Anti-Obama pro-lifers: “jihadists”
I get disparaging emails from time to time and dismiss them.
The following, though, made me angry not so much because the author calls pro-lifers zealots and jihadists. I’ve heard worse.
What got me was Peter’s repulsive assertion that Jesus may have sent Barack Obama “to help you.”
This is a ludicrous pitch gaining traction among guilt-ridden Christian/pro-life Obama supporters that his radical pro-abortion positions and plans juxtaposed with his liberal plans to lower the abortion rate by expanding the welfare state and comprehensive sex ed will result in a net lowered abortion rate. (And again, why do abortion proponents care one way or the other whether the rate of abortion is lowered? What’s wrong with abortion? Where is the MSM asking this simple question?)
Neither of the latter address the root cause of abortion: promiscuity. They encourage it.
From Peter, with typos corrected:
How sweet.
A lovely little website of like-minded holier than thou, pious, self rightous, zealots. All patting each other on the back. A real mutual admiration fest. No opposing viewpoints. Just you and Jesus.
Coincidentally, that’s how fanatical jihadists operate. They have the same M.O.D. Like minded people who answer directly to what their God is telling them. Congratulations.
That’d be funny if when you got the pearly gates, Jesus asked why you so fervently opposed Obama when He specifically sent him to help you. I’m not saying that God did send Obama, I’m saying, “what if he did” and you misunderstood Jesus’s direction?
Nevermind. You’re right. You’re always right.
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.
Who is Peter? Is he just some random guy who emailed you?
I’d say you’re right on target about the “guilt-ridden” people trying to justify their support of Obama.
But then, as Peter says, you’re always right! ;)
No opposing viewpoints? What am I, chopped liver?
“Neither of the latter address the root cause of abortion: promiscuity.”
That may be one cause of abortion, but don’t forget, a fair number of married people have abortions.
And, just to offer an “opposing viewpoint,” I’d rather live in a world with abortion and promiscuity than a world with neither.
Ideally, with better birth control, education, and personal responsibility, we can promiscuity without unwanted pregnancies.
Hal, I think you are chopped liver after the second post.
You’d rather not live in a world where babies can be killed at will….I take it back, chopped liver has more of a heart.
There is NO justification for abortion and anyone who has ever had an experience with Jesus KNOWS this. So yes, Jill you’re right (as always…winks), the guilt ridden are trying to justify their support of a murderous man.
Jesus will have something to say one day, that much the author got right, but it isn’t going to be anything like the author thinks.
We’re suppose to hear, “well done, good and faithful servant…”, Jesus will NEVER say abortion is good nor anyone who supported it in any way, shape or form, was a “faithful servant”.
The Bible talks about in the last days there will be a great falling away, so those who served the Lord who now support Obama can be counted in that falling away.
One cannot support death and life at the same time.
God said we are to CHOOSE one or the other and His advice is CHOOSE LIFE.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(note: that BOTH thou and they SEED MAY LIVE)
I remember the verse about calling good evil and evil is called good. How many lives were lost wednesday due to Pro life activities. I don’t even know of a person run over by the truth truck.
Correction:
You’d (Hal) rather live in a world where babies can be killed at will….(sick)
(typing too early, no coffee)
Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.” Luke 17:1-3a
Hal, you’re right. Obviously this guy didn’t ever read any of the comments here (yours among others), if he believes there are no dissenting views.
To Peter:
How sweet.
Lovely little letter you wrote Jill, full of arrogant, pious, self righteous, holier than thou comments.
Patting yourself on the back. Talking about how much you hate someone you don’t even know.
Coincidentally, that’s how fanatical jihadists operate. They have that same hateful attitude that you displayed in your email to Jill. Congratulations.
It’d be funny if when you got the pearly gates, Jesus asked why you so fervently supported Obama when He specifically described children as “blessings”, and Obama would allow them to be killed even after they’re born.
Nevermind. You’re right. You’re always right.
Not all abortions are the result of promiscuity. I know they are a very small percentage of all abortions, but what about pregnancies caused by rape?
Phillymiss, Jill didn’t say that all abortions were a result of promiscuity, but that it was the “root” of the cause.
Phillymiss,
From what I have read, and I’m afraid I don’t have a source, is that rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother, and fetal defect only account for 1-2% of the abortions performed.
Not all abortions are the result of promiscuity. I know they are a very small percentage of all abortions, but what about pregnancies caused by rape?
Posted by: Phillymiss at October 23, 2008 9:05 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What did the baby do to deserve death in that kind of situation?
The father lives, (hopefully in jail) the mother lives, (with proper help she heals) the baby dies a gruesome death.
Some justice.
wow– Hopefully Obama will win.. and those of us who are actual thinkers and actually believe that helping all people will have an effect on the amount of abortions occurring..
The right wing has proven to not care for the neediest.. and You all have talked about how it isn’t the governments responsiblity … and that is a load of self consumed crap! You all on this blog who just say ” Abortion is wrong” and their is no other reason for voting as a Christian for Obama… ” Have obviously been sitting at your computer and have failed to see the real world…
I am sickened… Yes.. Abortion is awful.. but have any of you thought farther down the road on what the Republican initiatives are?
It was recently said that the most folks taht vote democratic are minorities and people with education—- I think it says something… you have those that suffer with this horrible system that George W Bush put in play…and you have folks that actually think intellectually…
I am so put off by pro-lifers that can’t think. That is what the above proves..
ugh.
Why would you want to kill a child because their father is a loser who has no respect for someone elses life? Break the cycle!!!
Hi Landy. Would you vote for someone who supported the right to choose to rape someone?
Landy – would you vote for someone who would support the right to cover up a rape?
Oh man, Chris, great minds think alike…
Landy, you are making the false assumption that Democratic policies are helpful.
Even Charlie Gibson(gasp!) went after Obama’s tax plan during his debate w/ Hillary, saying that raising the capital gains tax has always shown to actually reduce government income. In fact, when the capital gains tax is low, the governement makes more money. This isn’t a “right wing fanatic” it’s Charlie Gibson. Of course, that is all convienantly forgotten now.
The point is, Obama’s “spread the wealth around” tactics don’t actually help anyone. The government doesn’t actually take in any more money to fund their programs, and a 1000 dollar check doesn’t really help someone who lost their job because their employeer could no longer afford to keep them on.
Thigns are not nearly as cut and dry as “conservatives are mean and don’t like people and liberals are nice and care”
Liberal philosophies make people *feel* good for the moment, but they don’t actually help. Look at the subprime lending crisis. The liberals forced banks to make loans to unqualified people because it made those people *feel* good for the moment. Fast forward 5 years and all of those unqualified people are now losing their homes and taking the entire financial system down with them. Who feels good now?
Hi, I’m writing a paper on the Supreme Court and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and was wondering if I could get opinions from people on hear about both.
1. What is your opinion of the Supreme Court?
2. What do you believe the role of a democratic government should be?
3. What is the meaning of the term liberal?
4. How do individual rights fit within your conception of a democratic system?
5. What is your opinion of the Roe v Wade decision? This question is aimed not so much at the moral aspects of it (ie. it legalized murder) but about the application of governmental power.
Thanks.
Oh yes, Lauren, it was mortgages to minorities that brought about the financial crisis. Totally. All of those Community Reinvestment Act governed mortgages (which, oddly enough, were LESS likely to go into default) caused a multi-trillion dollar crisis.
Are you really that stupid or gullible?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/722379.html
You really, really don’t think that the loosening of regulations on banks and on traders had anything to do with the financial crisis?
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122246742997580395.html
Do me a favor. Heck, do yourself a favor, and get some real information. Try looking up “credit default swap” and while you’re at it, try looking up the “Commodities Future Modernization Act” for some real information on the Wall Street ponzi scheme that actually triggered the crisis.
Do you even know what a derivatives trades are? No? Then you’re not qualified to discuss the financial meltdown, because you clearly don’t understand it.
The financial crisis was NOT caused by individual homeowners defaulting on their loans. It was caused by unregulated traders (thousands of them) betting back and forth on the viability of the loans, which created an enormous, unsustainable bubble. Naturally, it burst.
And you know who put in a 262 page amendment to the act mentioned above? An amendment that specifically deregulated the trade of credit default swaps? That would be your (and McCain’s) Republican friend, Phil Gramm.
But really, if it makes you feel better to blame minority home loans, keep on with it. I guess it’s more comforting to you to accept the swill handed out by right-wing pundits than to do your own research on the topic.
Hi Enigma, you came to the right place! I think we all have some big opinions on the SC, and Roe V. Wade highlights them perfectly.
1)I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for here, but I’ll just put my opinion of the sitting court. I think that they are, for the most part, to partisan. I don’t think that the SC should be a partisan board that will simply split down party lines. Unfortunately, that is what it often boils down to. I don’t think that justice has a political party, and it upsets me that the SC justices seem to disagree.
2)I believe a democratic government should serve the will of its people. I believe in one person one vote, and that our elected officials should be held accountable to their constituents and not special interests. Sadly, the illusion that our votes actually matter was thrown under the bus this election cycle when the DNC held their mock role call and bullied delegates to vote for a candidate other than the one they were appointed to vote for. A democratic government should work for the people, making laws as representatives, not a collection of dictators.
3)To me “liberal” is a bit of a misnomer, especially when it comes to the financial aspects of “liberal” philosophy which favors restriction on free market and a move more toward socialism. Of course, both parties are responsible for that, so I can’t say the republican’s did much better!
As for general social policy, I would say liberals are “permissive”. Someone said it well when they said that liberals are permissive on social issues and restrictive on financial issues and republicans are the other way around. Now that’s of course an oversimplification, but I think it is basically right.
4-I believe individual rights are paramount. In fact, I tend to have some libertarian leanings. I believe that individual rights end when someone else’s rights are infringed upon. This plays into abortion because the mothers individual right to privacy butts up against the child’s individual right to life. I believe that the right to life is the foundation for all of our other rights, and that if we deny this basic right to any member of society, we do not really recognize human rights as a whole.
5-Oh Boy, do I ever have some strong opinions here. I believe that Roe v. Wade was a horribly flawed decision made by activist judges who thought that an extrapolation of an extrapolation of an amendment was firm constitutional ground. I believe if we look hard enough we can find just about anything in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean we should be trying to twist words. I believe that the decision should be overturned in a manner similar to the Dred Scott decision. I believe that the SC had absolutely no right to circumvent our legislative process by “legislating from the bench” and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned not only for the actual decision, but for what the decision represents in terms of the foundation of our country.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Argh, you’re starting from the middle without paying attention to what it was that those unregulated traders were betting on. Were they betting on sound financial decisions, we wouldn’t have this problem.
The banks were forced to make these loans, and then freddie and fannie told them that they had their back, so they continued making them. I’m sure greed did take over at some point, but it wasn’t the banks who went looking for the subprime borrowers, they were forced to take them.
As for regulation, McCain called for tougher regulations years ago, and the Dems in congress fought back tooth and nail. They paraded Raines in and assured everyone that it was perfectly safe that his ponzie scheam only allowed for a 2% default rate.
We can’t discuss the market meltdown fairly unless we look at it all the way from the bottom. I’m sure Barak and his buddies had only the nobleist intentions, but the truth is that his lawsuits set the stage for the disaster.
Posted by: Bethany at October 23, 2008 9:01 AM
Great!
Thanks, Jasper! :) Hope you’ve been doing well.
Lauren – You are still making a HUGE mistake in assuming that banks were being forced to make loans.
Were there some institutions that were required to make loans to minorities and to low-income borrowers? Yes, there were. The act that required it was called the Community Reinvestment Act. What it required was for bank branches in minority and low-income neighborhoods to provide credit services to the members of those neighborhoods. Prior to the CRA, many (if not all) of those branches discriminated by providing deposit services only, and refused credit services EVEN TO QUALIFIED BORROWERS just because of their minority or low-income status. That was what the CRA addressed.
The CRA regulated loans, as I mentioned above, are significant to the financial crisis in NO WAY. This is because the CRA loans were tightly regulated. AND, the CRA regulated loans are currently standing out in the present crisis for being the loans that have the LOWEST default rate.
The other sub-prime loans, the ones that the derivative traders were betting on? Those loans WERE NOT MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY. They were also not regulated. Those loans were originated by banks and lending institutions who took advantage of loosened regulations in order to make a mad profit as quickly as they could.
Then, these risky bits of paper were leveraged, and leveraged, and leveraged again, basically taking a few billion dollars worth of risky paper to the securities market and turning into multiple trillions of dollars worth of illusionary ponzi scheme money. And AGAIN, the basis for this pile, these sub-prime loans, were NOT THE LOANS THAT WERE MANDATED IN ANY WAY BY THE GOVERNMENT. This was just a bunch of Wall Street cowboys who did it because they could.
“You’d rather not live in a world where babies can be killed at will….I take it back, chopped liver has more of a heart.”
So Sandi if chopped liver has more of a heart then Hal and you support the atrocious things done to those animals, would you do those things to Hal? Or would you not, simply for the fact that Hal has human DNA? Why do we kill based on the type of DNA? Isn’t that just as bad as killing based on the number of chromosomes?
Argh,
You seem fixated on this issue being racial. It wasn’t mortgages to minorities that caused the problem, it was mortgages to people of any race who were otherwise unqualified to obtain them. This was not a racial issue.
In fact, I think its patronizing and racist to suggest minorities need special concessions.
Its my opinion that any lender who discriminates against a qualified borrower because of race,ethnicity, or religion should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Also, any borrower that does not qualify should not get a loan and I don’t care what color they are!
Hey I was talking about taxes with my friend and I was wondering, what do you think are three things you would spend tax money on if you could choose?
Like if you had the nations budget, and you were told to appropriate the money to three different government institutions, anything taxes can go to.
Hi Bethany,
I haven’t spoken to you in a while, I hope you and the family are doing well :)
Jess,
Good question. In all my years I haven’t seen anything the gov’t runs efficiently. In fact, i haven’t seen anything they didn’t screw up while trying to run it. I say let the people keep their money and spend it on what they see fit. That will give people jobs. Also, encourage donations to private charities. They are more efficicent, accountable, and easier to check up on.
I was thinking that Bethany before Jasper said it!
Why do we kill based on the type of DNA? Isn’t that just as bad as killing based on the number of chromosomes?
