Weekend question
LansingCityPulse.com reported that the homosexual anarchist group Bash Back (pictured above) disrupted the November 9 (Sunday after election) services at Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County, MI…
The group… picket[ed] outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout “Jesus was a homo” and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building….
The Rev. John Elieff… said Bash Back members disrupted the service by bursting into the sanctuary, throwing fliers, hanging a banner from the balcony and pulling fire alarms.
“It was an unwelcome and violent demonstration,” he said.
Turns out Bash Back was not only protesting Mt. Hope’s opposition to homosexual behavior but also its opposition to abortion. In a November 20 statement attempting to clarify why it protested Hope Bash Back wrote:
Why Mount Hope Church?… A lot of issues went into our decision….
“D-willy”, Pastor of Mount Hope, (and personal enemy of Bash Back!) stated that he did not “choose to identify MHC as anti-choice”.
However, every Halloween the Church puts on the heavily protested “Hell House“, an extremely offensive and yes RADICAL approach to shock people into their right wing belief structure.
One of the rooms within this Hell House completely inaccurately depicts a womyn receiving an abortion. In the act, the doctor uses dirty tools, and horrible machine sounds play over loud speakers. With the presence of demons, and her screams of pain, one leaves feeling like they just witnessed a most violent atrocity. How is this not actively anti-choice?
With the election of Barack Obama as president and the apparent unleashing of the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual communities, do you anticipate violence against pro-lifers to increase? Why or why not?
[Top photo from Bash Back’s website; bottom photo courtesy of Nathan Harris/City Pulse]
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.
Can you even imagine the outrage if a pro-life group did the same thing to a Unitarian “church”?
The Left would never stop their gnashing of teeth. But, since these were tolerant liberals attacking mean, closeminded republicans, I doubt the MSM will give it more than an understanding nod.
the apparent unleashing of the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual communities
Is this like ‘Hellboy II: The Golden Army’?
No, but I do anticipate increased violence against pro-choicers, as anti-choicers become frustrated with their lack of power. The Clinton years were filled with shootings and bombings at abortion clinics.
What is the plural of “womyn”?
womun?
I own a Catholic book store and fully expect someone to approach me in the future about some of my titles or maybe just because of Catholic Church teachings. Nothing is out of the question.
Did the pro-life movement kill 50 million human beings as compared to the 50 million human beings killed by abortion violence since 1973?
We should have a bigtime Wrestling showdown between Bash Back and Fred Phelps’ crew.
And you protest outside doctor’s offices? So? If a church is going to mix the sacred with the insulting derogatory politcs of homophobia, why not protest? If you can protest the Klan then you can protest a church.
A life is a life Joe.
Lol Bearclaw, um, just wait a few weeks and I’m sure it will happen. Well it will happen if the Phelps’ crew takes some time off from their funeral picketing. I don’t get them, if we’re all going to hell and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it, why keep rubbing it in our faces?
I have a question. If a vegetarian diet makes men into homosexuals by making them weak, why are they shown as violent and militant? Shouldn’t they be at home eating their salads and watching “Will and Grace”?
BMMG: What is the plural of “womyn”?
Holy moly, BMMG, are you grousing about that? Let us ruminate on the following:
What is the plural of “sheep”?
What is the plural of “moose”? And don’t tell me “meese.”
What is the plural of “elk”?
Of “bison”?
What is it about ruminants, anyway?
Of “deer”?
And, what is the plural of “grouse”? ; )
Wow though, read some of the hate mail they are sent, it’s really bad. Although there was one I don’t consider hate mail:
“Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us now and at the hour of our death, Amen. God loves you –
Frances”
Speaking of which, I wish there was a Protestant religion that wasn’t hostile to Hail Mary’s or the rosary, since I’m not going to give those up. Lately I’ve been describing myself as Bi-religious. That seems to give the right picture.
Sheeps and meese and elks yay! Oh Doug you made my morning!
I love all of the woodland creatures : )
Someone called them “Jews”. Is Jew really an insult?
I think “womyn” is the plural.
The funny thing is that woman literally means “man with womb” so replacing the “man” part makes the word nonsensical.
Jess, we had a couple sheep as pets when we were kids.
But when we tried to get them to go into the woodland, they basically just gave us the finger, so to speak.
And that’s hard to do when you’ve got cloven hooves.
Oh hey look! I found the radical homosexual’s agenda!
http://www.radicalhomosexualagenda.org/
There you go, now you know.
Of course everyone knows what my agenda is.
Lauren, if people can change words and meanings around to the point where “moot” means the opposite of what it used to, and “child” means something other than between birth and adulthood, etc., [insert wink here] then what the hey….?
We should have a bigtime Wrestling showdown between Bash Back and Fred Phelps’ crew.
Bearclaw 11:24 AM
*****
We should have a cage match between Jess and Yllas!
“We should have a cage match between Jess and Yllas!”
I don’t agree to that.
Doug, child has always meant something in addition to “sometime in between infancy and adulthood.”
The term “with child” has been used to describe pregnancy since the beginning of time.
Everyone describes their progeny as their “children” regardless of age.
One definition of “child” in the dictionary is “unborn person.”
No twisting here, maybe you need to look in the mirror.
Yep, I expect increased violence against pro-lifers and Christians. If it’s ok to tear the unborn apart limb by limb or jam scissors into their skulls, then anything’s fair game, isn’t it? You either respect life or you don’t. You view ALL people as worthy of basic human rights or you don’t. Any other stance by government is oppression.
The pro-choice trolls who frequent this blog don’t have the honesty to say that it isn’t choice they support. It’s killing. They want to keep the killing of unwanted or undesirable (disabled) humans legal. And they want full control of when it can take place, where it should be allowed to take place on demand, and who pays the bill. In other words, let’s make oppression of the unborn easier and more affordable.
But that isn’t enough for them. They want to FORCE those who disagree with them to help fund the killing. And they want to force health care providers who value human life to perform these killings in violation of their own consciences. In other words, let’s oppress those who disagree with us by forcing them to pay for and perform these killings.
God have mercy!
anyone see the letter in today’s NYT’s from Catholics for Choice? Here’s the meat of it:
…The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association may be behind the new rule, but their support does not reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching and the views of Catholics.
Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching. As the Catechism notes, “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”
…
Jon O’Brien
President, Catholics for Choice
Washington, Nov. 18, 2008
“Catholics” for “Choice” is NOT a Catholic organization.
It is an anti-human organization which supports virtually UNLIMITED killing of ALL human beings in the first nine months of our lives and depriving ALL human beings of our ENTIRE human lifespans.
Its mentality totally violates natural law and totally violates Judaeo-Christian moral teaching.
Bob Enyart, Will Duffy, and Ken Scott repeatedly disrupted services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Denver, because of that church’s purported pro-choice stance. They used bullhorns and other tactics very similar to “Bash Back” .
Any stunt by Enyart is publicized and promoted on this website, so apparently these tactics are only “wrong” when used by the other side.
Posted by: Miriam at November 22, 2008 12:01 PM “We should have a cage match between Jess and Yllas!”
Yllas would grab the microphone and be ranting and slobbering all over the place. Jess would be doing cartwheels around the cage…
Fed Up – “it isn’t choice they support. It’s killing. They want to keep the killing of unwanted or undesirable (disabled) humans legal. And they want full control of when it can take place, where it should be allowed to take place on demand”
Uh, no. It’s the woman’s choice. She doesn’t have to have an abortion if she doesn’t want to.
What the heck are you talking about with “disabled humans”?
