it looked similar to cocaine and they'd probably
thought they'd hit the big time."

Then Nathan stood in front of the TV cameras and
pleaded with the burglars: "Please return the cremated
remains of my sister, Gertrude. She died three years ago."

Well, the next morning, the bullet-riddled corpse of a
drug dealer known as Hoochie Pevens was found on
Nathan's doorstep. The cardboard box was there too;
about half of Gertrude's ashes remained. And there was
this note. It said: "Hoochie sold us the bogus blow, so
we wasted Hoochie. Sorry we snorted your sister.
No hard feelings. Have a nice day!"

Ewwwwww John! LOL

John,

You are a twisted individual. And you probably made Valerie snort again! Which is fine as long as Gertrude is put away!

Ewww. That's almost as bad as the one where a family recieved the ashes before the news that a cremated family member was on the way. They thought it was a traditional spice that they recieved at that time every year and accidently ate it.

I wonder if anything like that has ever really happened? I really hope not. Ew!

Bethany- the one with the New Zealand family and the spices accidently eating the ashes is true. I'll see if I can find a link.

Erin and Bethany,

I'm so glad we're back on topic...lol.

We're all quite hopeless!

Myself included.

Where is midnite. We actually do want a boyfriend update.

Bah, it's from one of my readers. I don't know where to find it online. Anyhow, it's not really that unusual- a lot of cultures eat the ashes of cremated relatives intentionally.

Erin,

Tell me that's not true. Not only is it gross, but they would have to taste HORRIBLE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17933669/

Keith Richards says he snorted father's ashes
Stones guitarist mixed remains with cocaine � �it went down pretty well�

FREE VIDEO
Keith Richards says he snorted father's ashes
April 3: Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards said he had snorted his father�s ashes mixed with cocaine. MSNBC�s Willie Geist has the details.

LONDON - Keith Richards has acknowledged consuming a raft of illegal substances in his time, but this may top them all.

In comments published Tuesday, the 63-year-old Rolling Stones guitarist said he had snorted his father�s ashes mixed with cocaine.

�The strangest thing I�ve tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father,� Richards was quoted as saying by British music magazine NME.

�He was cremated, and I couldn�t resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn�t have cared,� he said, adding that �it went down pretty well, and I�m still alive.�

You're right, Marykay, we are hopeless...but at least we're not fighting anymore! : )

Erin, wow, that is sooooo awful. I can't imagine what the family must have felt like once they realized what they had done.

OMG John--that is hilarious.

Mk, nasty! Actually Keith Richards looks like someone who might do something freaky weird like that:

Speaking of off topic stuff, I don't know why but this SNL skit just cracks me up. :D

Mawble Cawlums

http://www.buzzhumor.com/videos/12921/Scarlett_Johansson_Marble_Columns

I have some friends at works who are really into their motorcycles, they forwarded this to me explaining this is why I should get one:

http://www.bigdogmotorcycles.com/index.html#comm

lol

Jill, you wrote: "When I see you attack the Jewish Faith and Muslim Faith with the same zeal that you attack Our Lord, we'll talk, "

Well I've been kicked off muslim forums for pointing out home truths about Muhammed (like: he probably didn't exist, but if he's anything like his accepted biographies make him out to be, then he's a thief, war-criminal, murderer, and child-molester.)

Actually SoMG,

I wrote that, not Jill.

And of all the people that post here, why doesn't it surprise me that you are the one that would do this...you must be so proud.

I think the question is, Is there anything Keith Richards *hasn't* snorted?

John, loved your joke. I've been missing your posts.........NICE TO SEE YOU!!! jasper, cute commercial!

... According to Catholic theology, any sexual act (between married spouses) must be both unitive and procreative. So according to Christopher West (Good News about Sex and Marriage) who is an expert in JPII''s Theology of the Body, a married couple may engage in oral or anal sex so long as it is ordered toward "culminating" in the conjugal act i.e. sexual intercourse. In other words, it may be permitted as a type of foreplay, but it must "end" in sexual intercourse. It is my understanding then that, yes, you are correct. God love you, PIP.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 18, 2007 6:10 PM

Bobby, please do not make these statements.

If Christopher West actually made such a claim (which is completely against Catholic teaching), please give me the reference to it.

I repeat, acts of sodomy and other perversions of human sexuality other than those for which it is rightly ordered (as can be determined even by Natural Law) are gravely (or mortally) sinful acts.

Paul,
I believe Bobby is referring to p. 92-93 of West's book. These acts are acceptable as foreplay, they are sinful if used as a substitute for the completion of the marital act.

BTW, I have a book called "A Marriage Manual for Catholics" which says basically the same thing - one may use hands or mouth as foreplay (if both spouses agree). It also carries a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, as does West's book.

Hi Paul. Yes, the reference that Milehimama gives is correct. The church teaches that one must never separate the unitive and procreative aspect of the marital act. This leaves open the question of whether or not oral and anal sex may be used as foreplay. The problem with sodomy is that IN ITSELF it is not life giving. A homosexual act can never be life giving, but sodomy in the conjugal act in anticipation of sexual intercourse does not contradict any teaching set forth by the Church. It respects all the principles set forth by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. There is no principle or specific teaching where the magesteriam specifically addresses sodomy in the context of the marital act that I am aware of. So I would need to see something of that nature.

Now, that being said, I think married couples also need to consider the questions "Does an act of sodomy reflect God's total, faithful, and self giving love or does it not? Does an act of sodomy reflect Christ giving himself totally and without reserve to his bride The Church or does it not?" So (and this is my personal opinion) while it may be within the letter of the law, it seems to be close to being outside the spirit of the law. God love you, Paul.

BTW, in case you missed it, West's book is "Good News about Sex and Marriage."

Bobby says the same thing I said, but my post is deleted.....

"The problem with sodomy is that IN ITSELF it is not life giving. A homosexual act can never be life giving, but sodomy in the conjugal act in anticipation of sexual intercourse does not contradict any teaching set forth by the Church."

Okay, now here's the tricky part. Let's say that sodomy in the conjugal act is in fact in anticipation of sexual intercourse, but along the way the married couple finishes the act during the sodomy phase and before the sexual incourse, despite their holy plans which they had in good faith anticipated. Have they committed a sin?

Hi Hal. The answer is no because they did not have that intention. In order for a mortal sin to occur, ALL THREE following conditions must be present in the act;
1) grave matter
2) full knowledge
3) full consent of the will

In the situation you described, condition 3) is not met because the couple did not intend to complete the act in that way (assuming they truly did intend that and it was a legit accident.) This can certainly happen. God love you.

BTW, this is Catholic moral theology; I can't speak for other faiths or beliefs. This is just what the Catholic church teaches.

Hal,

You were deleted because you used sodomy like 5th grade boy in the school bathroom would have. Here, like adults, we are discussing the act in the context of morality.

@Bobby and JK

things are not so cut-and-dried with neurons/brain-cells. The only type of nerve tissue that auto-regenerates is the olfactory-bulb(sense of smell). This is why in Spain it is these stem cells that are THE source of stem cells for the entire brain.

neurons communicate with each other via appendages called axons and dendrites. There often is damage to these although the cell itself is quite alive ... it seems functionally 'dead'. There was a technique (in Germany) that repaired these appendages .... often lost with oxygen deprivation. [Wonder how Terri would have done with this?]

Then there was this intriguing (and surprising) experiment by Robert O Becker that used a very small electric current to cure an ulcer, a cancer + regenerate nerve tissue ... 'Cross Currents'.