Jess, what I don’t understand is if you think that animals and humans are on the same level, and you think animals should not ever be killed for any reason, why not be firmly against abortion? It makes no sense to be against killing the animals but not against killing babies, if you think it is the same thing. Unless you think animals are more important than humans? And if so, then aren’t you allowing killing based on the DNA too?
HI Mary! I would say, military, education and the fire department.
It would benefit no one to have a bunch of houses on fire.
Mary,
Ok, here’s the thing. If you and Lauren, and everyone else who is blaming the crisis on the government “forcing” lenders to make loans, it is you, and not me, who is fixating on minority status.
As I’ve said over, and over, and over again, the only government act that required banks to provide lending services was the CRA. And the CRA was specifically set up to combat discrimination by bank branches in minority and low-income neighborhoods. So…when you are talking about the government “forcing” banks to make loans, the CRA loans are the ones you are talking about. And again, that is YOUR focus, not mine.
The sub-prime loans that are at the bottom of the pile o’crap in the financial crisis are NOT THE CRA LOANS. The government did not force banks to make those loans. Again, the government did not force banks to make those loans. Let me say it a different way, the banks were not required by the government to make those sub-prime loans. They did it because they could, and because it was a way to make heck of a lot of money in a very short period of time, and because loosened regulations allowed them to do so.
I am so put off by pro-lifers that can’t think. That is what the above proves..
ugh.
Posted by: Landy at October 23, 2008 9:16 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just think how “put off” the baby feels while she or he is having his or her’s arms and legs ripped off, or having the back of her or his head stabbed with a sharp instrument and having the brains sucked out, or being poisoned to death, or sucked out into oblivion.
You proaborts have your priorities so screwed up it’s beyond pathetic. It’s down right sick.
Thanks, Jess! I hope that you’ve been doing well. Did you ever try the Once a Week cooking?
Bethany sometimes animals eat their own babies. You should be glad I don’t defend that : (
And I’m not defending that behavior in animals either. I think it’s important to give every mother the resources and support they need so they don’t feel pressured to kill their young.
jess,
Education is a disaster. The fire depts. are locally run, usually by the city. The military seems run well. I’ll give you that.
Argh, 10:09am
Look at your own post. YOU make the point of minorities.
Lol, just with potatoes Bethany : ) I make them in huge quantities because it’s just such a hassle to make them after classes and practice, by that time I”m pretty tired. I have managed to keep my food budget at $12 a week.
So Sandi if chopped liver has more of a heart then Hal and you support the atrocious things done to those animals, would you do those things to Hal? Or would you not, simply for the fact that Hal has human DNA? Why do we kill based on the type of DNA? Isn’t that just as bad as killing based on the number of chromosomes?
Posted by: Jess at October 23, 2008 10:32 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t argue about silly things.
I was making a point and if you think that animals are on the same level as a helpless human baby, then we don’t have a thing to say to each other.
Argh Barak was involved in a lawsuit that was upset that the institution was “only” approving 50% of borrowers from a low income neighborhood. They were also “only” approving 80% of people of color in a higher income neighborhood. This was, apparently, discrimination.
Argh, you’re a smart person, do you really believe that a bank approving every other person who walks through their door to buy a house in a disadvantaged area is “discriminating on the basis of race?” Isn’t it more likely that they are making sound judgment?
I understand that owning a home is the American dream, but it’s not racist to say that not everyone is qualified to be a homeowner. If you only make 1200/month, you shouldn’t be getting into a 100,000 mortgage. Sorry. Moreover, you especially shouldn’t be getting into a 400,000 mortgage. It’s not racist to tell someone “sorry you don’t qualify” if they don’t. It isn’t merciful to put someone in a mortgage you know they can’t afford. If anything that’s cruel.
Perhaps the people directly benefiting from CRA didn’t default, but they opened the floodgates for all the other sub prime mortgages that did. Banks were forced to lower their lending standards, and the bubble eventually popped.
Again, I don’t doubt that banks began to get greedy, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were bullied into sub prime lending to begin with.
Regarding my 10:38 post, Jess, I don’t know whether you are still supportive of abortion or not… I think you were going back and forth for a while, (or so it seemed to me when I was here last). If you don’t support abortion anymore, just disregard my question. :)
Oh, I refreshed before publishing this and saw your reply.
And I’m not defending that behavior in animals either. I think it’s important to give every mother the resources and support they need so they don’t feel pressured to kill their young.
I can certainly agree with that. That’s why I love CPC’s. :)
I just don’t believe killing them should be an option. Definitely, give them whatever resources they need, but to give them the option to kill their child also isn’t right.
Regarding my 10:38 post, Jess, I don’t know whether you are still supportive of abortion or not… I think you were going back and forth for a while, (or so it seemed to me when I was here last). If you don’t support abortion anymore, just disregard my question. :)
Oh, I refreshed before publishing this and saw your reply.
And I’m not defending that behavior in animals either. I think it’s important to give every mother the resources and support they need so they don’t feel pressured to kill their young.
I can certainly agree with that. That’s why I like CPC’s. :)
I just don’t believe killing babies should be an option. Definitely, give them whatever resources they need, but to give them the option to kill their child also isn’t right.
Mary –
I am about to snatch my own self bald trying to talk to you.
Yes, I discussed the CRA. Now, think, why did I discuss the CRA? Because you, and Lauren, and a lot of other people keep insisting the the financial crisis was caused by the government “forcing” banks to make loans.
Now, the only loans that were “forced” by the government were the CRA loans.
The CRA was enacted to combat discrimination against minorities.
I was pointing out that when you, Lauren, and everyone else blames government “forced” loans for the financial crisis, you are essentially blaming loans to minorities, because those are the only loans that were “forced” by the government.
So again, minority loans are YOUR point, not mine.
Argh, 10:41am
Do a little more research. I’m tired of going over this time and again.
I know education is a disaster Mary that’s why we need to give it money. If people had to pay for it personally it would improve for about 25%, stay the same for about 25% and 50% of people wouldn’t bother sending their kids to school.
That’s like trash collection. Some places have to do it for free because if they didn’t people would just throw their trash out into the streets. “Look out for the dirty diapers!”
Lauren, what isolated, radiowave-proofed neck of the woods do you live in?
Banks(acutally mortgage companies) did indeed go out looking for them – they advertised almost incessantly for no-doc, 125%, no downpayment loans. And many of those taking them up on it were white, self-employed overspending (his and hers Hummer, Xbox kids) types buying 2000sf+ homes (or Home Eq loans for those toys) in suburbanizing outer ring areas. Not anything that CRA was meant to address.
Argh 10:52am
OK, point out to me where I said anything about minorities.
Lauren,
Yes, lawsuits were filed in order to force compliance with the CRA. What is the good of an act if no one complies with it, and if the intended beneficiaries of an act can’t get it enforced?
But again, the CRA only applied to bank branches located in low-income and minority neighborhoods. And, as noted, the CRA regulated loans have a markedly low default rate.
And really, one last time for emphasis, the banks making the sub-prime loans that you are complaining about were NOT forced to lower their lending standards. They just weren’t. Their regulations were loosened, including their reserve regulations, and they did this to themselves. They weren’t forced to take these risks; they CHOSE to take the risks, and then, because loosened regulations allowed them to do so, they unloaded the risks on the securities market.
phylosopher, they went after *more* sub prime loans AFTER they were sued into lowering their lending standards.
Argh, the government instituted CRA, but it was Barak and Company that went out and actively sued banks for “discrimination”. The bulk of his “community organizing” was bullying banks to make more sub prime loans.
After the ball got rolling, banks started jumping on the bandwagon and pushing more bad loans, but again, they were initially very hesitant to lower their standards.
McCain called for tougher regulation, and Barny Frank and Chris Dodd and their cronies celebrated Raines and bashed the oversite panel that was calling for reform. The banks got greedy, but the Dems were standing behind them 110%.
Jess,
There’s no shortage of money for schools. Honestly I don’t know where the problem is. I know that when I went to a large city public school there was discipline, respect, large classrooms, and a racial, religious, and ethnic mix. Contrary to popular misconception there is nothing new about diversity.
And guess what, we learned!
Barack* (sorry, when I see his name I think Barak and Deberoah so it always throws me off!)
Mary – every time you say that the cause of the financial crisis is the government “forcing” banks to make loans, you are blaming loans to minorities.
Mary and lauren – let me point out that your assertion that CRA “caused the banking crisis” is dying the death of a thousand qualitfications at your own hands.
First it causes it, now it’s responsible for “opening the flood gates.”
That’s like claiming that public education, which increased literacy is to blame for a kidnapping – based on the idea that, if he’d never been taught to read, he wouldn’t have been able to write a ransom note.
BTW, this is similar to what corporations did with the 14th amendment – resulting in corporations being regarded as legal persons. And I’m thinking you wouldn’t want that overturned – then again…..
Phylosopher,
There’s always been something called personal responsibility which some people either learn the hard way or not at all.
These lenders can’t force anyone into loans. People can be responsible enough to realize that they have to better manage their lives and their money. Unfortunately there are plenty of people ready to take advantage of us if we don’t.
We have friends who inherited a house. No mortgage payments. Its not fancy or big, but it nicely meets their needs. Great uh?
They almost were evicted for not paying property taxes. Of course they have plenty of money to buy cigarettes, booze, and drugs, not to mention buying dogs the size of small horses.
That’s my point, some people simply assume no personal responsibility.
Argh, but you can’t just isolate the low-income bank branches and seperate them from their parent companies. Barack sued citibank. That’s not exactly your neigherbhood mom and pop bank.
Banks were under scruity for “redlining” and thus started pushing through more and more band loans. This caused an overall lowering of lending standards. Banks knew that Fannie and Freddie would just buy up their bad paper, so they issued more and more loans.
Again, I’m not argueing that banks didn’t get greedy, but it is disingenous to pretend that they just started slashing lending criteria on their own w/out any pressure from the Dems, CRA, and yes Barack Obama himself.
Argh,
No, I’m laying the blame on a moronic gov’t and issuing loans to people who are not qualified, period. I have said time and again I don’t give a fat flying what color they are!
Last comment before I give up.
Lauren, the CRA did not force banks to lower their lending standards. It forced specific bank branches in specific locations (low-income and minority neighborhoods), to cease discriminating. These bank branches were providing deposit services only, and refused credit services to the residents of those neighborhoods based upon their racial and low-income status only. They refused credit services even to qualified borrowers for discriminatory reasons. The CRA corrected for that by requiring non-discriminatory credit services to qualified borrowers.
Lauen,
Thank you for arguing this and so well. I’m just sick and tired of repeating it time and again.
Barney Frank. We trust a guy who says he didn’t know a prostitution ring was being run in his basement to know what’s going on with Freddie and Fannie!
Like I said – death by a thousand qualifications – now it’s personal responsibility. So just come out an dsay it, CRA had little to do with the crisis. Which was caused by banks subverting the initial commonsense and fairness rules of the CRA in an effort to quickly pad their bottom line.
And now a tangent – one anecdote about one family , and you think this qualifies as some sort of evidence?
Yes, it did cause it Phylosopher. We can track it back, and lending standards were compromised at that point. It doesn’t matter if the original beneficiaries defaulted or not if they were the cause of giving loans to the unqualified people who *did* default.
Look, I’m not saying that the minorities are “responsible” for this. The government is responsible. They set up one set of standards for one group of people, and a lower set of standards for another. This inevitably causes problems, and ultimately results in lower standards for everyone. Lower standards aren’t good for an economy.
If the CRA folks really wanted to help, they would help people who couldn’t get a traditional loan take steps to qualify under transitional means. It is a backwards approach to say “well, this person doesn’t qualify, so let’s lower the standards so he does!”
The standards are there for a reason, but obviously that fact was forgotten by the entire housing market.
Phylosopher, 11:13am
Hardly. my only point was that there are people who simply take no personal responsibility and do not manage their fiances, no matter what advantages they may have. That was simply an example, not evidence, but I’m sure we all know people like this.
Argh, you may be new here. Obviously you are in the lending industry, or otherwise very well informed, as your postings are both accurate and thoughtful.
However, please be aware that your postings will have no effect on those whose sole source of knowledge is the Fox News/GOP spin machine. If you think that accurate information can change the minds of the true believers, you are wrong, and will become very frustrated.
Argh, again Barack’s lawsuit, filed under the CRA, involved a bank that was giving 50% of all African American applicants loans in a low income community and 80% of all African American applicants loans in a higher income community.
I would hardly call those practices “discriminatory”. I agree that banks should not discriminate on the basis of skin color, but the CRA lawsuits went far beyond discrimination and sought to lower lending standards for one community. It went beyond the original intention of CRA.
ah, once again I cease to exist. Oh well. I don’t have the time to argue this sort of stuff right now, anyway, because MY HUSBAND COMES HOME ON LEAVE TOMORROW!! He gets to meet his son for the first time. I can’t wait! So, if I’m not around much, and haven’t been, that’s why.
X, that’s so great! I’m sure you’re so excited to see him. Tell him how much we appreciate his service.
Xalisae, congratulations!!! You must be thrilled.
Everyone!!!!
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG
DON’T FORGET!!!!!!!
INFORM ALL NEWS NETWORKS!!!!
TELL THEM ABOUT http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM!!!!!
I wasn’t saying that I supported abortions in case of rape or incest, I was just trying to point out that they do happen.
I’m a political Independent, but I wonder why people like Landy think that just because Democrats are in power, people will automatically be better off. The city has its good points, but we’ve had Democrats in office for decades in Philadelphia and yet we have a high poverty and crime rate, one of the worst school systems in the country, and the city is pretty much broke. Businesses and people continue to move out. I’m not saying that Republicans would make things better, but Dems don’t have a magic wand, either.
Phillymiss, 12:09PM
I hear you. Look at New Orleans, run by Democrats for years. My hometown.
Now, just wait until they run the country!
Lol, just with potatoes Bethany : ) I make them in huge quantities because it’s just such a hassle to make them after classes and practice, by that time I”m pretty tired. I have managed to keep my food budget at $12 a week.
Wow! That is pretty incredible!!
James,
The only way you’d ever get a response from the media is with http://www.palincrimes.com.
The media is so in the tank for the guy they don’t even make a pretense of objectivity. They instead provide a PR service. This nation’s MSM is corrupt and a disgrace. Journalism is history.
