VIDEO: Off-duty policeman assaults pro-life activist at a church
UPDATE, 3/30, 6:55p: The Ventura County Star has posted an article about the incident, along with Todd Bullis’s video. The piece states hoser police officer Jon Hixson faces a “misdemeanor battery charge.”…
UPDATE, 3/30, 3:53p: Ventura Police Dept. Internal Affairs notified Todd Bullis that Officer Jon Hixson has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. He also admitted to Internal Affairs he put vinegar in at least one of the spray bottles (which they have retrieved as evidence)….
UPDATE, 3/30, 11:45a: Note in the 1st video Jon Hixson says at 1:05, “The police are already here!” in response to pro-lifers saying they were going to call the cops. We now know why: Hixson is a Ventura, CA, police officer.
This 2nd video, which Todd Bullis posted last night, shows what happened when Hixson’s colleagues arrived: nothing. Note Officer J. Flowers Fowler (spelling according to Ventura internal affairs) acknowledges at :57 he saw Hixson hosing Bullis when he pulled up.
3/29, 3:55p: Well, this video is pretty nuts. It’s of the incident I described earlier today, which took place yesterday morning at Ventura First Assembly of God in Ventura, CA.
It turns out that the church member who sprayed Todd Bullis in the face with a bottle containing a substance that smelled like vinegar and then hosed him was Ventura off-duty police officer Jon Hixson, according to a Ventura Police Dept. internal affairs officer.
Cannot believe the audacity of this guy… inviting filming to commence… explaining what he is about to do… wow, what an idiot.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcInX_ukIE[/youtube]
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.
They could have defused this whole confrontation by having the 7-11 clerk they brought along just offer the guy a free grape slurpie and I’m sure he would have left them alone.
The guy is a cop. Absolutely nothing is going to happen to him, and the DA will never hear about this. Cops take care of their own.
I am curious as to why the pickets were set up in front of an AG church though.
Because these people are totally unreasonable, Bill. I guess they expect the members of this church to snap their fingers and immediately make abortion illegal. Or maybe they think the parishioners should be rioting in the streets and burning down buildings in order to voice their discontent about the fact that abortion is currently a constitutionally-guaranteed civil right of women? Who knows.
well that’s just real Christian behavior :/
Anne,
Maybe you could read a bit. You would find out real quick that there are 100 churches in Ventura, CA that are SILENT on the abortion issue. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it though.
What do you want these “100 churches that are silent about abortion” to do, Carla? Kidnap the entire US Supreme Court and force them at gun-point to overturn Roe v. Wade?
It is hard to believe a police officer, especially an officer who is a ‘christian’, would knowingly violate the ‘law’ with witnesses and video camera running.
What is he going to do for an encore, cheat on his taxes with a notary of the publice video taping and attesting to the accuracy of the event and then include the video with his tax return.
If Todd Bullis does not intercede for Jon Hixson it is quite possible Hixson could lose his job.
This a long way from attack dogs and fire hoses, but only if the Ventura Police Department and the city administration does NOT choose to look the other way.
I have been roughed up by a police officer and abused by a judge who was a ‘christian’ but at least the cop was only upset because I was making him miss his appointment at the local Duncan Donuts.
The abusive judge was ‘judging’ me because he thought my behavior was ‘unchristian’.
17 “For the time [has arrived] for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will [be] the end of those who do not respect or believe or obey the good news (the Gospel) of God?” AMP
1 Peter 4:14-19
yor bro ken
Obviously churches who are “Pro-Life-in-name-only” need to be challenged. After John McCain and Bart Stupak what does “Pro-Life” mean anyway? Besides, these people are showing photographic evidence that abortion is an act of violence which kills a child. If they are doing so on public property (otherwise known as the public square) it doesn’t matter if it’s near a church. It’s Free Speech protected by the First Amendment. Are police officers, off duty or otherwise, allowed to negate Constitutional rights? Are police officers allowed to assault citizens with impunity?
What do you want these “100 churches that are silent about abortion” to do, Carla? Kidnap the entire US Supreme Court and force them at gun-point to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Supporting women in crisis pregnancies by funding their local CPC’s would be a start.
I am torn on this one, having seen the video and read the forums.
As a pastor, I can tell you that you will be hard pressed to find a more pro-life portion of the Body of Christ than my little congregation. We detest the scourge of the murder of the unborn as much as the most ardent of pro-lifers.
That being said, Brother Bullis’ efforts, though certainly noble in scope, appear misdirected in my opinion.
The Church is a place of healing and restoration through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, and not a place of the former shame of our lives (Romans 10:10-13)
Bro. Bullis’ task appears to be to either shock or shame the church into action, either of which would be detrimental to any members of that church who may have had succumbed to the abortion lie previously.
My questions would be these:
Did Bro. Bullis contact the church ahead of time to let them know he would be there?
Did he ask to speak/preach to the congregation?
What other methods did he utilize to engage the congregations into the vision that God has given him?
This by no means excuses the police officer of his actions in any way, shape, or form. They are certainly degrading in the least, and not the best Christian “witness”, which quickly deteriorated into a “I’m more of a Christian than you are” argument.
I would think that Bro. Bullis’ efforts would be better served at the places where the abortions are performed or funded, and the churches approached and encouraged to participate under a missions umbrella, rather than attempting to shame a portion of the Body into action. It does little to build up your brother (Eph 4:29)
We need to repent Anne. This is a spiritual battle that can only be fought as such. The Church of Jesus Christ is the only entity equipped to fight in such a matter. If my people who are called by name humble themselves, pray, and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS…the scripture tells us to resuce those that are perishing…and that judgment begins in the house of God. It is not through riots or Washington DC, but through the spiritual battles that we will engage the enemy…but unfortunatley we just sing a little louder and we are pretty sure that we are right with God becasue really, what does God expect from us?
“Besides, these people are showing photographic evidence that abortion is an act of violence which kills a child. If they are doing so on public property (otherwise known as the public square) it doesn’t matter if it’s near a church. It’s Free Speech protected by the First Amendment.”
Using that logic, pornography is free speech because it is photographic evidence that people do in fact have sex. Hey, it’s simple biology, man, and I’m calling it a political statement so that it’s protected by the First Amendment! Let me hold up 10-foot porn images in front of schools and churches!
Apologies about the double post, BTW:(
Posted by: Patrick at March 29, 2010 4:52 PM
“I would think that Bro. Bullis’ efforts would be better served at the places where the abortions are performed or funded, and the churches approached and encouraged to participate under a missions umbrella, rather than attempting to shame a portion of the Body into action. It does little to build up your brother (Eph 4:29)”
——————————————————
Patrick,
If understand your advice correctly it would be for Todd Bullis and the believers assembled in the church building to:
‘Sing a little louder’ and turn your cheek and your head and contiue to look the other way.’
yor bro ken
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 29, 2010 4:51 PM
But suppose, Jacqueline, that these churches are already doing charitable work with their limited budgets, made more limited by the economic downturn. Should they stop distributing food and medicine to starving AIDS sufferers in Africa so that they can refocus their resources on funding “crisis pregnancy centers” instead?
Patrick,
If understand your advice correctly it would be for Todd Bullis and the believers assembled in the church building to:
‘Sing a little louder’ and turn your cheek and your head and contiue to look the other way.’
yor bro ken
————————————
Not at all. There is a marked and effective difference, however, in sharing a vision and shaming a church. One brings the Body together, the other starts fights and division.
As for ‘broken’, it was Christ who was broken for all of us, that we might avoid such strifes…
I have to say that I agree with Pastor Patrick’s take on all of this. We have bigger fish to fry and better ways to deal with churches.
I do hope the cop is prosecuted for assault — his actions as an off-duty law officer and as a Christian were flat-out wrong.
On the other hand, by placing these signs where they did, Todd is creating a situation that forces parents to decide between not going to church or subjecting their children to sights that they are not adequately equipped to handle. In my view, this is also assault, though of a different kind.
But suppose, Jacqueline, that these churches are already doing charitable work with their limited budgets, made more limited by the economic downturn. Should they stop distributing food and medicine to starving AIDS sufferers in Africa so that they can refocus their resources on funding “crisis pregnancy centers” instead?
Money is not the only thing- I just gave my first example. There are tons of FREE things this church can do to help women and children, i.e. mentoring (Project Gabriel), volunteering at a CPC, sidewalk counseling- I was once a very poor student/grad student that lack of money did not render me useless or silent. Babies ended up cradled in the arms of loving parents rather than in pieces in a garbage disposal and I did all that without two nickels to rub together. So whereas giving was my first example, in many ways it’s actually a cop-out for churches that want to claim to do something about abortion but don’t want to get their hands dirty. For churches to not even do THAT is unspeakable, but once again, it’s not all about money.
But I’ll bite on your analogy, as one that both works to save women and children and also supports food/education/health efforts in Africa. Between the baby just down the street who could end up in the arms of any of 10 million adoptive couples but instead gets cut up with a suction machine on purpose simply because mom decided after she made him that being pregnant isn’t convenient right now- and that child thousands of miles away that has no one trying to kill him but is merely a victim of economic hardship- ACTIVE killing next door versus PASSIVE tragedy abroad, I’d say we have an obligation to address the purposeful evil done in our own backyards before we try to eradicate world tragedies. Going down to the street corner vs. half a world away to address a choice people make rather than an economic inequity, you first have to see the difference between a bonafide tragedy that we should try to ameliorate (i.e. a natural disaster) and people CHOOSING to do evil (i.e. a gunman in a school). These are as different as a person dying of a heart attack and that same person being stabbed in the chest until he bleeds to death. African children starving due to drought and a mother starving her child on purpose are two different things. Abortion up the street and social injustice on another continent aren’t comparable. We should address both, but helping African children who are less fortunate doesn’t negate or excuse dismembering American babies simply because mom doesn’t want to be pregnant.
What a bunch of babies – all of them. I agree with Tom’s post at 5:12.
For a bunch of young men to be running around yelling “what kind of Christian are you”. Seriously – great presentation of Christianity guys -dealing with conflict.
“I’m going to sue”.
Grow up folks.
“Using that logic, pornography is free speech because it is photographic evidence that people do in fact have sex. Hey, it’s simple biology, man, and I’m calling it a political statement so that it’s protected by the First Amendment! Let me hold up 10-foot porn images in front of schools and churches!”
Posted by: Anne at March 29, 2010 4:55 PM
If it were illegal to have sex and you were trying to change that law, this would be a good point. As it is, you’re apples and orangesing here. Aside from which, the fact that something is gross or contraversial does not mean that it should not be made public, especially if it is evidence of an ongoing injustice. In fact, that kind of evidence is usually the most compelling.
I also loved the headline – “assaults” activist.
Gotta love this site – people are okay with joking about rape, but squirting somebody with water is “assault”.
“Money is not the only thing- I just gave my first example. There are tons of FREE things this church can do to help women and children, i.e. mentoring (Project Gabriel), volunteering at a CPC, sidewalk counseling- I was once a very poor student/grad student that lack of money did not render me useless or silent.”
And how do you know that none of the parishioners of these churches are doing those things? Or do you expect the entire congregation of thousands of people to get in on the act and go do group protests in front of clinics?
“ACTIVE killing next door versus PASSIVE tragedy abroad, I’d say we have an obligation to address the purposeful evil done in our own backyards before we try to eradicate world tragedies. Going down to the street corner vs. half a world away to address a choice people make rather than an economic inequity, you first have to see the difference between a bonafide tragedy that we should try to ameliorate (i.e. a natural disaster) and people CHOOSING to do evil (i.e. a gunman in a school). These are as different as a person dying of a heart attack and that same person being stabbed in the chest until he bleeds to death.”
Oh, okay, well you can explain to the starving AIDS victims why their situation is less important because it’s just a “passive world tragedy” that is a result of “economic inequality” as opposed to an “active local tragedy.” I think your comparison is very labored here: in your hypothetical situation, someone is dying a violent death either way. If you had the power to save both of them, how could you put a greater importance on one over the other because it’s the result of “active” as opposed to “passive” evil? The outcome is the same for both people.
“If it were illegal to have sex and you were trying to change that law, this would be a good point. As it is, you’re apples and orangesing here. Aside from which, the fact that something is gross or contraversial does not mean that it should not be made public, especially if it is evidence of an ongoing injustice. In fact, that kind of evidence is usually the most compelling.”
So what’s your point? That something is only protected speech if it’s trying to change a law? I didn’t say that nothing gross or controversial should be allowed to be displayed in public. I’m just saying, if gigantic pictures of aborted fetuses displayed in front of a church is “free speech” then just about anything could pass for free speech, no matter how grotesque, inappropriate, or pointless.
What is a better way to deal with churches?
Hey Anne,
Whatever the merits of your arguments, you blew it at the outset with your disgusting bigoted comment about the gentleman with the accent.
As for the rogue cop, if the local DA does not act, then I suggest that the Feds be called in on this as well as the State Attorney General. It doesn’t matter what’s being protested, a police officer abrogated a citizen’s right to free speech by assault with an organic acid (vinegar) and a hose which was not only meant to wet the citizen, but humiliate him.
The complaining party at the bar is the American People with a violated First Amendment.
As for your slurpee comment, you have a lot to learn about decency, which is why you support the pig.
To Jacqueline: Well explained post. (ty)
I don’t know. Why do they have to be “dealt with” anyway? Probably the majority of the members of these church don’t like abortion any more than you do. Why must they be antagonized with these pictures that clearly bother them? What is even the message here? “Be more pro-life!”?
Carla – is that question to me?
There’s many passages regarding dealing with disputes with other Christians. If you’d like I’d post them – but I don’t know if your questions was directed at me or not.
I hope the video goes viral.
http://www.FreeTheND88.org – NEVER FORGET…
I commend the measured response the pro-lifers exhibited in the face of this juvenile’s behavior.
It is our duty to defend our first amendment rights. We let this slide and the next time it will be worse.
“So what’s your point? That something is only protected speech if it’s trying to change a law? I didn’t say that nothing gross or controversial should be allowed to be displayed in public. I’m just saying, if gigantic pictures of aborted fetuses displayed in front of a church is ‘free speech’ then just about anything could pass for free speech, no matter how grotesque, inappropriate, or pointless.”
Posted by: Anne at March 29, 2010 5:42 PM
If something is a political statement, just about anything does pass as free speech now, no matter how grotesque, inappropriate, or pointless. And in cases where speech is alleged to have been suppressed, the burden of proof rests with the government to prove that the speech is not in any way political, not on the speaker to prove that it in any way is.
My point is, you’re quibbling with one of the fundamentals of the Bill of Rights and using a ridiculous example to do it. Holding up big signs of porn is not political…unless you’re actually using it to make some kind of political statement. And someone may do that at some point. I certainly won’t run around trying to stop them. Free speech is free, even when you disagree with it, don’t like it, are grossed out by it, or are disturbed by it. That is the whole point.
I always find it very telling when people react with such anger when faced with the truth. Children are being butchered in the womb every day and we are supposed to be concerned about offending people with the truth?
I don’t think so.
Pastor Patrick:
Innocent blood is being shed because of abortion and the church is looking the other way. Our land is guilty and the blood of the innocent cries out for justice. All through God’s word, His disgust and wrath were exhibited against both individuals and nations who practiced these types of evils. As God’s prophet, has he not called you to proclaim repentance to a church that has lost it’s way in regards to abortion?
C’mon, we’ve had abortion for 37 years and the church has been silent about it. Yes, there are some Christians that are fighting valiantly against it, however, the church majora has been silent because in this country the church was bribed with the 5013c tax exemption.
This entrenched evil has diluted the US church’s ability to be “salt and light”. Salt is both a an irritant and a healer. An irritant to destructive forces and a healer to those that would be healed. Light makes the darkness disappear. Neither has occurred in the US church with regards to abortion.
Regarding your quote, “The Church is a place of healing and restoration through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, and not a place of the former shame of our lives (Romans 10:10-13).” How does doing nothing about abortion jive with this? It does violence to this scripture and misrepresents God’s requirement for holiness and the forsaking of the practice of sin. Perhaps “healing and restoration” should be substituted by “coddled and excused”. Where’s the holiness God says that without, “none of us will see God”?
Answer this question: Could you risk losing the adoration of your congregation that has seduced so many pastors and preach mightily against abortion? If the answer is yes when is the last time you did this? If you are worried about offending women that have had abortions by shaming them what about the woman who have not had abortions and are yet engaging in immoral sex? And yes, in your congregation.
We have woman on this site who have confessed and pleaded that they wish they had known what abortion was in God’s eyes and ask why they had heard not a word about it in their church or from their pastors about it’s destructive affects. Carla is a great example of this. Yes she has been healed but she would never refrain from speaking of abortion’s evil. Then why aren’t you?
When you risk your 5013C exemption and decide to preach freely against the horrendous evil of abortion and all the pro-choice, pro-abortion, politicians that have been elected who God set you to proclaim against, then come and preach to me.
In the mean time think about this from http://www.Ixoye.Name:
“Mothers and sisters please read this before having an abortion. God understands your situation. Know that no baby conceived is an accident. God created and planned that baby to be born and to have life. Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God; it negates God as Creator.
Yes, perhaps you made a mistake, but God can make even mistakes turn into a blessing. Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer. Give him a chance to redeem this situation, he will if you let him.
Life is a good thing and of God. Death is not a good thing and not of God. Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy. God wants to help you turn this difficult situation into a blessing. Trust Him, nothing is impossible with God.
God loves us beyond what we can imagine. He is not mad at us and does not want to punish us. God is an expert and taking what seems impossible and hopeless and turning it around for good. Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in its earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in its earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
God wants to bless you. Satan wants to kill you, destroy you, and take everything you have.
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
God wants to give you hope, not the false hope others offer by making you believe that the solution is killing your baby, but by pleading with you to make the right decision to trust him and have the baby. Believe God, have faith that he can take you through this storm. Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for its solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
God is real. His words are true. Take a chance at believing Him, he does not disappoint. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the claw prints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
God is love. Abortion is a lie that embodies all that God is not. Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Please turn to God, ask him to forgive you and he will. Ask him to help you and he will. He will put people in your life that will help. Seek him and you will find him. Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.”
Phil – Patrick is saying what a few others have said as well – and I think you are missing the point. Everyone is agreeing that abortion is evil.
The question that Patrick brings up is, was Todd going about this the right way.
