Vote NO now on CNN embryonic research poll
UPDATE, 3/10, 2:15a: The poll is closed, and there is a new question up. Can’t find results of previous CNN daily polls. Anyone?
_______________
CNN is asking the question, “Should embryonic stem cells be used for research?”
Pro-lifers should vote NO now to influence how CNN reports this story. At present we’re getting clobbered.
Find poll on right side of CNN’s home page, and vote.
Then spread the word on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Mar.09, 2009 3:56 pm |
MSM anti-life bias |
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.
“NO” is losing by 60%
its currently 80% yes and 20% NO :(
I don’t like the way the question is worded. If, for example, we were able to obtain embryonic stem cells through cell differentiation, I would have no problem with it. The problem is that the only way we now are able to obtain these stem cells is to extract them from an embryo, killing it in the process. We are able to obtain a certain kind of pluripotent stem cell through differentiation which is “like” an embryonic stem cell, but that’s not the same thing. I wonder if CNN will confuse the two and think that those who voted “no” are against even that because, after all, the question asks about using embryonic stem cells, not how they are obtained which is the real crux of the matter. That sounds like the kind of screw up the MSM would make.
This is a sad day in U.S. history. President Obama doesn’t care about the pre-born. Obama thinks “sound science” is a better choice than morality. Pathetic.
Janet 4:29PM
My concern is if this medical “research” has more to do with designing humans than anything else, given all the advances with ASC therapy.
Oh and look at this from the blog Secondhand Smoke:
“We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.
What is that? Of course, the Administration didn’t have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work, but the now dead order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods,” such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness.”
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/untold-story-radical-obama-also.html
What is wrong with this man?
Bobby Bambino,
I said it before and will say it again. The man is a sociopath.
Wrong question – it should read:
“Should human beings be killed so their cells can be used for medical research?”
Most people don’t understand/comprehend that embryos are nascent human beings.
LOL!
Most people don’t understand/comprehend that embryos are nascent human beings.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 9, 2009 4:46 PM
If people just heard the right arguments about abortion, they’d be against it. Or if they just saw the photos. Or maybe if black people knew what Margaret Sanger wrote….
Guess what, people do know. They just don’t agree with you!
Mary,
My concern is if this medical “research” has more to do with designing humans than anything else, given all the advances with ASC therapy.
Posted by: Mary at March 9, 2009 4:33 PM
I have no doubt in my mind that this is where the scientific community is headed.
Until people realize that WE ALL are valuable, no matter what our economic status, intelligence, eye color, race, creed, disabilities, etc., we are CREATED by God in His image and likeness, this craziness will be perpetuated by scientists who are “playing God”. It is the height of arrogance, IMHO.
Hal @ 5:08 PM,
It’s not that they don’t agree. It’s that they don’t CARE. Makes me wonder why you stick around here.
Janet 5:14PM
Nazi “medical research” was more about creating a master human race than anything else. There was certainly plenty of fodder in the hospitals, asylums, ethnic communities, and death camps.
But they were all going to be disposed of anyway.
The research with embryonic stem cells must proceed for Mankind to reach its greater destiny.
There are greater concerns every day for the HumanBeings that are actually quickened with the touch of life. Such things as this are a waste of energy and profit your Soul not in the least against the acts for which you all shall be judged.
If you are moved by such powerful need to do something feed the homeless, shelter them cloth them. Stop baying at Luna and staring at Sol for We, Ourselves know that every ova meet with sperm does not create a Soul.
[q c p n]
The question that should have been posed is, “Do you support federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research?”. Most, even those overloading the poll with yes votes, would answer “No.”
I mean, if it holds so much promise, why isn’t private industry falling all over itself to get it up and running? Oh, that’s right, because it shows NO promise. Embyonic stem cells are unstable and unpredictable. Why is this even a debate? The science shows that it’s a lost hope. Stem Cell Research has shown much more promising results in the use of Adult Stem Cells. If we are to put our faith and hope in science, when science gives us the answer, why do they persist in trying to force science to bend in their direction? Human condition, I suppose. Whether your god be science or God Himself – we naturally buck the truth when it doesn’t fit into our preconceived little boxes.