As far as having full control, it’s the woman’s choice until viability. Pro-choicers don’t want control of it.
Sorry, me above.
Doug: “Holy moly, BMMG, are you grousing about that?”
No, Dougie. Keep your pants on. It wasn’t grousing; it was a sincere question. Try the decaf.
Posted by: Miriam at November 22, 2008 12:01 PM
“We should have a cage match between Jess and Yllas!”
[“Yllas would grab the microphone and be ranting and slobbering all overthe place. Jess would be doing cartwheels around the cage…”
Posted by: Josh at November 22, 2008 1:11 PM]
LOL I bet Jess would have a folksy, woodsy, “nature” type constume, and Yllas would be in full regalia as The High Priestess of Voodoo Catholicism.
If an organization were to label itself as “Homosexuals Against Gay Marriage” it would have about the same amount of credibility as these self named groups such as Catholics for Choice.
Hal: Mr.O’Brien does not speak for Catholics as a creed, only for himself and others who do not follow the teachings of the Church. There is no reason to parade the inanities of these groups past us as if they have some standing in the grand scheme of doctrinal theology. A well read person surely understands that there always has been and always will be those Catholics who have unorthodox beliefs, some more than others.
Lauren: Post number one was right on the money!
Well said, Jerry. There is a great book out there that is unfortunately not very popular, but it’s called “Catholics For a Free Choice Exposed” by Brian Clowes. Really does a first rate job of exposing CFFC.
Anonymous, I was referring to women who receive an adverse prenatal diagnosis like Down Syndrome when I referred to the undesirable or disabled. But I suspect you knew that.
I’m not buying your word games. Pro-aborts don’t support a woman’s right to choose. They support a woman’s right to KILL. If pro-aborts supported a woman’s right to choose life they wouldn’t have attacked Sarah Palin or her pregnant daughter. Pro-aborts would promote pregnancy assistance as much as abortion if they supported the right to choose. But they don’t. They support killing and like the money they get from it.
Just so everyone knows. The 1:49PM post isn’t me.
“Speaking of which, I wish there was a Protestant religion that wasn’t hostile to Hail Mary’s or the rosary, since I’m not going to give those up. …”
Posted by: Jess at November 22, 2008 11:45 AM
Jess, I’m a Southern Baptist preacher’s daughter. I can only speak for what I’ve seen & experienced in my lifetime, so I don’t propose to speak for the entire denomination. But, I have never known any Baptist who was hostile to Hail Marys or the rosary. I’ve known many (myself included) who don’t have the same reverence for them as Catholics do, b/c they were not taught what that is. But, my Grandma A. was a Catholic (married to a S. Baptist, no less), & I was never upset about her beliefs. While I may disagree with someone’s style of worship, just like people disagree over what kind of music should be sung during worship & such as that, I believe the important thing is whether or not a person’s heart belongs to Christ. The rest is b/t them & God.
“Any stunt by Enyart is publicized and promoted on this website, so apparently these tactics are only “wrong” when used by the other side.”
Posted by: Bystander at November 22, 2008 12:53 PM
Fact of the matter is, NO ONE on either side of this issue should be doing this kind of [excuse me] crap. It’s just not right, should not be done, & surely to goodness shouldn’t be publicized/promoted. I’m all for passion in regards to an issue, but please…you’ve got to use your head! People have got to stop acting out the adult equivalent of kindergarten squabbles (and other childish misbehaviour…please, don’t get me started). Peaceful protest is all that’s necessary. If we trust God & put things in His very capable Hands, then if we make our point, the rest should be left up to Him, IMHO.
Back to the original question: Yes. I most certainly do anticipate a rise in violence against pro-lifers. I believe the pro-choice crowd feels like the winning team with possession of the ball in a football game. It’s never enough just to win; they’ve got to clobber their opponents & (as I’ve heard said) “shut them up…hard.” That, mixed with the hostility over Prop 8 makes for a violent cocktail, if you ask me.
YLT: “And you protest outside doctor’s offices?”
I know that you have trouble with reading and thinking but try it on this article. They came IN the church and threw fliers and hung banners. We dont do that, and if we did, it would receive worse coverage Im sure.
Doug,
The reason he was “grousing” about the plurality of womyn, was not due to some words have plural forms and other not, such as “deer” and “sheep” but he was joking about the distortion of the word woman, because the word woman DOES have a plural form. Since they distorted the original word, he was joking at what would be the distorted plural.
Oh and…
“Main Entry:
child Listen to the pronunciation of child
Pronunciation:
\?ch?(-?)ld\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural chil·dren Listen to the pronunciation of children \?chil-dr?n, -d?rn\
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat?hara belly”
Look at the etymology of child. I think it is the current society/you that are/is trying to distort the “original” meaning of the word. It came from words meaning “womb,” I think it is obvious what it meant and what it still means.
Lauren: Doug, child has always meant something in addition to “sometime in between infancy and adulthood.”
Indeed, Lauren. It was a light-hearted humorous post by me. Certainly – agreed on what you say.
…..
The term “with child” has been used to describe pregnancy since the beginning of time. Everyone describes their progeny as their “children” regardless of age.
Sure – the vagaries of the language, like saying “I’m going to have a child/baby,” as in the future and not now. A subjective thing. It can also certainly be a stage of development, starting and stopping.
…..
One definition of “child” in the dictionary is “unborn person.”
Enough usage and anything will get into the dictionary, but that neglects that a good bit of the abortion debate itself is whether to attribute personhood to the unborn or not.
LOL I bet Jess would have a folksy, woodsy, “nature” type constume, and Yllas would be in full regalia as The High Priestess of Voodoo Catholicism.
Posted by: Mary at November 22, 2008 1:49 PM
I never have written that I’m a Catholic, Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
You see Mary, you have exposed your anti Catholic bigotry twice. Once by assuming I’m a Catholic, and then offering up that old time bigotry of Catholics, they practice voodoo.
What we have here is a site of fundamentalist Xtians, using a few Catholics to do what Protestants always do. Make money.
Afterall, if you ain’t a prospering, you must be falling out of favor with your health, wealth, and the power granted God.
Be honest Mary, A fundamentalist is a failed Protestant, who failed to be blessed with that prosperity as a plain jane Protestant. But, you gotta give a fundamentalist there dues.
Once I was down, but then I found Jim Baker and Tammy Faye, and prosperity and wealth was soon found to be another moral relativism of those preachers of the Assembly Of God congregation.
Why, they practiced voodoo economics to their congregation, and finally got nabbed for being the Christian con couple they were. Using Jesus as a typical Protestant has done since they invented their religion based on race and nationalism.
Now Mary, you keep a going and being a bigot about Catholics and I’ll keep exposing the facts about Fundamentalist Christians.
Now, who be da whore of Babylon, Mary?
Doug: “Holy moly, BMMG, are you grousing about that?”
bmmg: No, Dougie. Keep your pants on. It wasn’t grousing; it was a sincere question. Try the decaf.
Decaf?! OMG NEVER!!!
You know, I was just kidding. I said “grousing” to set up the later question about the plural of “grouse” since it doesn’t change spelling to go to being plural. “Womyn” is already plural.
Maybe I should have used a winkie face.
There you go Oliver.
Was Jim and Tammy Faye a couple of hypocrites, or just plane old Confidence Gamers? They erected a “House Of Games”, and profied by ther house of games.
Oliver: he was joking about the distortion of the word woman, because the word woman DOES have a plural form. Since they distorted the original word, he was joking at what would be the distorted plural.
Oliver, sure enough – and I guess I came across as too hard-nosedly arguing.