I think a person would have to be blind to say he was.
Anne,
Just because one cannot change the law unilaterally does not mean it’s ok to be silent about grave moral evil. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood this well as he lead the struggle for freedom:
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
So no – the people don’t need to riot in the streets or kidnap the Supreme Court (excessive much?), but they have an obligation to speak and add their voices to those opposing abortion. Note that the people weren’t saying they thought abortion was ok, but rather “Hey, what do you want me to do about it?” The latter position is what Todd is trying to combat. Complacency will get you nowhere.
Thankyou Gerard. I thought the same thing. Anne, you are clearly a racist. Please keep your bigoted comments to yourself.
Its a shame some cops like this waterboy give all cops a bad name. Not all cops protect their own. Some cops take pride in being upstanding citizens even when not in uniform. Some municipal police departments I know would never tolerate such juvenile aggressive behavior in their officers.
The very fact that this “cop” got all upset means he knows his church is doing nothing while the slaughter of innocents goes on. If his church WAS helping to end abortion he would not have had his conscience pricked and reacted in such a nasty, negative way.
I could only wish that there were thousands of Todds. While some quibble about the small stuff, Todd is out there educating the public about the reality and horrors of abortion. Because our media and educational institutions for the most part refuse to inform and educate it is left to others to do so.
ExGop:
I miss no point. I first had witnessed the refusal of the church to engage in the abortion debate. What happened to Mr. Bullis is evidence of what is going on.
If we agree that abortion is evil then not doing everything, and I mean everything possible against it, is evil as well. This includes speaking against every pro-abort Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., that is pro-choice so that at least God has had His say in the matter.
My point is that the vast majority of churches, led by pastors, do not speak up for fear of IRS retribution. I understand their dilemma, but it is Christ who hold teachers to a higher standard, not the IRS or the government.
Tell me, did Paul not speak even at risk of death? Did he not appeal to Cesar in obedience to Christ irregardless of the consequences. Why was Stephen martyred? If God is against abortion because it is evil as you have just confessed, then why is His heart not being revealed against it by the withholding of His word. Are not pastors God’s mouth here on earth? Does not faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
To agree that pastors should not preach against abortion and preach against individuals that would poison our land with its promotion and legalization is to, by omission and implication, states that God could care less. And that is what the world sees and hears from the churh…..”God thinks abortion is OK”. This is mightily wrong.
Did not God command Moses to go tell Pharaoh “let my people go”? Did not Esther appeal to the King at risk of death? To not proclaim that abortion is sin from the pulpit is to deny God and the church at this moment is being judged for it. We have received as judgment the most pro-abortion, anti-Christian, anti-Israel and pro-Islam president in history. If you do not understand the judgment in that occurrence you do not understand he nature of the Kingdom.
Speaking the truth is inherently offensive even if that isn’t its intent. Our responsibility is not to define what is offensive and not offensive about speaking the truth and hence modulate its delivery. Our responsibility is to speak the truth no matter the cost be it loss of prestige, loss of standing, loss of favor, loss of money or loss of life. The Savior expects nothing less. The church as a whole is not doing this.
So, if it is God can cause a jackass to speak to a wayward priest, so too can God use a person like Todd Bullis to speak as well, if the priests in the land refuse to.
And Todd, you are no jackass, you are a mighty man of valor my friend.
Phil – So we should allow Todd to set the bar for how much a church does against abortion, and if they don’t reach that bar, he can protest? He makes the rules?
Oh, and he doesn’t talk to them first and “confront” what he sees as a sin?
What about people starving – let’s take your whole statement in regards to worldwide hunger.
Now we have two issues that everyone needs to do “everything possible against it”. We’re running out of hours!
I think if churches are leading people to Christ and teaching them the Bible, then they will have a bigger impact than anything else out there.
I mean, it was thrown out earlier – are all Christians to go and hijack the supreme court justices at gun point? What is the end game solution here that Todd just needs to wake people up to?
Seems like it is to turn towards a better moral standard – oh wait, churches can’t preach about that as they wouldn’t be doing “everything they could against this evil”.
Quick question Phil – you seem to be one of the few mentally balanced around here. Do you think, given your knowledge of the Bible, that Phil is handling the situation correctly in regards with dispute against these churches?
It is precisely the sort of bickering that is going on in this forum that is driving people out of both politics and the church.
Who needs it?
If we can’t provide a united stand against an obvious evil like abortion, how can we hope to win over the rest of America?
Galatians 5:15: “But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.”
Matthew 12:25: “And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, ‘Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.'”
Most of us here agree that abortion is evil. I would hope we could stay focused on that fact. Discussing the merits and difficulties of what Todd did is certainly reasonable. Attacking, judging, and otherwise denigrating and bloviating is neither reasonable, helpful, respectful, nor Godly.
There is no bar, I am just doing what God has called me to do. God has made it clear to me what I am supposed to do. The Church has the Power to end the legal murder of our children. The Church needs to move forward and press this issue. It is time, it has long been time.
If you honestly believe abortion is just fine and dandy and you call yourself Christian, why do even go to church? Why even bother? Seriously, you have lost touch with anything authentically Christian.
It still blows me away how people can claim to be Christian and at the same time support killing unborn babies. Yeah, I’m sure Jesus would have been down with “choice”.
Well we certainly are a diverse group now aren’t we.
I happen to like the idea of doing displays and vigils outside of churches (never thot of it until now). Many folks are just busy and have never really thot about what an abortion does to an infant. They know the “Church” by and large is against abortion because of a few lines in the Bible but have no idea of how truly serious this is.
On the other hand, the folks doing the display, although they held their tempers should have just provided a few nice answers and not questioned peoples Christianity.
I realize that not everyone has has really studied human behavior or been to Sidewalk Counselors School (about 6 hours long) to learn how to disagree politely and go about their business but those of us in the Pro Life crowd really need to learn how to be honest without being intentionally offensive.
Hard to find a balance.
Tom:
Was Paul “devouring and biting” one another when he confronted Peter about his duplicity?
Are we never to challenge each other when we see obvious sin in one another’s lives?
Am I never to be confronted by another brother as to my sin?
The context of Galatians 5:15 was the Old Law requirement of circumcision and bringing it into the New Covenant. And yes, Paul was confronting this false doctrine. I suppose you would chastise Paul as well?
How is calling evil what it is a “house divided”? No, a house divided is accepting abortion as OK and the demonization of us pro-life believers and everything we try to accomplish.
And Todd is right, we the church have been given the keys of the Kingdom. If the Church decided to end abortion it would end.
And Ex-GOP:
That’s what Todd is trying to do because there is no bar.
Please stop using the social gospel as a weapon against proclaiming righteousness. Abortion is wrong. Poverty at the hands of evil people is wrong. Should Christians never have spoken against slavery for fear of causing division?
Well, I guess Tom and Ex-GOP have spoken, so I’ll just shut up because I’m being divisive. Should I accept this false guilt trip or with courage continue to be a voice for the voiceless?
Dear Pamers you are right. The guy yelling out to in the video is a friend who said he would really like to come out. I prepped him before we went out and I asked him to please not say anything to anyone and just let the signs speak for us and when push came to show he could no longer hold his tong. My two sons and the Jessica did a great job. I will not let anyone join our ventura group unless they have a better understanding of what we are to say when confronted. Still I am glad Mel came. Believe it or not it is nice to have a few people, most of the time its my family and my sons girlfriend so Mel was still a big blessing to me.
Folks, Anne is Trollish – don’t bother engaging her. Ex-GOP doesn’t understand because he is choosing not to understand. Also Trollish, but more like the local grumpy neighbor as he seems to be always around.
Todd did contact the church ahead of time, as Jill reported in her first post about this incident.
Why would anyone think that it is okay for a cop to physically assault anyone who was legally expressing their constitutionally protected opinion. Agree or disagree, Anne/Ex-GOP/whoever, this is PROTECTED SPEECH and there is absolutely no excuse for the assault on Todd. None.
Phil,
Do you not understand the difference between what you say and the way you say it?
I certainly appreciate your zeal to protect the unborn, but let’s take your comments to Pastor Patrick as an example.
Do you know him personally? You suggested that he was being muzzled by 501C3 status. Do you know that for a fact? You suggested that he needed to repent for his views. Do you know for a fact that he has sinned?
Such comments make you seem arrogant, though I doubt that is what you intend. But if you alienate instead of reason with your brothers and sisters, then what have you accomplished?
Isaiah 1:18: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.'”
Please reconsider the tone and posture you are taking, Phil. It isn’t helping you or anyone else.
Tom
The other day, I received my Social Security Statement. I can now see WHY SS and Medicare are failing. There have been 52,008,665 abortions since 1973. If you take my figures and determine how much money SS and Medicare have lost due to abortion, it comes out to:
$ 3,008,857,296,245 for Social Security
By that score, it would be solvent for many years.
$ 704,249,332,765 For Medicare
We would just now be thinking of the problem.
There are many other effects that this missing generation has had. What do you think those might be?
I emailed the church and told them who i was. I asked if I could meet with them and a meeting was granted. I met with one of the associate pastors, great guy. I also asked if he would like to see the pictures and signs i was going to bring out. He said he would like to see them so i emailed them to him. We than met for about an hour or so and at the end we agreed to disagree. During our meeting i had told him that I would be out in front of his church in 3 or 4 weeks and that is when i came out to his church.
When I left he asked me to please pray about it and I said yes for sure I would and I do.
One last note, the head pastor has never spoken to me and I believe his defense is to not deal with this issue to pawn it off on his associate pastors. I believe that was a bad move.
Its been a long day. I want to thank everyone for their prayers they mean so much. Your kind words are a blessing to me also.
Tom:
I was challenging Patrick.
Why has he not answered?
I know how the vast majority of churches operate.
They do no know that they don’t have to be 501c3 to be tax exempt.
They already are.
Tom:
The “us” in “Isaiah 1:18: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.'” is God and me and God and you, not you and me.
Please stop misusing scripture.
Todd —
I thank you for your courage to show people what they wish not to see and to take the mockery they foist onto you.
Reading an earlier story and viewing this video has made me question my own actions when I have avoided difficult conversations with friends. While I can’t see myself pulling out these images with my friends, but I do think many people have no idea what abortion really is.
I’m going to be praying about this, as it seems that only changing minds and motivating hearts is the only want to really end abortion. Just how I can play my part is unclear right now.
Phil,
Maybe Patrick hasn’t answered because he had no desire to get into an online brawl. Which is precisely the point I was making about such things driving people away.
So, then you are admitting you have no personal knowledge of what Patrick has or has not done, yet you accused him of sin anyway? Most people call that slander.
Ephesians 4:31: “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
Colossians 3:8: “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”
Tom
Bob Kellum:
Great fiscal analysis, however, the spiritual toll is incalculable.
Tom:
You may very well be guilty of slandering me as nowhere in my post did I acuse Patrick of sin.
Please quote me.
If I have, I will repent.
Do it now please.
Amy – sure, this is free speech – Fred Phelps is free speech – PETA folks are free speech. I don’t make the case at all this this isn’t free speech. He has a right to do it legally. I don’t think Biblically speaking he has much of leg to stand on (in regards to being decisive, handling disputes, etc…) – but hey, let me say again, sure, this is acceptable free speech.
But hey, is the “assault” squirting water? I think folks on this board were saying it was fine to have a cartoon about rape – but people are making a big deal about squiring water – I mean, assault.
Assault with a deadly squirt bottle? “I’m melting, I’m melting”.
This is just weird.
I suppose my cat hated water for years. Is Todd a cat?
Ex-Gop he sprayed me with vinegar. One bottle had vinegar the other water. try it sometime.
What an example that woman was setting for those children…that pastor was setting for those children & the congregation! And you can hear the laughter as they look at pictures of dismembered babies, watch as their pastor hoses down people trying to stop the shedding of innocent blood & rescue those lead away to the slaughter…LAUGHTER.
Phil,
Your diatribe to Patrick at 6:28 p.m. is laced with innuendo of his wrongdoing, culminating in a plea for him to repent: “Please turn to God, ask him to forgive you …”
At this point, I’ve already cited two examples and it is clear you only want to argue rather than reason together as God models for us in Isaiah — another point I made that you are twisting out of context.
So, rather than continue this, I’ll end on this note and you can have the last word:
Proverbs 20:3 — “Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel.”
Tom
Tom:
It is not true that I know nothing about Pastor Patrick. After all he knows, you know and I know we are committed to what we confess and this is what Pastor Patrick confessed to and therefore, I and you know something about him: “As a pastor, I can tell you that you will be hard pressed to find a more pro-life portion of the Body of Christ than my little congregation. We detest the scourge of the murder of the unborn as much as the most ardent of pro-lifers.
That being said, Brother Bullis’ efforts, though certainly noble in scope, appear misdirected in my opinion.
The Church is a place of healing and restoration through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, and not a place of the former shame of our lives (Romans 10:10-13)
Bro. Bullis’ task appears to be to either shock or shame the church into action, either of which would be detrimental to any members of that church who may have had succumbed to the abortion lie previously.”
Based on that confession is it reasonable to assume that Pastor Patrick is unwilling to preach against or talk against abortion even though he claims to be very pro-life for fear that he may shame someone in his local assembly who has had an abortion. Do you agree with this conclusion?
Well if that is true about Pastor Patrick, should he not preach against murder, because there just might be someone who has murdered and we wouldn’t want to offend them now would we? And what about stealing? Gee, you think there are any thieves in the audience? Hmmm, can’t offend them either.
And adulterers, wow, can’t offend someone that either cheated on or is cheating on their spouse now can we?
Now, if murder were legal in this country and a guy name Todd Bullis held up signs at a church entrance showing murdered and hacked up people in an effort to wake up that church because that church claimed to be against legalized murder but never did anything or said anything against legalized murder would even you not consider Pastor Patrick’s confession and statements to be duplicitous, hypocritical, illogical and non-sensical if applied in the same manner? Am I missing something here? Does anyone understand how abortion has deceived the church? Is this the great deception that God’s word said would deceive even the elect?
So, since we can’t offend ANYONE we’ll talk about what? Pastor Patrick’s use of the verse in Romans as a challenge to what Mr. Bullis is doing, if universally applied, would preclude him from preaching against any sin.
Again, I ask you to quote me where I slandered Pastor Patrick because I will be the first one to repent and apologize.
And Tom, I hope you know what “….” means. Read the 6:28 post. I was addressing the “God will forgive you” to women who found themselves pregnant and contemplating an abortion, not to Patrick….good try.
You misuse scripture to your own end and I will not let you slander me. It all demonstrates a lot of confusion.
Besides, you called me a fool using a scripture.
“Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
I will continue to defend the unborn despite the efforts of even Christians to discourage me. Yes, I even have family members that disdain what I do. I will answer to God and God alone for this.
Peace to you, peace to Pastor Patrick….I hope you both understand the depravity and grave sin that abortion is and I hope you both learn how to speak against it boldly and without fear.
Wow!
It seems I dropped the proverbial verbal hand-grenade…
To Bro. Phil:
Please note that a congregation that does not stand and picket is not necessarily inactive.
My little congregation is a small country church, the large majority which is 60 years or older. We are based in an large area where abortions are not available and are legally prohibited as possible. These two facts make picketing more than impractical for us due to physical and locational constraints.
We support a local Christian Pregnancy Crisis Center which not only mentors the young mothers with their choice to keep the child, but also with prospective adoptive parents as well.
As far as the 5013c, the only constraint that I have is that I may not use the church as campaign tool. I may freely preach on any subject as I see fit, which often includes the evils of abortion.
I thank Bro Bullis for his answers, which he explained how he contacted the staff and even had a meeting with them.
The entire point of my post was to discuss methodology, not motive.
All this being said, it is Scriptural to say that we must be careful not to alienate each other in divisive manners. Please remember that “the eye cannot say to the hand ‘I don’t need you'”..(1 Cor 12). All of us are necessary parts in The Body, of which Christ is the Head.
We may not address the murder of abortion in the same manner, but certainly with the same fervor to save the lives of millions of unborn.
Bro. Bullis’ motive has never been suspect here. This has merely been about methodology from someone with pastoral insight. Bro. Bullis, of course, has my complete assistance in terms of consultation and ideas.
In Christ,
Patrick
So Todd, when do you announce your run for a political seat? That’s what you’re gunning for here, right? Some middle-aged guy comes out of nowhere, starts holding up offensive signs in public places, plays the victim card and threatens to press charges when someone splashes him with some water (and if you buy his tall tale, vinegar too, because who doesn’t carry around a spray bottle filled with vinegar for just such an occasion?): it all screams “I’m clumsily trying to make a name for myself for a political run!” Too bad you’re in California; such a cheesy ploy might actually work in some backwater town in the Bible Belt.
Thank you Todd..for being there..for taking a stand and most of all for confronting the church.
You are so right that abortion would end if the church got involved for LIFE. Their silence is sending the Lambs to the Slaughter. Their blood is on the hands of everyone who has looked the other way, excused away, pontificated away, reasoned away the innocents death and made it less than it is; The wholesale killing of innocent babies, ripped apart limb by limb.
Most of the church is mute, blind and impotent as far as the holocaust of abortion. I believe it will be people like Todd who wake it up. We do need more Todds. I pray God uses this to give us an army of them…an awakened church!
I was heartbroken seeing this video. You expect this kind of behavior from the “pro aborts”. To see it come in front of a church…from a church member, a keeper of the peace, off duty police man is frightening.
I wish Todd was standing in front of our church. My daughter may have changed her mind and not had the abortion that took her life.
Pastor Patrick:
Thank you.
I spent 10 months campaigning for and traveling with a very, very pro-life gubernatorial candidate. He reached out to the churches for support and got very little. In fact, his opponent is now the Homeland Security Secretary. This is not a coincidence as the security of the nation has been placed in the hands of a rabid pro-abort who is on record as calling pro-lifers terrorists. Yes, our refusals to do God’s will can have grave consequences and result in God’s judgment.
Previous to this campaign activity, I was under the very naive impression that all churches were pro-life by default. That is when I started to study, to read and then to blog on this site and start my own blog. I learned how abortion has deceived the church, even churches that think they are pro-life.
I attend Phoenix First Assembly. Pastor Barnett is one of the most outspoken pastors that I know of that is pro-life. I have also heard many, many sermons from Pastor Barnett against abortion that would even make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. This is atypical.