Very interesting Bobby. I wonder what the hell IS wrong with Obama. How can you liberals explain this?
Also, interesting to see a poet Troll.
“Stop baying at Luna and staring at Sol for We, Ourselves know that every ova meet with sperm does not create a Soul.”
Every meeting of sperm with ovum does create a human being, whether we have souls or not.
Oliver,
As I said in my post, Obama is a sociopath.
“it’s currently 80% yes and 20% NO :( ”
Which side can stuff the ballot better in eight hours? Online polls are only good for answering that question.
Guess what, people do know. They just don’t agree with you!
Posted by: Hal at March 9, 2009 5:08 PM
——-
So I’ll put you down as a Josef Goebbels sympathizer/supporter.
The Jews who didn’t want to be experimented on and chopped apart disagreed with him.
That didn’t change the fact they were human beings.
And you’re right Hal – people know. Just like those Jews who sided with the Germans in destroying the innocent ones in the Warsaw Ghetto.
You’re no different.
Makes me wonder why you stick around here.
Posted by: Janet at March 9, 2009 5:17 PM
To bring sweetness and light to you angry people.
Hal,
You don’t make me angry. I’m used to you.
I hope I don’t make anyone angry. I’m everyman.
the question is worded from a pro-abortion point of view.
Since Jill posted this the numbers have stayed the same. 20% No. Doesn’t my vote count??!!
Hal,
I am not angry either. In fact you made me LOL with your “sweetness and light” comment.
I like that you think these online surveys really mean anything, but go ahead and keep it up, society is all ready passing you by while you worry about\try to rig a meaningless survey.
Heathen sacrifice of the innocent to draw forth their unspoiled potentencies — it’s amazing how religious (and with what fanatic zeal!) an ostensibly scientific pursuit can be, and how easily opposition to such madness needn’t stray beyond strictly secular bounds.
I guess it’s an emotional issue for supporters of embryonic stem cell research.
Meanwhile, Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research fostered years of extremely productive work on adult stem cells, with astonishing results mostly funded in the private sector.
This isn’t about science. It’s about marginalizing political opposition and entrenching power — at the expense of literally the weakest humans.
The nation’s first Black president — a descendant of slave owners, not of slaves — enjoys his station in the White House, while the unborn suffer the lash in the field.
Pardon my allusion to Malcolm X’s superb speech.
Heh.
re: Chris Arsenault at March 9, 2009 5:45 PM
Everytime you harken back to the Nazi’s, you reveal just how shallow your grasp of history is. As horrible re the Jews\gays\JW’s etc. as he was Hitler was not unequivocally pro-choice.
To use the worst person in the history of man to score a cheap point reflects your reliance on stock talking points which are based on nothing more than supposition rather than insight. Think before you speak.
I guess it’s an emotional issue for supporters of embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by: rasqual at March 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Yes, I’ve heard Nancy Reagan and Ron Jr., speak emotionally about this issue.
Yo La Tengo: You’re generalizing in order to dismiss, not engaging in order to refute. There’s a difference, which your shallow grasp of polemics fails to appreciate. ;-)
Carla,
Since Jill posted this the numbers have stayed the same. 20% No. Doesn’t my vote count??!!
That said, there are still too many people being misled on this issue by the liberal and/or ignorant media.
Posted by: Janet at March 9, 2009 7:13 PM
I see, people are being “misled.” Or, they just don’t agree with you. I can’t believe how often you guys resort to the fiction that those with different views just don’t “understand.” Maybe a few more trucks with billboards on them will help
Hal,
Which counts for more in an argument? Emotion or logic?
Hal obviously believes we understand things very well, since he impugns those assume those with different views don’t “understand.”