That said, “womyn” is already plural.
No doubt that it’s a relatively recent concoction, but the singular is “womon,” although like “child or not” and “baby or not” it doesn’t have to be one or the other – some people use “womyn” as singular.
At any rate (and there is a “womin” too) the terms are not yet accepted as standard English.
Look at the etymology of child. I think it is the current society/you that are/is trying to distort the “original” meaning of the word. It came from words meaning “womb,” I think it is obvious what it meant and what it still means.
Oliver, no disagreement there. As I said before, that they are the biological issue of the woman (and man too) while in the womb isn’t at argument.
Where the debate starts is the usage as a stage or stages of development.
(Also, as you said before, etylology isn’t everything, as with “offspring.”)
I’m very glad you and Lauren are posting – you both add a lot.
yllas: Was Jim and Tammy Faye a couple of hypocrites, or just plane old Confidence Gamers? They erected a “House Of Games”, and profied by ther house of games.
Joe Mantegna rules!
If an organization were to label itself as “Homosexuals Against Gay Marriage” it would have about the same amount of credibility as these self named groups such as Catholics for Choice.
Posted by: Jerry at November 22, 2008 1:55 PM
Homosexuals Against Gay Marriage would have a lot more credibility Jerry.
“What we have here is a site of fundamentalist Xtians, using a few Catholics to do what Protestants always do. Make money.”
Yllas, Fundamentalists are a lot more pro-life than are Catholics. They didn’t vote the same, as a block, and they don’t support legal abortion the same as a block either. Lots more Catholics are for abortion being legal. This is a pro-life site.
After your performance on the “Evangelical landslide for McCain” topic with Oliver and Lauren, you definitely made yourself look like a witch doctor, or a “Voodoo” something or other.
You could take a lesson from Tammy Faye, too:
http://tinyurl.com/6s4coh
“Back in the day when I was very active in the Christian scene (church, music, etc.), and when all hell broke loose on televangelism with its rampant hypocrisy, I remember being very judgmental of Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker for the damage they had done to the “church.” I made fun of Tammy Faye as much as anybody. I thought she was a joke.
Then, I remember watching her on the Surreal Life and how she filled that house with so much joy and genuine love. You could tell that her house mates came to absolutely adore her because she truly cared for them. She became a mother figure to them all. She never judged them for living their lives differently than what she thought they should. She just loved them as they were.
I started hearing stories of the beloved icon she became within the gay community. Sure, her outrageous makeup, hair, and personality were the perfect draw. But more than that, it was because she never judged them for living their lives differently than what she thought they should. Some would even say that she helped to be a bridge between the gay community and Christianity. Who knows who all she may have helped to find their spirituality again after being shunned for so long. Because she just loves them as they are.
So Tammy Faye is now in the last stages of her 10-year battle with cancer. She weighs only 65 lbs. (only 4 lbs. more than my 7-year-old). She is so weak that there were moments in her interview with Larry King where barely a sound could be heard from her voice.
Yet her message of faith was loud and clear. “I talk to God every single day,” she told Larry. “And I say ‘God, my life is in your hands, and I trust you, with me.’”
Saying that you can oppose Catholic teaching if you have a well-formed conscience just shows how ignorant those Catholics for Abortion really are. That’s a contradiction.
The DEFINITION of a “well-formed conscience” is that your conscience is formed according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. By definition, a conscience which works in opposition to Catholic teaching would not be well-formed from a Catholic point of view.
A Catholic cannot support abortion rights “in good conscience” because abortion is absolutely contrary to the Catholic faith in every way.
John, you need to reform.
Pikachu, you need to evolve into a Raichu.
“What we have here is a site of fundamentalist Xtians, using a few Catholics to do what Protestants always do. Make money.”
Still stands.
Yllas, Fundamentalists are a lot more pro-life than are Catholics. They didn’t vote the same, as a block, and they don’t support legal abortion the same as a block either. Lots more Catholics are for abortion being legal. This is a pro-life site.
Sure, of course, it’s how all anti-Catholic bigots think. Your better, the best, the most holy of pro lifers, then those old whore of Babylon Catholics. Yes, abortion is allowed for rape and incest, and the health of the mother. Any more individual biblical findings that God allows abortion, Mary? Why, while Catholics were being whores of Babylon, Fundamentalist were being against abortion. The fact that you ran away from some heresy of a Protestant sect, in protest of something, goes all the way back to being one of those people scribbling their name in a cave in Rome.
I enjoy bigots, making themselves become the first Christians of the world. There is no Catholic church until some Protestant revolted in a heresy against what didn’t exist. The Catholic version of Christianism.
As for the Bakers. Another jail house conversion, once their lust for wealth had been exposed. They converted back to being a appeal to those loser Protestants,the one God didn’t bless with wealth,health, and power.
Yet her message of faith was loud and clear. “I talk to God every single day,” she told Larry. “And I say ‘God, my life is in your hands, and I trust you, with me.’”
Posted by: Mary II at November 22, 2008 4:12 PM
Yep, that’s about right. She talks to God. Was she singing to God, I am blessed I am blessed, blessed with no health, wealth or power too Mary?
Shall I bring up another Assembly of God preacher??? You know Mary, Jim Jones.
Care to send me to some appeal to pity site, for that Assembly of God preacher, named Jim Jones?
Let’s see.
Fundamentalists are a lot more pro-life than are Catholics
Lots more Catholics are for abortion being legal.
You see Mary, you have exposed your anti Catholic bigotry twice. Once by assuming I’m a Catholic, and then offering up that old time bigotry of Catholics, they practice voodoo.
Your up to four Mary, exposing your anti Catholic bigotry.
Here Mary, I’m not a Catholic. I’m don’t care to let bigots spread their prejudice against Catholics.
Even though it is the last acceptable prejudice in the USA. And you have proved the above sentence four times Mary.
Care to make it five Mary?
Pikachu, you need to find someone like John for a trainer.
This is the line that stood out for me. It seems the opposite of what Bobby told me a few weeks back:
“Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching”
Anyway, there are a lot of homosexuals against gay marriage.
Doug: “I’m very glad you and Lauren are posting – you both add a lot.”
Sarcasm?
My point was not to prove the usage based on the etymology, but to point out the interesting origin, however you interpret it.
TS.
Since God is love, and love can exist in isolation, is God the first narcissist?
I use a classic psychological definition of narcissism, that all love returns to itself. All motivation begins with the self and returns to the self.
As for human narcissism and abortion. Abortion is narcissism because it makes life human garbage.
Prove me wrong about the God who loves in Isolation, TS.
Hello Everyone.
After looking at the picture above, I ask myself. What is that? Is that in our Country USA? Amazing. This people look like from the Middle East. Really. I apologize if my opinion insults anyone, but truthfully it looks like in the future, more and more of this groups are going to surface. As a former educator I know that a teacher shapes the attitude and the look of his/her students. Is our future presient influencing this trends and/or looks. Why would this group protesting want to cover their faces. ? What are they hidding?
Miami, Fl Elsa MAarina Cruz
yllas,
I would never presume to call God anything but loving becuase I find my God through Jesus Christ. God is all things and infinitely beyond our comprehension and has love beyond our understanding. My understanding of God is that he is the Creator of all things so he certainly did not “need” us in order to be a loving God.
Elsa.
Intimidation. I kill you, imtimidation. Of course I see them as the puppet, Achmed the Dead Terrorist invented by the ventriloquist, Jeff Dunham.
30 years ago, they would be dressed up as ??? Why, As Weathermen, murdering policmen for some cause that just went away, like a war. Or communism.