With regards to politicians, because of 501c3 legislation, you cannot endorse a politician over another which is much, much different than campaigning for one. Silence is tantamount to approval. If the church leader is not very clear about this to his local assembly, this is how we get what has happened in this country.
It is no coincidence that since the 1950’s passage of the Lyndon B. Johnson 501c3 IRS legislation it wasn’t long before God was taken out of schools, prayer was taken out of schools, abortion was made legal, etc., etc., etc. Soon, you will not be able to preach against homosexuality for fear of it being termed “hate speech”. We are on a very, very slippery slope.
What if God asked you to speak against Joe Blow, rabid pro-abort Congressman? Would you do it or succumb to the IRS law? God does not require us to obey a government that is acting against His word.
This is why the Allied Defense Fund is challenging Pastors to intentionally speak against any politician they think is ungodly or leading their community down the wrong road. They are seeking an IRS challenge that will go to the Supreme Court and strike down the muzzling of the pulpit.
I know that you have the right intentions. I am simply challenging all pastors to examine themselves to determine if in fact they are being led by the Spirit regards the subject of abortion or are allowing themselves to be deceived. We are all vulnerable.
I did not mean to pick on you. I do not know the name of your church or where it is and I don’t want to know. For all I know you are using a fictitious name. I was simply using your comments to show how really, they are not logical….but, very, very typical….sorry.
Hence, my comments were intended to be general. If I have been a thorn in the flesh, well, the body needs to be able to feel pain if it is to heal, no?
But please, please re-think this abortion issue. That is what Mr. Bullis is trying to do. He is sounding the warning trumpet to a church that has fallen asleep. I applaud him for it and I think he has tremendous courage since what happened today is not without consequences.
At risk of offending the many Catholic Christians on this site, maybe Martin Luther should not have posted his 95 Theses?
When we are not listening sometimes God uses a hammer and nails be it on a cross or the doors of a Cathedral or on a blog. He is not constrained.
Eileen:
Sorry for the death of your daughter.
Perhaps if she had just heard that one word from God, things would be different.
Thanks so much for putting a face on this very, very tragic fact; that the church has failed in this area of fighting abortion.
Ex: You keep coming back to “assault” and dissing it as though nothing really happened.
Perhaps you would think otherwise if it happened to you, or better yet, to someone you loved, like maybe your spouse. Which is exactly what happened at our local clinic one day. Yet another jackass juvenile (this must be in the DNA of anti anti-abortion protesters) decided he would be clever and rode by in his truck with cardboard over his plates (what a fine specimen of manhood) with squirt gun in hand and proceeded to spray my wife in the face as she was offering standing there to offer literature. We had no idea what was in the spray, and the event most certainly was an assault.
After my wife assured me she did not think it more than water I tried to get his attention and get him to come back. But the spineless little coward sped away with plates covered, fearful of the consequences of facing up to his actions. Just like the big man who sprayed his little squirt gun (C’mon…really…) and then went big time and got out the garden hose–what a fool–and bravely wet down Todd, our guy here was also a card or two short of a full deck.
At risk of offending the many Catholic Christians on this site, maybe Martin Luther should not have posted his 95 Theses?
Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 29, 2010 11:20 PM
Thank you for that, HisMan. I asked EGV on another thread whether Luther was wrong. His seems like an odd argument for a Protestant to make.
How much longer until we can call you Dr Phil?
RINO,
17 “For the time [has arrived] for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will [be] the end of those who do not respect or believe or obey the good news (the Gospel) of God?” AMP
1 Peter 4:14-19
Luke 12:51-53
51 Jesus speaking, “Do you suppose that I [Jesus] have come to give peace upon earth? No, I say to you, but rather division;
[Whoah! What happened to the unity of the Spirit?]
52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided [among themselves], three against two and two against three.
53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” [Mic 7:6.] AMP
No christian I have ever met likes confrontation.
Especially the face to face kind.
Todd Bullis has taken a Matthew 18 approach and he did speak with the person the person in authority delegated to meet with Todd.
God will judge the secrets and motives of men’s hearts and they will be laid bare for all to see.
The question to be answered is whether the conflict will be resolved ‘righteously’ within the body of Christ or put on display in the court of the unbeliever.
This will be interesting to observe.
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
Hi, I posted some comments before and I probably sound completely crazy, but I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue and I guess I’ve re-thought the issue. I’m completely and unapologetically pro-life and do believe abortion hurts women more than helps them. As I wrote earlier, a picture says a thousand words. Photos can be powerful tools in making an argument for an issue. I realize this is public property and the group is protected by free speech, but is this the proper setting for Todd and his group to be posting the pictures of the aborted babies? My only objection to it is if children are witnessing these photos. I understand there are warning signs posted telling on-coming cars and pedestrians walking about what lies ahead. I suppose I started looking at it from my “mommy hat” and honestly, I don’t think I’d want my younger children to see these. My older ones I’d be ok with. Could someone please comment or clarify? Also, I do think the Church (all denominations) need to speak out about it more.
Actually Fed Up:
Since there’s a Depression in Phoenix (probably because the church here totally ignored what could have been a very pro-life Governor and the defeat of the megalomaniac Janet Napolitano) and my engineering business is very, very slow I have decided to complete my Doctorate studies in Theology (and no Anne, it’s not because I need a job or am going to run for office). I just love God and love learning about Him.
Then you can call me Dr. Phil, Wielder of the Sword, ha, ha, ha.
Going to PF Chang’s now to meet a friend. Love those lettuce things. Today has been challenging.
I am the first one to admit I am a sinner in need of God’s grace, however, that will not cause me to give up this fight against this holocaust of abortion.
In fact, I believe someday I will lose everything and give my life for this cause. Come quickly Lord Jesus.
Eileen, I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter.
Todd, I have to say I was very impressed with how you handled yourself in the face of such provocation and awful behavior.
If Todd was trying to make a name for himself, there are plenty of other ways to do that as opposed to enduring ridicule from pro-aborts and even other pro-lifers.
When I was confronted with the abortion issue years ago, I was “pro-life.” But it wasn’t until I saw a very graphic abortion video that I was motivated to DO SOMETHING, and it changed the course of my life. The appropriate reaction from the church (and I am speaking “church” in general) to these photos should be horror, repentance, and a sense of “Lord, what can we do? Here we are, send us.”
Then you can call me Dr. Phil, Wielder of the Sword, ha, ha, ha. Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 29, 2010 11:47 PM
Please take no offense when I say this, but I think you’d make a heck of a contribution to the diaconate if you ever come home to the RCC. Then we could call you Deacon Dr Phil, Wielder of the Sword, Champion of the Unborn.
I wish you many blessings this Holy Week. And the same goes for our elder brothers and sisters in the faith who are celebrating Passover.
Ken:
Yes I am concerned about this too, airing our dirty laundry for the world to see.
BUT, where is the church willing to talk about abortion?
The answer is, “not in many places”.
God, please have mercy on all of us.
Fed Up:
No offense taken, at all.
I know about all the false things that are spoken against the RCC and that really bothers me.
Thank you, HisMan, much appreciated :)
As I was reading thru the comments on this thread, one thought kept returning to my mind. Jesus never said the gates of hell wouldn’t touch or even infiltrate his Church. But he did tell us they wouldn’t prevail. He must have had a reason for giving us this assurance, and I trust him to keep his word. Peace.
Hey Anne,
You and your pro-abortion friends (fiends?) just keep coming here spouting your racist bull. That irks me so much. Pro-life, typically conservatives, are constantly labeled as and accused of being racist, and you jerks go around openly flaunting racism (“7-11 clerk”? Really now?) and NOBODY ever calls you on it. But I am now. Racist.
Anne,
Nice slurs all around. So much for “right-wingers” being the racist, intolerant ones.
Eileen,
I am very sorry for your loss. Your comment is the one I will take away from this thread. And you are right. The collective church is mostly silent about this issue. I am a Catholic and I am strongly pro-life and will state it so unequivocally, but this is not the stance of my local church. Yes, the teaching authority of the RCC is definitely, undeniably pro-life, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to many priests, religious and lay people. Unfortunately, many have fallen prey to relativism and the “personally opposed, but…”
As others have noted, graphic pictures of an abortion were what finally woke me up to the atrocity of abortion. Before viewing those pictures, it was simply an intellectual exercise about “individual choice,” etc… Then I saw a victim and it completely changed my mind and made the pro-abortion rhetoric hollow. And now that we know the long-term effects on women, I can’t possibly understand how this issue is presented as anything but a moral evil.
This is an interesting thread. I have said previously that churches are my toughest customers as a pro life educator. They just do not want to discuss it. If Todd had contacted the pastor to talk with him and advise him of the upcoming protest, then I think the pastor at the very least should have advised all there not to engage them. Let them do the protest. I would hope that the pastor would have carefully considered whether he was guilty of ignoring the loss of life that occurs daily. As Fr. Pavone has said if the pulpits would have forcefully spoken out about this right after Roe Vs. Wade was decided, they could have shut this down. Shame on the churches. They were silent during the holocaust in Germany and they are silent now.
Anne,
So that’s all you’ve got? Slurs against foreigners. Slurs against pro-lifers. Slurs against who swaths of the country.
If you’ve had occasion to read much of the commentary here, then you’ve noticed that the pro-life community puts forward some rather sophisticated argumentation based upon Natural Law Theory and Christian Tradition. Add to that the commentary many of us in the medical community bring from the scientific, medical, and mental health perspectives; perspectives such as Jill Staneks experiences as an OB/GYN nurse. Then add to that the experiences and ministries of post-abortive women such as Carla.
Then comes Anne with her slurs.
Aren’t you embarrassed that you can’t even compete intellectually with the people you believe to be beneath you? Though nearly impossible to pull off, you actually present as a more tragic and ignorant figure than the coconut cop with the hose.
Now that’s talent!
Eileen,
I love you and I love your daughter Laura and your grandchild. Your voice for life is always inspiring to me and I am glad you commented here!! I miss you.
Anne,
Still waiting for anything that resembles civil, honest, respectful discourse from you. Got anything other than name calling?
During the 40 days for Life campaign, I went and spoke to a church about sponsoring a day. The youth group was supposed to come for a few hours, so I made a presentation of abortion pictures and fetal development to show them. The teens were horrified of the atrocity of abortion, but asked questions for over an hour. The youth leaders couldn’t look, hid their eyes, and one left the room. The couldn’t take it.
On the Saturday that they were supposed to show up at the clinic for the prayer protest, no one came or even called to let me know that they weren’t coming. My husband and I were the only ones that showed, even though the teens had been very enthusiastic to come. I found out later that because ony 7 could come that day, the leadership decided that that wasn’t enough, so no one came.
In reply to EGV’s comments about water & assault, allow me to share with you that a local pro-lifer was arrested (as in handcuffed, led away, booked & all the other humiliation involved in the process) for “Assault with a Liquid Substance”. Her crime? A deathscort claimed a drop of Holy Water landed on him as she was sprinkling it outside the abortuary. No kidding. I want you to consider what she went through (to include a court appearance) and then compare it to this yahoo in the video.
Kel @ 11:48 pm: “the appropriate reaction…to these photos should be horror, repentance, and a sense of “Lord, what can we do? Here we are, send us.” You are exactly right, but unfortunately only the first part is usually asked, if anything is said at all, accompanied by a shrug of the shoulders. It is more ‘comfortable’ to just not think about it, even for those who know it for the evil it is.
Doe, I understand the mother’s perspective, but let me just share that Lila Rose has said she first encountered abortion when she saw photos in Dr. Wilke’s Handbook on Abortion. At age 9, her response was, “Who would do that to a baby?” and look at the fruit that bore! My younger daughter got into my material and saw an ‘after’ (1st trimester) and her quiet, solemn response was, “That’s what they did to the baby, isn’t it?” Kids are extremely keen to detect hypocrisy and watering down of truths. I think we do them a disservice to underestimate them.
I’m convinced out & out ignorance is a HUGE factor, as well, since I’ve got decidedly pro-life relatives who exclaim when I give them actual numbers and facts.
For Phil & others, I recommend listening to Bill Federer, author of Endangered Speeches how the ACLU, IRS, & LBJ Threaten Extinction of Free Speech.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
He speaks specifically about the church and speaking out on ‘social issues’, reminding us of the Rev. Dr. MLK, Jr’s insistence that the church is supposed to be the conscience of the state (you’re in great company, Todd).
Eileen, my heart aches for you and the loss of your beautiful daughter and grandchild. Thank you for your crusade and bravery in sharing the truth about abortion’s devastation.
Posted by: Anne at March 29, 2010 10:46 PM
…”who doesn’t carry around a spray bottle filled with vinegar for just such an occasion?)
: it all screams “I’m clumsily trying to make a name for myself for a political run!” Too bad you’re in California; such a cheesy ploy might actually work in some backwater town in the Bible Belt.
————————————————–
A water and vinegar solution are an environmentally friendly and organically safe mixture for cleaning windows.
The mixture is also used for feminine hygiene.
The squirt bottle leads me to believe it was probably being used to clean windows.
The police officer probably thought they were both full of water.
For Todd to be sucessful as a polictical candidate on the ‘left coast’ he would have to assume the identity of an emascuslated male or a testerone enhanced female.
yor bro ken
Thanks klynn73 for your response. Once again, I’m totally on the pro-life side and support several pro-life apostolates. My only concern is the setting of where the pictures are displayed. I’m with you that children have an innate sense that when they see something as horrific as this, they know it’s evil. My oldest daughter (she’s now 12) even reacted with disbelief and horror when I explained to her (no pictures shown)what abortion was a few years ago. I remember her questioning me, “Mommy is that really allowed here?” It’s awesome that Lila Rose and many other youth are fighting for the sanctity of life.
And Nerina at 8:11a.m., I am Catholic too, and I am so fed up with the wishy washy sermons that I hear most of the 52 weeks of the year. Church teaching is so clear on this issue, but you have to go to a (what now is called “conservative or Orthodox” when it really is plain Catholic Truth) parish where the priests are on fire for God and His Truth and do not shy away from the abortion issue. I think I’ve heard the statistic that about 1 out of 4 women (I may be wrong)have had an abortion and maybe these pastors are just afraid if they talk about it, they’ll lose congregants. But, their first obligation is to teach Truth and be sheperds to their flock. If they talk about abortion, they must always do it in love and preach God’s divine mercy and forgiveness.
I was talking to my sons later on that day and I wanted to make sure they knew how much danger we could be in while exhorting the Church. Vinegar is bad but it could have been any kind of acid that would of blinded me or disfigured me. I or we could have been shot and those are things that can still happen. I told them that we must be prepared for the worst and that can be death at the hands of the Church. My oldest son Micah said, even if you are killed we have done so much, we have gone so far that it would not stop me and I would carry on what we have started.
Here is what he is talking about, we are standing up in front of Churches to shine light on what is happening in our own home town. This issue is not about me, not about my kids and not about this officer. It is about the kids who are murdered every day in my town, yes my town the one I live in. If you live in a town that kills babies you have a responsibility and will be held accountable before God.
We are shining the light on the evil that is present and among us. These abortion workers here in Ventura have crosses hanging from their review mirrors. I know for a fact some of them go to Church and are professing Christians and professing Catholics. I was told the other day that the Director of Planned Parenthood goes to a local church here in Ventura.
God has told me to stand before the gates of the church and proclaim this word. (Jeremiah 7)
I do not do this lightly and with out months of prayer and much counsel.
God has told me that the church has the power to end this murder.
God is exhorting the Church
I am to go to the Church and shine the light on this evil murderous act that most Christians do nothing about and many Christians believe its ok to have an abortion.
I want to thank all the people who are praying for me and my family. This is not a walk in the park for us and it is very hard to be hated by those we love and care about inside and outside of the church.
Todd
Chaz Bono asks judge to change name, gender
apnews.myway.com/article/20100329/D9EOF2581.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Chaz Bono is asking a judge to formally change his name and gender.
The 41-year-old writer, activist and reality-TV star, was born a girl to Sonny Bono and Cher. He filed a petition to change his name and gender last week.
Bono’s doctor filed a declaration with the court indicating he performed a gender-change operation last year.
Formerly called Chastity, Bono has called the gender change “the best decision I’ve ever made.”
The filing was first reported by celebrity Web site TMZ.com.
A hearing on the petition is scheduled for May 6 in Santa Monica, Calif.
—————————————————-
Here is the type of candidate that would enjoy the optimum opportunity of being elected on the ‘left coast’. One who is both pseudo masculated and testoserone enhanced.
yor bro ken
klynn73:
The videos you refer to regardomg ow 501c3’s are destroyng this country are right on the money and few pastors are listening. I have posted them on my FB account: /PhilSchembri
Pastor Patrick, please take note……
Pastors, who are the conscience of the nation, have been lulled asleep like the proverbial frog in boiling water and unless there’s a Great Awakening to what is happening I don’t think much will change.
Yes, if the church is awakened, abortion will soon be made illegal, God and prayer will be returned to schools and the minority will stop bullying the majority.
In my opinion Todd Bullis is a Gideon for modern times and I admire his courage. Keep it up Todd.
God bless him and keep him.
This is the saddest video I have seen in a long time. Why are people angry when the Truth is shown rather then breaking down and crying over how we have ALL failed in stopping this atrocity? Spraying water on a fellow Christian? Getting angry and defensive because you don’t believe anyone in your church has ever had/supported an abortion? Christian are having and supporting abortion whether you want to believe it or not.
I was a child when abortion was legalized and my Catholic parish talked much of the evils of abortion for several years. I do not remember one sermon in my adult life that has addressed abortion (I go to church weekly). No wonder our youth are confused.
I have taught religious education to teens for several years now and the topic of abortion came up in class last year when a Right to Life group asked me to ask the teens if any of them were available to wait tables at a luncheon. The students didn’t even know what Right to Life was. When I started talking about the evils of abortion, one teen leader took me to task, telling me how I had no right to discuss abortion in class. The parent of this child later complained and I was told by leadership that I should have gotten permission from parents before talking about the topic of abortion. I was stunned to say the least. If these parents don’t believe that many of their teens are already sexually active they are in severe denial as well. Teenagers are exposed to many detrimental things on the internet but showing them the humanity of the unborn is much needed.