Nice to get that kind of validation from the opposition. Now I feel terribly a boor for having deemed Hal a terrible boor all this time.
See? I’m choking so up badly I even can’t type. ;-D
Hal,
Perhaps you do understand. I don’t doubt it. As I said earlier, I think you just don’t care either way. I think it seems reasonble to for me to assume that not everyone “understands” nor realizes there are differences between ESCR and SCR.
Not everyone has spent time reading this blog, being educated about the differences as you have, right?
re: rasqual at March 9, 2009 7:13 PM
If all this is about is cheap polemics rather than actual insight then I suppose your right. I prefer policy based on more than appeals to emotions. If I wanted drama I never would have graduated high school. Sadly, here, as in life, some people never leave.
I am not sure how much longer the Lord is going to put up with this stuff…unfettered abortion, confiscation by coercion of people’s money, the disregard for human life via embryonic stem cell research, and on an on and on. The stench of it all is overwhelming, however, the gates of hell will not prevail against us believers.
Now Hillary Clinton says that it is inevitable that Jerusalem be divided. Her statement rings of ignorance of God’s view and promises toward His chosen people – the Jews. For all her education she is profoundly and umabiguously uninformed.
If Jerusalem is divided at the hand of the US get ready for a major catastrophe in this country. Many Christian leaders are sensing that something very, very big and very, very catastrophic is going to bring this country to its knees.
I think it will be the combination of a major terrorist attack (which everyone seems to have forgotten about), the likes of which we will not recover from, and a total collapes of the econonmy. And, it will happen as a thief in the night. Get ready.
Perhaps then and only then will the likes of one godless Hal will humble himself and beg God for mercy. I surely hope so Hal for the sake of your wife and daughters.
As for me, I am ready. I am totally surrendered and trusting in God. If you are a believer in Jesus Christ do not be afraid. If you are not, you should be terrified.
If the internet goes down and we can no longer communicate, I tried to warn all of you. The only remedy and hope is Jesus Christ and calling out to Him for mercy and protection. I am praying for all of you.
Hisman,
Thank you for your prayers. God bless you.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A Further Word
“If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?”
Recently I felt compelled to send out an URGENT message warning of an impending great calamity — such that will cause even God’s elect to tremble.
One Bishop asked, “Is there no further word: How should the righteous respond to such a word?”
I can only answer by sharing what the Holy Spirit is speaking to my own heart and what I am to do. I shared that I was led in a practical way to lay aside a month’s supply of food — because I have witnessed the panic in the wake of terrorism. That has to be a personal word for every individual.
This is what I hear the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart concerning my own spiritual response to impending calamity. It is simply this —STAND STILL AND SEE THE SALVATION OF THE LORD.
“And Moses said to the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will show you today…The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace” (Exodus 14:13-14).
This is the attitude of faith in the face of calamity. What could Israel do on the brink of the Red Sea? Pharaoh’s army is pressing in, mountains are on both sides, and there is an impossible sea ahead. The flesh cries, “Do something!”
The flesh cries hopelessness. Can God’s people dry up the sea? Level a mountain? Fight a great army without having weapons? They are in what appears to be a dreadful, frightening situation. God’s people tremble — and in this hour of trembling comes a word from God. In essence:
“Stand still. Fear not. This is the hour of salvation. You are going to witness the pulling down of the foundations of a world power. But in the same hour, I will fight for you. Hold your peace — be still and see my works.”
Beloved, my warning is just one voice among many who are saying the same thing. We may all tremble for a season, but those who truly know God’s Word will be quickly comforted by the Holy Spirit. We will be baptized with a great peace — a supernatural quietness — which will be a tremendous witness to the fearful multitudes.
In Christ,
David Wilkerson
Hi Janet,
I won’t be losing sleep over the poll. :)
Yo,
I won’t be losing sleep over the poll. :)
Chris: “Most people don’t understand/comprehend that embryos are nascent human beings.”
Hal: “Guess what, people do know.”
Really? You certainly don’t.