Yllas: “Prove me wrong about the God who loves in Isolation”
Okay crazy person.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”
1 John 4:8 “Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.”
So God is one “entity” and He existed before he created anything, in order for Him to create anything, and He is also love.
I guess God’s love can exist in isolation.
By the way, if you are not Catholic, what kind of wacko Christian are you that puts so much emphasis on the whole “LOVE CANNOT EXIST IN ISOLATION!!!! GOD IS A PERFECT CUBE!!!! TRUST THE CUBE FOR IT IS NOT A SPHERE OF DISTRUST!!!!! 4 CUBED IS 64 AND 64 IS THE PERFECT SQUARE OF 8 WHICH IS DOUBLE 4!!!!!!!!!!” business?
Is the Bible just not enough for you to base your beliefs on?
yllas,
I would never presume to call God anything but loving becuase I find my God through Jesus Christ. God is all things and infinitely beyond our comprehension and has love beyond our understanding. My understanding of God is that he is the Creator of all things so he certainly did not “need” us in order to be a loving God.
Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Then what is the Trinity to you TS?
Explain the Trinity, if you believe in it, TS.
If not, then one understands your position of God being love in Isolation.
Do you understand the exchange psychologically between mankind and God, that is based on “not needing you to love”, harms a human psychologically towards a love of that God?
This is the line that stood out for me. It seems the opposite of what Bobby told me a few weeks back:
“Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching”
———————————————-
Bobby is correct and the quote is essentially wrong because a well-informed conscience would be one in conformity with the teachings of the Church. In order for a person’s conscience to go against Church teaching they would have to have read every church document on the moral matter and then would have to have sought instruction from their pastor. The expectation is still that a person will place their trust in the guidance of the Church.
I doubt many people who dissent have ever read even ONE Catholic Church encyclical on a contested issue.
Secondly, I have read now that many people supported Prop 8 in California because they are now fearful that the gay marriage rights issue will ultimately mean the loss of religious freedom in America.
It looks like these fears are quite valid. If a pastor cannot preach against homosexuality in his own church according to his religious beliefs without having some kind of homosexual facist response by these people, how will he every be able to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies? Anyone who believes that this is not the next stage is quite frankly deluding themselves.
yllas,
I am far to humble to think that God “needs” me or anybody else to accomplish His will. I am happy to be His servant. In fact I am glad that God does not “need” humanity. If he did then
we would all be a lot worse off wouldn;t we? Please don;t presume that to mean that I think God loves only in isolation though. I would not be so bold as to place boundaries on God’s love and I see God’s love manifest in humanity.
Gee Oliver give me your individual interpretation of John 1;1.
Is the Bible just not enough for you to base your beliefs on?
Posted by: Oliver at November 22, 2008 6:44 PM
No. Reason must also be used too Oliver.
You see Oliver, the world is awash in a love that is in isolation. Abortion is love existing in isolation, if you really think about abortion, Oliver.
Are you not contributing to abortion by propounding, that if God can love in Isolation, the Creator of All, then humans are only worshipping that idea through abortion?
Now, don’t get a crazy Oliver, defeat my statement by using reason first and only.
Supporting your defence of the God that loves in isolation, by the Word of God(Bible), and using the bible as an aid to reason, is acceptable. But the Bible is many things to many people.
TS.
Is there no Trinity?
If so, explain the Trinity.
Yllas,
You havent read the Bible. It is now obvious. You must actually REALLY be Sally and youve gone off the deep end!
Oliver.
I simply offer a statement that connects abortion to isolated love. A love that returns to itself in a murderous fashion, that is a imitation of a person being like God.
That a person is not God is obvious.
But, if one is told that God doesn’t need your love to exist, because God exist as a love alone, or isolation, then one leaves God behind, as the lover leaves the women alone to destroy their creation.
If a child is told such things, that God doesn’t need your love, then your being rejected as a lover of that God.
Have you never met that reasoning from a agnostic or atheist?
Or are those atheist all reason that you meet, and have no understanding that love can’t really exist in isolation was their first rejection of God in their, so called subconscious?
The part that knows, but really doesn’t surface to the awareness of the thinker.
Hal,
“This is the line that stood out for me. It seems the opposite of what Bobby told me a few weeks back:
“Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching”
The problem with using that line that way is if O’Brien’s interpretation of it is true, then one could say that if they really believe, deep down in their heart of hearts that _____ (insert ANY act here such as raping a child, terrorism, rounding up all homosexuals and killing them etc) is morally acceptable and that it would go against their conscience to believe otherwise, then they should accept it. What O’Brien fails to do is discuss anything about what the Church teaches conscience is or how it works. He just throws this quote out there in a vacuum. Conscience is not “that small voice that tells you what is right or wrong.” Conscience is awareness of moral truth. It is how an individual SUBJECTIVELY understands moral truth which is OBJECTIVE (and we don’t need to get into if there is moral truth or not right now; just trying to hash out what the Catholic Church teaches). Hence, part of conscience is FORMING the conscience according to the teaching norms of the Church, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like abortion which is a DEFINITIVE non-infallible teaching of the Church as was made clear by JPII when he DEFINED abortion as evil and intrinsically wrong in Evangelium Vitae.
So conscience can’t POSSIBLY mean “if you really truly think it is permissible, then you must go with that” because then that is saying that you can accept all sorts of behaviour that you and I and everyone would agree should never be tolerated, like torturing small children for fun. That book by Brian Clowes that I mentioned above has a whole chapter devoted to CFFC’s erroneous understanding of conscience. In fact, I was going to quote several passages from that very same Catechism the O’Brien quotes to show all the stuff he’s missing, but the whole section on it is good http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm . This is how the Church understands conscience.
Oh wow, and I just found this commentary on that CFFC letter http://northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/ written by Father Z! If people don’t know who Father Z is, he is THE MAN! This will be great reading…
Pro-abortion Catholic attempts to abuse the Catechism to justify himself by making this statement:
“Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching”
But here is the truth:
“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1783
A Catholic’s conscience is dependent upon church teaching, not dependent upon his own judgment. A Catholic’s conscience which is not based on church teaching is, by definition, NOT well-formed.
Yes, as Bobby said, if your “conscience” tells you to rape someone, does that make it OK? Of course not. You conscience must be “well-formed”, and being well-formed means that it is in accord with the Magisterium and the teachings of the Catholic church.
thanks for that great blog link Bobby…
yllas: To put it simply, methinks thou dost protest way too much. I also think you’re lonely & in need of some real entertainment. Don’t use the rest of us for it. It’s wrong to use people.
OK…knowing you’ll skip right by what I just said, I shall go back to my point: You fight so hard for your version of Faith. Look if you’re right & Mary or any of the rest of us are wrong, why not ignore us? Where in your style of worship does it teach you to go about slapping people of different faiths than yours? Is this tit for tat in your eyes? (Goodness. What was I saying earlier about kindergarten attitudes?) You belittle what you call “a jailhouse conversion.” LOOK…if a conversion took place, God was part of it & YOU, my friend, have NO business speaking ill of it unless you want to take your words directly to The Throneroom.
I probably shouldn’t, but I took personal exception to this comment of yours (yllas): “Afterall, if you ain’t a prospering, you must be falling out of favor with your health, wealth, and the power granted God.” Now, THAT is small-mindedness. I’ve been a Christian since I was 6 yrs. young, baptized when I was 8. I have lived a very conservative life with God at the helm. (I don’t write these things to pat myself on the back. Hang with me here…) However, when I was 17, God allowed me to become very ill. The illness became complicated by an injury & another illness that developed. I was bedridden for 4+ yrs. This pattern has continued slowly over time, meaning I’m not better physically. I am now in my 30s, have never been able to hold a job for more than 3 1/2 mos, have never had the privilege of living independently, & haven’t a dime to my name. I “ain’t a-prosperin’,” brother. Please don’t suggest what sort of standing I must, therefore, have with God. You have no right.