Does this mean that Jesus is voting for Obama? LOL :) But seriously, I think that Jesus would tell Obama, McCain and everone else (myself included) “go and sin no more”.
x,
ah, once again I cease to exist. Oh well. I don’t have the time to argue this sort of stuff right now, anyway, because MY HUSBAND COMES HOME ON LEAVE TOMORROW!! He gets to meet his son for the first time. I can’t wait! So, if I’m not around much, and haven’t been, that’s why.
How wonderful for you and your son! You must be so excited, oh my!
Mr x, Thank you for your service to our country!
Everyone!!!!
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG
DON’T FORGET!!!!!!!
INFORM ALL NEWS NETWORKS!!!!
TELL THEM ABOUT http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM!!!!!
James,
Please refer to my 12:29PM post.
Hi, Enigma. I see that at 10:12 a.m. Lauren already answered your questions at 9:58 a.m. She’s much better informed than I on them, so I had better keep my answers short. Please note that I am a Canadian. Please also note that I am not doing any research before answering these questions, not even looking up the meanings of words. I did quickly look over Lauren’s reply.
1. What is your opinion of the Supreme Court?
It’s job is to judge the hardest cases that fall under its jurisdiction. It must interpret the law such as it is and was intended to be. It doesn’t have the authority to read things into the law that aren’t there. If it can’t find a precedent and the law is not clear, then it should ask Congress for clearer legislation.
2. What do you believe the role of a democratic government should be?
I haven’t thought much about the difference that a democracy makes, but the role of the civil government is to keep order, maintain justice, and protect against foreign aggression.
3. What is the meaning of the term liberal?
I’m not sure. I think historically the liberals were very concerned that a people look after its poor by means of the civil government. They would have wanted the government to do more. Maybe they were influenced by the modernists in the church and the social gospel. In today’s world, I associate the term LIBERAL with someone who wants to give away a lot of someone else’s money. I also associate the word with immoral people.
4. How do individual rights fit within your conception of a democratic system?
I don’t know. I’m more concerned to know how individual rights fit within my conception of Biblical morality and the civil government’s sphere of authority.
5. What is your opinion of the Roe v Wade decision? This question is aimed not so much at the moral aspects of it (ie. it legalized murder) but about the application of governmental power.
I probably don’t know enough about Roe vs. Wade to appreciate your distinction. Somebody–Ronald Reagan?–said that the government is force. If its primary task, as I believe, is to execute justice, then it may even use deadly force to kill. One principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of Roe vs. Wade the government is obviously failing to execute justice for its most vulnerable citizens. I don’t say that the murdering mother should be punished at all. Abortionists, along with abortifacient-providing pharmacists, should definitely be punished. How severely, I wouldn’t know.
My answers here might not be very helpful or relevant, but maybe they will encourage other readers to respond.
I just saw a poll that asked, “Who will win the election? Obama or Palin?”
I lost the will to live, I really did : (
Hi Enigma,
I would love to help out, but it seems that the questions are more on the jurisprudence side of things, which I know very little about. Sorry, I suck.
Regarding Obama’s Citizenship:
Lawsuits in eight states as of this writing – Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia. Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut
Georgia voters can sign the Georgia ‘Plaintiff Class’ petition here:
http://www.davidnotary.biz/states/
Return signed petitions to:
patriot4all@yahoo.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Need as many signed petitions as possible before hearing on Friday Oct 24. Let’s make it happen.
Crowds go wild for Sarah Palin:
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/the-crowds-go-wild-for-palin/
Team Sarah web site:
http://www.teamsarah.org/
I would like to say that anyone stupid enough to oppose embryonic stem cell research should be forced to stay with my grandpa for the next week or so as he slowly dies. Then tell me we shouldn’t utilize all our options to cure it.
Erin,
My sympathy to you and your family.
I’m afraid you’ve been misled. Its in fact adult stem cells, produced by our own bodies, as well as umbilical stem cells that have effectively treated and cured disease.
Tragic circumstances such as yours are played on by abortion advocates who want to portray PLs as caring more about embryos than “living” people.
The research in the area of adult stem cells, that is the research we can all agree is ethical,
has been promising and successful.
Why time and resources are wasted promoting ESCs, which have so far shown no results, when adult stem cells have, is beyond me.
@X: have a happy reunion and you better not be on here much! Enjoy your family time!
@Erin: ditto what Mary posted. And to add, would you want your grandpa to live knowing that many others died to save him? many others=unborn babies
Erin, would you be in favour of an organ transplant from an unwilling Chinese criminal if such an operation would save your Grandpa but kill the criminal? The Chinese certainly try all possible options to cure some people’s diseases.
I realize that my response is somewhat callous to your grief, but you did make a very provocative comment.
Patricia, are you asking if I care that a bunch of petri dishes get emptied out to stop my grandpa’s suffering? No.
The reason that we don’t have any results from ESCR is because people LIKE YOU stand in the way of giving it the proper funding it needs to be adequately examined and tested.
Jon, a frozen, useless petri dish and an organ are not the same.
So what do people on this site think of IVF and frozen embryos… ? I work in that industry and am finding alot of our families quite double sided.. many evangelical Christians.. and use what they can, have a baby and then either leave the other embryos behind or they are destroyed… This would be a good issue to discuss..because as someone, who has always watched the pro-life movement on the outside and seeing this, respect for life gets lost in translation when the family gets what it needs…. “Nobody knows about the unused embryos..”
answers? Responses?
Do folks think IVF is wrong.. non-natural process… should we only adopt?
you are wrong Erin. In those petri dishes are tiny human beings – you were once that small, just not residing in a laboratory dish.
Just because they live in a dish at that moment doesn’t make them any less human.
Do you see how you make a human’s personhood dependent upon location?
In the dish, in the womb – it’s not a person. Why is it any different after birth? There is nothing less human about the cells in the dish, the womb or laying on the bed immediately after birth, except stage of development.
There are no results for ESCR because there are none to be had. It has nothing to do with prolifers. This research branch is a dead end and most know it.
Erin,
I’m very sorry about your Grandfather’s illness. Please understand that I don’t mean to offend you when I ask this question:
There is only a finite amount of research money available – should we give food stamps to poor children or work on unproven research? Reputable scientists say that there are plenty of good research options without the need to use ESC’s. If we should use ESC’s, why don’t we use aborted fetuses for research also? (It may already be going on, I believe I’ve heard it is, although I don’t have a source available.) Why don’t we make corpse donation mandatory for research purposes? Where will this end?
Personally, I don’t believe it is right to be making babies in petri dishes or freezing embryo’s but that’s an argument for another day.
Erin, 2:04
There have been no results with ESCs because none are to be had. They are not the panacea you’ve been led to believe they are. This situation has occured before, when fetal transplant tissue was hailed as the magic cure for whatever ails you. Of course, tragedies such as yours were milked for all they were worth. This miracle cure is waiting, just the PL people standing in the way. It turned into a big goose egg. There were no cures.
This tactic was even employed to get RU486 into the country. Its a miracle treatment and cure waiting to be exploited, but the PL people don’t want it in the country. Well its been in the country for years and I know of absolutely no use for it other than abortion.
Erin, its adult stem cells that have been successful. Umbilical cord blood offers so much hope that new mothers are now saving it.
With this promising research, I can’t understand why time is even wasted with ESCs.
Mary, New Orleans is losing population even faster than Philly.
I’m not gloating, because it’s sad.
I believe that there are good people in both parties; not all Democrats are “good” and all Republicans “bad.” We need good leadership, period!
John, James,
Looks like McCain has some ‘splainin’ to do too. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1023chapmanoct23,0,3571457.column
and isn’t this the Liddy that Jill just sat down at a table with? The guy who urged people to kill ATF agents? The unrepentatn felon who brags about his continuing violations of the law?
Sandra, Patricia,
I posted before I saw your comments! Very good questions. I have to leave, but I may be back later if I can.
Hi Sandra.
You’ve hit on something very important. And that is that indeed, IVF is a grave moral evil. It turns the gift of children into a “right to children.” Of course, it has a good ends; namely, to have a child. But part of what makes IVF inherently wrong is not only this problem it creates with “left over” embryos, but also the problem of fetal reduction, which basically is the idea that we implant 4-5 embryos, wait and see which one seems to be the healthiest, and the one(s) that aren’t, we abort. We are beginning to see human beings being turned into commodities for our own pleasure with the additional problem of gene therapy. This world of “brave new bioethics” we are seeing is very scary; Huxley was, very much like Dostoevsky in his day, a prophet.
“respect for life gets lost in translation when the family gets what it needs”
You said it very well here, Sandra. It is the other side of abortion, the other extreme. “I will go to any cost to have a child of my own.” Again, wanting a child of your own is a good ends, and I sympathize deeply with those who desire one and who can not have one, but we have to look at our means. We have to look at what IVF is and what it implies about the way we see human life.
Phylo, clearly McCain is “palling around with terrorists”. Please alert Sarah Palin so she can denounce McCain as anti-American!
Phylosopher,
Liddy’s reference to the ATF agents was in regard to Waco, where 93 men, women, and children were incinerated following an ATF siege. Liddy meant if the ATF raids your home like they did Waco. Certainly Liddy’s remarks are controversial, but so was this siege and the actions of the ATF agents. The cult leader, David Koresh, could have easily been picked up by the ATF on one if his daily jogs. Also, exactly what did these people do to warrant such a storm trooper like response from the gov’t?
Liddy did serve time for his crimes in the Watergate scandal. Obama’s friend Ayers got off on a technicality, after his group, including his charming wife, committed such crimes as bombings, murder, and attempted murder. Liddy was pardoned by President Jimmy Carter.
Exactly what crimes has Liddy committed since?
PPC,
Please, some examples of Liddy’s “terrorism”.
National Review: Another Communist in Obama’s group of friends:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTQzMDIxZjlmMTM5N2ZhNzlmY2IyZDYxMWQ5NjQ2NDM=
Just HOW BAD do things have to be for Nobama’s supporters to stop drinking the kool aid?
Mary, you did such a good job graciously answering Erin’s comments.
I love it how accusing someone of thinking they are right has become the ultimate insult. “Nevermind. You’re right. You’re always right.” Well, of course! If you didn’t wholeheartedly believe you had the right belief you’d just be a fool.
GK Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy: “At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problme.”
Breaking news on Drudge:
SHOCK: MCCAIN CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
http://www.drudgereport.com
Is this what it’s going to come to? Looks like a little email harassment may be just the tip of the iceberg, Jill.
Stock up, people, and I don’t mean on canned goods…
Bethany,
Thank you. I’m very fond of Erin and I’m sorry to see her go through this tragedy. Its only made worse for her to think her loved one is being denied a possible treatment. I know the thoughts and prayers of everyone on this site are with her.
‘B’ CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN’S FACE… DEVELOPING…
http://www.drudgereport.com
Nobama really needs to have his running mate locked up until after the election.
This is all over the internet. Was Joe Biden drunk at a campaign event?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN5khF2i2ek&feature=related
Is this the same Erin that used to post here, or a different Erin? I’m sad to hear about her grandfather too.
It’s the same me, Bethany.
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG!!!!!
I’m sorry about your grandfather, Erin.
Erin: It’s hard to watch someone you love suffer and wonder what can be done to alleviate that suffering. My condolences to you and your family.
Bobby: I think most of this stems from the acceptance of bodily autonomy and self-actualization at any cost. There appears to be a sense of entitlement that goes along with this thinking.
Bobby 2:30: Excellent.
Liddy bombed the Pentagon? Liddy didn’t give a flip about 9/11 and said afterward that he regretted he hadn’t done more?
Oh, no, wait…that would be Ayers.
Mary 2:38–exactly.
Oh, shoot, I meant to say to Erin, I’m sorry about your grandpa.
Also, congrats to xalisae on your husband’s homecoming! :) How awesome that he will get to meet his little son.
Lauren,
Thanks for responding. I know that some of my questions are a little vague, but I really don’t want to ask any leading questions.
And sorry if I appear to be picking your brain–I’d be happy to discuss my position later, but not at the present time as per my reasoning above.
Another note–I’m also not trying to come across as attacking in any of these questions. I’m just attempting to understand as many different points as possible.
“1)I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for here, but I’ll just put my opinion of the sitting court. I think that they are, for the most part, to partisan. I don’t think that the SC should be a partisan board that will simply split down party lines. Unfortunately, that is what it often boils down to. I don’t think that justice has a political party, and it upsets me that the SC justices seem to disagree.”
Do you see any way that this partisanship could be changed so that it is less of a problem? And do you think that the SC being too partisan is a matter of how justices or chosen or a reflection of the partisan nature of the government in general?
“2)I believe a democratic government should serve the will of its people. I believe in one person one vote, and that our elected officials should be held accountable to their constituents and not special interests.”
Do you believe should always serve the will of the people or do you believe that there should be a limit? For instance (I’m being really absurd here, I know), let’s say that atheists were in the majority and wanted to outlaw all religion. Should a democratic government whose job is to serve the will of its people therefore outlaw religion? Why or why not? And if not, how would you recommend preventing this from happening?
And who are the people–aren’t those in the minority just as much the “people” as those in the majority?
“3)To me “liberal” is a bit of a misnomer, especially when it comes to the financial aspects of “liberal” philosophy which favors restriction on free market and a move more toward socialism. Of course, both parties are responsible for that, so I can’t say the republican’s did much better!”
Perhaps I should strike this question–the definition of liberal has been changed far too many times. The word itself is also overloaded with meaning.
“4-I believe individual rights are paramount. In fact, I tend to have some libertarian leanings. I believe that individual rights end when someone else’s rights are infringed upon.”
Who or what do you feel is best suited to defend those rights?
“This plays into abortion because the mothers individual right to privacy butts up against the child’s individual right to life. I believe that the right to life is the foundation for all of our other rights, and that if we deny this basic right to any member of society, we do not really recognize human rights as a whole.”
Interesting–a side note at the moment, but I use your reasoning of individual rights being paramount as justification for the opposite belief.
“5-Oh Boy, do I ever have some strong opinions here. I believe that Roe v. Wade was a horribly flawed decision made by activist judges who thought that an extrapolation of an extrapolation of an amendment was firm constitutional ground.”
So is the Roe v. Wade decision an aberration (ie. a flaw committed by an institution that is itself healthy) or an indication of a deeper problem within either the Supreme Court or the government as a whole?