I have only become more vocal about the evils of abortion. The young people are ready and willing to listen! I believe if as an adult Christian leader you cannot handle looking at pictures of what our country, including our churches, have allowed humans to do to the most vulnerable of all humans, you need to spend more time searching your soul rather then watering the people on the street. Christian teaching seems to be watered down enough already.
Thanks Jill and Todd for the work you are doing.
But its never proaborts who are violent-only us ‘antis’ are ‘terrorists.’
Anne, you said:
“So what’s your point? That something is only protected speech if it’s trying to change a law? I didn’t say that nothing gross or controversial should be allowed to be displayed in public. I’m just saying, if gigantic pictures of aborted fetuses displayed in front of a church is “free speech” then just about anything could pass for free speech, no matter how grotesque, inappropriate, or pointless.”
You’re right – free speech does protect offensive speech but the question I would ask you is, are pictures of aborted children “grotesque, inappropriate, or pointless”?
Are the pictures grotesque – yes because killing a child through abortion is grotesque.
Pornography is a sin because the act of looking at it and lusting is ungodly. The act of sex itself is not sinful as long as it happens on a marriage bed – it’s the act of looking at it that is wrong. And when I say wrong, I’m not suggesting it’s just my personal religious views that lead me to this conclusion. It’s clear that those who are exposed to these kinds of sexual imagery have a harder time dealing with their sexuality, especially if they start young.
This is why I would support censoring porn images in front of a church but not abortion images.
In contrast, looking at the horror of abortion to be educated of its evil is not sinful. It is the act, not the looking of that act, that is sinful.
Are the pictures inappropriate – yes if the pastor of this church had met with Mr. Bullis and allowed him to do a pro-life presentation with these pictures in the congregation. There’s no need for pro-lifers to bring this presentation to the street if they’ve already done it inside.
But since clearly Todd did attempt to bring this presentation to the church and the church said no, then what other venue would pro-lifers have to get the congregation to understand this great evil? How else can they appreciate just how evil the act of abortion is?
And that’s why the pictures aren’t pointless. They educate a public confused about abortion who have been lied to by abortion advocates who cover everything up with the word “choice”.
And I think this answers the pastor’s concern here on the forum. I’m a youth pastor at a small church as well. Not everyone is active in pro-life work – not everyone has to. But I’m working to make sure everyone is educated about it; that everyone knows it’s wrong. Why? Because unlike great evils in other parts of the world, this one is happening in our own backyards. I don’t expect them all to protest on the streets but I do expect them to know why they are pro-life and to be able to explain it to others.
There was a day when abortion was an abomination. When “if you hate your brother you have commited murder.” No one has the right to kill innocents. “If you cannot love your brother or sister who you can see, how can you love God who you cannot see? I’ll let my poem speak for itself.” However, Todd Bullis is right – the Christian Church should be in total agreement on this issue. If not, your guilt will persist.
God-Clearing Nations
From mouth to mouth to eye sockets bare,
All dressed in gossamer from bones to bones,
Masked, pained expressions – all with fear;
Bodies – skinless smooth – all perfect clones.
Our consciences singed – our lips despair –
Genocide sears our memories still.
All unborn lives’ commence, its clear –
Is man sovereign above God’s will?
We murder not fifty million mere –
Our ‘causes’ define when life begins!
Although creation makes life clear –
“Child slaughter” harvests time-honored sins!
Cash breeds abortions and ‘pro-choice’ rejoices.
Near-borns – like refuse – for profit they discard.
“With child” grief bears 50 million hushed voices –
Kept safe under the judgment throne of God.
Great nations approve – mired in mass murder –
The violent deaths of God’s treasured lives.
By all means let’s rationalize our rights with fervor,
While children are slain at the hands of demon wives.
All beware what follows – the guilt, and remorse!
Our romance with abortion is truly God-clearing.
It may be too late to change evil’s course!
Or, can this nation turn back to be God-fearing?
Contemplating Abortion
By: Gene LaCroix©February 24, 1980 – 1st Draft
©January 22, 1983 Revised 1st Draft to 15 Million
©January 22, 1993 Revised 2nd Draft to 30,000,000+
©January 22, 2003 Revised Third Draft to 50,000,000+
©Revisions: 10th, 20th, & 30th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade
This document is copyrighted in its entirety. Gene LaCroix©1998-2008
Written permission required for any use of any part of this author’s writing.
Isn’t vinegar what was given to Christ on the cross? Amazing that a police officer who claims to be a Christian thought this behavior was acceptable.
All Assembly of God Churches oppose abortion. So the act of posting those obscene signs in front of that church is misplaced aggression and sinful.
To assault the innocent children exposed to those photos is also sinful. Self-righteousness was the sin that Jesus most vehemently condemned. These sign holders have exalted themselves to the position of “Judge of Christ’s Church.”
I believe it will not go well for them when they stand before Christ to answer for their attacks on His church.
RJ
Amazing that Todd Bullis would be lauded here as some sort of Christian hero.
Mr. Bullis has been disfellowshipped from his church, is unwilling to submit himself to any Christian leadership and is therefore in violation of the clear teaching of scripture.
Although he claims to have been sent by God to deliver his message, his rebellion toward God’s authority demonstrates that the truth is not in him.
Those who align themselves with him and against believers are placing their own souls in peril.
Search the scriptures. You will only find condemnation for Mr. Bullis’ actions there.
A Sinner in the Hand of an Angry God.
Andrew
Mr. Bullis has been disfellowshipped from his church, is unwilling to submit himself to any Christian leadership and is therefore in violation of the clear teaching of scripture.
Didn’t Martin Luther do the same?
I have to say that when the first cop showed up I was relieved but when officer J. Fowler started to talk to me I started to get upset. I felt like something was really wrong here. Than when the second cop showed up it got better and the second cop was really nice to me and make me feel like I was going to be protected. The third cop that showed up was great also and the commander that showed up was great also.
I think the first cop, Officer Fowler was a bit of a jerk because the guy who was committing battery on me was above his rank and a senor officer. I dont think that Officer Fowler has run into this type of situation before.
On the other hand I thank God that the other officers showed up. Great guys. I want to make sure everyone knows that I have met with Internal Affairs twice now and they are very supportive of me and have assured me that they are dealing with this issue. I was told that Officer Hixson has been suspended while the investigation is going on.
John Garner of Internal Affairs thanked me and told me that I had broken no laws and that in no way was officers Hixson’s actions justified. He also told me that the legal term for what happen was battery not assault. Battery is worse than assault.
I was also told that Officer Hixson admitted to spraying me with vinegar and hosing me down.
I have to say that I am very impressed with how the police have followed up and how caring they are towards me now.
I would like to thank Internal Affairs for calling me in less than 24 hours and meeting with me.
Anne,
I deleted your comment. You can’t seem to focus on the issue at hand without personally attacking others.
Ask questions, ask for clarification and discuss. Use your big girl words.
Dear Andrew.
You are right that Reality Church did ask me to leave.
You are wrong that I am unwilling is to submit myself to any Christian Leadership. I am under submission and have always been.
Posted by: Todd Bullis at March 30, 2010 3:49 PM
But only the kind of leadership that you 100% agree with, apparently. Sort of devalues the entire concept, doesn’t it? If you can’t honor a pastor’s wishes to refrain from arbitrarily displaying something that he feels will offend or bother his flock, then what sort of “Christian leadership” do you submit yourself to?
Todd,
Can you clarify this story for me? Exactly why did you pick that particular church to picket? Are they institutionally or theologically aligned with the church you attend? What is the specific relationship of this coconut cop to that church?
Thanks, and God Bless you for your witness!
Mr. Bullis,
WHY were you disfellowshipped from Reality Church?
Who is the Pastor that you are submitted to now?
Andrew
Mr. Fed Up,
Would you really try to equate Mr. Bullis’ actions with the ministry of Martin Luther?
Really?
Luther spent his life in submission to his spiritual authorities in Wittenberg.
His efforts to re-establish the authority of Scripture over the Roman church is a far cry from arrogantly parading around with graphic photos of aborted fetuses in front of a Church that may be filled with believers.
Who are you guys?
Andrew
Andrew, please refer to my March 29, 10:46 PM posting for the answer to your question “who are you?” to Mr. Bullis. Clearly, there are denominational differences between us (I am a somewhat observant Methodist myself) but I think we agree on this particular issue.
Anne,
I don’t believe the Wesley brothers were given to the kind of apologia by slur that you seem to be proficient at. Is this a new development in Methodism, or would your church view this behavior as something in need of remedy?
I ask this in light of your discussion on authority, which seems about as deep and profound as your slurs.
As a Roman Catholic, I place myself under the Apostolic Authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), and under the Bishops of the Church. I do not recognize the authority of any Protestant leaders over me, as I acknowledge that Protestants do not accept the authority of the Pope or Bishops of my church over them.
If Todd is not a member of this Church, he does so by virtue of his free will, and is not under the authority of its pastor. To argue that he is would be to argue that you are under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI.
What exactly is the point that you are trying to make here?
UPDATE, 3/30, 3:53p: Ventura Police Dept. Internal Affairs notified Todd Bullis that Officer Jon Hixson has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. He also admitted to Internal Affairs he put vinegar in at least one of the spray bottles (which they have retrieved as evidence).
——————————————————
Will B.O now come meandering to the rescue on his jackass and say the policeman behaved stupidly and arrange a beer summit in the White House rose garden?!? between officer Hixson and Mr. Bullis?
Being the comitted and devout christian that B.O. claims he is, how could he do any less to bring healing and restoration to these estranged brothers in the LORD.
yor bro ken
Anne,
As a further thought, if a pastor doesn’t want his flock troubled by having to confront abortion, then it would seem that Todd has hit his mark. His ministry of witness is aimed at arousing consciousness among Christians who may deem their congregation to be above the messiness of abortion.
I watched the video. I didn’t hear shouts of AMEN or some other affirmation coming from the congregants.
Of course, this ‘pastor’, a police officer, chose to spray lawful protestors in the eyes with an organic acid (vinegar) whose pH of 2.4 makes it as acidic as gastric juices between meals.
Now, if Todd had walked up to a police officer and sprayed him/her in the eyes with the same acid, what do you suppose would have happened to him?
Mr. Nadal,
If you believe the Roman church is the TRUE church, may I ask what your reaction would be if Mr. Bullis stood in front of your church with those signs?
Would it concern you that he was showing those signs to your 10 year old daughter? How about your 8 year old son? Your 5 year old daughter?
Apparently, Mr. Bullis believes himself to be justified in his actions because the leadership of the church in question didn’t immediately acquiesce to his demands to address that congregation with his abortion presentation.
Sounds like the worst kind of blackmail to me.
He has said that God “told him” to do what he is doing but we all know what kind of trouble is perpetrated by people claiming that God “told them” to do what they are doing.
All those who are the truly “called of God” are repulsed and grieved over the abortion issue. But to attack fellow churches as somehow complicit in the abortion holocaust is arrogant and sinful.
If the church in Ventura is preaching the Biblical message of salvation through faith in Christ alone, then Mr. Bullis owes them an apology.
As for the police officer… no one here should be rejoicing over the consequences that he may face. I am just thankful that I wasn’t there.
If Mr. Bullis had assaulted my children with those obscene photos I can assure you that he wouldn’t have left that place feeling quite as prideful.
Does Mr. Bullis have children? What is his marital status? Has he been involved in facilitating an abortion in the past? Why did he bring a video camera with him? Questions I believe should be answered.
Andrew
I do believe the body of Christ can resolve this conflict in a righteous and redemptive way.
‘church’ will just exacerbate the situation.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
yor bro ken
Todd should go to the beer summit only if he’s allowed to take his CBR posters with him!
Todd should bring as a guest Gianna Jessen.
BO could explain to her how he wished she would have died.
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t young people hosed for peacefully protesting in Montgomery at one point? Or maybe these young people really misunderstood God’s calling and were sinning instead. After all, many of them should have been in school.
Happy Easter and Keep up the Prayers to End Abortion.
Oops my bad. Just looked it up. The hose was pulled out in Birmingham. How soon we forget history.
Andrew:
Do you think that the church’s stance on abortion is scripturally sound?
Oh, we’re supposed to believe these guys carrying obscene signs around a Christian church are on par with the civil rights demonstrators of the 60s?
In case you didn’t know, the protesters in Alabama were mowed down with fire hoses, not sprinkled with a spray bottle and garden hose.
Have you all lost your minds? Looked like Mr. Bullis was enjoying the sprinkling a bit to much.
Still waiting to hear ANY kind of background info that substantiates his assault on that congregation.
Andrew
Posted by: Andrew at March 30, 2010 5:39 PM
1. “Does Mr. Bullis have children?”
2. “What is his marital status?”
3. “Has he been involved in facilitating an abortion in the past?
4. “Why did he bring a video camera with him?”
——————————————————
I will start with the last question first.
4. Video cameras keep the police ‘honest’.
Pro-life activist have learned through experience that you have to be able to prove your innocense.
The presence of a video camera tends to moderate the behavior of overly aggressive officers.
Law enforcement officers are a tight knit fraternity and tend to circle the wagons and attempt to hold the ‘thin blue line’ when one of their own is threatened.
The ‘badge’ is thicker than blood or skin color or gender.
3. What is the relevance of this question?
John Newton who authored Amazing Grace was a staunch abolitonist who just happened to have been a captain of a slave ship and was directly responsilbe for the deaths of hundreds of africans who either died on his ship or were thrown over board alive to destroy the evidence when he believed his ship might be overtaken and boarded by countries who enforced laws against the transportation of slaves in their territorial waters.
Was John Newton disqualified from indicting an apethetic ‘church’ concering the injustice of slavery?
2. Again, what is the relevance?
What does it matter if Todd is single, happily married, married to more than one wife, widowed, or divorced?
Do any of those statuses disqualify him from exercising his freedom to speak or protection of the law?
1. I suggest you drop the stone in your hand and take a coure in reading comprehension or if reading is too laborious for you just watch the two videos and you will that at least two of Todd’s sons were present with him that day.
You seem like a member of our liberal congress who leap to judgements and vote without ever having bothered to read what they are voting on.
Or they rely on someone else to tell them how to vote or they just don’t care enough to inform themselves and just go eeny meeny miney moe….
After I walked a picket line I learned to be more tolerant of people who cared enough voice their concerns even if I disagreed with their position.
Your feined concern for children is contradictory and duplicitous with a heavy dose of self righteous indignation thrown in for good measure.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Andrew at March 30, 2010 6:32 PM
“Oh, we’re supposed to believe these guys carrying obscene signs around a Christian church are on par with the civil rights demonstrators of the 60s?”
—————————————————
The club wielding bigots who hosed peaceful civil rights workers and sicked the police dogs on them viewed the negoes as obscene in their eyes.
If you had ever encountered one of these present day bigots and engaged them in just a few minutes of conversation you would be ashamed how much you sound like one of them.
yor bro ken
Luther spent his life in submission to his spiritual authorities in Wittenberg.
Posted by: Andrew at March 30, 2010 4:29 PM
Luther was excommunicated for defiance of church authority.
His efforts to re-establish the authority of Scripture over the Roman church…
On whose authority did he do this if not his own? He was, after all, dissenting against the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not just its authority structure. I don’t understand how you can condemn Todd unless you level similar criticism at Luther or insult a host of other Protestants along with Todd.
is a far cry from arrogantly parading around with graphic photos of aborted fetuses in front of a Church that may be filled with believers.
Todd’s charges against the Church relate to the butchering of the unborn, whereas Luther’s charges related to the selling of indulgences. You’re right, they are hardly on the same level, are they?
Andrew, I hope you can find it in your heart to let go of your anger. I wish you a blessed Holy Week. Peace.
Posted by: Andrew at March 30, 2010 6:32 PM
“Oh, we’re supposed to believe these guys carrying obscene signs around a Christian church are on par with the civil rights demonstrators of the 60s?”
————————————————–
Andrew,
You seem to believe that carrying signs around a church building with accurate depictions of what abortion does to pre-natal children is tatamount to planting explosives in a church building and waiting til the children show up for sunday school to detonate the bomb.
Your hysteria is hysterical!
yor bro ken
What’s the matter Andrew?
Still trying to understand the questions?
Is there no one there to explain them to you and offer a cogent response?
Call a friend, poll the audience, go for 50/50.
Are you smarter than a first grader?
yor bro ken
Dear Andrew.
Here is my youtube account. Here is all the churches that I have Exhorted so far.
A few but many more to go. http://www.youtube.com/user/noplannedparenthood#p/u
Yes I have 3 kids, 11, 15 and 17. I have 5 adopted brothers and sister and 2 others that are not adopted. I am married to the most beautiful woman in the world. I was raised in the church and love it very much. I am not apposing the church but Exhorting it.
I have never been part of an abortion. I bring a video camera because I am always in danger while standing in front of planned parenthood or standing in front of the church. I have had two people come over to me to beat me up, one is now a friend and the other one told me that something is telling him not to lay a hand on you and he than left.
I’m with Anne all the way on this one. And if graphic images should incite violent or emotional outbursts, the people who are showing those images should be held just as responsible as those committed the violent acts or emotional outbursts.
Showing chopped up fetuses isn’t working, nor will it ever work in stopping abortions. And what i want to know is–how many anti-abortion activists have adopted unwanted children?
If we have 1/2 million children in foster care and then just as many or more abortions in this country a year, where will all those children go? Are you going to open your door? Who is going to pay for those women who are forced to go on welfare because they couldn’t afford to take care of those children?
Not any of you… at least not willingly.
And mind you, Roe V. Wade is so important because women were dying of illegal abortions. So… if a woman is that desperate to abort, you want to take that right away from her so both the child and the mother die?
You can pray, repent, act like jerks all you want but abortion isn’t going any where. What you should be doing is focusing on children and teens who have unprotected sex early on and have to comtemplate abortion or becoming a parent before they graduate high school. Why don’t you find a way that works to help kids and young adults make better decisions BEFORE having sex instead of guilt tripping them and showing terribly graphic images when they do?
The problem isn’t abortion, but lack of caring, understanding and education. Get off the street with those stupid signs and get in the classroom and libraries.
BTW: For myself, i am pro-life.
AMEN Andrew – glad I feel like I’m no longer the only sane one.
I still think Todd’s cause is noble, but the way he is carrying it out is both juvenile and un-Christian – based on the reaction he’s getting, I think that seems to prove it.