Two more things, yllas: It is 1000% pointless for any of us to try to explain Scripture or The Holy Trinity or anything like that to you. You either already have your mind made up, or you’ll just decide to make an argument out of whatever answer you’re given…regardless of whether it’s wrong or right. This is a game to you.
Lastly, I think at least part of the time when you used “bigot” you may have meant “hypocrite.” No one likes hypocrites. They certainly can be very problematic. Every church has at least one. If you don’t believe that, go walk through its doors. Then, it will have its hypocrite. Same goes for me & everyone else here! “He who says he is not conceited is very conceited indeed.” (unknown) It’s that sort of thought-process.
I wish all of you well. I won’t be online tomorrow. Thank you for allowing me to be part of your discussion!!! :) Ps. 73:26
[yllas: To put it simply, methinks thou dost protest way too much. I also think you’re lonely & in need of some real entertainment.] — BlueGrace24
Yllas is a lunatic, pure and simple. But yes – Yllas has nobody to love.
Well Chris,
Even TS called you out for being a person with no humility.
But here is a lesson in Mercy.
What is mercy? It comes in two stages. First stage. Mercy is love shown not only to those who are in need. Mercy is love shown not only to those who are in want.
Mercy is love shown to those who do not deserve to be loved, they don’t have a claim on my love, in fact maybe just the opposite. What they deserve from me is rejection.
The rejection of Yllas as “a lunatic, pure and simple”.
Mercy is love shown to those who do not love.
Why, such as me, Chris.
But, you know I’m a lunatic and have you shown me your mercy, your love, by using a tired old line of ad hominem directed to me?
Now Chris the logical Christian, you have just displayed what appears to be a failing of your beliefs. You preach about mercy, and maybe you have no idea what mercy really is, from being another typical Christian who really doesn’t know what mercy really is.
But, one thing is for certain, your a person who has exposed the fact that you don’t belief what you preach about mercy, and if a peron doesn’t belief what he preaches, you have a hypocrite who thinks he’s not a hypocrite.
Right Chris? Your not a hypocrite are you?
Then again, we can say you sure ain’t practicing what you preach, when it comes to the virtue of humility and now Mercy.
Oh Well, your deeds have nothing to do with being closer to God for Eternity, anyway Chris.
Nor is your Salvation having anything to do with saving a person, from getting an abortion.
yllas,
We have been through this? For general questions about the Trinity you can refer to the catholic catechism. Any specific questions?
BG24;You fight so hard for your version of Faith.
No, it’s their faith that I ask for/about, a definition,description,a explaining , of the Trinity, and got no answer.
I asked if love can Really exist in Isolation. And the answer was yes. I said that love can’t exist alone. It must have one that loves, one that is loved, and the love between them.
BG24; LOOK…if a conversion took place, God was part of it & YOU, my friend, have NO business speaking ill of it unless you want to take your words directly to The Throneroom.
What did she convert to? Was she converted back to being a blessed person again? She was already a Christian. Was she self absolving herself of sins again? How do you know it was God who was converting her? She was actually doing the devil’s work destroying the faith of millions for years(yes, they drew that big of following on TV), by being a hypocrite Assembly of God minister.
But, her Salvation has nothing to do with her actions in her life, she will still be closer to God for Eternity. Once she believed that, anything was possible. Possible to swindle millions of dollars from her poor followers, and still be saved. Thank God, there are secular courts to stop that immoral thinking based on your Salvation having nothing to do with your deeeds.
BG24; I probably shouldn’t, but I took personal exception to this comment of yours (yllas): “Afterall, if you ain’t a prospering, you must be falling out of favor with your health, wealth, and the power granted God.” Now, THAT is small-mindedness
Actually, it is quite broadminded of me.
And I’ll prove it to ya. Right now, and before this “financial crisis” has run its course, millions of Christians, who actually base their Christian faith on being prosperous,healthy and the power those bring, will abandon their faith in minor and major ways. They will cheat, lie, steal,murder by abortion in greater numbers, and justify those actions as basic belief from their bible interpretations; that God wants them to prosper and be healthy as a blessing from that version of their Christian God. Basically they’ll be like those people in Revelations who became drunk on that Whore of Babylon. Expect gnashing of teeth,and cursing about that God who promoted prosperity,health and the power those bring ya.
And I don’t mean the Catholic Church, like that anti-Catholic bigot Hagee said.
Why, I bet if things get financially tough at his Protestant Church, he might just be caught stealing from his followers. Which are mostly failed Catholics looking for some of that prosperity Hagee preaches for.
As for youBG24, and your lack of wealth, health, and the power that brings you, you have been converted to knowing that wealth, health and the power those properties had nothing to do with God blessing you, unlike Tammy Faye and Jim Baker.
Prosperity Preaching, ain’t going to be what it use to be BG24 if a Depression be a coming.
Finally BG24, can you explain the Trinity to me, and can love actually exist in Isolation?
Out of an abundance of ignorance and/or an eager willingness to misrepresent the truth, Doug says: “Enough usage and anything will get into the dictionary, but that neglects that a good bit of the abortion debate itself is whether to attribute personhood to the unborn or not.”
Doug, take a deep breath. “Usage” is what puts all words into the dictionary, and therefore makes them legitimate. How we use words is what defines words. There is no “word meaning guru/authority in an ivory tower”.
Definitions do not “neglect” anything. If you wish to change the subject to the meaning of the term “person”, why not just say so?
“Person” has several legitimate meanings, but it takes only ONE of them to validate it’s usage to describe unborn humans. Obviously the legal meaning does not refer to unborn humans (purely because of Roe), but others do, and it takes ONLY ONE:
For example:
per•son Pronunciation: (pûr’sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html
Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16
Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact
Where is Obama? Part of the socilist agenda Alinsky teaches obama is to let aggression increase and then in a stage of anarchy he comes in and saves toe country.
By the way, it is so bad he promisses it will take 5 years. He is already campaigning for re election.
Posted by: BlueGrace24 at November 22, 2008 10:45 PM
yllas: To put it simply, methinks thou dost protest way too much. I also think you’re lonely & in need of some real entertainment. Don’t use the rest of us for it. It’s wrong to use people.
______
Yllas is the biggest faker there is, but I think you’ve seen that already.
As to the topic, “violence against pro-lifers”, here is a plan for Jill’s holidays:
1. A couple of guys with a 25 year history of mental illness, violence and prison will stake out her house in the dark, and videotape her through her windows.
2. Anonymous threatening notes will be sent to 150 of her neighbors, indicating that the senders will commit crimes and lower property values in her neighborhood, if the neighbors don’t “get rid of her”.
3. A truck with a giant poster of the Virginia Tech mass murderer, with his guns drawn will parked in front of her house, with the slogan “blood will flow in the streets”.
4. On Thanksgiving and Christmas a large group will show up and terrorize her grandchildren with huge, graphic, violent posters.
5. This group will scream at her and her family through bullhorns as they sit down to Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.
These tactics are, of course, the EXACT tactics used by Bob Enyart, Ken Scott, Will Duffy and Ron Brock in residential neighborhoods in Denver.