“I believe if we look hard enough we can find just about anything in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean we should be trying to twist words.”
What distinction do you draw between twisting words and interpreting? How would you recommend that the Constitution, an old document that was designed to elucidate principles and establish a system to defend those principles, be applied to society today?
“I believe that the decision should be overturned in a manner similar to the Dred Scott decision. I believe that the SC had absolutely no right to circumvent our legislative process by “legislating from the bench” and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned not only for the actual decision, but for what the decision represents in terms of the foundation of our country.”
Who you do believe is the best able to judge the Constitutionality of any given law/policy, A. the judiciary, B. the executive branch, or C. the legislature? Why do you believe this?
What constitutes “legislating from the bench?” This charge is not leveled at the SC every time it makes a decision or overturns a law, so what makes this case distinct from the others? Or, alternatively, if you feel that the SC always “legislates from the bench” by invalidating existing law, why do you believe this?
Jon,
Thanks for answering. Now I just know that you’d feel left out if I didn’t follow-up. ;)
Though it helps, actual hard knowledge is not needed here–I’m far more concerned with theory.
As above, I’d be happy to state my position later, but at the moment don’t want to risk leading anyone in any particular way.
“It’s job is to judge the hardest cases that fall under its jurisdiction. It must interpret the law such as it is and was intended to be. It doesn’t have the authority to read things into the law that aren’t there. If it can’t find a precedent and the law is not clear, then it should ask Congress for clearer legislation.”
Do you have any beliefs on the value of the Supreme Court as an institution? What constitutes reading things into the law that aren’t there? How would you recommend the SC best apply the Constitution, an old document which basically established a system to defend certain principles as opposed to explicitly listing rights, to modern day society?
“I haven’t thought much about the difference that a democracy makes, but the role of the civil government is to keep order, maintain justice, and protect against foreign aggression.”
I know you hadn’t thought about it too much and feel free to ignore me if I go to far, but how does a democracy differ in how it carries about this tasks as opposed to an authoritarian state? Should it differ? How should the people and their opinion fit into this governmental role?
“I don’t know. I’m more concerned to know how individual rights fit within my conception of Biblical morality and the civil government’s sphere of authority.”
Fair enough–I can relate to that. There are definitely some topics that either just don’t relate to things that I’m interested in or that I just haven’t thought about enough to comment on.
“I probably don’t know enough about Roe vs. Wade to appreciate your distinction. Somebody–Ronald Reagan?–said that the government is force. If its primary task, as I believe, is to execute justice, then it may even use deadly force to kill. One principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.”
How does this task–metting out just–fit within your already stated position on the job of the SC (to interpret law)?
Must there be a crime in order for there to be punishment? Must there be a crime in order for there to be a violation? (Sorry–I’ll try not to stray to much into abortion stuff here–it’s not my main focus.)
“In the case of Roe vs. Wade the government is obviously failing to execute justice for its most vulnerable citizens. I don’t say that the murdering mother should be punished at all. Abortionists, along with abortifacient-providing pharmacists, should definitely be punished. How severely, I wouldn’t know.”
Interesting, okay, I know I said abortion isn’t my main focus and I’ll try not to focus on it to much, but this I can’t resist.
Why do you believe that pregnant women should not be punished for either procuring or attempting to procure an abortion? Isn’t the situation similar to someone who hires a hit man to kill someone else for them–should the person who hired the hit man therefore not be punished as well?
Thanks for responding, and I hope that I’m not trying to pick your brain too much.
Bobby,
“I would love to help out, but it seems that the questions are more on the jurisprudence side of things, which I know very little about. Sorry, I suck.”
Not a problem at all.
As stated above, there are some issues that I either can’t or won’t touch. It would be highly hypocritical of me to criticize it in others.
And you know me, since when have I ever been interested in reality?
Erin,
I am so sorry to hear about your grandfather. I will be praying.
X,
Have an awesome reunion with your husband!! I am so thrilled that he gets to meet his little man!
Erin
I’m sorry about your grandfather. However, there is very little chance that ESCR would have helped him. The research that has been done has only been done on MICE. I’ve read that tumors have been formed — there’s no guarantee that this wouldn’t happen in humans.
Adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood and our own bodies are going to do a lot more than destroying human embryos.
The thing is: how many embryos would be destroyed to find ONE treatment? 100? 500? 7500? 25000?
http://www.bignsite.com/angelsunaware/kasen_s_blog
This little boy is getting treatment for an eye condition, in China. His treatment is not from embryos, but from the umbilical cord blood stem cells of healthy newborns.
Too bad the USA refuses to look into this.
Again, I am very sorry about your grandfather. What I would do is spend as much time as possible with him, telling him you love him. I lost my only grandfather when I was 10. My other grandfather died 5 years BEFORE I was born. I wish I had been able to spend some time with them before they died. I was lucky enough to have a last Christmas and Thanksgiving with my Paternal grandmother.
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
LISTEN TO PHILIP BERG LIVE NOW!!!!!
http://radiotime.com/station/s_21451/WNIS_790.aspx
LISTEN NOW!!!!
Here is a link to a post correctly comparing Obama to Pontius Pilate versus the silly comparison of Obama to Jesus the “community organizer.” http://www.takecouragemyfriend.com/2008/10/20/catholic-democrats-scandal-of-abortion/
This might wake up the “guilt-ridden Christian/pro-life Obama supporters.” I hope so.
Posted by: Argh at October 23, 2008 10:51 AM
I don’t believe it was just the government forcing banks to give loans. I have two good friends who were mortgage lenders and both left because they saw this coming years ago.
A person would come in for a loan and were unqualified. They would tell them they couldn’t afford this loan and would try to get them into a smaller loan that wouldn’t put such a burden on them day to day. That meant a smaller house or not as many “extras” and human nature takes over and reason flies out the window. They wanted everything – NOW!
They would go to someone else for the loan (because they didn’t want to deal with someone trying to talk them out of it) and a year later they’d come back to refinance because – SURPRISE – they couldn’t afford the loan.
I’m not saying it’s their fault – but the government made it possible for us to live outside our means and a lot of people don’t get that it will eventually catch up with you.
My parents were REQUIRED to put 20% down before they could qualify for a loan. Now we have “No money down” and “interest only” loans. That’s what’s caused this mess.
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
LISTEN TO PHILIP BERG LIVE NOW!!!!!
http://radiotime.com/station/s_21451/WNIS_790.aspx
LISTEN LIVE NOW!!!!
I am confused here. I am a registered nurse and there is absolutely no way I would have held an infant until it died in my arms.
How is this justified by the American Nurse Association and the American Medical Association. The crime is allowing the child to die, and that is what these nurses and doctors have done. What ever happened to “First do no harm”.
I would have lost my job before I would have let the baby die.
I am not for abortions, but before you try to take the mote from someone else’s eye, consider the beam in your own.
Jill,
If what you are doing is ineffectual most of your critics/oponents would not give you a second thought.
Just keep doing what you know to be righteous. Plan your way, the ONE who gives you breath will guide your steps and if you should stumble in the darkness HE will not allow the bent one to give you a shove, but HE will extend the right hand of fellowship and friendship keep you from falling.
Just attempting to live a quiet and peaceful life will bring unprovoked attacks.
Be mindful of WHO’s you are.
HE who called you from before the foundations of the earth knows not only your name, but is intimately acquainted with your scalp. HE has everyone of the hairs on your head assigned a number. If a bird can not fall to the ground without HIS notice, can you arise each day without HIS assistance.
And where does this woman get this wisdom?
yor bro ken
Lauren is right. Acorn is responsible for putting pressure on banks to give loans to people who had no business receiving them.
Erin, I’m keeping you and your Grandpa in my prayers.
X — so happy for you and your family!
Matt,
What would you have done?
Eileen, Acorn COUNSELS around a couple thousand families a year. That barely touches the millions of bad loans that were made by banks using substandard credit practices.
Nice to see people blaming nonprofit counseling organizations instead of the banks that actually approved the loans, that acutally signed and lent the money. I’d say it’s pretty silly, don’t you?
PIP, they approved the loans becaues they were sued by ACORN for not approving enough of them! Look at it like this.
Say there is a local branch of citigroup in Chicago. It gets sued by ACORN because it’s “only” approving half of its low income people of color. The resulting law suit says that they have to lower there standards to approve more low income people of color. Do you think that that lower standard applies just to that one branch in Chicago? No, companies must change their policies to avoid further lawsuits.
Add to that the fact that Fannie and Freddie say “hey we’ll buy all your bad paper, no worries guys!” and we have a recepie for disaster. It doesn’t matter if all of the people in the orininal lawsuit actually pay their mortgages, they were the catalyst that moved banks to lower overall lending practices. Only 2% of all borrowers had to forclose in order to cause this crisis. Raines assured congress that this was peachy keen because homes were a “safe” investment when Republicans tried to push for further regulations.
I’m sure banks got greedy when they realized “Hey, this is great we can write all the mortgages we want and Fannie and Freddie will buy them out” but they would never have “discovered” the money in subprime loans had they not been forced to issue them to begin with.
Lauren, I think they sued citibank because they were giving white applicants of similar financial characteristics loans and not blacks. If so that would be a discrimination problem.
Lauren and PIP,
Aren’t there anti discrimination laws? I’m not being naive that people will stop discriminating, but if a qualified applicant can take legal action against me, I might think twice about discriminating.
Also, the only color that matters is green. If an applicant qualifies its money in my pocket. Why would I care what color the applicant is?
“Aren’t there anti discrimination laws?”
Yes, and that is why redlining is illegal and also why they won that lawsuit.
PIP,
As I pointed out, the only important color is green. Why would lenders shoot themselves in the foot by denying black applicants loans?
Also, any applicant who is in fact wrongly discriminated against could take legal action with no help from ACORN.
“Why would lenders shoot themselves in the foot by denying black applicants loans?”
I don’t think Ican answer that. Why don’t you ask them. Along that, ask them why they would shoot themselves in the foot by not seeing past their noses in order to make some quick cash.
“Also, any applicant who is in fact wrongly discriminated against could take legal action with no help from ACORN. ”
Seems like you have a problem with any organization set up to help people. It’s like saying that any battered woman who is legitimately abused can go to the police by themselves with no help from a shelter or aid organization.
This is a fun bit
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/188889/october-21-2008/the-word—fantasyland
PIP,
I’m saying money is green whether the hand holding it is black, white, or purple. Refusing loans to qualified applicants is very poor business practice.
Its interesting to note that in the Jim Crow south, businesspeople, expecially those in rural areas, weren’t thrilled with segregation. Whatever they thought of black people, their money was just as green and segregation didn’t help business.
I have no problem with organizations that legitimately help people. I’m saying these anti discrimination laws are in effect. If you are wrongly discriminated against, you can take legal action. Businesses are not likely to welcome such action, or happily pay fines, and qualified borrowers can always take their business to a competitor who will only be too happy to accomodate them.
” If you are wrongly discriminated against, you can take legal action”
And that is what was done.
“I’m saying money is green whether the hand holding it is black, white, or purple. ”
Right, but that doesn’t mean that people’s biases will never seep through. These banks would purposely not lend to lower-income minority neighborhoods (but would to whites) because they considered them “high risk.”
Telling me how it would ‘make sense to be’ is not addressing the problem and is not a good defense. In that lawsuit, they won, so I assume that the judge thought the same way.
PIP,
Yes bias can seep through, but its going to cost. Also, the person can take their business elsewhere and spread the word in the community for their friends and acquaintances to do likewise. Not exactly what I want if I’m running a business.
Do you know for certain the whites were of similar circumstances as the black applicants?
You said in your post you “think” they were. That’s a big difference. Were all black applicants denied loans? Were any whites denied loans? Could there have been other reasons such as a bad credit history, sporadic employment, or a criminal background that could have disqualified the black applicants who may otherwise have seemed on an equal footing with white applicants?
There may have been more to this than just racial discrimination.
I am so sorry about your grampa, Erin. It is terrible when a person’s suffering makes their death a relief (that is how I would feel–no offense meant if you don’t agree). I hope he is not in pain.
“Yes bias can seep through, but its going to cost. ”
And obviously…it did cost them! I don’t know what else to tell you Mary. From what I read it looked like the bank had some discriminatory policies and a coalition of people collectively ‘called them on it’ and they lost. Everyone in that courtroom looked at the evidence so surely their decision was based on the arguments on both sides. I “think”–it means I wasn’t literally there, in the courtroom, at the time. So I don’t have unfettered access to that stuff. I don’t know why you are defending them!
And I’m not saying all banks are like that either. I was talking about Lauren’s claim that it was about something else. Your biases against Acorn are glaring.
Peter,
All who claim Jesus Christ as their Saviourand do not stand up against mothers getting children torn from their wombs commit blasphemy and cause tremendous grief to the Holy Spirit. Repent and turn away from abortion. Quit saying you accept Obama’s radical abortion stance because of all his other positions. The day of reckoning will come soon. YOur support for abortion makes you friends with the Devil, not with Jesus. Why can’t you see this?
Enigma asked me, “Do you have any beliefs on the value of the Supreme Court as an institution? What constitutes reading things into the law that aren’t there? How would you recommend the SC best apply the Constitution, an old document which basically established a system to defend certain principles as opposed to explicitly listing rights, to modern day society?”
The Supreme Court is a good institution. A government obviously needs courts if it is to provide justice. Different levels make sense because some court cases are more difficult or critical than others. Also, the government itself requires checks and balances because power corrupts. So there are the three branches to limit each other.
I remember learning about different theories of textual interpretation. There is the theory of authorial intent, what the author would have meant, his other writings appealed to. There is a theory that looks at the historical context and compares with other texts of the time. And there is the readership response theory, which ignores the intent of the author and instead accepts the interpretation of the reader, whatever that might be. The last, if I understand correctly, would result in the courts reading new things into the law. Then the Constitution does not mean the same thing now that it did when it was written because society has changed. Canada, for example, has been guilty of reading into legislation or the Charter a prohibition of “sexual orientation” as a basis of discrimination. Doesn’t Roe vs. Wade similarly read into the Constitution a right to “privacy”? That’s what I’ve heard. Readership response has become a popular theory because of the postmodern notion that there is no such thing as truth, reality is constructed by the individual, and all communication is manipulative because of a hidden agenda. Then a writer’s words can be taken to mean the opposite of what he intended because of the hidden agenda he has. I’m not explaining this stuff well, but it was fascinating to study–and pessimistic, impractical, and incomplete. Indeed, the West will not be able to survive Nietsche’s death of God. But Christ’s Church will continue.