Hal: “Yes, I’ve heard Nancy Reagan and Ron Jr., speak emotionally about this issue.”
— while Michael Reagan staunchly opposes embryo-destructive research. So did, for that matter, Ron, SENIOR.
Janet:
It is my pleasure to pray for, exhort, encourage and admonish all of you.
That’s what a loving follower of Christ does.
bmmg39
Michael Reagan has even stated he considered Mrs. Reagan misinformed on the issue. From what I understand stem cell treatment would not likely help anyone with Alzheimer’s.
Vote yes. People are going to.
That’s correct. Alzheimer’s affects the entire brain, and therefore is not believed to be a good candidate for ANY type of stem-cell treatment. (Chemical therapies are considered more promising.) But the ESCR lobby keeps invoking the disease’s name, since so many families are affected by Alzheimer’s and therefore will pay more attention. Disgraceful.
even the Alzheimer’s Assocation says that ESCR will NOT help patients with the disease.
Hal: Guess what? There are those who still deny that the Holocaust happened. Even with pictures of the skin and bones prisoners. Even with the eye witness accounts of the survivors, they STILL deny the Holocaust happened.
Same with abortion supporters: they deny that human beings are snuffed out before they take their first breath.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 9, 2009 7:01 PM
‘Think before you speak.’
—————————————————
ylt,
Well that is a step in the right direction. At least you wrote a reasonable thought.
Now if you will just practice the gospel you preach.
yor bro ken
even the Alzheimer’s Assocation says that ESCR will NOT help patients with the disease.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 9, 2009 9:55 PM
-Frankly, until this is fully examined and researched, as the president has now green lit, no one has any idea what will or won’t work.
His Man,
I totally agree with you. I think Wilkerson is correct when he says we are not in a recession but facing God’s judgement. People need to be warned. Its not going to get any better unless people repent.
The Alzheimer’s Association’s goal is to eradicate Alzheimer’s through the advancement of research. We therefore support any legitimate scientific avenue that offers the potential to advance this goal within appropriate boundaries. That said, human stem cell research is not a current research priority for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Its not going to get any better unless people repent.
Posted by: Joanne at March 9, 2009 10:16 PM
Well, I’m not going to repent.
Woe to the man who destroys human life by harvesting it to better his own (that would be you and your wife Hal). An eternity of gnashing your teeth is what you shall reap unless you turn in humility and repentance to your Creator.
Hal,
that “unwanted” pregnancy you terminated is another human life and a product of the love you have for your wife? If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just? Sometimes what a person “wants” is not always best for them. If I can borrow a phrase from Obama; killing your unborn children means you don’t want your own life to be “punished” with a baby. You love yourself more than your children. Would you be o.k. with your wife getting rid of your newborn or toddler because of the “burden”? The only difference is that you can get away with killing the unborn. Now sleek back into the darkness you wretched self-loving heathen.
Wretched self loving heathen? I like that.
However, I must correct you. I love my children more than I love myself. I gladly sacrifice much for them every day, and would sacrifice more in an instant if necessary. I don’t have the same attachment to those that were not born. That’s where we see things differently. Doesn’t make me a better person than you, necessarily, but we do see things differently. No doubt about it.
You are in denial and speak with a forked tongue. On all that is the love you have for your children answer this question.
If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just?
If you don’t answer then you admit you are a liar
Stem cell research is complicated. Allowing people to die of diseases like Parkinson’s is murder and so is experimenting on the preborn (obviously they do not give their consent). I personally cannot help wondering why we cannot fund cord blood, adult stem cells, and the non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. I keep thinking of individuals who suffer from these diseases (I know one who has Parkinson’s; it’s awful) and I keep thinking: “This is a matter of whose life is valued more.” No, just because someone is small, Hal and Yo La Tengo, does not make you better or more valuable, I am sorry to say. You don’t have more of a right to life than they do.