I also think there’s a lot more to the story than we are being told.
Todd would you send your email address to Bethany and have her forward it to me.
I would like to exchange some correspondence with you in a more private setting.
Thanks
yor bro ken
Some ask “was the church the proper setting for the pictures” and “are the gory pictures the way to go about it”? I stand with Todd and answer an emphatic YES. PROOF? The pastor’s assault on Todd IS the proof! Are folks here really so naive to think that the pastor has any nugget of pro-life sentiment would have engaged in such behavior? Such behavior is motivated by angry guilt; what else would it be? His so-called congregation watched it; how can they call themselves “decent” after that? I certainly wouldn’t sit in the church of a pastor who committed such acts as that. The Churches of all denominations are way too silent and apathetic about abortion – sadly, they themselves may be proabort. Judgment begins with the house of God.
Andrew,
Suggest you google Martin Luther King, Jr.s ‘Letter From The Birmingham Jail’.
It just might broaden your perspective beyond the ‘eye of the needle’.
yor bro ken
Being outside of the whole “religion” thing, I can definitely see why Todd does what he does. The fact that so many who call themselves “Christians” then pay someone to kill their baby inside their bodies reflects very poorly upon Christianity as a whole. If I were a member of a congregation-any congregation-I’d be alarmed and saddened enough at the condoning of this slaughter by the church and more and more seemingly organized religion as a whole. And yes, i would be alarmed and saddened enough to join him in his protest.
Andrew,
You raise some valid concerns.
First, I never mentioned my Church being the one true church. I merely engaged in a discussion over people being under the authority they choose to be under; so let’s not get into fighting the Reformation all over again.
Next, I’m not a big fan of the hamburger baby pix. I think that they have their place, but am personally more disposed to 4D sonogram pix and video that induce a love affair with the fetus, rather than causing people to avert their eyes.
No, I don’t want my children being exposed to those pictures—yet. They will be at age 13.
As for my Church, we need no such signs out front, we’ve been on the barricades from the start.
As for the video camera, perhaps you are unaware that many of us have been the targets of death threats. Serious death threats, though the MSM NEVER report the other side of the story. Last year a pro-lifer was gunned down as he sat in peaceful protest outside an abortuary. Even WITH a camera, we see what happens, by a police officer of all people.
I’ve asked Todd to clarify his behavior for me. No response yet.
Andrew:
Did you know that 70% of abortions are committed by Christians? This is direct rebellion against God’s Kingdom mandate. Remember Jesus said to “seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
Adam and Eve lived in a perfect Kingdom of God. There was no sin, there was no disease, there was no death, there was no lack.
God’s Kingdom mandate was “be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth”.
Satan’s power is limited. He is not all-powerful. Knowing this, he sought to diminish God’s power and protect his own by attacking the threat to his power……the number of God’s people.
When Adam sinned, the Kingdom was lost, however, God’s plan was to restore the Kingdom. The restorer of the Kingdom is Jesus Christ. This occurred when he was crucified, died, was buried, and resurrected in obedience to His Father’s will.
When the disciples asked Jesus how they were to pray or really how do we talk to God, Jesus’ answer was, “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heave….”. IT WAS GOD’S WILL TO RESTORE THE KINGDOM ALL ALONG AND EVERYTHING THE ORIGINAL KINGDOM EMBODIED. This includes the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth”.
Satan knowing this, and who comes to kill, steal and destroy is now trying to stop the full restoration of the Kingdom by limiting the number of God’s people. This is what abortion is and the Body of Christ is called to be “salt and light”. If the salt loses its flavor it is worthless and if a shade darkens the light what good is it?
We pro-life believers understand this. We are in a spiritual battle and we are trying to enjoin, to encourage, to exhort, to rebuke, to edify our brothers and sisters who claim Christ as their Savior and Lord to please try and understand this monumental effort.
Andrew, this is not us trying to be goodie-two-shoes. God is orchestrating all of this and simply ask us to join Him in His work.
Join us.
And Andrew, God gave this to me a while back as to what He thinks abortion is:
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
my email adress is todd@abortionwoes.com
anyone can email me anytime.
xalise,
some years ago a poll was done of ‘christian’ and the results indicated that ‘christians’ were just as likely as non-believers to engage in pre-marital sex and choose to cover up the evidence of their canoodling by choosing abortion over child birth.
Todd believes he is exhorting the ‘church’ to be more visable and more vocal in their opposition to child killing but what he has not realized is he is confronting many believers with their own ‘hidden sin’.
Some aborted before they came to Christ, some after, some both.
The ‘violent’ response from the brother in the LORD who is peace officer is quite predictable.
He was only holding a squirt bottle in his hands but he had murder in his heart.
He would not have done what he did if he was not overcome with rage. He did it knowing the camera was rolling and he confessed with his own mouth what he was going to do before he did it.
That is voluntary self incrimination.
My guess, based on experience, would be that brother Hixson was directly involved in aborting one or more of his own children.
Being confronted with that unresolved reality provoked him to the point where he lost control.
The ‘good news’ for all of us is there is a savior who knows and will forgive us of our sin and heal us from the damage it inflicted in us.
I knew a man who accidently backed his logging truck over one of his children and killed him.
Forgiving himself was the most difficult thing he ever did even though it was a complete accident which would have been difficult if not impossible to prevent. Circumstances conspired against him.
nuff said
yor bro ken
Posted by: cricket at March 30, 2010 7:27 PM [italics]
I’m with Anne all the way on this one. And if graphic images should incite violent or emotional outbursts, the people who are showing those images should be held just as responsible as those committed the violent acts or emotional outbursts.
Inciting violence? This smacks to me of those who say a woman dressed in a certain way is asking to be raped. The violence IS the abortion, cricket.
Showing chopped up fetuses isn’t working, nor will it ever work in stopping abortions. And what i want to know is–how many anti-abortion activists have adopted unwanted children?
And if my answer is “4” or “none”, how does that change the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being?
If we have 1/2 million children in foster care and then just as many or more abortions in this country a year, where will all those children go? Are you going to open your door? Who is going to pay for those women who are forced to go on welfare because they couldn’t afford to take care of those children?
Not any of you… at least not willingly.
Cricket, are you willing to take in every battered woman and abused child? If not, you have NO SAY in speaking our against domestic abuse, right? The point: the most fundamental human right (TO LIFE) is violated some 115,000 times a days on this planet.
And mind you, Roe V. Wade is so important because women were dying of illegal abortions.
39 in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Do your research & be sure to include Dr. Bernard Nathanson, last living founding member of NARAL who admits they LIED, inflating the numbers they plucked out of thin air.
So… if a woman is that desperate to abort, you want to take that right away from her so both the child and the mother die?
There is no “right” to be taken away. No one has the right to take the life of another without, at a minimum, due process. To take the life of a defenseless child created by your own actions is even more sinister.
You can pray, repent, act like jerks all you want but abortion isn’t going any where.
Thanks for your permission; I disagree with your conclusion. Spoken like a true “pro-lifer” BTW!
BTW: For myself, i am pro-life.
Everyone is pro their OWN life, what makes one truly pro-life is defending others’ lives.
I’m with Anne all the way on this one. And if graphic images should incite violent or emotional outbursts, the people who are showing those images should be held just as responsible as those committed the violent acts or emotional outbursts.
I agree, Cricket! But why stop there? If a woman wears an outfit that somehow incites a man to sexually assault or rape her, she should be just as responsible as those that committed the violent act, right? Viva la burqa!
What about those that dare flaunt their love in public with hand-holding and eye-gazing, knowing that their are heartbroken, lonely and widowed people out there that might be angered and become violent? What about those that drive cars past poor people at bus stops, inciting them into a jealous rage?
Here’s a better question: WHAT ABOUT SELF-CONTROL? No one has any right to harm another person just because they are angered by what they say/show/do. So no, people who become enraged and do violent things to people because of disagreeing with others are solely responsible for their own actions. People have the right to speak what they please and are not responsible for the actions of others. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Period.
Gerard, excellent point about sonogram pics @7:38PM.
“You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.”
“Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decisions…at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
“One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the…great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is…the moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s justice; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises…to wait for a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
yor bro ken
“I had also hoped that the…moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for justice. I have just received a letter from a…brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the [pre-natal child]… will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.”
“You speak of our activity…as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the…community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of [christians] who, as a result of long years of oppression,; and in part of a few middle-class [christians] who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by [discrimination], have become insensitive… The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various…groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement. Nourished by the…frustration over the continued existence of discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity,…
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair… For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the…church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets…would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our…brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions…will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security…in ideologies…that would inevitably lead to a frightening…nightmare.”
yor bro ken
Anne, I was raised Methodist. The Methodist church today bears little to no resemblance to the church I grew up in and even less to the teachings of the Wesleys. It has prided itself (we know what the Bible says about pride) on being open minded… yeah, it’s so open minded its brains fell out.
At this point in time you can believe ANYTHING and claim to be a Methodist. It’s really sad.
There is no way that the Wesleys would stand for a pro-abortion church… Susanna Wesley was an amazing woman and one I strive to emulate. Let’s see… with my seven children that means I have what… 12 more to go?
Oh dear me.
I did not attribute my two previous posts.
There are the rambling rants of a well known rabble rousing christian activist who actually believed that ‘all men are created equal’ was not a mere rhetorical flourishe intended to dress up an otherwise drab political document.
We just recently celebrated his birthday as a national holiday.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Letter from the Birmingham Jail.
There you go Andrew. I did a little leg work for you.
yor bro ken
Is this off-duty officer demonstrating before my eyes that it is OK and legal to hose down a bystander or off/on duty police officer or spray him with a water gun or water bottle?
My kids just watched this – what do I tell them Mr. DA?
I’ll have to check back to learn.
This would really change things for pro-life sidewalk counselors if it stands.
herestheblood.com
I saw my first picture of an aborted baby at age 8 and it made me pro-life.
Lila Rose saw her first picture of an aborted baby at age 9 and look at that lady! She is AWESOME! It made her pro-life!
My personal opinion is that I won’t wait till my kids are 13 to show them the truth of abortion. Too many kids are sexually mature by then.
I got my period at 12. God forbid I had no guidance and had become sexually active at that tender age (it happens) and had an abortion (it happens). Abby Johnson sent me an invitation to become fans of this girl Claire on facebook whose mother concieved her at THIRTEEN and tried to abort her. But Claire survived while her twin did not.
Too many Christians do not teach their children the truth and their very own kids, who profess to know Christ go out and sin sexually then compound that sin with murder. I know several girls I went to Christian school with (some older, some younger) who went on to have abortions after graduation. Abortion was NEVER TALKED ABOUT. WHY???? Why are we so silent on this?
I am going to educate my children. They will know the truth so that the planned parenthoods of the world can never blind them with lies.
I too saw my first abortion pictures around age 9. A book my mother had hidden from me. I was horrified and asked her about it. Mom was honest and I was firmly pro-life after this. I also believe this book saved my first born’s life. I was 22, unwed, poor, scared and very pressured to abort but I remembered those pictures. My beautiful son is now 20 and also firmly pro-life.
Children can understand the Truth. But how confusing and sad for the children who saw Todd being sprayed and laughed at. Who is going to take responsibility and tell these children that a family was assaulted because they stood up for the Truth.
“Amen I say to you, unless you turn and become like little children, …”
This whole episode has obviously ignited the fascist wing of the “Christian” world and this blog is perfect evidence. If fellow Christians don’t see the importance of the abortion issue as Todd Burris does, then to hell with them.
If these anti-abortionists truly believed that abortion is murder then they would make the logical leap to kill all abortion doctors and nurses. It would save millions of lives.
Of course they won’t. They’re just another group of feminized men who think they can correct the problem by shocking old ladies and little children with obscene pictures.
Jesus said “whoever offends one of these little ones, (children),… it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea”. Mark9
Hope you can hold your breath, Todd.
Sincerely,
Tom
Tom, I think I’m unclear on your comments, because it sure sounds to me like you implied that men like Todd are “feminized” unless they go out and shoot abortion doctors to solve the problem of abortion.
In your post, it sounded like you just equated “being a real man” with murdering someone…which really stuns me.
Or maybe the “real man” in this situation, in your opinion, was the genteel off-duty officer with the squirt bottles and hose?
PhilShembri at 7:39PM:
Great post and you have awesome knowledge of God and His Word. In addition to abortion, with the risk of a lot of people hating me after writing this, contraception and the contraceptive mentality can be listed also as a barrier to the transmission of human life. It totally and completely takes God out of the pro-creative process (if, of course the couple can conceive). I think someone wrote previously, the couple practicing birth control tells one another “I love you…but only this much”. Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae was a very prophetic encyclical. He predicted what was to happen when contraception would become more widely used and now that it is the norm, it has paved the way to abortion-on-demand. All believers would benefit from reading.
PhilShembri at 7:39PM:
Great post and you have awesome knowledge of God and His Word. In addition to abortion, with the risk of a lot of people hating me after writing this, contraception and the contraceptive mentality can be listed also as a barrier to the transmission of human life. It totally and completely takes God out of the pro-creative process (if, of course, the couple can conceive). I think someone wrote previously, the couple practicing birth control tells one another “I love you…but only this much”. Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae was a very prophetic encyclical. He predicted what was to happen when contraception would become more widely used and now that it is the norm, it has paved the way to abortion-on-demand. All believers would benefit from reading.
Tom presents us with two extremes of manhood as pertaining to pro-lifers, extremes that are the product of his own twisted little pro-abort soul.
Tom thinks that killing babies is just fine (a position betrayed by referring to pro-lifers as “anti-abortionists”). Therefore, being in favor of baby-killing seems to be the definition of masculine for Tom.
You’re one tough guy Tom.
‘Feminized’ describes ‘men’ who cravenly lick the boots of feminists by advocating the death of babies.
Utterly pathetic.
Sorry for the repeat – do not know why computer is doing!
Doe, it’s not your computer. The site has been hiccuping lately, and we are trying to remedy that. :)
Dear Kelli,
Would it have been “murder” to kill Hitler?
Of course not.
Just seems pretty wimpy for these guys to just walk around churches carrying x rated photos to draw attention to themselves.
What that cop did was pretty amusing, don’t you think? If he had children there I would say that he showed amazing restraint.
I laughed out loud when Burris said, “call the police, I’ve been assaulted.” Sounded like a girly man to me.
I am an anti-abortion, anti-birth control father of six children under the age of twelve. Mr. Burris obviously enjoys victimizing people who are deeply offended by his methods. A real man
isn’t so much concerned about making a spectacle of himself as he is in accomplishing the goal.
The only thing Burris accomplishes is draw attention to himself. He is an egotist of the worst kind.
The messiah has come. It isn’t Todd Burris.
“What that cop did was pretty amusing, don’t you think?”
No, I do not think it’s funny to hose a good man trying to bring awareness to the abortion holocoust. What kind of person are you?
thanks for your courage Todd Burris.
Would it have been “murder” to kill Hitler?
********************
Tom, your response to that question reveals to me that you may be anti-abortion, but you are not pro-life. If “real men” go out and murder abortionists in cold blood, then how many have you murdered? (Or aren’t you a “real man?”)
Do you personally know Todd, Tom? You sound like you have a personal vendetta here.
I can speak from experience as a former CPC director that it is very difficult to get churches involved in the pro-life movement. Extremely difficult. There is an astounding apathy in this country from the church about abortion. Not only do churches *rarely* support their local CPCs financially (it’s usually a small handful from the area, but never the majority), they never even raise awareness about abortion or ways to help those in crisis pregnancies.
Many pastors have blood on their hands because they have advised parishioners and congregants to have abortions. I believe they do this in part because the church feels the need to cover up sins by destroying the evidence. This is not what the church is called to do. We are called to repentance, not to destruction, thereby putting forth the fallacy that “everything’s just perfect.” The mask worn by the church at large perpetuates the myth that you must be a flawless human being. And when we DO make mistakes? Well, just do whatever it takes so that nobody ever finds out.
What would you prefer Todd do, Tom? He is peacefully protesting the apathy of the church on this issue. Would you prefer that he go out and shoot abortionists (even though it’s illegal, and we’re not in wartime against Nazi Germany) instead?
What kind of person am I?
One that believes there are too many lone rangers like Mr. Burris out there who are a law unto themselves. Who take great pleasure in attacking the church of Christ.
The Bible repeatedly warns against self righteous people like him.
An earlier poster asked Mr. Burris who his Pastor is. No reply. He won’t acknowledge any kind of submission to ANY one.
So his former church was correct in disfellowshipping him.
And if correct, then other professing Christians should shun him.
Joining with him in his hateful crusade will only place yourself in peril.
Tom:
You make a lot of assumptions about Todd. He is accountable to godly men and does attend a church.
He did not just wake up one day and decide to do this. It took years of God leading him and Todd deciding to obey. You have no right to question how God has decided to use a man who simply as the prophet Isaiah prayed to God, “Here am I, send me”. You should try it if you have enough courage.
You are pointing fingers at a man who is risking his life in an attempt to awake the body of Christ to their apathy about abortion. Or perhaps you didn’t hear of the pro-life sidewalk sitter who was shot and killed a few months ago?
Todd knows the risk and he is also aware that it is God who controls his life and his destiny.
Would you also condemn Christ who had some very strong words for lukewarm and apathetic churches in the Book of Revelation?
Your anger is misplaced and difficult to understand. It is also not biblically sound at all.
I am not angry.
Just pointing out that no one has given the name of his church or the name of his pastor. Why is that? Also no explanation as to why his former church put him out.
You are incorrect to assert that I have no right to question how or if God has decided to use Mr. Todd. Not only do I have the right but am compelled by scripture to do EXACTLY that.
Did his former pastor require that he stop attacking the church? Simple questions. No answers.
As to his life being in danger…Come on, it was a spritz bottle and a garden hose. And it looked like he was enjoying it. Walked right into it. Didn’t even try to get out of the way. What kind of sacrifice is that?
Oh and Kelli, if you’re still there,
People involved in crisis pregnancy centers are the REAL heroes in the pro-life battle and I salute you for your work.
It would be interesting to know if that church in Ventura supports organizations like yours.
I’ll bet they do.
What kind of person am I?
Joining with him in his hateful crusade will only place yourself in peril.