You ask how I would recommend that the Supreme Court best apply the Constitution. I had best not even try to say. I’m not a lawyer, I hardly know what I’m talking about at this point, and Bobby’s approach is probably best for me too. I’ll not appear to be a fool if I keep my mouth shut. One problem with unlimited democracy is that everybody thinks himself an expert. When given power, he can do more harm than good. Benjamin Franklin purportedly said something about the difficulty of keeping a republic, which was the original form of the American government.
Random side note: I got a PP mailing today and this was one of the big quotes and it’s kind of….off:
“We’ve helped cut Latin America’s birthrate by more than half and infant mortality by 75%.”
Now the second part I’m fine with, but I never thought that a big goal was necessarily to cut their birthrate. I could be reading into this too much, though, thoughts?
PIP,
Lauren points out in her 10:49am post that loans were being approved for 50% of the low income community(I’m not certain if this was white as well as black) and 80% of people of color in a higher income bracket. Apparenty Barack and ACORN were not satisfied with this.
I wonder what the exact number of loans is that banks must approve.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this doesn’t look like a bad track record. It doesn’t exactly look like rampant racial discrimination either. Apparently Barack and ACORN did not agree and went to court.
Also I defend no one. You and I may look at two borrowers and they seem equal to us. There may well be factors in one of their backgrounds that disqualifies them that you and I are unaware of but to us it looks like racial discrimination.
That’s my point, there may be various reasons certain applicants were turned down that have nothing to do with race.
“Jon, a frozen, useless petri dish and an organ are not the same.”
How did petri dishes enter the discussion? The issue is the tiny human beings in or on those petri dishes. They aren’t mere “cells,” either; scientifically, they’re human beings, whether you consider them “cute” enough to be human beings or not.
I join the chorus of people giving their support to Erin’s grandfather. Of course, many of us have had loved ones become ill or pass on, too. My grandmother suffered for many years from dementia (most likely Alzheimer’s), and I greatly resent the pro-ESCR activists who — despite knowing that chemical therapies are far more promsing for a whole-brain disease such as Alzheimer’s — continue to invoke the disease’s name in an attempt to get people’s attention.
Should we try to cure these diseases? Absolutely. Should we try “everything”? No, because that would include, well, everything: from destroying embryonic human beings to killing homeless people for their organs.
Woe to the Obama backers who call themselves followers of Jesus. I call you out. Who will stand and blog this with me tonight?
PIP, 11:08PM
My question would be how exactly did they cut the infant mortality rate? Was it by reducing the number of infants born or providing better education, nutrition, and medical care to mothers and infants? Also, their source for this drastic reduction in the mortality rate.
Mary, it didn’t really say. The entire quote:
“The ability to decide whether and when to have your children and how many to have is fundamental, not just to human liberty, but also to the well-being of society,” says Alexander Sanger, Chair, International Planned Parenthood Council…”In the last 50 years we have helped to cut the birthrate in Latin America by more than half and the infant mortality rate by three-fourths,” Sanger notes. “We have helped bring women more equal opportunities in education and the workplace.”
You may hide in the darkness behind the minions who join you in your murderous campaign, but you will not be able to hide from the Lord when he comes again to judge the living and the dead.
Woe to the Obama backers who call themselves followers of Jesus. I call you out. Who will stand and blog this with me tonight?
Posted by: truthseeker at October 23, 2008 11:13 PM
If someone is a true Christian, they could not support Nobama if they knew his abortion record.
There is a great and massive deception going on claiming Nobama is “pro life.” Its an abomination. However I believe many have been deceived.
PIP 11:21PM
Thank you. Interesting. It would have more validity though if he had something to back his rosy statistics up with. Also I find the prideful claim of reducing the birthrate by half a little unsettling.
Joanne,
If it is true that 51% of Catholics support Obama, then why can’t I find even one? Does anybody know another web-site where I could find a so-called follower of Jesus who supports Obama?
Mary, I found it unsettling too..
I guess those are the closet Christians who only never speak in earnest about their faith. They are baptised in by the congregation and buried when they die by the same congregation, but they don’t have time for discourse in teir faith.
How about a Christian priest who back’s Obama, any out there?
Woe to you Barack Obama for wearing Jesus Christ on your lapel while funding the practice of tearing babies from their mother’s wombs. Your reward will be from the unholy.
Run into the darkness you den of vipers, like your messiah who considers any meaningful discussion on this topic to be above his pay grade…. You may win the election, but you will never win the souls of the faithful.
McCain has the support of 1% of the French.
Any French followers of Jesus Christ out there who are part of that 99% who back Obama?
Any black folks out there who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ and plan on voting for Obama?
Any women who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ and plan on voting for Obama?
And, just to offer an “opposing viewpoint,” I’d rather live in a world with abortion and promiscuity than a world with neither.
Ideally, with better birth control, education, and personal responsibility, we can promiscuity without unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: hal at October 23, 2008 8:19 AM
__________________
This is absolute evidence of a sick and twisted mind. But somehow Hal, you really enjoy this don’t you?
And this goes to show why you should be banned. Because of the sick views you are allowed to put forth.
Your posts are satanic. They are deceptive, subtle and seductive to the unknowing. You pretend to be this nice guy and little by little you get your evil points across. Yes, it’s very demonic. In fact, your mind works much like that of a serial killer who always try to lure their victims in before they strike.
You do not fool me for a second Hal. You are a manipulator, and a sadistic predator. You need to discuss this with your shrink Hal, because the condition is worsening.
Joanne,
If it is true that 51% of Catholics support Obama, then why can’t I find even one? Does anybody know another web-site where I could find a so-called follower of Jesus who supports Obama?
Posted by: truthseeker at October 23, 2008 11:32 PM
Have you not seen this?
http://www.matthew25.org/
Joanne,
It looks like the guy who runs the blog is just out to scam donations from Obamaniacs and the only posts were people calling him a phony. Are there any others you know of?
And, just to offer an “opposing viewpoint,” I’d rather live in a world with abortion and promiscuity than a world with neither.
Ideally, with better birth control, education, and personal responsibility, we can promiscuity without unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: hal at October 23, 2008 8:19 AM
Hal,
Birth control is not the answer, cause half of all abortions are committed on women who were using birth control when they got pregnant. Education is a good thing, but it will not prevent people from unwanted pregnancys. Your mindset of a promiscuious life using abortion as a way out of personal responsibility towards the children you father places you squarely in the irresponsibile/deadbeat club. Promiscuos people who happen into unwanted pregnancies and shirk responsibility by commiting abortion give parenthood a bad name.
Random side note: I got a PP mailing today and this was one of the big quotes and it’s kind of….off:
“We’ve helped cut Latin America’s birthrate by more than half and infant mortality by 75%.”
Now the second part I’m fine with, but I never thought that a big goal was necessarily to cut their birthrate. I could be reading into this too much, though, thoughts?
You’re not reading too much into it, PIP…it is unsettling for sure, but not too surprising considering the source. Planned Parenthood hates babies being born. PP hates babies. Period. :-(
Again, Hal, read the book “1984”. Promiscuous sex is the “opiate of the masses”. The little pill that is provided by the government is birth control and abortion. Too bad they can’t figure out a way to silence the human conscience…but I’m sure they’re working on it…
…but from experience, I can tell you that they’ve made a good start at silencing the human conscience with the widespread use of anti-depressants. Swallow this pill, dearie…it’ll help you stuff that pesky recurring nightmare full of crying babies…
PJMama,
“Again, Hal, read the book “1984”. Promiscuous sex is the “opiate of the masses”. The little pill that is provided by the government is birth control and abortion. Too bad they can’t figure out a way to silence the human conscience…but I’m sure they’re working on it…”
Really? Did you miss that part where Julia was saying about how all the marches, the slogans, the shouting was really sex gone wrong? And how the Party wanted to control sex because then they could take that energy and channel it into other activities?
PJ,
And the Party also encouraged babies…Winston’s wife even went so far as to call sex “our duty to the party.”
Planned Parenthood hates babies being born. PP hates babies.
Bethany, can you imagine the rolling eyes you’ve set off?
Well? No surprise that no one follower of Christ will discuss how/why they reconcile that with support for tearing babies from their mother’s wombs. Because the darkness is scattered by the light. And evil cannot stand where the Holy Spirit is present.
“We’ve helped cut Latin America’s birthrate by more than half and infant mortality by 75%.”
The Immortal PIP Now the second part I’m fine with, but I never thought that a big goal was necessarily to cut their birthrate. I could be reading into this too much, though, thoughts?
Coincidence, PIP – saw this today, though it was written in 1999.
“Latin America’s Birth Surprise”
http://tinyurl.com/5jj3bk
Hide in the darkness you den of vipers, like your messiah who considers any meaningful discussion on this topic to be above his pay grade.
Any black folks out there who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ and plan on voting for Obama?
Truthseeker, you know darn well there are.
Planned Parenthood hates babies being born. PP hates babies.
Bethany, can you imagine the rolling eyes you’ve set off?
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 2:08 PM
Doug, maybe she should have said planned parenthood hates “unwanted” babies. Or Planned Parenthood hates babies that are a burden. Or Planned Parenthood hates the babies of minors who feel overwhelmed. Roll your eyes if it helps, maybe if you roll them long enough you will exorcise the evil spirits that reside in your sould and allow you to condine the hate of these babies. And it is hate Doug. How can you call it anything but hate to tear these babies from their mother’s wombs. If not hate, then what would you call it?
you den of vipers
:: laughing ::
Truthseeker, is this you just giving up?
Doug, maybe she should have said planned parenthood hates “unwanted” babies.
Nope, PP isn’t “blaming” babies or “hating” them. PP is providing women with health services and abortions if they have unwanted pregnancies.
However, dude, rant on…..
the evil spirits that reside in your sould
Going once, going twice, sould!
You rascally malcontent.
Nope, PP isn’t “blaming” babies or “hating” them. PP is providing women with health services and abortions if they have unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 2:24 PM
Doug, I never said anything about blaming the babies. Do you disagree that it is hateful toward the babies to kill them?
Any black folks out there who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ and plan on voting for Obama?
Truthseeker, you know darn well there are.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 2:18 PM
Yeah, but they can’t engage in open discourse about it because Jesus’ teachings and Jesus’ life of love would condemn tearing those babies fro their mother’s wombs That is my point exactly.
you den of vipers
:: laughing ::
Truthseeker, is this you just giving up?
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 2:21 PM
Hardly, it is me waiting for a so-called Christian to enage in open discourse in support of tearing babies from their mother’s womb.
you den of vipers
:: laughing ::
“Truthseeker, is this you just giving up?”
Hardly, it is me waiting for a so-called Christian to enage in open discourse in support of tearing babies from their mother’s womb.
They can point to the Bible not mentioning abortion, and the farfetchedness of it somehow just being omitted if the writers intended to prohibit it, given the detailed rules and instructions in the Mosaic law.
I was just enjoying your use of the language, you wascally wabbit.
…..
Doug, I never said anything about blaming the babies. Do you disagree that it is hateful toward the babies to kill them?
“Blame” and “hate” are similar here – it is assuming that things are present which certainly may not be.
No, I don’t think that people wanting to end pregnancies is because they “hate the baby,” necessarily. Somebody could say, “I hate this baby” or “I hate this fetus,” I guess, but in no way is that among the prevalent reasons that people have abortions.
Saying “I don’t want to have a kid right now” isn’t saying that “this one is bad.” It’s saying that no baby is wanted at the time. This has come up before.
They can point to the Bible not mentioning abortion, and the farfetchedness of it somehow just being omitted if the writers intended to prohibit it, given the detailed rules and instructions in the Mosaic law.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 4:46 PM
Doug, Most likely because it was covered already under thou shalt not kill. But Mosaic law would be an argument for a Jew. Just like there was not need for a law against abortion in the US until 1973, it was just understood to be an unacceptable practice.
Saying “I don’t want to have a kid right now” isn’t saying that “this one is bad.” It’s saying that no baby is wanted at the time. This has come up before.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 4:46 PM
Doug, saying “I don’t want to have a kid right now” is not hate. However, “killing” said baby because you don’t want baby to burden you is hateful. In hard times it is a parents “love” for their children that keeps them from choosing to kill or abandon them.
Doug, where in Jesus life and teachings do find that he would condone tearing a children from their mother’s womb? I’m sure your lack of response will be deafening.
No, “thou shalt not kill” did not apply to abortion. The real meaning of the commandment, and the specific wording in several bible versions is, “thou shalt not murder,” and abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times.
It’s ludicrous to pretend that any and all killing was prohibited, there.
But Mosaic law would be an argument for a Jew.
Ha! Man, you are cracking me up today. The point is that to maintain that the writers of the Bible were so against abortion is just not in line with reality.
…..
Just like there was not need for a law against abortion in the US until 1973, it was just understood to be an unacceptable practice.
The principles of freedom, liberty, and yes – privacy – in the Constitution support abortion rights. Yes, some laws existed that should not have been, and it took until 1973 to rectify that.
Prior to those laws, however, abortion was accepted to a point in gestation, same as we have it now, and it was understood to be an acceptable practice.
But Mosaic law would be an argument for a Jew.
Ha! Man, you are cracking me up today. The point is that to maintain that the writers of the Bible were so against abortion is just not in line with reality.
Doug, laugh if it must, but I was merely pointing out to you that not all followers of Mosaic law are Christian. If you look at my previous 20 posts you will have to notice that I was looking for a follower of Christ who feels as though Jesus Christ would condone commiting abortion. Why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic, oh yeah, caus ehtere is no wat=y to argue that so changing topics or remaining silent is all you can do.
Hello, you still there Doug? What have you to say about that?
Doug? You still there?
Doug,
Tell me again your suggestions for the followers of Jesus Christ who wish to argue that Jesus would condone tearing the unborn from their mother’s wombs. I must have missed that in your response.
:; laughing ::
Holy Crow, TS, give me a minute here.. ; )
Doug? Why are you being so quiet? I can tell you why. It bwould be easier for you to cast darkness where there is light.