But, really, should be not be focusing on more advances that are non-destructive? That’s what I’m confused about. With proper funding and a global team, non-destructive embryonic stem cell research can yield unbelievable results. The major breakthroughs in these fields come (somewhere around) a year or two apart. With better resources, scientists can work together. I don’t think that there’s an Alzheimer patient who would intentionally and willfully kill an embryo when there is a way to get the same medicine without doing this. Unless you really just don’t mind exerting privilege, I suppose.
If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just?
Posted by: truthseeker at March 9, 2009 11:29 PM
Perhaps. Depends.
Vannah,
Evil draws strength from turning people away from what we see as a healthy respect for life. And unfortunately, when someone like Hal chooses that path his reward is an ever blinder eye to the truth.
If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just?
Posted by: truthseeker at March 9, 2009 11:29 PM
Perhaps. Depends.
Posted by: Hal at March 9, 2009 11:35 PM
Hal,
that is proof that you care less for your children then you would like to admit. What was this great “perhaps” that make you could make you deem it loving, merciful, and just to have terminated one of your now born children while they were in the womb?
Hal,
What was this great “perhaps” that could make you deem it loving, merciful, and just to have terminated one of your now born children while they were in the womb?
At the very least, if embryonic stem cell research is tontinue, the scientists better be absolutely positive that this is going to work…
Again, I love anyone with diseases like spinal bifida- why do we live in a culture that makes us choose who we love more? It’s ridiculous and, frankly, I am completely unwilling to choose between the ill whose lives are restricted and the preborn whose rights are restricted.
As for you, Hal, there seems to be a general rub between us: you define freedom as the ability to do as you please to whomever you please, and, baby be damned, the weaker must “learn their place” so that the principle of survivor of the fittest permeates society. But you do define freedom as the right to choose your actions.
As for us, we define freedom as the right to a life with dignity, a right to a life where no human is more valuable than another, and a right where we do not have to consistently battle politicians over whether or not we are full-fledged human beings. We define it as the right to look down the leave-strewn trail and set out in search of something bigger than ourselves and bigger than our bodies and bigger than the supreme acts of evil that we are capable of doing to each other.
That seems to be the biggest difference between us, doesn’t it?
You’re missing the point truthseeker. You can’t travel backwards in time. My children were born, I love them, end of story. If they had never been born, or if I had never been born, we can’t know what might have happened. For example, my two would probably not be here if we had not terminated earlier pregnancies. That’s a loss that from my current perspective sounds unbearable. However, I would have other, different, children. That might have been okay (or maybe they would have been lost to miscarriage) We just never know, do we?
But, enough of this. I’ve got to get some sleep. Let’s just agree to disagree for tonight.
At the very least, if embryonic stem cell research is tontinue, the scientists better be absolutely positive that this is going to work…
Posted by: Vannah at March 9, 2009 11:47 PM
Vannah, if you had spina bifida would you harvest/kill an embryo to be cured? I say no I would not. What’s next, growing people without brains so we can harvest their organs?
Hal,
I asked you a simple question:
If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just?
You were the one who replied “Perhaps, Depends.” But that was a lie wasn’t it? Before sleeking of into the darkness why not just admit that the destruction of your children you have now in the womb would have NOT been loving, merciful, kind or fair? If nothing else that way should your children read this at some point in the future they won’t think Daddy considered killing them just to make his own life less punishing.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying, however, that it is a complicated matter for there are so many lives. Anyone with a disease such as Alzheimer’s does NOT want to kill embryos. I would not want to kill embryos. I don’t think that it is supremacy motivating stem cell research. If there were ways to keep the destruction out of this, I should gander that the vast majority (if not all) patients would choose to get the non-destructive treatment.