Posted by: Tom at March 31, 2010 12:07 AM
This is confusing.
First you state that you are opposed to those who are self-righteous and judge others who have different viewpoints or methods.
Then, because Todd feels called to a type of witness (similar to Old Testament prophets called to the people of Israel to warn them that their hard-heartedness will cut them off from God’s blessings and protection) you state that:
1) He is a lone Ranger (apparently unless you are in a large group you are wrong. Someone should have told Elijah that.)
2) That he is attacking the church of Christ… no, he is witnessing to those who claim to be of the church of Christ but who are either unaware of what is going on or have hardened their hearts against it. Anyone who had a heart for the unborn would have at least just let him be (if they disapproved of his methods) or maybe engaged him in rational, measured conversation, rather than spray water and vinegar on him, shriek at him, or laugh at the displays.
3) You assume that simply because a man who has already been assaulted (that’s why the police officer in question is facing charges, he violated the law even if you don’t think it was seriously enough) doesn’t wish to announce his church and or pastor on the internet that he doesn’t have one.
4) You make a very serious charge against a man by saying he “deserved” to be disfellowshipped. Were you a part of the process described in Matthew that is required for proper disfellowshipping? Do you have first-hand knowledge of the basis upon which he was supposedly disfellowshipped and that it was done properly? How is that statement not judgmental… and judgment based upon a complete lack of knowledge of the situation.
5) You then say “if correct”, which at least acknowledges the truth… that you do not have first hand knowledge of whether it was correct or not…. and tell other Christians that they must shun a man…. because you disagree with his methods? How do you KNOW that you are right and he is wrong? How do you KNOW 100% that God has not called him to be a modern-day prophet? (Please note: I am not stating that I know that God HAS called him to that, it is not my place. It is HIS job to determine what God has called him to do and to do it to the best of his ability.)
6) You then call his work on behalf of the unborn “hateful”… again, simply because you personally disagree with the methods.
If “The Bible repeatedly warns against self righteous people like him.”… what does it say about you?
Tom:
No, you have no right whatsoever to question God and what He is doing in another’s life.
“Job 38:1-3 1 Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:
2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.”
“Romans 9:20-23 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”
Really Tom, go spend a few years in your bible and then we’ll talk.
Good morning, Phil!! Nice to see I’m not the only night owl.
“If these anti-abortionists truly believed that abortion is murder then they would make the logical leap to kill all abortion doctors and nurses.”
Tom, are you saying that if I don’t make the “logical” leap to kill all abortion doctors and nurses then I must not truly believe abortion is murder?
“Just seems pretty wimpy for these guys to just walk around churches carrying x rated photos to draw attention to themselves.”
Tom, photos of innocent murder victims are not x-rated photos but these photos do seem to trigger anger/defensiveness in people who are unrepented in one way or another.
Just for clarification, since I participated in this discussion earlier, I am not the same Tom as the person named Tom who has been writing here recently.
Good morning Elisabeth:
Yes, Phoenix is MST.
God bless, and I really appreciate your well thought out comments.
Life wins!
Thanks for the clarification, Tom Ambrose. It is helpful to figure out exactly who is who.
I see up a ways you made the following comment:
“Such comments make you seem arrogant, though I doubt that is what you intend. But if you alienate instead of reason with your brothers and sisters, then what have you accomplished?”
When I was a teen, I saw a young mother sitting every week in the front of church, head bowed. I remember thinking, “Wow. Is she ever arrogant. She thinks she is all that and better than everyone else (me mostly).” I didn’t know her at all but over the years I thankfully did get to know her and her family. I now realize that it was me, not she, who was struggling with arrogance.
I hope I don’t sound arrogant, but I sincerely want to know how you will reason with our sister Christian who is featured in today’s Quote of the Day? This young Christian is helping to lead another generation directly to satan and I am at a loss of how to reason with her. Any ideas?
“You will know them by their fruits.”
Praxedes,
Life and time are too short to waste on people who do not want to listen. Some people — even some with good intentions — are more interested in being quarrelsome, winning arguments, and spewing sarcasm and hostility than they are in recognizing and accepting truth.
My advice: Shake the dust off your feet and move on to those who do want to listen and reason together (Mark 6:11).
Tom Ambrose
Just found this site:
http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/
What Christian church is going to take on the responsibility for “reasoning” with the young “disciples” found at this site?
What Christian church will take responsibility for why these Christian youngsters seem to have missed the pro-life message that our Christian leaders have been so loudly and clearly proclaiming for the past 40 years?
On second thought, Todd, do you have any brothers?
Just found this site:
http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/
What Christian church is going to take on the responsibility for “reasoning” with the young “disciples” found at this site?
****************
Actually, that site is run by rabid PCer, KushielsMoon, who has commented here. KM is no Christian and only deceives herself. I think many people like her are post-abortive (perhaps she is, as well) and instead of repenting, they subconsciously seek to justify their choice. In order to be a Christian, one must actually follow Christ…
Maybee Hixson should not have done this, but what about these people who intentionaly stand on the edge of their freedoms (1st Ammendment) by using offensive signs and language to get peoples attention at any cost. I wonder if Bullis thought that these sings might scare young children or offend anyone else. Todd Bullis shares responsibility for this by instigating the confrontation with Hixson. Why would he need to have a video camera at the ready? Because he knew what was going to happen when he should up at a peaceful church. Bullis new that what he was doing would spark some anger and he could then detract from his behavior. Some think that any attention is good attention. Not so. I think Bullis is all wet and should be charged with inciting a riot and Hixson should be exonerated, but I guess our country is now plagued by these type of spinless citizens running around with video cameras who on one hand criticize our government and our founders while hidding behind the very freedoms that have been fought for by others. I hope the DA goes after these protesters for their behavior and excuses Hixson for his. These protestors are standing in front of military funerals doing the same type of stuff. Bullis is an embarrasment. Way to go Mr. Hixson I will bring extra hose if you need it……
I think Bullis is all wet and should be charged with inciting a riot and Hixson should be exonerated.
I hope the DA goes after these protesters for their behavior and excuses Hixson for his.
Posted by: Tom Webster at March 31, 2010 12:46 PM
So, the person exercising the First Amendment rights that are stated in the U.S. Constitution should be charged with inciting a riot…
Um, do you know what a riot is? There was no riot there. I suggest you look up the definition of a riot… The Rodney King incident was a riot. This was a peaceful man standing on a public sidewalk exercising his First Amendment rights.
But you think that the person who walked off of private property on to public property and willfully sprayed what he knew to be an acid in the eyes of people who were merely standing there with a sign he didn’t like should be exonerated?
In addition to a dictionary, I recommend a good course in basic critical thinking skills and logic.
“Praxedes,
Life and time are too short to waste on people who do not want to listen. Some people — even some with good intentions — are more interested in being quarrelsome, winning arguments, and spewing sarcasm and hostility than they are in recognizing and accepting truth.
My advice: Shake the dust off your feet and move on to those who do want to listen and reason together (Mark 6:11).
Tom Ambrose
Posted by: Tom Ambrose at March 31, 2010 12:03 PM
——————————————-
Tom Ambrose:
I assume you are referring to me in your improper use of Mark 6:11. You also misused Isaiah in a previous post. I will not let you denigrate my faith or judge my motives in front of the world.
Here’s the verse you quoted in context:
“Mark 6:10-12 (New Living Translation)
10 “Wherever you go,” he said, “stay in the same house until you leave town. 11 But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate.”
12 So the disciples went out, telling everyone they met to repent of their sins and turn to God.”
Jesus was commanding his disciples to go out and preach repentance and turning to God to non-believers and what they should do if they did not listen. He wasn’t talking about having discussions with fellow believers who may have disagreements on certain issues. Perhaps you judge me to be a non-believer then? If so, what gives you this right and get ready to be judged yourself? Perhaps Paul should not have challenged Peter?
I see a pattern in your use of scripture that is very disturbing. In fact, I question why you do this. What purpose is it serving for advancing God’s Kingdom? You are picking on the wrong guy.
I have been a Christian for 35 years. My wife is a Christian, my 5 kids are Christians. My 2nd son is a youth pastor. My daughter is marrying a youth pastor. I have a masters degree in Theology and working on my Doctorate. Not that any of that means anything but I think it indicates where my heart is. I love God and His word and I would die for Christ.
Please refrain from denigrating a fellow believer and an ardent pro-life Christian. Your efforts are misdirected.
Todd did a good job of exposing someone who obviously did not want to listen and reason. There was only one person in the video who was outrageiously and undeniably unreasonable. To state any different just is not the Truth. What Christians have been/have not been doing to stop abortion obviously is not working. I will be held accountable for not only “what I have done” but for “what I have failed to do.”
If we don’t try other non-violent ways to stop abortion, how will we know who will and who will not listen to the Truth? God works in many ways.
“Life and time are too short to waste on people who do not want to listen.” Glad Mom didn’t think it was a waste when I wouldn’t listen!
“A time comes when silence is betrayal. . .”, MLK, Jr., quoting from a statement of Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, April 4, 1967.
I have betrayed the unborn long enough.
Praxedes:
That site you referred to just makes me sad.
It is full of doctrinal errors and it is she who hates Christians.
Very, very sad to see self-proclaimed believers lead people into sin.
Mark 9:42
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
Abortion is sin and this person is teaching people to sin and I am very sure there are young childen that read her comments. Again, this is very, very sad.
Phil, I could be wrong, but my reading of the above post doesn’t seem to reference you at all. He’s responding to Praxedes’ question about how to respond to the young lady in the quote of the day section.
Gerard,
Please peruse this site and tell us again why the RC church doesn’t need to be confronted on abortion as well.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
Well, you know they say about people who “assume,” Phil. Get a grip, dude. The whole world doesn’t revolve around you … LOL.
My post above (March 29, 8:06 p.m.) that started Phil’s ongoing harangue, was as follows:
_________________________
“It is precisely the sort of bickering that is going on in this forum that is driving people out of both politics and the church.
“Who needs it?
“If we can’t provide a united stand against an obvious evil like abortion, how can we hope to win over the rest of America?
“Galatians 5:15: ‘But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.’
“Matthew 12:25: ‘And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, ‘Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.’
“Most of us here agree that abortion is evil. I would hope we could stay focused on that fact. Discussing the merits and difficulties of what Todd did is certainly reasonable. Attacking, judging, and otherwise denigrating and bloviating is neither reasonable, helpful, respectful, nor Godly.”
_________________________
In hindsight, Phil has only proven my point.
Thanks, Phil.
I’m done.
Elisabeth:
I appreciate your efforts at clarification, however, please read these three posts Tom Ambrose wrote earlier and then tell me what you think. I am all for reconciliation, however, his accusations will not go unchallenged.
He’s called me a bloviator, a fool, and implied that I am divisive and a non-believer. He also misquoted me and misused my comments. He is being very dishonest in both his use of scripture agasint me and his twisting of my words.
Read my comments in between. I can take criticsm but I won’t allow any man to challenge my faith.
_____________________________________
I have to say that I agree with Pastor Patrick’s take on all of this. We have bigger fish to fry and better ways to deal with churches.
I do hope the cop is prosecuted for assault — his actions as an off-duty law officer and as a Christian were flat-out wrong.
On the other hand, by placing these signs where they did, Todd is creating a situation that forces parents to decide between not going to church or subjecting their children to sights that they are not adequately equipped to handle. In my view, this is also assault, though of a different kind.
Posted by: Tom Ambrose at March 29, 2010 5:12 PM
___________________________________
It is precisely the sort of bickering that is going on in this forum that is driving people out of both politics and the church.
Who needs it?
If we can’t provide a united stand against an obvious evil like abortion, how can we hope to win over the rest of America?
Galatians 5:15: “But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.”
Matthew 12:25: “And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, ‘Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.'”
Most of us here agree that abortion is evil. I would hope we could stay focused on that fact. Discussing the merits and difficulties of what Todd did is certainly reasonable. Attacking, judging, and otherwise denigrating and bloviating is neither reasonable, helpful, respectful, nor Godly.
Posted by: Tom Ambrose at March 29, 2010 8:06 PM
__________________________________
Phil,
Your diatribe to Patrick at 6:28 p.m. is laced with innuendo of his wrongdoing, culminating in a plea for him to repent: “Please turn to God, ask him to forgive you …”
At this point, I’ve already cited two examples and it is clear you only want to argue rather than reason together as God models for us in Isaiah — another point I made that you are twisting out of context.
So, rather than continue this, I’ll end on this note and you can have the last word:
Proverbs 20:3 — “Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel.”
Tom
Posted by: Tom Ambrose at March 29, 2010 10:02 PM
Elisabeth:
This comment too was made by Mr. Ambrose and was picked up by Praxedes:
____________________________
Phil,
Do you not understand the difference between what you say and the way you say it?
I certainly appreciate your zeal to protect the unborn, but let’s take your comments to Pastor Patrick as an example.
Do you know him personally? You suggested that he was being muzzled by 501C3 status. Do you know that for a fact? You suggested that he needed to repent for his views. Do you know for a fact that he has sinned?
Such comments make you seem arrogant, though I doubt that is what you intend. But if you alienate instead of reason with your brothers and sisters, then what have you accomplished?
Isaiah 1:18: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.'”
Please reconsider the tone and posture you are taking, Phil. It isn’t helping you or anyone else.
Tom
Posted by: Tom Ambrose at March 29, 2010 8:46 PM
——————————–
It’s unmistakable that he was referring to me. He also takes scripture out of context to support his comments
Not sure why but he has a problem with me. He sees me as attacking the church. No, I am rebuking and exhorting based on scripture, and scripture applied properly not improperly.
Perhaps he should go back three years and read my posts. I am committed to the pro-life movement. Let’s see if he can do this as well.
Tom, have you got any better suggestions on how to engage Christians and the world on what you have agreed is “the evil of abortion”? Count 37 years, 52 million murders is the US and 4 billion worldwide…. and how exactly would you propose the church be engaged re: its impotence in this area? I am sure there are many, however, I see you offfering none. This is my area of assignment, what exactly is yours? You are great at criticizing others though and to misuse scripture is disgraceful.
Fine Tom:
If you stop throwing flaming arrows, I’ll stop defending myself. I did not start this morning you did.
And you are right, this has nothing to do with me whatsoever, but, it has everything to do with Christ.
I am positive that He does not approve of abortion nor would He approve of nor coddle His church that is doing very little against it.
For you to criticize Todd and me is misdirected. If you truly think abortion is evil do something about it instead of attacking those of us who are at least trying.
Phil,
Get some help. Please.
My comments this morning were to address Praxedes’ question about a combative Christian pro-abort. Not you, as much as you apparently want them to be about you.
Stop playing the victim card and grow up.
The Church is called to this.
What a shame that the Church image is so dead that people don’t even know why anti-murder protests would be held in front of a church. Asleep on duty much?
Tom:
This is a very dishonest comment if you look at the totality of the posts from yesterday and today.
I am an engineer, an aerospace engineer and a construction engineer. If I am not thorough planes and satellites fall out of the sky and buildings come down. I put people out of business and send people to jail when they make design mistakes and do faulty construction that result in harm to people.
When people make misstatements about me especially using God’s word and that in front of non-believers, I have no choice but to defend myself and that very, very thoroughly. I don’t hit and flee.
It is amazing to me that you want to “reason”, yet you can’t hold a reasonable conversation and resort to name calling and scripture abuse. You have called me a fool, a bloviator, etc., etc. and try to worm out what you have implied and now tell me to grow up. Wow……..
Do you talk to your wife and kids like this?
I have asked numerous questions throughout these posts and you have answered not a single one. Yet I have tried to respond to yours. Go back and read the comments.
I have shown where you have misused scripture out of context and you have not shown where that’s not true.
I have no desire to quarrel with you, but this is not quarreling I am simply defending myself against all of the rocks you throw. As a man, I will not let you get away with this.
I could say a lot of why I think you do this, however, I do not want to fall prey to your tactics.
I’ve got to go run a business now so let’s just leave it that since we don’t see eye to eye.
Again, stop throwing flaming arrows my way and I won’t have to respond to you any more. Keep your word when you stated, “I’m done”.
You people are nuts……………………..
I support pro-life Jon Hixson and most pro-life people, however
Jill Stanek and Todd Bullis are on a par w/ Eric Rudolf.
Why demonstrate at a church? There are other, more effective public venues.
“I put people out of business and send people to jail when they make design mistakes and do faulty construction that result in harm to people.”
Really Phil? How often does that happen?
“On whose authority did he do this if not his own? He was, after all, dissenting against the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not just its authority structure.”
Claiming to be the one true church does not make it so. Rememeber that both churches in east and west at the time claimed to be the one true church. The western church then did not have the monopoly to claim to be the one true church.
And the united church did excomminicate a pope (Honorius) for doctrinal heresy posthumously and did called him a heretic by name in the sixth ecumenical council in 681 AD. The church that excommunicated Luther in of itself was going against that council by its claim the pope cannot err in matters of doctrine (when in the past the church clearly saw otherwise).
The council of Trent, that condemned the beliefs of Luther, Calvin, etc., contradicted the earlier council of Orange (in 529 AD) on the issue of freewill.
Luther was right: popes and councils back then and before had contradicted each other. To say otehrwise is to completely ignore alot of church history.
The eastern church to this day sees itself as the true church (and in fact does not see Catholicism as valid communion though it does alloe for folks there and in Protestant churches to be saved) and sees its denials of purgatory, immaculate conception, etc., as passed down from the apostles, in contradiction to what Catholics believe.
So merely claiming to be the one true church to be is just empty claim.
The passage was written to the united church then. We don’t have that now, not by a long shot. And even if the Reformation had not taken place, the church was already fragmented and would continued to be so, after Vaticans I and II, in the western side.
“Todd’s charges against the Church relate to the butchering of the unborn, whereas Luther’s charges related to the selling of indulgences. You’re right, they are hardly on the same level, are they?”
No, but not in the way you think.
Abortionists kill the body.
The actions of the church that day, particularly done by weasel Tetzel, did far worse than kill the body: it killed souls on false promises to folks that if they paid money to help build a church, the souls of their relatives would be saved from purgatory. It led many to false hopes of salvation for themselves and others. It was twisted and wicked.