Doug, laugh if it must, but I was merely pointing out to you that not all followers of Mosaic law are Christian.
Okay – it sounded to me like you were saying, “Well that’s an argument a Jew would make….”
…..
If you look at my previous 20 posts you will have to notice that I was looking for a follower of Christ who feels as though Jesus Christ would condone commiting abortion. Why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic, oh yeah, caus ehtere is no wat=y to argue that so changing topics or remaining silent is all you can do.
Not at all – your spin on Christianity, the Bible, and the biblical God in no way is necessarily the “one true way.” I’m agnostic but it’s a matter of logic that an all-knowing God is aware of who is going to have abortions and when. And, an all-powerful God is then obviously not intervening – there is no evidence to say that such a God necessarily wants every pregnancy to continue.
I don’t know about the “God” part of Jesus, but if in fact the guy did exist, then it’d be cool to go back in time and ask him. If a girl or woman was pregnant and really did not want to be, was suffering, what would he say? It’s a question.
Anyway – in the Bible it’s not like all killing was prohibited. So often, we see people not knowing that the “thou shalt not kill” deal is really “thou shalt not murder,” and that abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. Thus, abortion isn’t affected by it.
The Bible has cases where the biblical God did not want every unborn life to continue. Going with the all-knowing and all-powerful ideas, the same God would be aware of just what miscarriages and abortions will happen in the present time. There is no logical reason to maintain that that God necessarily wants every pregnancy to continue, same as the God in the Bible did not.
TS, you’re not the only person I’m talking with…
TS, they’re calling my flight now… at long last. Au revoir for now.
I don’t know about the “God” part of Jesus, but if in fact the guy did exist, then it’d be cool to go back in time and ask him. If a girl or woman was pregnant and really did not want to be, was suffering, what would he say? It’s a question.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 7:07 PM
Doug,
Glad you could fit the name Jesus in at least part of your response. But “thinking it would be cool” to go back in time and ask him is completely lacking in response to the question I posed.
So I ask have to ask the same question again.
What part of Jesus’ life and teachings could a follower of Jesus point to as eveidence that Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s wombs?
Look, I know you refuse to answer that question, becasue the answer is that there is NOTHING in Jesus’ life and teachings that a follower of Jesus could point to as eveidence that Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s wombs? So instead, let me ask you a follow-up question to the scenario you posed.
If you did go back in time yourself, what do “you” think Jesus would say/do for the girl?
If you did go back in time yourself, what do “you” think Jesus would say/do for the girl?
Posted by: truthseeker at October 24, 2008 7:27 PM
……………….
Nothing. Just like you.
Doug
Back up your claims with actual bible verses if you’re going to make up such nonsense. I seem to remember the baby Moses being threatened (all Hebrew baby boys were in danger) and his mother and sister sending him to safety in a reed basket. I also remember seeing the innocents that died because of the evil King Herod.
Unless of course you’re referring to the last Plague sent upon Egypt?
I have a bible, I can search for these passages, but only if I have exact references.
And Sally, Jesus would have helped the women. I am pretty sure of that.
TS, they’re calling my flight now… at long last. Au revoir for now.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 7:12 PM
Au revoir… where you headed, to France?
96% of Conservative-voting Lethbridge supports Obama. Not that it makes a difference. Just FYI.
–
Abortion isn’t murder in current times either. Murder is killing with malicious intent, for one thing, and no one is aborting maliciously, I can guarantee. Second, as of this moment, a fetus doesn’t have any rights in Canada and limited rights (ie: restrictions on abortions) in the States.
I’m agnostic but it’s a matter of logic that an all-knowing God is aware of who is going to have abortions and when. And, an all-powerful God is then obviously not intervening – there is no evidence to say that such a God necessarily wants every pregnancy to continue.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008
Written as a dogmatic five point Calvinist, who turned agnostic from being unable to escape his all knowing God of Calvin’s mind . Stuck in a world where free will is impossible. A cruel God that Doug has memorized from his childhood days under the mind control of his parent’s and other Calvinist thinkers, thinking about God.
Tell me Doug, before any action is performed in this world, there is a thought that procedes the action. The thought might be a thought about gettin a abortion, or what food one is going to eat that day.
Since God knows all Doug, and all actions are pre-destined according to your silly childish version of the All Knowing God, there is no free will, is there Doug? Pure Dogmatic Calvinism at its finest absurdity.
In fact, all thoughts of human beings must be known by your silly God version, before the thought is known by the created thinker, a human being.
Why, before the birth of the human being, all actions of the human being are known before the actor sets foot upon the stage of life.
But, let’s not forget about the silly watchmaker version of God you obviously have been exposed to by writing,;”an all-powerful God is then obviously not intervening”. The old tick tock God.
God made it, then walked away, leaving no instructions laying about, which allows Doug to wander about in self made relativism which allows the murder of innocent humans beings. And why not, if God permits death, why not abortion being a right to commit a death act upon innocent creation too.
Do you really know who you were/are/did worshiping as a little bitty, silly willy, Calvinist mind puppet that arrived at God being the author of murder of human beings dogma Doug?
Logically Doug, the God you have constructed from childhood that has been stuck at the logic of the All Knwowing God, is the Enlightened One, the Morning Star, the brightest light in the heaven’s, otherwise known as Lucifer. The father of lies, who you were actually introduced as the “good God of the bible”. I like God dunces like you Doug, being rasied to worship the murdering God of Calvinist Christians.
Hillarious and hillarity follows you to this day, having your mind bent to a God that is the author of pain and suffering, death and torture, and of course abortion, the supreme cruelity towards life.
Now, listen hear you little bugger, I’m going to murder you , by my mind slave, the female creation, pre-destined to thoughts of “unwanted life”, before you get a chance to smell a molecule of air
during your stay upon Earth.
Why did you murder my creation, booms the creator of Life, in your womb women? Because I listened to preacher Doug, and he told me “that an all-knowing God is aware of who is going to have abortions and when”.
Well that’s because Doug was raised to worship the God of
death first, and then became another preacher of death, as his God Was and Is.
The silence of the Obama backing, tear the baby from your womb supporting Christians is deafening.
Funny how the liberals can twist almost anything into a moral relativism etc…. But their claim that Barack Obama or anybody else who condones abortion is a Christian is impossible to argue in the light of Jesus’ life and teachings.
What part of Jesus’ life and teachings could a follower of Jesus point to as eveidence that Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s wombs?
Look, I know you refuse to answer that question, becasue the answer is that there is NOTHING in Jesus’ life and teachings that a follower of Jesus could point to as eveidence that Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s wombs?
TS, you know I will answer. I was mighty busy yesterday, going from thread to thread as well as doing other stuff.
I don’t know all of what Jesus says in the Bible. Maybe you are right, but I’m not convinced of it. Did Jesus ever speak of the unborn, to start with?
…..
So instead, let me ask you a follow-up question to the scenario you posed.
If you did go back in time yourself, what do “you” think Jesus would say/do for the girl?
Again, I’m no biblical expert, far from it. My gut feeling is that he would be compassionate for people, as he was for prostitutes, etc. (?) So, there is the question of whether he would have seen the unborn as people, and to what extent he would have empathized and identified with the pregnant girl’s feelings.
Back up your claims with actual bible verses if you’re going to make up such nonsense. I seem to remember the baby Moses being threatened (all Hebrew baby boys were in danger) and his mother and sister sending him to safety in a reed basket. I also remember seeing the innocents that died because of the evil King Herod. Unless of course you’re referring to the last Plague sent upon Egypt? I have a bible, I can search for these passages, but only if I have exact references.
TS, like I said – I don’t know all what Jesus says in the Bible. Yet he was a compassionate guy, and first of all, it’s not at all just a question of the baby, here – there is the woman to consider.
I do think Jesus would consider the woman, and I’m still wondering if he says anything about abortion.
I was flying from Washington D.C. to Atlanta. Spent a dang long time in Reagan airport, kind of an old nasty place.
You don’t think that Jesus would see an unborn child as a person? He forgave those who executed him, he forgave the thief on the cross next to him. I think he’d show compassion and love for the pregnant woman and her unborn child. He was once a child in the womb, too.
Funny how the liberals can twist almost anything into a moral relativism etc…. But their claim that Barack Obama or anybody else who condones abortion is a Christian is impossible to argue in the light of Jesus’ life and teachings.
TS, abortion was not prohibited during the times both the Old and New testaments were written. Jesus was concerned with the problems of the time, right? I know that he spoke of problems in the Jewish hierarchy, loving your enemies, neighbors, etc., idolatry…. He saw those as being wrong, but he never addresses abortion.
It’s silly to maintain that Jesus would have to specifically list everything he thought was okay – it’s much the same deal as with the Constitution – it’s not possible in the first place (and for the Constitution it’s not the purpose, anyway).
So, what we have is Jesus not saying anything about abortion. It was not prohibited then, not was there any great feeling that it was wrong, and Jesus says nothing about it. Of course, that doesn’t rule out him thinking it was wrong, but at most that’s a guess.
You don’t think that Jesus would see an unborn child as a person?
Liz, I don’t know. I do know that he’d have been concerned about the pregnant woman.
“I’m agnostic but it’s a matter of logic that an all-knowing God is aware of who is going to have abortions and when. And, an all-powerful God is then obviously not intervening – there is no evidence to say that such a God necessarily wants every pregnancy to continue.
Written as a dogmatic five point Calvinist, who turned agnostic from being unable to escape his all knowing God of Calvin’s mind . Stuck in a world where free will is impossible. A cruel God that Doug has memorized from his childhood days under the mind control of his parent’s and other Calvinist thinkers, thinking about God.
yllas, that’s silly. I’m not a Calvinist. I don’t even know what one is. Lemme go look…. I read that Calvinism ” emphasizes the rule of God over all things.” Well, in no way is that me. I’m an agnostic. You’re the one with the dogma, not me.
……
Tell me Doug, before any action is performed in this world, there is a thought that procedes the action. The thought might be a thought about gettin a abortion, or what food one is going to eat that day.
With conscious actions, yes. Not with reflexive actions, but in general our motivation is what we want the most (or have the least distaste for) – that’s what determines how we act, from among our available choices.
…..
Since God knows all Doug, and all actions are pre-destined according to your silly childish version of the All Knowing God, there is no free will, is there Doug?
If there is a “silly child,” here, it is you, who is rarely ever in control of yourself.
Okay – hypothetically, an all-knowing God. That does mean we are predestined, for in what we deem the present the all-knowing God is aware of what we deem is our future. We cannot then change our future, for it is foreknown/foretold.
In the real world I do think we have free will, which argues against the all-knowing God, just as it argues against any all-knowing anythings.
…..
In fact, all thoughts of human beings must be known by God, before the thought is known by the created thinker, a human being.
Yes, obviously. That’s the only thing that would make sense.
…..
Why, before the birth of the human being, all actions of the human being are known before the actor sets foot upon the stage of life.
Yep, same deal.
…..
But, let’s not forget about the watchmaker version of God you obviously have been exposed to by writing, “an all-powerful God is then obviously not intervening”. The old tick tock God. God made it, then walked away, leaving no instructions laying about, which allows Doug to wander about in self made relativism which allows the murder of innocent humans beings. And why not, if God permits death, why not abortion being a right to commit a death act upon innocent creation too.
You’re contradicting yourself. If God knows all that will happen, no “instructions” are needed. It’s already foretold.
Hypothetically, the God could set things up, yes, and let them “run” but that by itself does not mean that the God would be all-knowing.
Anyway, as to an “all-powerful” God, yes – if there is such a thing, then that God is not preventing all miscarriages, nor all abortions. At the least we can thus say that such a God does not want every pregnancy to continue.
……
a God that is the author of pain and suffering, death and torture, and of course abortion, the supreme cruelity towards life.
Your opinion, which of course we have no reason to think that an all-powerful God agrees with, since it’s allowed.
Doug said, “Jesus says nothing about [induced abortion]. Of course, that doesn’t rule out him thinking it was wrong, but at most that’s a guess.”
No, it’s not a guess. Don’t ask Doug questions about the Christian religion. Doug calls himself an agnostic, and everything’s a guess to him.
There was absolutely no reason for Jesus to condemn induced abortion. It wasn’t a question. When Jesus was on earth, He never attempted to prove the existence of God, either.
In the beginning, God made man like Himself in some ways. After man sinned, there was the possibility of murder. In fact, Cain killed his brother Abel. Soon the earth was filled with violence. When God re-created the world after the Flood, He specifically told man that animals were fair game, but man was off limits. His reasoning had nothing to do with the beginning of sentience or personhood. He said that human life was special because of its resemblance to Him. The argument applies just as much to a human embryo as it does to any one of us.
Thus the Jews and Christian church produced a West that would not kill any human being except in the interests of justice or because of war. We must argue about it now only because of the confusion brought by secular humanism, currently the most popular religion in the West.
No, it’s not a guess. Don’t ask Doug questions about the Christian religion. Doug calls himself an agnostic, and everything’s a guess to him.
That’s silly, Jon. Yes, it’s a guess, since Jesus says nothing about abortion. In the Bible he addresses many things, but not abortion. Doesn’t matter what one believes – the text is there.
…..
There was absolutely no reason for Jesus to condemn induced abortion. It wasn’t a question. When Jesus was on earth, He never attempted to prove the existence of God, either.
He mentioned God plenty, though. That abortion was permitted at the time, and that Jesus does not mention it, at the very least raises the question of him being fine with it.
If Jesus was against abortion, then there “absolutely” was plenty of reason for him to address it, just as he did with many things.
There was absolutely no reason for Jesus to condemn induced abortion. It wasn’t a question. When Jesus was on earth, He never attempted to prove the existence of God, either.
He mentioned God plenty, though. That abortion was permitted at the time, and that Jesus does not mention it, at the very least raises the question of him being fine with it.
If Jesus was against abortion, then there “absolutely” was plenty of reason for him to address it, just as he did with many things.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 12:08 PM
Doug, something you should know about “guessing”.
There are educated guesses based upon other supporting criteria. And then there are senseless guesses based upon a lack of critria.
Your guess about it being possible that Jesus’ would condone abortion is at best a senseless guess. Let’s look at your previous answer to my question asking you to name what it is in Jesus’ life and teachings that would leave you to believe he would condone abortion. Your response was:
******
TS,
I don’t know all of what Jesus says in the Bible. Maybe you are right, but I’m not convinced of it. Did Jesus ever speak of the unborn, to start with?