Since Jill has consistently publicized, promoted, and lauded these tactics, I am sure she will agree turnabout is fair play. After all, wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to object to the same tactics you advocate against others?
Bystander, tell me about the murders Jill is supporting and I’ll join your protests.
Posting Guidelines
Do’s
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
Be civil and considerate.
Carefully read what others wrote before responding.
Consider what is being said.
Express your thoughts carefully and clearly.
You’re responsible for what you write.
Do Not’s
Do not swear or slander others.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
Do not write inflammatory comments just to wind people up.
Do not post personal/racial or ethnic/gender-based insults or slurs.
_______
It’s been noted before that Yllas has violated all of these, and violates some of them almost continuously.
“The rejection of Yllas as “a lunatic, pure and simple”.”
If you are able to control your actions otherwise, you still do not do it.
You act like a lunatic. You haven’t grown up enough to avoid it, anyway.
Doyle: Out of an abundance of ignorance and/or an eager willingness to misrepresent the truth, Doug says: “Enough usage and anything will get into the dictionary, but that neglects that a good bit of the abortion debate itself is whether to attribute personhood to the unborn or not.”
Doug, take a deep breath. “Usage” is what puts all words into the dictionary, and therefore makes them legitimate. How we use words is what defines words. There is no “word meaning guru/authority in an ivory tower”.
Oh Doyle… Geez.
Agreed that usage is what determines things. I never said anything to the contrary.
You’re right, it only takes one legitimate meaning, but dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. In no way do all things within a group have to be within another group, when all that’s required is for one of them to be – that alone is enough to make it true that yes, the definition can apply. A football is definitely a ball, but not all balls are footballs, etc.
…..
Definitions do not “neglect” anything. If you wish to change the subject to the meaning of the term “person”, why not just say so?
So what? I didn’t say they do. I was talking about the usage – it is that usage (that sense of meaning) that misses much of the abortion debate.
….
Here is what was said:
One definition of “child” in the dictionary is “unborn person.”
“Enough usage and anything will get into the dictionary, but that neglects that a good bit of the abortion debate itself is whether to attribute personhood to the unborn or not.”
So, that some people will equate “person” with physical existence, and that some will say it of the unborn – what does that have to do with what we talk about here? There is no argument (from me, anyway) that the unborn are not “living human organisms,” etc. And I would hope no argument from anybody, for that matter. So, anyway – you and I can agree on physical reality/the physical existence of the unborn, there.
The truth is that the abortion debate is not over the physical reality of the unborn, really, it’s over the status we attribute to the unborn, or that which we do not.
Not all balls are footballs, and in the sense which matters in the abortion debate, not all human beings have had personhood attributed to them.
Well Chris,
you might review those rules and think about me not doing anything, but addressing your inablity to have mercy upon me.
But, your approach is filled with ad hominems to me, since you fail to have mercy upon a poor soul as I.
Do you use logic to refute my statment that your Salvation has nothing to do with your actions concerning abortion?
No, Nada, Nothing of the sort. Just ad hominems.
When a question is asked about God is love in Isolation, all kinds of mean spirited illogical epitaphs are thrown back at me for asking a theological question.
Worst then a atheist, when asked if love can actually exist in Isolation.
From Oliver to Mary, who chimes in with four anti-Catholic stereotypes which go unanswered soo often at this site, that my suggestion is that Catholics should take a week or two off, and let the most holy, the better, the best pro lifers with the least abortions amongst their ranks, defend being against abortion.
Like you Chris, aren’t you a Catholic? Or are you a previous Protestant unable to actually grasp what the Trinity is, in relation to love in Isolation. You do know that Beckwith stirred up those Protestants by finally coming to the conclusion that they are the source of abortion by using their individual exegesis of the Bible.
When he tryed to use logic and reason, it was futile with those Protestants.
And you failed soo miserably to have either a idea of what mercy means as a Catholic, or your another person lacking in the theology of Catholics.
Now, throughout this post, not one ad hominem was used against you Chris. That your trying to understand Beckwith and not being intellectually able to comprehend his writings defending life, is my opinion of you Chris.
Just as I read upon the idea of “contingent being”, and struggle with understanding the idea fully, and then being able to use that concept to myself first, and then others.
Which might have been a simple answer to my so called lunacy of asking a simple question concerning the nature of God!!!!!!!!
You see Chris, I have mercy on you, you are not loveable, and don’t deserve my love, and yet I bring forth the fact that you should practice what you preach to me. What is your answer? More threats and the ultimate threat of being banned at this site.
Do as you please Chris.
But unless you understand and defend against my statement that abortion is love existing in Isolation, and is a parable to what God is to millions of people who have heard that phrase from Christians, and simply walk away from such a idea.
It’s a one way love. No matter what I do, what I say, actions I have done, do not matter to my being saved is from the beggar position.
Do you REALLY think that such ideas of the Christian God would have attracted people to Jesus two thousand years ago?
Now, I’m going to get banned, but I must write what I think. Where is the Love Chris? If God needs no one, and nothing to love to exist, then God is a narcissist.
In fact, humans must rebel and did, if God needs you not. And before them? A Angel, the most bright Angel of the Angels.
Some say it is pride, but really it is knowing that your love is meaningless to such a God that exist in Isolation.
You must show me that God needs my love Chris, and if He doesn’t, then his gift of life has no worth. Which is what is the motivating principle of Abortion. Love existing in Isolation Which I do belief is what Carla faced in the deathsex shop she ended up in.
Use what I say against those that are for abortion. Turn my words around Chris. Use my words to convert those that have made a blood sacrifice of life through abortion
Defeat my idea Chris. Anything less, such as my being a lunatic is just your mind not facing my statement and defeating it by faith and reason.
Yllas, you’re dishonest and disingenuous. I’m not the only one that sees that in your posts. You can’t have missed everybody’s comments about that during this past week.
Like Oliver and Lauren, in the end I must conclude that you are not serious.
Is attention all you want?
Chris, you have found a point of agreement for all on this site.
This is apropos:
“I have a feeling that yllas isn’t a real person (well, I mean obviously there is a person behind the name, but I don’t think that person actually believes what they have “yllas” say.)”
Posted by: Lauren at November 18, 2008 10:56 AM
yllas, we answer your questions and then you fly off the handle and say, frankly, really crazy things.
I’ve never said anything inflammatory about Catholics, just that I disagree with their interpretation of scripture.
You, on the other hand, insist on insulting everyone on this site.
Alright now.
Yllas, friend, we’ve been through this before. Coherent. Think coherent.
First warning.
Wasn’t her first warning being banned for two weeks carder?
Since Jill has consistently publicized, promoted, and lauded these tactics, I am sure she will agree turnabout is fair play. After all, wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to object to the same tactics you advocate against others?
Posted by: Bystander at November 23, 2008 10:35 AM
except the problem is bystander, that Jill does not spend her life KILLING people which is what these abortionists do
all these tactics are fair game – if you saw someone murdering a person in the street would you just walk on by? or would you raise a fuss and try to stop them?
we need to call to the attention that the people who are doing the killing are living next door to someone and that they are trying to attain an air of respectability.
Very similar to the Nazis.
we need to call to the attention that the people who are doing the killing are living next door to someone and that they are trying to attain an air of respectability.
Very similar to the Nazis.
Posted by: Patricia at November 23, 2008 7:10 PM
Oh brother.
Yllas:
C’mon calm down. What’s going on?
God is love so why would he need love if He already is love?
And what does love do other than love?
And what is the purpose of love except to give oneself totally for another?
Why does it always come back to the holocaust?
Everything abortion-related is equivalent or worse than something in the holocaust.