But what I meant was that scientists ought to know for certain if this will work. I mean, testing on children before knowing what will happen is like kicking someone when they’re already down. No one ought to be tested on, which is why I’m against it, but I strongly support adult stem cells, transplants of fully-developed organs, cord blood stem cells, and non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. That’s still on the horizon, but, I think, with more attention and such, it could work.
re: kbhvac at March 9, 2009 10:00 PM
If all you’ve got is a cheap comeback you might want to pray about wheather or not your words are in fact a contribution to the discussion or a showcase for your own spiritual insecurity. Perhaps you might want to change your sign-off from “yor bro Ken” to “I’m broken”. Everytime you open your mouth i feel more secure about my relationship with God.
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also did Hal wash his hands of the blood his procreation when he handed his progeny over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice was only his woman’s to make.”
You’re missing the point truthseeker. You can’t travel backwards in time. My children were born, I love them, end of story. If they had never been born, or if I had never been born, we can’t know what might have happened. For example, my two would probably not be here if we had not terminated earlier pregnancies. That’s a loss that from my current perspective sounds unbearable. However, I would have other, different, children. That might have been okay (or maybe they would have been lost to miscarriage) We just never know, do we?
Posted by: Hal at March 9, 2009 11:53 PM
That’s just it Hal, but we could know. And you could have gotten to know all four of your children as part of your family. And each one would be as precious as the other.
Well, I’m not going to repent.
Posted by: Hal at March 9, 2009 11:04 PM
As long as we are alive we choose whether to believe God or not…. whether to serve him or not.
However there is something ahead in everyones’ future that we do not have a choice in. That is God’s judgement. We have an appointment that we cannot choose to miss. If we have accepted Jesus there is no condemnation, but there certainly is for those who have rejected him.
I know you don’t believe me, but I pray the day will come that you will. As long as we are alive we can choose to believe and trust in him.
Hal:
Rationalization is the logic of the devil and you are controlled by him without even knowing it as Obama is. That is why you are blinded and are unaware of it. Today Obama demonstrated such darkness of spirit, such blindness, such gross arrogance, and you do not have to go that route.
Out battle is not with you but with the demonic forces, the principalities, the evil forces that control this dark world.
I am praying for you that the Lord visits you in a dream. He may, He may not. The point is He loves you. If He didn’t we wouldn’t be bothering with you through us.
It is not too late for you Hal. Turn to Christ now, the Lord who gave His life for you so that all your sins, even murdering your first two unborn children, could be forgiven.
“even the Alzheimer’s Assocation says that ESCR will NOT help patients with the disease.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 9, 2009 9:55 PM”
“-Frankly, until this is fully examined and researched, as the president has now green lit, no one has any idea what will or won’t work.
Posted by: Danielle at March 9, 2009 10:12 PM”
And we don’t know whether amputating a patient’s leg will cure lung cancer, because we haven’t tried it. We can’t say that morphine won’t cure scoliosis–no one has fully studied it.
There are things that it makes no sense to try because they is incredibly unlikely to work. Should we inject embryos into people who have the flu, or cancer, or meningitis? After all, we don’t know that it won’t fix anything.
And something just occurred to me–why on Earth would we begin the process with human embryos? No research ever starts with humans. Wouldn’t it make sense to start with animal trials? There are rats and primates and such that can be given most of these diseases. Does injecting rats that have Alzheimer’s with rat embryo cells cure them? Does injecting diabetic Rhesus monkeys with monkey embryo cells reduce their insulin resistance?
Or are we just killing these babies to make ourselves feel better about creating them and then abandoning them?
Be still and know that He is God.
Consider all that He has done.
Stand in awe and be amazed, know
that He will never change.
Be still.
And we don’t know whether amputating a patient’s leg will cure lung cancer, because we haven’t tried it. We can’t say that morphine won’t cure scoliosis–no one has fully studied it. There are things that it makes no sense to try because they is incredibly unlikely to work.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 10, 2009 4:45 AM
-Again, unless you and I are scientists, we have no idea what is or is not possible in the field. And you’re right, the morphine/lung cancer example is not correlated, but if there were enough belief in the science industry that it could have a correlation, you better believe it would be considered as new research.
Sorry, Anon 4:45 was me.