*********
Doug, I am confident you cannot find a Christian or anyone else to show you anything in Jesus life that would point you to a belief that Jesus would condone abortion. I have been challenging anybody to do that for the past two days and there are no takers because it just ain’t there.
Now, look at the other side. Millions of Christians could give you countless examples from Jesus life and teaching that would lead you to “guess/believe” that Jesus would not condone abortion.
But let me answer your question about Jesus speaking of the unborn. Jesus spoke of the gift of eternal life that he brings to us from his heavenly Father. Unborn children are undeniably
alive, therefore they are encompassed within his mission of salvation he brings to all mankind. Wouldn’t you agree?
Doug,
I know this kind of discussion about the mission of Jesus Christ is not necessarily one where an agnostic would feel comfortable/qualified to answer since you have admitted already that you don’t know/ haven’t studied the life of Jesus.
Or, you could try to put that liberal twist on it; maye something like you presidential nominee and said; “answering questions like this, uhh, from a scientific or theological standpoint, uhhh, with any specificity, ummm is above my pay grade.” I could understand/excuse that answer from you, but how freaking ridiculous is it that a presidiential nominee who calls themselves Christian could give an answer like that?
Especially a Bible quoting, Jesus preaching, stab a baby in the head with a scissors supporting “christian” like Obama. America is getting itself into a heap of trouble.
Doug, I am confident you cannot find a Christian or anyone else to show you anything in Jesus life that would point you to a belief that Jesus would condone abortion. I have been challenging anybody to do that for the past two days and there are no takers because it just ain’t there.
TS, I’m sure lots of Christians feel as you do, but not all. Jesus did not protest nor condemn a great many things, abortion being one of them. And again, the real question is that if it was prohibited, why in the world is the Bible silent on it?
…..
Now, look at the other side. Millions of Christians could give you countless examples from Jesus life and teaching that would lead you to “guess/believe” that Jesus would not condone abortion.
Taking certain things, selectively, yes. The fact remains that abortion wasn’t condemned in the community back then, and Jesus says nothing about it. Projecting from Jesus’s approach to born people isn’t necessarily valid for the unborn.
……
But let me answer your question about Jesus speaking of the unborn. Jesus spoke of the gift of eternal life that he brings to us from his heavenly Father. Unborn children are undeniably alive, therefore they are encompassed within his mission of salvation he brings to all mankind. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, or at least not necessarily – Jewish tradition was that the human person began at birth, and that “a life” was present when the baby was halfway out of the womb(?). I do not think your perception of the unborn is shared by the writers of the Bible.
…..
I know this kind of discussion about the mission of Jesus Christ is not necessarily one where an agnostic would feel comfortable/qualified to answer since you have admitted already that you don’t know/ haven’t studied the life of Jesus.
Heh, TS – I do know some things, and one biggie is the “ya gotta get saved” deal. About abortion, however, the silence of the Old Testament is only exceeded by the New Testament.
Heh, TS – I do know some things, and one biggie is the “ya gotta get saved” deal. About abortion, however, the silence of the Old Testament is only exceeded by the New Testament.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 3:09 PM
That’s because they didn’t have ultrasounds in the Old Testament days and people needed big families to work on the farms, shepherding, etc… Why would they abort? It made no sense then, and if we were smart, it would make no sense to us. Plus of course, there’s that commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, but we’ve been down that road before.
But let me answer your question about Jesus speaking of the unborn. Jesus spoke of the gift of eternal life that he brings to us from his heavenly Father. Unborn children are undeniably alive, therefore they are encompassed within his mission of salvation he brings to all mankind. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, or at least not necessarily – Jewish tradition was that the human person began at birth, and that “a life” was present when the baby was halfway out of the womb(?). I do not think your perception of the unborn is shared by the writers of the Bible.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 3:09 PM
What????? Your liberal mind now allows you to say the the baby inside the womb is not a life?
Or did you mean not a “life”, like no soul present or something?
Your argument doesn’t hold water for Christians who are unsure of when a baby gets a soul either. According to Jesus his heavenly Father is the author of all life. A Christian would fear too much erring on the wrong side because that would mean eternal damnation 50 million times over since RoeVWade unless they seek repentance and forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ. It may be above your pay grade, but it is very simple for a Christian to understand.
Plus of course, there’s that commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, but we’ve been down that road before.
Posted by: Janet at October 25, 2008 3:22 PM
lol Janet. According to Doug the fetus is a human being and alive, but killing said being is not really killing cause it is not murder. Sheesh
Doug, According to the Bible Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived. Doesn’t that mean that babies have souls at the point of conception?
BTW – I only had to open up my Bible to the first page of the first Gospel to find the answer to that question for you Doug.
Doug, when a Christian struggles with passages in the Old Testament, we just look at them in light of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who is the revelation of all scripture.
Doug, I guess the New Testament isn’t so silent after all then…. Jesus knows the hardness of our hearts. Those who would only hear when it is said to them in the expicit terms you demand would never be faithful. There is a spirit within the word that transcends the letter of the word. The fact that the Bible tells us, through the life of Jesus Christ, that the soul is present at conception; is that enough for you or would you still argue the presence of the Christian soul in these babies?
Thank you Lord for showing me the words to offer to Christians that they may also know and understand that the unborn children do indeed have souls.
Peter, you said
**** I’m not saying that God did send Obama, I’m saying, “what if he did” and you misunderstood Jesus’s direction? ***
You may be right after all Peter, maybe God sent Obama so that Christians everywhere would search their souls and find the answer to that question which eluded Barack Obama and that he says is “above his pay grade”
So there is no more doubt about the souls and value of these unborn children. Shout it from on high until these words enter even unto the hearts and minds of Christians everywhere.
“The angel proclaimed God’s message to Mary. And she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit, the presence of God to all Christians, is present at the point of conception! All babies have souls and are God’s creation. Christians must not support anybody’s choice to tear these babies from their mother’s wombs!!
Doug, what have you to say now that I have shown you that according to Christian scripture it is the presence of God that gives life to the unborn and that this presence is there at the point of conception.
Doug, it would be easier for you to make a river run uphill then argue that Jesus would condone abortion. But it is really simple to argue that Jesus would not condone abortion. Doesn’t that tell you something? Are you the kind who needs to explicitly hear/see Jesus tell you abortion is bad while ignoring the rest of his teachings? Remember what I said about the Word having a spirit that transcends the letter of the Word? Is this getting above your pay-grade?
The silence from the Obama backing Christians is deafening. Doug, don’t feel bad, you had no chance and I salute you for even trying, even as an agnostic, while the so-called Obama backing Christians turn a deaf ear. Woe I say!! Woe, Woe, Woe!!!
Thou shalt not blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ by calling yourself Christian and supporting a persons choice to commit abortion.
Why would they abort?
Janet, granted that many people did have big families, for workers, etc., but also, many people did have abortions then.
“Thou shalt kill” had nothing to do with abortion.
According to Doug the fetus is a human being and alive, but killing said being is not really killing cause it is not murder. Sheesh
TS, no. Nobody told you “not killing.” Like so much else, you are making that one up.
Not murder, no, and it was not murder in biblical times. But nobody told you it wasn’t killing.
Doug, when a Christian struggles with passages in the Old Testament, we just look at them in light of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who is the revelation of all scripture.
Okay, TS, and the “we” there are people who are putting the same spin on it you, are, being very selective, in lieu of actual support for what you say.
What????? Your liberal mind now allows you to say the the baby inside the womb is not a life? Or did you mean not a “life”, like no soul present or something?
No, TS, we are talking about the writers of the Bible, and what was accepted in those times, things which are often at odds with your interpretations.
……
According to the Bible Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived. Doesn’t that mean that babies have souls at the point of conception?
Heh – not that I know of. Where do you get the notion of “soul” from that?
Doug, what have you to say now that I have shown you that according to Christian scripture it is the presence of God that gives life to the unborn and that this presence is there at the point of conception.
Has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
And, in the Bible, re the biblical god and Adam, he “became a living soul” only after God
“breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This is in line with the Jewish tradition of “a life” (and personhood) being after birth.
Remember what I said about the Word having a spirit that transcends the letter of the Word? Is this getting above your pay-grade?
TS, I see you attempting to spin things your own way, in contradiction of what is actually there in the Bible.
There is plenty that can be taken either way in the bible, and honest people realize this, as opposed to those with an agenda that they feel has to be supported by such a selective approach to the Bible as you take.
The fact remains that the Bible is silent on abortion, and that it’s exceedingly far-fetched that it was just somehow “left out” if the writers of the the Bible were against it.
Why don’t you concentrate on what is actually spelled out in the Bible, as opposed to what is you stretching things and reaching?
The silence from the Obama backing Christians is deafening.
TS, who says they “have” to reply to you? They know that your take on things isn’t necessarily correct, and they neither have to justify their beliefs nor their votes to you.
You are seeing stuff where there isn’t anything, necessarily. You make the assertion – the burden of proof is on you, not on anybody else.
Okay, TS, and the “we” there are people who are putting the same spin on it you, are, being very selective, in lieu of actual support for what you say.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 9:04 PM
No Doug.You just don’t understand Christianity. jesus is the revelation of scripture. The “Word made Flesh”. Not being selective at all. It is a tenet of Christianity period. It’s all over the gospel. Your lack of understanding of the gospel is showing here.
According to the Bible Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived. Doesn’t that mean that babies have souls at the point of conception?
Heh – not that I know of. Where do you get the notion of “soul” from that?
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 9:08 PM
Doug, the soul is understood to be the essence of a person that gives us life and a spiritual existense beyond just our physical being.
The Holy Spirit is the source of life and thus conception by the Holy Spirit means that the soul is present at conception.
Maybe you nhave a different understanding of a soul though. Tell me, what is your understanding of a soul?
Doug, what have you to say now that I have shown you that according to Christian scripture it is the presence of God that gives life to the unborn and that this presence is there at the point of conception?
*****Doug says:
Has nothing to do with what we were talking about. *****
Doug, you are just being flippant now. You know we were talking about wether or not Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s womb. Are you saying that the presence of the Holy Spirit inside of the life you are destroying has nothing to do with wether or not Jesus would approve of said babies destruction?If so, then, not to offend you but you show a complete lack of understanding of the Christian faith as taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus gave us very stern teaching not to offend the Holy Spirit, so destroying a life that Holy Spirit conceived would go completely against Jesus’ teaching.
And, in the Bible, re the biblical god and Adam, he “became a living soul” only after God
“breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This is in line with the Jewish tradition of “a life” (and personhood) being after birth.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 9:15 PM
Doug, give me a break on the Jewish tradition here. The reason Adam didn’t have a soul till God breathed life into his nostrils is because that was Adams point of conception. Adam was never a fetus or a baby in a womb. He went straight from being clay to being a man. Once God breathed life into Adam he had a soul. But not everybody goes from being a piece of clay into being a living man. Do you understand that according to Christianity God and the Holy Spirit are the same person? Adam’s conception was unique in that he was formed from clay. The rest of us start our lives when we are conceived in our mother’s womb and it is the Holy Spirit who breathes life into every child at conception.
TS, I see you attempting to spin things your own way, in contradiction of what is actually there in the Bible.
Doug, everything I have said I have supported with scripture from the Bible, it is you who have yet to find ANY passage in the Bible to support your claim that Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s womb.
TS, There is plenty that can be taken either way in the bible, and honest people realize this, as opposed to those with an agenda that they feel has to be supported by such a selective approach to the Bible as you take.
Doug, there is NOTHING in the Bible that can be taken to mean Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s wombs, that is my point exactly… I am not being selective in my approach; how can you expect someone to believe Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mnother’s wombs when there isn’t ANY passage in scripture to support such a blasphemous claim. Get real here Doug, Jesus was all about healing life and loving.
The fact remains that the Bible is silent on abortion, and that it’s exceedingly far-fetched that it was just somehow “left out” if the writers of the the Bible were against it.
Doug, if I were to accept your logic then I guess you could argue that Jesus is not against rape either cause he never said specifically rape was bad; you have got to be kidding.
TS, Why don’t you concentrate on what is actually spelled out in the Bible, as opposed to what is you stretching things and reaching?
Doug, the topic of discussion here is wether or not Jesus would condone tearing babies from their mother’s womb. I have quoted lots of scripture that is spelled out in the Bible to support my position, it is you who have yet to
quote a passage to support your side, because it just ain’t there.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 9:20 PM
TS, who says they “have” to reply to you? They know that your take on things isn’t necessarily correct, and they neither have to justify their beliefs nor their votes to you.
Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 9:25 PM
Doug, My take on things? What about Jesus’ take on things? That is what we are talking about here. And if they can’t even support their position with even one part of Jesus’ life or teachnigs then how the hell can they call themselves followers of Jesus? You are correct that they don’t have to answer to me, but they will have to answer to Jesus when he comes again to judge the living and the dead.
Doug, you would have a better chance of finding a Frenchmen who supports McCain then finding a scripture passage about Jesus’ life or teaching to support the position that Jesus Christ would condone tearing abbies from their mothers wombs because it just ain’t there. Humor me and quote the part of Jesus’ life or teachning that best supports your position….. It has been three days now and I am still waiting
“Okay, TS, and the “we” there are people who are putting the same spin on it you, are, being very selective, in lieu of actual support for what you say.”
No Doug.You just don’t understand Christianity. jesus is the revelation of scripture. The “Word made Flesh”. Not being selective at all. It is a tenet of Christianity period. It’s all over the gospel. Your lack of understanding of the gospel is showing here.
Well, you indeed are approaching it in a selective manner. There are plenty of passages where the biblical God did not want certain unborn lives to continue, for example, though they were certainly “innocent.” Yet you pretend that it’s one-sidedly your way (i.e. that God wants all pregnancies to continue, barring miscarriage), when the truth is that it’s not.
…..
Doug, the soul is understood to be the essence of a person that gives us life and a spiritual existense beyond just our physical being. The Holy Spirit is the source of life and thus conception by the Holy Spirit means that the soul is present at conception.
Maybe you have a different understanding of a soul though. Tell me, what is your understanding of a soul?
Good question, TS. I don’t believe in the notion of the soul, personally. We have personality, we have our own individual characteristics as far as our mentality, our emotions, etc., but I think that when we die, that’s it.