And you would know that how?
And again with the language. Next thing you know someone will be throwing around the “pn” word.
Yllas, you’re dishonest and disingenuous. I’m not the only one that sees that in your posts. You can’t have missed everybody’s comments about that during this past week.
Like Oliver and Lauren, in the end I must conclude that you are not serious.
Is attention all you want?
Posted by: Chris at November 23, 2008 2:19 PM
To bad Chris.
You have no ability to deny my statement that; your Salvation has no function in matters of abortion.
To bad Chris.
That making God totally independent of needing the love of human beings, might actually be harming people who need the love of God.
To bad Chris.
That I am deadly serious and you think it is dishonest and wanting attention.
To bad Chris.
That you concentrate your theology on making more people detest God, from never finding one word that God needs the love of humans anywhere in your theology. At least I have not seen one post using the Bible, to affirm that God needs humans, at all.
To bad Chris.
That if there is a Angel in Rebellion against his Creator, that knows the bible and creation as well as it has been suggested, you’ve been fooled by that eternal enemy of the God that needs not love of humans, Chris. Think about that sentence Chris.
To bad Chris.
That abortion is a result of love existing in Isolation. That for a time, a false/half truth human use of the Trinity, being defined as one that loves(God), one that is loved(Son), and the love between them(Spirit), returns to being a love that exist in Isolation.
To bad Chris.
That I pick up on a line that Bobby wrote, and then used it on that deathsex dude Doug in a whim of humor, and it ends with some anti-Catholic statement that I am a Catholic and a Voodoo Catholic. That a person connects Catholics with Voodoo is the old Protestant line connecting superstition to another group of inferiors in religion and race. Take a guess who, Chris?
That the person that makes Catholics into VooDoo Catholics might not be aware that is exactly what the KKK did to denigrate Catholics.
yllas,
The anti-sally.
The whole premise of your argument begins by placing God in isolation as if that were possible somehow. Just where or when do you presume that God could be put in isolation? Do you see God as being in isolation until he created man? Would you presume that before God created man God was without love?
You are trying to use your understanding of the Trinity to put limits on God’s love by saying there is somewhere it cannot exist, namely in isoolation. You presume that your understanding of God through your knowledge of the Trinity can place limits on where God’s love can exist. It was the proud angels who thought that they could be equal to God, or that God somehow needed them as much as they needed God and who rebelled against God.
God gives us the Trinity to get an nderstanding of God’s love for us, and the Trinity is a mystery of three persons existing in unity (not in isolation), but the fallacy of your position comes is when you presume that our feeble minds, through our understanding of the Trinity, can state that we understand God’s love to the point where you can say God’s love is incapable of existing outside of the Trinity. You try and “conceptualize” a God of isolation that denys an omni-present, never changing God. A God who is everything.
yllas,
It is not likely that a God who is everything could ever be in isolation, but it is also beyond my understanding how God who is the creator of everything was never the only thing in existense. Thoughts for mortal minds to ponder.
Ezek13:19,
Wow, you’re not only using a derogatory, offensive name but then claiming 95% of gay people are pro-choice because you’ve talked to SOME?? Wow, you sure are classy.
Apparently 100% of people that go by Ezek13:19 are judgmental buttheads, based on who I’ve talked to. You can conduct your own poll if you want hard numbers.
josephine,
3700 american children are killed everyday. That’s why it is compared to the holocaust.
Yllas, concerning this:
“You have no ability to deny my statement that; your Salvation has no function in matters of abortion.”
Why do you make these bizarre, untrue pronouncements? Why would I deny it? Having an abortion or not having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re “saved” or not. Nor does being “saved” mean one will not have abortions or have abortions.
If you are really “deadly serious,” you sure don’t act like it.
(Yllas)”That you concentrate your theology on making more people detest God, from never finding one word that God needs the love of humans anywhere in your theology. At least I have not seen one post using the Bible, to affirm that God needs humans, at all.”
Does God need humans? I don’t think so. He can do what he darn well pleases.
(Yllas)”some anti-Catholic statement that I am a Catholic and a Voodoo Catholic.That a person connects Catholics with Voodoo is the old Protestant line connecting superstition to another group of inferiors in religion andr ace. Take a guess who, Chris?”
I didn’t know that Catholics had been accused of Voodoo practices or anything like that. I wasn’t trying to go with any stereotype. But on November 17, on the “Evangelical landslide for McCain” thread, you did stomp around like a witch doctor, shaking your rattle at everybody – so to speak – and that’s what I saw.
Well Chris,
Abortion is love exising in Isolation.
“You have no ability to deny my statement that; your Salvation has no function in matters of abortion.”
Chris; Why do you make these bizarre, untrue pronouncements?
Here Chris, Your preaching against for abortion or against abortion doesn’t have a effect or affect, on your being saved.
Ok, then people who have abortions can have as many as they want. And that abortion has no effect on being saved, which according to Oliver results in you being closer to God for Eternity.
Abortion does not seperate you from God, and has no effect or affect, on your being closer to God for Eternity.
Chris; Does God need humans? I don’t think so. He can do what he darn well pleases.
Either you know or don’t know Chris. Write as a non agnostic Chris. God does not need humans. God needs humans Chris.
Carder.
Abortion is love actually existing in Isolation.
Does God, the father of human beings and all Creation need human beings Carder?
Does a human father need his son to exist as a being that is love?
Does a son need his father to exist as a being that is love?
Does their need to be any love between a son and father?
When applied to a women, you end up with love existing in Isolation, when they abort.
Yes Carder, you’ve been over this before.
You get those questions given to you daily.
And now it’s time to use some ad hominems about me, such as lunatic, wanting attention, you don’t understand the Trinity or God.
Yllas crazily says “Ok, then people who have abortions can have as many as they want. And that abortion has no effect on being saved, which according to Oliver results in you being closer to God for Eternity.”
What the hell? Oliver NEVER said anything remotely similar to this. Stop making up blatant lies, yllas.
And what is the purpose of love except to give oneself totally for another?
Posted by: HisMan at November 23, 2008 9:00 PM
See Hisman, we agree on something. Love can’t exist “without another”. Love can’t actually exist in Isolation. That’s the Trinity.
And a parable of the Trinity is Marriage.
Let no man put asunder, what is a sign/imitation of God on Earth. Jesus elevated marriage into being a imitation of what He is.
Make a sermon out of it Hisman.
Lauren.
Does having a abortion have a function/effect on your Salvation?
Yes or No.
Is the function of Salvation a means to end at being closer to God for Eternity?
Yes or No?
“you did stomp around like a witch doctor, shaking your rattle at everybody”
Woot!
That’s exactly right – that’s Yllas.
I’m putting on my lollerskates right now!
Yllas, you are not making any sort of sense. Even if we take your assumption that love can not exist without another, that doesn’t mean that a trinity is necessary. One God could be interacting with one human. Third party unnecessary.
yllas,
It is not likely that a God who is everything could ever be in isolation, but it is also beyond my understanding how God who is the creator of everything was never the only thing in existense. Thoughts for mortal minds to ponder.
Posted by: truthseeker at November 24, 2008 7:51 AM
Tell me TS, if their was nothing in existence, how could God be Everything?
What is this everything you write of, TS?
Have you ever visited TrueU.org? TS?
A great source to answer questions about God and refute pest like me, or especially if your a Christian student in a university.
It is run by a former atheist named J. Budziszwski. A professor in the departments of Government and Philosophy at UT Austin.