By the way, I am as pro-life as you can get, and I am still getting up to date on this situation. I have mixed feelings on this. If churches are conducting their servives, leave them alone doing so. On the other hand, I hate to think of churches that promote and enable guys like Tiller to do their dirty work. I have to read more on what happened here to make informed opinion on situation.
I do respect that the Catholic Church for its stance against abortion today.
But to say the Reformation was purely Luther’s fault or that Luther was out to rebel, rather than fight for truths of Scriptures, is purely history revisionism.
Had the western church made the concerted effort to reform itself, the Reformation would have been averted, or would not have taken off as big as it did.
Thanks Kelli at 3/30/10 at 11:28 PM clarifying the computer problem!
Tom Webster at 3/31/10, 12:46 PM:
There’s an Old Testament scripture and it goes something like this: “Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.”
Punisher wrote, in reply to Fed Up:
And the united church did excomminicate a pope (Honorius) for doctrinal heresy posthumously and did called him a heretic by name in the sixth ecumenical council in 681 AD.
Er… hold on, a moment.
I’m extremely loath to step in, here–not only because of Proverbs 26:17, but because I’ve enjoyed the comments from both you and Fed up, a great deal; but I need to offer a correction of fact, here.
Pope Honorius was not condemned for heresy. The 6th General Council included Honorius in the list of those worthy of condemnation with respect to the heresy of monothelitism (the heretical belief that Christ had only one Will, and not two–long story!), and they submitted their findings for ratification to Pope Agathon (d. 682 A.D.), who died before he had the chance. Thus, Pope Leo II, his successor, ratified the council’s findings… BUT: he clarified, in a subsequent letter to the bishops of Spain
The church that excommunicated Luther in of itself was going against that council by its claim the pope cannot err in matters of doctrine (when in the past the church clearly saw otherwise).
Well… no, that’s not right at all. The doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely specific, and it requires the following conditions, in order for a pronouncement of the Holy Father to be considered infallible:
1) The statement must be intended as universal doctrine, binding on the entire Church–on pain of heresy.
2) The Holy Father must specificaly be speaking as visible head of the Universal Church, and not as an administrator, a private person, or what-have you.
3) The statement must pertain to salvific doctrine–that is, to matters of universal faith and morals.
The questionable pronouncement of Pope Honorius was in a letter, written by the Holy Father, to the Patriarch Sergius (of Constantinople), who favoured the Monothelite heresy… and who had just previously written the Holy Father a very deceptive letter, asking for support. Pope Honorius replied with an encouraging letter which approved of the explanations that Sergius had offered, though–even then–the Holy Father presented the issue in an orthodox manner with which Sergius did not agree… but, since Sergius was interested only in preventing papal condemnation, he let the matter rest.
As such, there are at least two reasons why the “Honorius issue” is not at all an issue against papal infallibility:
1) The Holy Father was not making a dogmatic definition, binding on the universal Church; it was a private letter, meant for a specific context, in which the Holy Father was replying to a dishonest plea. As such, condition #1 for an “infallible” statement was never met.
2) Pope Honorius never taught heresy, not did he even consent to it. Rather, he failed to use his papal authority to STOP the heresy of the time; his fault was one of negligence, not of heresy. Pope Leo II makes that abundantly clear in his supplemental letters: to the Spanish bishops, he specifies that Pope Honorius was condemned for negligence, not for heresy… and in reply to the council’s own claim that “Pope Honorius supported the teachings of Sergius”, Pope Leo II corrected the statement, saying that “Pope Honorius was condemned for unbecomingly permitting the error to flourish.” (cf. “Radio Replies”, Frs. Rumble & Carty, vol.3, #405-406)
The council of Trent, that condemned the beliefs of Luther, Calvin, etc., contradicted the earlier council of Orange (in 529 AD) on the issue of freewill.
Not at all. There are two distinct types of teaching, regarding predestination: one which says that everyone is predestined for Heaven or Hell, regardless of their choices (i.e. Calvinism), and one which says solely that some people are granted a superabundance of grace so as to be assured of HEAVEN (which was taught at the Council of Orange). The Church has always condemned the monstrous doctrine that God condemns people to hell, regardless of their free choices; your example is not one of “doctrinal change” at all.
Luther was right: popes and councils back then and before had contradicted each other. To say otehrwise is to completely ignore alot of church history.
I’m sorry, but no: to say such is to engage in revisionist and biased history. Neither of the cases you mention are in any way a “threat” to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility (or Magisterial infallibility in general, for all that).
If anyone seeks to criticize the Church, let him do so on matters that are actually true… not on canards which have been disproved a hundred times over, for hundreds of years.
Sorry, folks, but Catholic doctrine doesn’t apply to anyone who isn’t Catholic. Go to mass all you want. etc. but your doctrine needs to stay out of lives of the rest of us who don’t belong to the Church of the Pedophile coverups. What a disgusting church it is, too.
“Todd Bullis shares responsibility for this by instigating the confrontation with Hixson.” Tom Webster quote.
Tom Webster, are you for real? Hixson is a bully plain and simple and how frightening that he is also a police officer. As a police officer, Hixson should be trained in bullying and abuse. He needs to be held accountable just like a elementary child would be. He also needs to apologize when he’s wrong just like I’m sure someone along the way has tried to teach him. Hopefully, Christian churches are still teaching the importance of apologizing. Hixsom is obviously over-the-top angry and it is his job to figure out why and fix it. Period.
Comments and thinking such as Tom Webster’s have kept people (mostly women) in abusive relationships for years. This mentality also hus much to do with abortion becoming legalized in the first place.
People who have escaped abusive relationships can come up with many similiar statements. I’ll start: Ex-husband to me after I came home five minutes after he wanted me home: “If you would have come home when I told you to this would have never happened.” (He broke my nose).
Another thing abusive personalities say quite often is “you are crazy, mental, hysterical, PMSing, overly sensitive, etc.” Notice quote by Goodluck about Jill and Todd that being, “You people are nuts.”
Good Luck has nothing to do with it. But God Luck does.
“You will know them by their fruits.”
Posted by: Virgil at March 31, 2010 6:29 PM
Hooray for religious bigotry.
Oh, and by the way, not all pro-lifers are Catholic, or even religious.
Hey Hal;
Wondering where you were. I bet you love the jousting between us believers don’t you? In fact, I bet you’re Tom Ambrose, ha, ha, ha, stirring it up a Little. Must have Jill check the IP address.
Referring to your question, as an expert witness, it’s happened a few times over the course of my 35 year career. Usually it’s fraud related.
What? You want CV Numbers, Counselor?
Well I’ll give those to you when you provide me first with your real name and second with details of the abortion of your first two kids.
Hang in there Hal, we brothers and sisters in Christ do forgive one another. Hey Tom Ambrose (assuming it’s really not you Hal)….sorry for arguing with you and I forgive you for calling me all those names. Peace brother. Yep, Peter repented and Paul forgave.
God love and bless you Hal…..you’re so much like Dennis the Menace and someone who’s difficult to not like. I just can’t get mad at you any more.
By the way, how’s the fam? Daughters doing good? In sports? How’s academics going? Boyfriend problems yet?
A misdemeanor violation of battery on a police officer is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year and/or a two thousand dollar fine.
If it’s the police officer committing the battery, shouldn’t he/she be held to a higher standard of accountability?
Palladin: Pope Honorius was not condemned for heresy.
Me: The sixth ecumenical council said otherwise: From Session XVI, it said:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.ix.html
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
Palladin: The 6th General Council included Honorius in the list of those worthy of condemnation with respect to the heresy of monothelitism (the heretical belief that Christ had only one Will, and not two–long story!), and they submitted their findings for ratification to Pope Agathon (d. 682 A.D.), who died before he had the chance. Thus, Pope Leo II, his successor, ratified the council’s findings… BUT: he clarified, in a subsequent letter to the bishops of Spain
Me: That does not change the fact the council soecifically called Honorius a heretic by name.
Palladin: Well… no, that’s not right at all. The doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely specific, and it requires the following conditions, in order for a pronouncement of the Holy Father to be considered infallible
Me: I am aware of all these conditions. Honorius as seen by the council met all three conditions in the time period when ex cathedra was not anywhere taught. It was innovation of 1870, to the chagrin of even plenty of Catholics who broke with the church over that.
Palladin: 1) The Holy Father was not making a dogmatic definition, binding on the universal Church; it was a private letter, meant for a specific context, in which the Holy Father was replying to a dishonest plea. As such, condition #1 for an “infallible” statement was never met.
Me: The sixth ecumenical council disagreed with you there.
The council saw it as much more than a private letter.
See The Definition of Faith.
(Found in the Acts, Session XVIII., L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1019.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.x.html
“But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.”
The council clearly Honorius as guilty among with others of being used by satan in “raising up for the whole church the stumbling blocks…thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy.”
The council saw what Honorius wrote as hardly private.
“2) Pope Honorius never taught heresy, not did he even consent to it. Rather, he failed to use his papal authority to STOP the heresy of the time; his fault was one of negligence, not of heresy. Pope Leo II makes that abundantly clear in his supplemental letters: to the Spanish bishops, he specifies that Pope Honorius was condemned for negligence, not for heresy… and in reply to the council’s own claim that “Pope Honorius supported the teachings of Sergius”, Pope Leo II corrected the statement, saying that “Pope Honorius was condemned for unbecomingly permitting the error to flourish.” (cf. “Radio Replies”, Frs. Rumble & Carty, vol.3, #405-406)”
That does not change two facts: the council saw it differently from you. It did indeed saw as even in your admission that Honorius was heretic. You are basically forced to beg the question that papal infallibility is validated here in the case of Honorius by what another pope said on grounds that pope was infallible. That’s completely begging the question.
But again, the council did stated: 1) Honorius was a heretic by name, 2) his letter and actions were NOT private but meant for the whole church and orthodox people to fall into the errors involved.
In fact, the verdict of the council is here, and totally contradicted your claim that Honorius was not excommunicated for heresy and never consented to the heresy:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.viii.html
The Sentence Against the Monothelites.
Session XIII.
“And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
The operative words are in CAPS here: “in all respects he (Honorius) FOLLOWED his view and CONFIRMED his impious doctrines.”
I wrote: The council of Trent, that condemned the beliefs of Luther, Calvin, etc., contradicted the earlier council of Orange (in 529 AD) on the issue of freewill.
Palladin wrote: Not at all. There are two distinct types of teaching, regarding predestination: one which says that everyone is predestined for Heaven or Hell, regardless of their choices (i.e. Calvinism), and one which says solely that some people are granted a superabundance of grace so as to be assured of HEAVEN (which was taught at the Council of Orange). The Church has always condemned the monstrous doctrine that God condemns people to hell, regardless of their free choices; your example is not one of “doctrinal change” at all.”
Quite presumptous of you to assume that I am saying the councils contradicted each other on the issue of double predestination (which I reject, since I don’t hold to God predestined some to damnation, nor am I a five point Calvinist). I made no such claim. I said they contradicted each other on the issue of freewill, which they did.
The council of Trent affirmed freewill, which you obviously admit to.
The council of Orange said freewill was LOST at the fall and can only be restored by the grace of baptism (and yes, I do affirm baptismal regeneration).
Here are the quotes from the council of Orange that refutes your statements it agreed with Trent:
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was DESTROYED in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which “has been poured into our hearts” NOT BY FREEDOM OF WILL from our own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
I wrote: Luther was right: popes and councils back then and before had contradicted each other. To say otehrwise is to completely ignore alot of church history.
Palladin in response wrote: I’m sorry, but no: to say such is to engage in revisionist and biased history. Neither of the cases you mention are in any way a “threat” to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility (or Magisterial infallibility in general, for all that).
Me: I am sorry, but you yourself don’t even believe your own bogus claim I am engaging in revisionism there to say church councils and popes disagreed with each other before (plus the fact you danced around my point about Orange/Trent).
You in fact used the argument that Pope Leo disagreed with the sixth ecumenical council as your spin why Honorius was not a heretic even though the council flat out said he was with these gems of yours:
“and in reply to the council’s own claim that “Pope Honorius supported the teachings of Sergius”, Pope Leo II CORRECTED the statement, saying that “Pope Honorius was condemned for unbecomingly permitting the error to flourish.”
So if the cohncil and Leo agreed according to you, why then did you claim Leo CORRECTED the statement of the council (which it made REPEATEDLY, not just one time) about Honorius?
The obvious answer is according to you, Leo and the council did not agree with each other at all.
I actually disagree with you Pope Leo corrected the council there. It is spin by your side. Pope Leo did not say the council was wrong. So if anything, I am the one saying in this case, Pope Leo and the council AGREED with each other, and you are saying Pope Leo and the council DISAGREED with each other on the issue of whether or not Honorius was heretic or not.
And as to the case of Orange and Trent, you completely danced around my point by raising up issue of double predestination which I did not raise. The two did in fact disagreed whether freewill was lost at the fall or not. It is documented history.
Palladin: If anyone seeks to criticize the Church, let him do so on matters that are actually true… not on canards which have been disproved a hundred times over, for hundreds of years.
Me: Except they have not been disproven (you simply parrot the partyline that those have been disproven by engaging in revisionism of your own). Simply what you offered is purely correcting what the council said about Honorius. You said the council never condemned Honorius for being heretic, yet you claim Pope Leo had to correct the council on that. You claim his letter was private, and the council never saw it as officical statement of faith, yet you are forced to say Pope Leo corrected the council for seeing it otherwise!
Come on now- your own spin about Leo correcting the council actually damaged your own argument popes and councils never contradicted each other even more than my point about Honorius.
The council said Honorius was a heretic. The council said what Honorius wrote was to CONFIRM and FOLLOW that impious doctrine. The council said Honorius, among others, in doing the will of the devil put forth for the whole church and orthodox people heresies and impious doctrines.
The council cannot get as blatant as it did in stating Honorius acted in official capacity, in setting a doctrine considered heresy by the whole church, for the purpose of making it doctrine for others in the church to follow and believe.
And by the way, I was responding to RCC claim earlier that Luther was a rogue while trying to paint your church as innocent during the Reformation. Rubbish.
Here is the imperial edict that also confirmed that Honorius was anathemized as a heretic, not for merely negligence:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiv.html
The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and CONFIRMED BY Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently. Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.) As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was THEIR ADHERENT and patron in everything, and CONFIRMED the heresy (??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.
Paladin,
The council of Trullo, that was about a decade after the sixth ecumenical council, also contradicted your claims Honorius was never condemned a heretic:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.i.html
“This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who ADULTERATED THE TRUE DOCTRINE and TAUGHT the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, HONORIUS OF ROME, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.”
Not only that but the emperor at the time of the 681 ecumenical council also confirmed in his royal edict that the pope was excommunicated for heresy:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiv.html
“As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was THEIR ADHERENT and PATRON in everything, and confirmed the heresy (??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.”
Oh dear.
My Lord Jesus, please, please keep me simple.
And more Leo did indeed condemned Honorius for more than negligence. Or did we forget those quote: “endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church.”
Not just mere negligence.
“Hooray for religious bigotry.
Oh, and by the way, not all pro-lifers are Catholic, or even religious.”
Yep, there are pro-life Catholics. Pro-life Eastern Orthodoxs.
Pro-life Protestants.
Pro-life atheists.
Pro-life feminists.
Pro-life liberals and progressives.
And yeah and like anti-Catholics especially among elitist anti-religious folks never engage in sexual perversions (which exist because of the sinful nature that exists in all of us, regardless of denomination, religion, faith or lack of faith, etc., but that many of us by common grace given to all or God’s grace in us who believe, are able to control our sinful impulses).
KTLA 5 news at 10pm tonight they did an interview with me tonight and they said it will be on their web site and on the news at 10pm. KTLA 5 news.
“KTLA 5 news at 10pm tonight they did an interview with me tonight and they said it will be on their web site and on the news at 10pm. KTLA 5 news.”
Cool!!!!!
Punisher:
You win bloviator of the week award.
Tom Ambrose (Hal), called me a bloviator.
However, you really know how to bloviate, I just blove.
Good posts too!
I’m only surprised that the DA actually heard about this. Not surprised by the DA’s decision (disappointed, though). Also not surprised that the police are not going to impose disciplinary action on the off-duty cop (and disappointed about that, too). The vast majority of police are upstanding people who do care about justice and maintaining peace in the community. But then there are the bad apples who decide they are above the law and know that they can count on their superiors and the union to protect them. Good for the local TV station for exposing this bad apple.
Punisher wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Pope Honorius was not condemned for heresy.
[Punisher]
Me: The sixth ecumenical council said otherwise:
I do not deny that the Third Council of Constantinople attempted to condemn Pope Honorius for heresy. I deny, however, that the council succeeded. In your studies of Catholicism, I’m sure you’ve discovered that the decrees of a council are not valid without the ratification of the Pope, yes? That’s precisely the problem: when the council submitted their findings, Leo II (who survived long enough to address the matter), while accepting and ratifying the majority of the findings of the council, rejected the condemnation for “heresy”, and instead substituted a condemnation for negligence… and the Holy Father made that quite clear in subsequent letters, as well (see my comments, earlier).
So: yes, Pope Honorius was condemned by III Constantinople. Yes, Pope St. Leo II ratified that condemnation. No, Leo did not ratify his condemnation “for being a heretic”, but because he “permitted the immaculate Faith to be subverted”.
Perhaps it might help for you to call to mind what Sergius asked Pope Honorius in the first place: he asked that the use of the terms [which were in dispute–“one will”, etc.] be prohibited; that a sort of “gag order” be placed on theologicans, allegedly for the sake of “keeping the peace” (though actually to grant Sergius protection from subsequent discovery and condemnation). Pope Honorius agreed to this, saying that it was “an idle question” fit only for “grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention”. He explicitly states that the issue is not one he cares to settle.
You might also keep in mind that Sergius asked Pope Honorius *specifically* about two contrary wills in Christ–not “two wills”, per se (though he may well have wished to deceive the Pope into commenting injudiciously on that matter); and Pope Honorius replied that “Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Yes, it’s tempting to run off with a monothelite assumption, here… but the Holy Father obviously meant (as the context shows, and as both Pope Leo II and Pope John IV [the latter of whom defended Honorius vigorously] recognized) it in the sense that “you and I are of one mind in this matter”; it would be silly for anyone to assume that it meant “one literal mind” between us… though the understandable hysteria surrounding the rampant heresy of the time made the council overcompensate.