Danielle, you say that you are not a scientist and therefore don’t know what you are talking about. The scientists who do know what they are talking about say that stem cells don’t make sense for helping those with Alzheimer’s. Why are you unwilling to take their word for it?
As usual, of course, whenever I post, the pro-choice-to-kill-babies crowd ignores most of the content of my post, particularly the most relevant part. Danielle, if this is so promising, why aren’t they proceeding with animal studies first?
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 6:58 AM
——
Lately I’ve been seeing the phrase “Be Still” all over the place, and I did a short study.
The first use of that phrase comes in Exodus 14:14 at the moment when it looks bleakest for Israel after leaving Egypt. In Hebrew, it’s “kayreesh”.
It’s not meditative, it’s more like – silence – Be quiet!
It’s use implies God is about to bring judgement upon His opposition. The Israelites need not be anxious or upset. They should not be crying out in fear. God has the situation in control.
This is really clear in Psalm 46, which should be read completely to obtain the proper context. The Hebrew in this case is “rapah” which means stop resisting, be weak. This works both as a command to his children to look to Him as Savior, and as a warning to those who fight Him, that they are at a point of judgement.
If God is saying “Be still” – lookout. Something amazing is about to happen.
Thank you Chris. It is a struggle for me to be still but I must. I want to hear Him.
God bless you!!
Danielle, you say that you are not a scientist and therefore don’t know what you are talking about. The scientists who do know what they are talking about say that stem cells don’t make sense for helping those with Alzheimer’s. Why are you unwilling to take their word for it?
Posted by: YCW at March 10, 2009 7:31 AM
-Many scientists who know what they are talking about ARE in favor of ESCR. Why aren’t YOU taking their word for it?
Because it goes against what you believe, that’s why. Evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.
Danielle, perhaps we’re just too busy listening to the scientists who see ESCR as a dead end, as well as the ones who understand and are honest about basic human reproductive biology.
Danielle, perhaps we’re just too busy listening to the scientists who see ESCR as a dead end, as well as the ones who understand and are honest about basic human reproductive biology.
Posted by: bmmg39 at March 10, 2009 9:45 AM
-Seems that way.
I can’t find the results of the CNN poll (last I saw yesterday it was about 80% support). Here is a post Gallup did on the subject yesterday:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116485/Majority-Americans-Likely-Support-Stem-Cell-Decision.aspx
YCW @ 4:45 PM,
Excellent points!
Danielle:
Honestly, I don’t care whether killing babies can save the lives of adults with diseases. We could save lives by cutting open healthy people–or disabled people–or people on death row–and transplanting their organs into people who need organ transplants. If your liver could save someone’s life, though, I don’t support “scientists” cutting it out to put it in someone older or more important than you to save their life. But even that isn’t a good analogy, because embryonic stem cells might save someone’s life one day, but they won’t save anyone today, they might not save anyone at all, and even if they might help someone, it will take far more killing than it will save lives.
YCW:
PETA – The animal worship group?
If God is saying “Be still” – lookout. Something amazing is about to happen.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2009 8:04 AM
*******************************
Thank you, Chris.
Kerry?
When respondents are apprised of more facts, i.e. given a more thorough poll rather than sixteen words and a question mark, they vacillate between support and opposition:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/public-opinion-and-the-embryo-debates
Note that, when offered this sentence, “An embryo is a developing human life, therefore it should not be destroyed for scientific or research purposes,” 62% agreed.
Posted by: Danielle at March 10, 2009 9:40 AM
‘Evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.’
————————————————-
!!!!!!!!ATTENTION, RED ALERT, HEADS UP, INCOMING BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Daniel
Seems to be advocating paying attention to ‘evidence’ and in the context of this discussion it is logical to conclude she means ‘scientific evidence’.
Whoa. Logic, facts, reason. Has it actually come to this?
I don’t know how to ‘feel’ about this new development.
Keep praying brothers and sisters, the GOD of reason is coming for dinner. Maybe Danielle will stay for supper.
yor bro ken