J. Budziszwski is AWESOME!
Apparently 100% of people that go by Ezek13:19 are judgmental buttheads, based on who I’ve talked to. .
Posted by: Josephine at November 24, 2008 8:19 AM
~~
Zeke has some core feelings that are anti-female.
J. Budziszwski is AWESOME!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 24, 2008 1:18 PM
Do you go to his site at TrueU.org Bobby, and read his Ask Theophilus series where students ask him questions?
He’s quite the wit. His biography is enjoyable also.
Yllas, you are not making any sort of sense. Even if we take your assumption that love can not exist without another, that doesn’t mean that a trinity is necessary. One God could be interacting with one human. Third party unnecessary.
Yllas,
“Do you go to his site at TrueU.org Bobby, and read his Ask Theophilus series where students ask him questions? ”
No, I haven’t yet, but I will now. I’ve seen him on EWTN’s Faith and Culture and heard him several times on Catholic Answers. I’ve been meaning to read some of his books as well. God love you.
Sorry for the double post.
Yllas, abortion separates someone from God because it is a sin and all sin separates us from God. However, if we have accepted Christ as our savior, our sins are washed away. So if someone had an abortion, and repents, the abortion does not keep them from salvation.
However, if someone has an abortion and does not repent and accept Christ, then they will be living in their sin and be separate from God.
Sin takes us away from God, even if we have accepted His salvation. In this way someone can be saved, but not living a life for Christ, and thus not be having a true relationship with God.
Yllas, you are not making any sort of sense. Even if we take your assumption that love can not exist without another, that doesn’t mean that a trinity is necessary. One God could be interacting with one human. Third party unnecessary.
Posted by: lauren at November 24, 2008 1:06 PM
Yes Lauren, it doesn’t make any sense to you.
It’s from rejecting Catholicism, and knowing nothing outside your version of the Bible.
Or, eastern Othodox, or Byzantine Catholic rites, or that great world of Orthodoxy that exist outside your corner of the world concerning matters of the Trinity.
Yes, and nothing I write can move you outside of your world Lauren.
You’ll never have a sermon preached to you that marriage is a imitation/a sign/a signifier of what God is. That Jesus made marriage into a sign of his still being on Earth through your imitating the Trinity by being married for Eternity.
All you have is a God that appeared and disappeared into Heaven from which he remains waiting and watching to return again with a Sword in his Hand.
Who is this Lamb going to use that sword on Lauren?
Human fathers appear, and then disappear, once they have made their isolated love into a sly Trinity imitation that produces death, and then return to their Isolationary love.
Bobby.
Like most authors, such a Robert George, you really can’t see more of them unless they have a blog or some form of public communication.
Budziszewski is different. He is fun to read as, Ask Theophilus. Also he has Profs Office, where students come and ask him questions at work.
Also, there are over 500 articles by Bud, at Boundless Webzine, where he started his, Ask Theophilus, and his Office Hours articles. They were specifically for Christian students being asked pesky questions and beyound by people like me.
Plus at TrueU.org, they have departments known as Nerd Corner and Truth Lab. You might just fit in Bobby. They have a Coffee shop where you can interact.
God is love, the Son is loved, and the love between them ends up shining on you Bobby.
(Yllas) “Ok, then people who have abortions can have as many as they want. And that abortion has no effect on being saved, which according to Oliver results in you being closer to God for Eternity.”
(Yllas) “Yes Carder, you’ve been over this before. You get those questions given to you daily. And now it’s time to use some ad hominems about me, such as lunatic, wanting attention, you don’t understand the Trinity or God.”
Well, Yllas, you are the last person on earth who should be concerned about ad hominems.
I am not saying you are literally crazy, but you do act crazy and like a lunatic very, very often. Your approach is a confusion of some common religous dogma plus some outright fringe beliefs, and you proceed as if those beliefs have to apply to other people when the truth is that they do not.
Oliver said no such thing, and in the end it is a waste of time to try and have a rational discussion with you because you do not maintain rationality. Do you really think you are a net positive for the pro-life side?
Chris, Yllas is shining you on anyway. You’re seeing the weird-religious-extremist, but there is also what you’d call a truly “sick individual” right under the surface, ready to bubble up at any time.
Tell me TS, if their was nothing in existence, how could God be Everything?
yllas, God is everything because God is the source of all creation.
*************
What is this everything you write of, TS?
The source of all creation.
*************
Have you ever visited TrueU.org? TS?
No
*************
And I really don;t want to refute anything.
I am not saying you are literally crazy, but you do act crazy and like a lunatic very, very often. Your approach is a confusion of some common religous dogma plus some outright fringe beliefs, and you proceed as if those beliefs have to apply to other people when the truth is that they do not.
Actually Chris, your that common confusion of religion that is quite common. Your that dogma of the common man who writes such intellectual words as “Does God need humans? I don’t think so. He can do what he darn well pleases”.
He can darn well do as he pleases. Powerful, Inspiring. And soo common. Soo dogmatic.
And Mercy? Another common total misunderstanding of Mercy, yet you do run around trying to write as Beckwith.
Is my understanding of Mercy fringe belief?
Is my understanding of the Trinity fringe belief?
Is my understanding of Marriage a fringe belief?
That I present a question which ask if love can actually exist in Isolation is fringe thinking to you dude, is your total lack of knowing of why the Trinity exist. The Trinity refutes what you sadly belief. A God that needs not humans, and rejects humans as being needed.
Here dude, here is some fringe thinking for ya Chris.
Your actually the whisper in the ear of Adam and Eve, whispering to them that God needs you not.
God has no need for your love, for your being, since God exist as love in Isolation.
Silly Chris, it was not really pride that seperated man from God, it was eating from the Tree of knowing that God does not need their existence, or their love of Him. Who rejected love first, Chris?
To bad Chris.
That you concentrate your theology on making more people detest God, from never finding one word that God needs the love of humans anywhere in your theology. At least I have not seen one post using the Bible, to affirm that God needs humans, at all.
Chris; Does God need humans? I don’t think so. He can do what he darn well pleases.
In the end Chris, your the one that procedes if your beliefs have to apply to other people when the truth is they do not.
Your quite bizarre Chris, stating that God needs not humans(I think so, you know He needs not humans Chris, don’t play the agnostic ), and then turn around and trys to stop humans not needing humans.
That is actually lunacy, Chris.
Your the one that is confused Chris.
BTW Chris.
I better spell it out for you, that statment about you turning around, and trying to stop humans not needing humans.
“Humans not needing humans” is abortion.
Chris, Yllas is shining you on anyway. You’re seeing the weird-religious-extremist, but there is also what you’d call a truly “sick individual” right under the surface, ready to bubble up at any time.
Posted by: Heather at November 24, 2008 8:47 PM
To use a old time pro abortion phrase concerning a fetus, are you a parasite Heather, trying to attach yourself to Chris and truth dude?
Or just a wanna be poster board groupie?
Come on, think for yourself Heather.
Yllas, clown around all you want, but under the religious facade you sometimes portray, there is a demented person.
I was reading Jill’s blog in June when the real you showed through, so who do you think you can BS?. I’m not claiming you are an outright pedophile, but you have a big problem with sex and adults and kids.
The moderators asked you to be coherent and stop all the foolish and childish stuff then, and they still are…
It”s funny – Yllas, you’re being exactly the same as you were in June. From back then:
Carder said,
“Yllas has been advised to cool it but persists in juvenile internet behavior.”
*~*
ProLifeMD said,
“The adolescent frontal cortex has not yet matured for the skill of adult judgment. They cannot fully integrate emotions with sound decisions subject to self-control.”