I know there is disagreement about when ensoulment occurs among people, and I’m not sure that all Christians see it at conception. I know that some Christians feel the soul continues after death, while others believe it ceases when the life of the body ends, then is resurrected.
…..
“And, in the Bible, re the biblical god and Adam, he “became a living soul” only after God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This is in line with the Jewish tradition of “a life” (and personhood) being after birth.”
Doug, give me a break on the Jewish tradition here. The reason Adam didn’t have a soul till God breathed life into his nostrils is because that was Adams point of conception.
TS – you’re right, and I should have thought of that – yes, that was Adam’s “point of conception.” However, Jewish tradition was in effect when the Bible was written, and there is nothing specific that Jesus says in the Bible to indicate he saw things differently than what was consistent with Jewish tradition in the matter of personhood, abortion, etc., is there?
…..
“The fact remains that the Bible is silent on abortion, and that it’s exceedingly far-fetched that it was just somehow “left out” if the writers of the the Bible were against it.”
Doug, if I were to accept your logic then I guess you could argue that Jesus is not against rape either cause he never said specifically rape was bad; you have got to be kidding.
No, because rape was prohibited by the community then, while abortion was not. I’m not saying Jesus was “against” the laws of the tiime, as with rape, I’m saying he doesn’t give any indication he’s against abortion.
If somebody was to make the case that Jesus was “for rape,” then the obvious fact that he never says he is carries a good bit of weight.
Same for him never saying he’s for having abortion be illegal.
…..
Humor me and quote the part of Jesus’ life or teachning that best supports your position…..
I realize we’re not going to agree, TS. However – Jesus demonstrated compassion for born people many times, and I believe that the biblical Jesus would understand a woman or girl having an unwanted pregnancy and wanting to end it. And this is in the absence of him saying anything about abortion. I grant you there is nothing specific that Jesus says where he is “for abortion,” but it was legal at the time, and without him condemning a thing, what sense is there in maintaining he was against it, were it then okay within the community?
a scripture passage about Jesus’ life or teaching to support the position that Jesus Christ would condone tearing abbies from their mothers
Truthseeker, that’s not the whole deal, though. There is also how Jesus would feel about the pregnant woman. Would his compassion for her – a born person – with him demonstrating his empathy for them many times – outweigh your presumption that he’d be against abortion? I’m saying it certainly could.
A different question – do think that the souls of babies who die in the womb go to heaven?
Well TS, you indeed are approaching it in a selective manner. There are plenty of passages where the biblical God did not want certain unborn lives to continue, for example, though they were certainly “innocent.” Yet you pretend that it’s one-sidedly your way (i.e. that God wants all pregnancies to continue, barring miscarriage), when the truth is that it’s not.
Doug,
Jesus spoke of his heavenly Father often, and always declared Him to to be a loving and just God. Jesus spoke against killing. Jesus never killed an innocent life and in fact spoke out against killing people and Jesus came to do the will of his heavenly Father. Saying that God or Jesus would condone the killing of innocents is offensive to Christians and blasphemous. There may be some people who look at scripture and interpret it to mean God wants innocent people killed, but certainly not Christians. I will have to admit to you that if a person held the view that God condoned killing innocents, then they would not have a problem with abortion, but that is certainly NOT a Christian perspective; nor could any Chjristian rationally argue it to be so.
I know there is disagreement about when ensoulment occurs among people, and I’m not sure that all Christians see it at conception.
Doug, you are not sure, and I have given you my opinion that the soul is where the Holy Spirit resides. I have also pointed out to you scripturally by looking at the life of Jesus why I believe that to be so. Unless you can point out to me scripturally why a Christian would be otherwise, then we can presume my opinion to be accurate for now.
However, Jewish tradition was in effect when the Bible was written, and there is nothing specific that Jesus says in the Bible to indicate he saw things differently than what was consistent with Jewish tradition in the matter of personhood, abortion, etc., is there?
Doug,
I already told you what Jesus revealed to us about the point of conception and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Christians believe that the Jewish people were often known to misinterpret and/or break God’s laws and that is why God sent Jesus down to show us the Way.
Jesus spoke of his heavenly Father often, and always declared Him to to be a loving and just God. Jesus spoke against killing. Jesus never killed an innocent life and in fact spoke out against killing people and Jesus came to do the will of his heavenly Father.
TS, yes, but this was in relation to born people – again, the unborn are not mentioned in that same way, and birth was the deal for being a “person” back then. I think we’ve come to an impasse on Jesus. I agree that he does not specifically agree with abortion, and he also does not say anything against it. I think it’s a question of his demonstrable caring for born people versus your feeling about how he would feel about the unborn.
…..
Saying that God or Jesus would condone the killing of innocents is offensive to Christians and blasphemous. There may be some people who look at scripture and interpret it to mean God wants innocent people killed, but certainly not Christians.
There are plenty of examples of the biblical God ordering the killing of innocents. I am not saying this was Jesus, but if you want, I can give you quite a few times.
Additionally, what do you think miscarriages are? Wouldn’t you say the unborn in this case are “innocent”?
Truthseeker, that’s not the whole deal, though. There is also how Jesus would feel about the pregnant woman. Would his compassion for her – a born person – with him demonstrating his empathy for them many times – outweigh your presumption that he’d be against abortion? I’m saying it certainly could.
Doug, Jesus was against killing. Even the most rabid pro-aborts say that abortion is NEVER wanted. And you are suggesting that Jesus would show hs empathy for this woman by telling her to
Isn’t it a lot more likely that in his empathy he would have cast the demon from the woman that was causing her to be afraid of giving birth? Look at Jesus life, he never killed. On the contrary he was a healer of life. The fact that you are saying Jesus “certainly could” tell this woman who is struggling with her pregnancy to just go lay down on a gurnee and raise up her knees and submit to somebody tearing her child from her womb makes you irrational if you truly believed it.
I am assuming you are just doing your best with your twisted liberal logic to make a case for Jesus doing that, but I know neither you or any other sane person could actually believe that. In fact, to believe that about bJesus you would have to be a schitzophrenic psychotic whose only reality is formed completely by your own desires which you keep insulted from the truth by creating your own pseudo-reality within your mind.
A different question – do think that the souls of babies who die in the womb go to heaven?
Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2008 10:52 AM
I don’t see why not. But I wouldn’t condone killing all innocent and/or Christian people cause you are sending them to heaven, if that is where you are headed with this.
On a side note though, a couple times while I have been kneeling down praying while protesting abortion, people have swerved their cars at me as if they were going to hit me. I truly believe that if I were to die in a situation like that; the graces that would be heaped upon myself and my family would be tremendous.
Correction to post at October 26, 2008 12:54 PM:
In fact, to believe that about bJesus you would have to be a schitzophrenic psychotic whose only reality is formed completely by your own desires which you keep “insulated” from the truth by creating your own pseudo-reality within your mind.
TS, I think it’s a question of his demonstrable caring for born people versus your feeling about how he would feel about the unborn.
Doug, As I explained earlier,to a Christian, God is present here on earth through the Holy Spirit and God is present in both the unborn and the born who have received their lives through the presence of the Holy Spirit. That is not my feeling, it is written in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And it would be absurd to say that Jesus would kill either.
TS, There are plenty of examples of the biblical God ordering the killing of innocents. I am not saying this was Jesus, but if you want, I can give you quite a few times.
Doug, I am glad you qualified that by saying it was not Jesus. Because the topic of this blog is that nobody in their right mind could rationally argue that Jesus would condone the killing of innocents.
Doug, I think you are misrepresenting God when you say He ordered the killing of innocents, I will have to lean on my Chritocentric faith to explain it to you though. In times BC no man was worthy of salvation because none could follow the laws of God and all were “guilty” in our rebellion and disobedience to God’s laws. It is only now that Jesus Christ has suffered and died for the forgiveness of our sins that mankind is recreated in the eyes of God and freed from the condemnation and sin that His law brought upon us in times BC. Does that understanding help you to see why a Christian does not believe God has ever ordered the killing of innocents.
Blessed be the Holy Spirit!!! The Lord and giver of life. Who proceeds from the Father and Son. With the Father and Son he is worshipped and glorified, He has spoken through the prophets.
Doug, I think you are misrepresenting God when you say He ordered the killing of innocents, I will have to lean on my Chritocentric faith to explain it to you though. In times BC no man was worthy of salvation because none could follow the laws of God and all were “guilty” in our rebellion and disobedience to God’s laws.
This is not a case of “could follow” or “could not follow.” These are the unborn, in several instances, most certainly “innocent.” There could be no “following” that came into it.
….
It is only now that Jesus Christ has suffered and died for the forgiveness of our sins that mankind is recreated in the eyes of God and freed from the condemnation and sin that His law brought upon us in times BC. Does that understanding help you to see why a Christian does not believe God has ever ordered the killing of innocents.
TS, I won’t beat it into the ground forever, but the biblical God most certainly does order the killing of innocents.
In the present time, what of miscarriages? I don’t think you believe the unborn, there, are “guilty.” And the pregnancies end, presumably with no conscious input from the parents. So, the “control” if any is in the hands of an all-powerful God.
I’m not stating that there is one, but if we go with that idea, then that God obviously does not necessarily want every pregnancy, and that’s in the present time. Combine that with the description of the biblical God, and there is a very good argument to be made that in no way is it wanted for every pregnancy to continue.
In the present time, what of miscarriages? I don’t think you believe the unborn, there, are “guilty.” And the pregnancies end, presumably with no conscious input from the parents. So, the “control” if any is in the hands of an all-powerful God.
Miscarriage is not a punishment from God. It is a naturally occurring event.
God is the author and creator of all life. He states that He knew us in the womb.
While Jesus would have certainly had compassion on the girl who may have wanted to have an abortion, He would have had just as much compassion on the child. He would not have condemmed the girl for any action. He would have told her to go and sin no more.
I believe a grave cause of abortion is responsibility. An “unwanted” pregnancy is just another form of not taking responsibility. “I don’t want a baby right now so I’ll just have an abortion.” I understand there are other reasons for abortion, but this seems to be a huge contender. From what I read about Jesus he taught repeatedly about personal responsibility.
TS, I won’t beat it into the ground forever, but the biblical God most certainly does order the killing of innocents.
Doug, I am guessing you mean the God of the Old testament. Go ahead and beat it. Give me those examples you keep referring to.
I think it is time to change the subject to the God of the Old Testament anyway. You have been strikingly unable to show any rational argument that Jesus has ever, or would ever condone killing innocents. Now lets take a look at the God of the Old Testament shall we.
Miscarriage is not a punishment from God. It is a naturally occurring event.
Janet, hard to say there – who knows the mind of God, in the hypothetical sense? Agreed that it’s not due to conscious human input, i.e. it would be “in the hands of God,” but it could be a punishment.
I wasn’t saying it was a punishment, though – just noting that an all-powerful God would allow miscarriages, or causes them, depending on one’s belief.
Go ahead and beat it. Give me those examples you keep referring to.
:: laughing :: Okay, TS.
I’m about to get on a plane, this time to Boston, but I’ve been through this argument before, and will post later today.
…..
I think it is time to change the subject to the God of the Old Testament anyway. You have been strikingly unable to show any rational argument that Jesus has ever, or would ever condone killing innocents.
Jesus says nothing about abortion in the Bible. (Nor does anybody else.) It’s 50/50, and there is as much or more rational argument that Jesus would show compassion for the born woman – who did have rights at the time – versus the unborn who weren’t attributed rights, not treated as persons under the law, etc.
If Jesus was concerned about abortion, it’s also exceedingly farfetched that he doesn’t mention it, given the number of things he does say. Moreover, it was common for Jesus to display compassion for born people, and again – contrast that with the fact that he never mentions abortion or anything specific to the unborn, your assumptions of how he’d feel notwithstanding.
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
The unborn babies obviously were not guilty of religious conversion, yet the biblical God orders them killed anyway.
…..
Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Again, the unborn babies weren’t guilty, but were considered to have no positive value that they should be kept alive. However, the virgin girls were said to have value.
…..
Deuteronomy 32, really the same thing.
Jesus says nothing about abortion in the Bible. (Nor does anybody else.) It’s 50/50, and there is as much or more rational argument that Jesus would show compassion for the born woman – who did have rights at the time – versus the unborn who weren’t attributed rights, not treated as persons under the law, etc.
If Jesus was concerned about abortion, it’s also exceedingly farfetched that he doesn’t mention it, given the number of things he does say. Moreover, it was common for Jesus to display compassion for born people, and again – contrast that with the fact that he never mentions abortion or anything specific to the unborn, your assumptions of how he’d feel notwithstanding.
Posted by: Doug at October 28, 2008 9:55 AM
Doug, you say it as just as likely that Jesus would have compassion on the woman as if compassion = abortion. Answer a question for me.
Do you think thatJesus, who “never” killed anybody, and who believes that the Holy Spirit is the author of all life that is present at the point of conception would destroy a life his heavenly father created? You are really making no logical sense at all and have NO understanding of Jesus mission as he stated himself many times. Jesus staught us all of in the Bible that we should not kill and he gave us many examples that he would not kill and I have already shown you that the babies are given life by the Holy Spirit at the point of conception. It is written, all life is created by the Holy Spirit at the point of conception. It is absurd to say that Jesus would offend the Holy Spirit by killing the life he created. He would show compassion for the woman, but he would never destroy life his heavenly father created, his explicitly stated mission is to save those lives and he showed us this over and over with his words and actions. How can you not see that?
TS, Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
The unborn babies obviously were not guilty of religious conversion, yet the biblical God orders them killed anyway.
Doug, It is presumptuos of you to think you you can say who is guilty and who is innocent in God’s eyes. Since the trangression of Adam and Eve everybody is born with original sin. In fact, this passage is a glaring prophecy of the scourge of abortion we are suffering under today where these “innocent” babies are slaughtered because to this day we rebel against our God.
Doug, much of the Old Testament is there to teach you that when all people had was God’s law, they were unable to follow God’s law and they rebelled and turned to idolatry, murder, and all types sin. You must look at the Bible as an evolution of man’s understanding of God, and now we have come to understand that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Understand this and look to Jesus as our way to learn the truth about God. Begin by not blaming God like you do for for teaching people that the wages for sin (breaking His laws) is death. Look to what God has given us today, life through His Holy Spirit when we accept Jesus Christ as our saviour.