At very least, Punisher, you’ll need to admit that your case is one of guesswork and probability… and not an airtight case. If you count on this to discredit the papacy and papal infallibility, well… this horse simply won’t run, friend.
(Cf. Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom, vol. 2 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987), p.253).
I am aware of all these conditions [for papal infallibility]. Honorius as seen by the council met all three conditions in the time period when ex cathedra was not anywhere taught. It was innovation of 1870, to the chagrin of even plenty of Catholics who broke with the church over that.
I’m sorry, but you’ve lapsed into some confusion, here.
First: Pope Honorius certainly did not define any dogma in his private letter to Sergius; even if he had erred in doctrine (which he did not–at worst, he was confused over points of semantics, aided by the duplicity of Sergius; the context ), it was not a declaration of dogma. Had Pope Honorius declared, in a letter to the Universal Church, “Sergius is right, and I declare this to be the True Faith, and all the faithful are bound to accept it as such”, then you’d have a point. But that is simply not the case. Your wish (to disprove/discredit Catholic doctrine) is father to your thought (that the Council says what you think it says), here.
Second: your idea that papal infallibility was “an innovation” is your raw opinion, and it flies in the face of the facts; you might as well call the Trinity “an innovation” (as the modalists do) of 325 A.D.! Look down to about three-quarters of the way to the bottom of this page for a few examples… but there are many more.
Third: the fact that “plenty of Catholics broke with the Church over the issue” says nothing germane to your point; the same can be said of every declaration of true doctrine… up to and including Our Lord’s emphatic teaching on His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. “Are you also going to leave?”
The council saw it as much more than a private letter.
Oh, come, now. There are many senses of the word “private”, at least two senses of which you’re equivocating, here: one, in the sense of “no one knows about it but a few”, and the other, in the sense of “this is not a declaration of universal doctrine”. I meant the second, of course. As for the council’s erroneous conclusions, I addressed that in the section above.
the council saw it differently from you.
They did. Pope St. Leo II, however, saw it as I do (or, more accurately: I see it as he did); the council erred, and Leo did not.
You are basically forced to beg the question that papal infallibility is validated here in the case of Honorius by what another pope said on grounds that pope was infallible. That’s completely begging the question.
I’m afraid that, in addition to your odd (and idiosyncratic) use of the phrase “begging the question” (which has a specific logical meaning which doesn’t match your usage), you’ve misunderstood the matter thoroughly. You seem to assume that an ecumenical council is “infallible” in its own right, independently of any pope… and that is simply not the case. The very person (i.e. Pope St. Leo II) whom you use to attempt to “prove” the formal heresy of Pope Honorius flatly disagrees with you.
More in a bit.
Okay, I shouldn’t try to read threads like this after 14 hours of work. My head hurts!!!
Punisher wrote:
Quite presumptous of you to assume that I am saying the councils contradicted each other on the issue of double predestination (which I reject, since I don’t hold to God predestined some to damnation, nor am I a five point Calvinist). I made no such claim. I said they contradicted each other on the issue of freewill, which they did.
Whoops. That was indeed my fault; I read too quickly, and I was in a rush to get somethere else, so I wrote without double-checking. Call me careless, in this case, rather than presumptuous, please.
As to your point:
The council of Trent affirmed freewill, which you obviously admit to.
I do.
The council of Orange said freewill was LOST at the fall and can only be restored by the grace of baptism (and yes, I do affirm baptismal regeneration).
You’re mistaken in what the Council of Orange said. Look again at Canon 13:
“The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it.”
…and compare it with the conclusion of that same Council:
“The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.”
Now… unless you’re suggesting that the council fathers were such dullards as to contradict themselves in the very same document, you’ll have to search for another explanation of your difficulty. Can you not see that “the freedom of will that was destroyed” can certainly mean “the perfect freedom of will was destroyed, leaving a wounded and weakened freedom of will”? That would make perfect sense of both quotes, and it would harmonize completely with the teachings of St. Augustine, from whom the Council Fathers borrowed almost exclusively in this document. But even if you insist that the defense isn’t conclusive, you’ll need something more conclusive in your own right, to charge the Church with a flat contradiction in Her teachings.
CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which “has been poured into our hearts” NOT BY FREEDOM OF WILL from our own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
Of course; did you think that any faithful and well-informed Catholic would deny this? The Church has always taught that everything good that we have is due to grace alone (sola gratia)–a free gift from God, and not the manufacture of our own abilities, somehow “apart from God”. The Church has never taught that we can attain salvation–or even do any good thing–without grace (that would be the Pelagian heresy); but the Church has also never taught that human freedom was completely destroyed by the fall.
I am sorry, but you yourself don’t even believe your own bogus claim I am engaging in revisionism there to say church councils and popes disagreed with each other before
If that were indeed my claim, you’d have a point; but you’ll note that I never denied disagreement between popes and councils; several councils were refused papal approbation of their decrees, and such councils were, by that fact, invalid. But you claim that there are instances where a pope, speaking as supreme earthly teacher of the Church, contradicted a duly ratified doctrinal definition of a valid council; and I’ll kindly ask you to give an example. You’ve not done so, yet.
So if the cohncil and Leo agreed according to you, why then did you claim Leo CORRECTED the statement of the council (which it made REPEATEDLY, not just one time) about Honorius?
I claim it, because the claim is true, of course. Pope Leo II and the council fathers agreed on most everything… but not on the specific nature of the condemnation of Honorius. I explained that already, did I not? See above. His Holiness accepted and ratified the vast majority of the council declarations, but corrected (in his letter of ratification) the bit which needed correction. And the fact that the council “repeatedly” made the same error doesn’t have much to do with anything, since all such repetitions were in the same document, and written before the papal correction, correct? Or did you somehow expect the Holy Father to issue the same number of corrections as there were repetitions of the error? “I, Leo, successor of Blessed Peter, do declare … Honorius to be condemned for allowing error to flourish. Again: I, Leo, [etc.] For a third time: I, Leo, [etc.]. And for the very last time: I, Leo, [etc.]”. The mind boggles… :)
The obvious answer is according to you, Leo and the council did not agree with each other at all.
On that specific point, no. On virtually everything else, yes.
I actually disagree with you Pope Leo corrected the council there. It is spin by your side. Pope Leo did not say the council was wrong. So if anything, I am the one saying in this case, Pope Leo and the council AGREED with each other, and you are saying Pope Leo and the council DISAGREED with each other on the issue of whether or not Honorius was heretic or not.
Yes. You seem to think that this situation (which does seem a bit ironic, on the face of it) gives weight to your claims. I don’t see how; unless you’re under the mistaken impression that councils can be valid, independent of a rejection by the Holy Father, I don’t see the problem you seem to cite. Why, exactly, do you think it’s so impossible for Pope Leo II to have corrected the council in a specific matter, in the process of ratifying the council itself (which was his duty and right)?
And as to the case of Orange and Trent, you completely danced around my point by raising up issue of double predestination which I did not raise. The two did in fact disagreed whether freewill was lost at the fall or not. It is documented history.
Again: I misread your post, and I apologize again for the confusion; but I did not “dance around” anything, in the sense of deliberately trying to mislead or distract you. As to your claim, see above for the reason why it’s in error.
Simply what you offered is purely correcting what the council said about Honorius. You said the council never condemned Honorius for being heretic, yet you claim Pope Leo had to correct the council on that.
Correct; the council tried to condemn him, but Pope Leo II (and his successors) did not allow it.
You claim his letter was private, and the council never saw it as officical statement of faith,
Half a moment. Nowhere did I say that “the council never saw it as an official statement of faith; the council fathers apparently did, but they were mistaken. I said that, as a point of FACT, the letter was not a dogmatic defintion, binding on the universal Church; I’d ask you to keep that straight, especially since we’re dealing with very specific details.
yet you are forced to say Pope Leo corrected the council for seeing it otherwise!
Aside from “forced” (unless you mean that recognition of facts “forced” me), yes. See above.
Come on now- your own spin about Leo correcting the council actually damaged your own argument popes and councils never contradicted each other even more than my point about Honorius.
I hope the point is now more clear; you seem to think that a contradiction of “papal statement” and “pre-ratified Conciliar statement” is an irreconcilable “blow” to the charism of infallibility; but you’re the only one to think so… and the Church teaches nothing of the sort. One might as well deny the power of the line-item veto, on the grounds that the executive and the vetoed bill disagreed with each other, and the executive modified it accordingly!
And by the way, I was responding to RCC claim earlier that Luther was a rogue while trying to paint your church as innocent during the Reformation. Rubbish.
I read the comments in question… and I see none of them which support your contention that Church members–even Church leaders–were somehow “innocent” of all wrongdoing. Luther was a textbook example of a rogue (whether you support his decision or not), since he broke away from the Church, and the Church was certainly in need of reform. Don’t you agree?
Paladin and Punisher, may I gently suggest that you exchange emails and continue your discussion/debate in that manner?
We seem to have drifted off the topic at hand and, while it has been a good and respectful discussion, it is getting rather lengthy. Thank you! :)
Posted by: Paladin at April 1, 2010 12:30 PM
“I hope the point is now more clear; you seem to think that a contradiction of “papal statement” and “pre-ratified Conciliar statement” is an irreconcilable “blow” to the charism of infallibility; but you’re the only one to think so… and the Church teaches nothing of the sort. One might as well deny the power of the line-item veto, on the grounds that the executive and the vetoed bill disagreed with each other, and the executive modified it accordingly!”
Good analogy.
Paladin: I do not deny that the Third Council of Constantinople attempted to condemn Pope Honorius for heresy.
Me: Then you are saying that the third council disagreed with you on Honorius. And you are saying that the council and Pope Leo disagreed with each other in your attempt to argue councils and popes never differed. According to you, Pope Leo did not see what Pope Honorius wrote as amounting to heresy. But by your admission, the council sure did!
Paladin: I deny, however, that the council succeeded. In your studies of Catholicism, I’m sure you’ve discovered that the decrees of a council are not valid without the ratification of the Pope, yes?
Me: In my studies of Catholicism, I know for a fact you are dead wrong there. It’s an argument you want to make from your partyline sources, but they do not square with history.
That is unless you want to invalidate the decrees of Nicea I, since no pope was directly involved with it, nuch less ratified any of those decrees at that first ecumenical council.
Yeah, the sixth ecumenical council did succeed.
The local council of Trullo tweleve years later outright, as I quoted above, stated Honorius was guilty of following and confirming those heretical doctrines.
The Ecumenical Council of IV Constantinople, if you are correct, apparently did not get the memo that the sixth ecumenical council was unsuccessful in attempting to have Honorius labeled a heretic:
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm
“So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, HONORIUS OF ROME, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, WHO FOLLOWED THE FALSE TEACHINGS of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”
And the Ecumenical Council II Nicea, if you are correct, apparently did not get the memo that the sixth ecumenical council unsuccessfully proclaimed Honorius was a heretic, since it flat out also said he was a heretic, too.
I quote it:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xv.html
“We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will HELD BY Sergius, HONORIUS, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their OWN EVIL WILL.”
Your argument of the councils were to submit to the papacy’s rulings are refuted also by these facts: 1) by your logic, even if the council’s judgment against Honorius was only for negligence, had it been done in his lifetime, then it would be invalid since Honorius would no doubt by your logic vetoed the claims against him for negligence, 2) popes were required to submit to the councils’ ruling til the 11th century, that Honorius was a heretic.
Paladin: That’s precisely the problem: when the council submitted their findings, Leo II (who survived long enough to address the matter), while accepting and ratifying the majority of the findings of the council, rejected the condemnation for “heresy”, and instead substituted a condemnation for negligence… and the Holy Father made that quite clear in subsequent letters, as well (see my comments, earlier).
Me: No, the problem is you are trying to prove the pope then was infallible and had power to ratify councils by arguing that whatever the council said was invalid unless ratified by the pope because of authority you claim he has. The problem is you are arguing in circles, begging the question, and arguing against history and facts.
The following two ecumenical councils (if we go by eight of those prior to 1054, by western standards) do not support your claims Honorius was not heretic. Nor does the local council of Trullo. Nor does the fact popes before they take office had to sign on in agreeing with the verdict of that sixth ecumenical council against Pope Honorius.
The problem for you on top of that is Pope Leo never said the council was wrong and never said Pope Honorius was guilty of ONLY NEGLIGENCE, since he also stated that pope was guilty of TREASONOUS CODNUCT and anathemized him for that.
Paladin: You might also keep in mind that Sergius asked Pope Honorius *specifically* about two contrary wills in Christ–not “two wills”, per se (though he may well have wished to deceive the Pope into commenting injudiciously on that matter); and Pope Honorius replied that “Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Yes, it’s tempting to run off with a monothelite assumption, here… but the Holy Father obviously meant (as the context shows, and as both Pope Leo II and Pope John IV [the latter of whom defended Honorius vigorously] recognized) it in the sense that “you and I are of one mind in this matter”; it would be silly for anyone to assume that it meant “one literal mind” between us… though the understandable hysteria surrounding the rampant heresy of the time made the council overcompensate.
Me: It would be silly acccording to your logic, which now goes down to the logic of it depends on the meaning of the word is is. Words have meaning. You don’t want to take literal the words since it invalidated your claims.
Paladin: At very least, Punisher, you’ll need to admit that your case is one of guesswork and probability… and not an airtight case. If you count on this to discredit the papacy and papal infallibility, well… this horse simply won’t run, friend.
Me: No, my case is based on history, facts, what the council said, and so on, not guesswork. You, on the other hand, do indeed rely on guesswork the ecumenical councils cannot be valid in their decreeds unless the pope validated them. That is just pure revisionist spin and in actually the horse does not fly in your case. By your logic, we would have to invalidate the first council of Nicea since no pope was directly involved with it!
My case is based on not just that but that two later ecumenical councils and another local council DIRECTLY stated Honorius was guilty as others of following these doctrines, and that he was a heretic.
By your logic, then the ecumenical councils after this, as well as the council of Trullo, was following guesswork.
My case is more than airtight.
Paladin: I’m sorry, but you’ve lapsed into some confusion, here. First: Pope Honorius certainly did not define any dogma in his private letter to Sergius; even if he had erred in doctrine (which he did not–at worst, he was confused over points of semantics, aided by the duplicity of Sergius; the context ), it was not a declaration of dogma.
Me: Which proves my case: you disagree with the council which precisely said he and others, influenced by satanic deceptions, conspired to put forth for the whole church and the orthodox people these pernicious errors.
So sorry, but you are actually accusing not only the sixth ecumenical council of lapsing into confusing, but also the next two ecumenical councils as well as that council of Trullo of lapsing into confusion. They agreed with me, and NOT with you.
Paladin: Had Pope Honorius declared, in a letter to the Universal Church, “Sergius is right, and I declare this to be the True Faith, and all the faithful are bound to accept it as such”, then you’d have a point. But that is simply not the case. Your wish (to disprove/discredit Catholic doctrine) is father to your thought (that the Council says what you think it says), here.
Me: Sorry, but that is precisely the case by your own statements, where you said Honorius stated he was of one mind with those folks. You simply dismiss that by saying it was not intended literally. But that’s arguing like a clever lawyer for a bad defendant, not atguing for facts, history or truth. It is putting papacy before catholicism of the church.
Your arguments did not prove your case, but the exact opposite- you dug the papacy’s case bigger holes now.
Paladin: Second: your idea that papal infallibility was “an innovation” is your raw opinion, and it flies in the face of the facts; you might as well call the Trinity “an innovation” (as the modalists do) of 325 A.D.! Look down to about three-quarters of the way to the bottom of this page for a few examples… but there are many more.
Me: No, your claims that an ecumenical council’s decree is not valid without the pope’s approval flies in the fact of facts, like that of the first ecumenical council did not require a pope’s approval. As well as your claims popes and councils never disagreed. Your own remarks end up validating what I said!
There is a difference. Trinity was blatantly taught early on, in the early church father writings (with Ignatius labeling Jesus God many times, with Justin and Athenagoras speaking of distinction of persons in the Godhead, with Justin saying in terms of first, second, and third persons in the Godhead). No reputable church historian, be it Pelikan or Schaff, would deny that. On the other hand, they would denied your claims of papal infallibility being taught early on. We have the ancient Roman creed as well as the church anathemizing the modalist views to show us what it taught before Nicea.
Paladin: I’m afraid that, in addition to your odd (and idiosyncratic) use of the phrase “begging the question” (which has a specific logical meaning which doesn’t match your usage), you’ve misunderstood the matter thoroughly. You seem to assume that an ecumenical council is “infallible” in its own right, independently of any pope… and that is simply not the case.
Me: Like I said, flat out revsionism. Nicea was ecumenical and it was indepedent of any pope approving of its decrees.
Paladin: The very person (i.e. Pope St. Leo II) whom you use to attempt to “prove” the formal heresy of Pope Honorius flatly disagrees with you.
Me: No, he did not. Leo still said Honoriuus conducted in treasonous fashion. Hardly, just negligence there.
Plus, the fact is two later ecumenical councils prior to the 1054 split validated that Honorius was condemned for heresy, not mere negligence. And the council of Trullo.
Your problem is with history, not me.
Paladin: Now… unless you’re suggesting that the council fathers were such dullards as to contradict themselves in the very same document, you’ll have to search for another explanation of your difficulty.
Me: No difficulty for me at all. You are now trying to pit statements in the same council against each other to try to explain away real differences with the council of Trent.
Even in the quote you provided from it, it does not say as result of grace given, we have freewill to decide for or against grace, which was what Trent did.
Paladin: Can you not see that “the freedom of will that was destroyed” can certainly mean “the perfect freedom of will was destroyed, leaving a wounded and weakened freedom of will”?
Me: You assume too much about what I believe.
No one holds to we have no will of our own (not even the most diehard Calvinists, which I am NOT one of). My side of things hold to we have a will of our own, but it is so fallen and so wicked, that it won’t desire to come to God, til grace changed the heart within to cause us to come to Christ, and repent of our sins and strive to live for Him, by faith.
Paladin: That would make perfect sense of both quotes, and it would harmonize completely with the teachings of St. Augustine, from whom the Council Fathers borrowed almost exclusively in this document. But even if you insist that the defense isn’t conclusive, you’ll need something more conclusive in your own right, to charge the Church with a flat contradiction in Her teachings.
Me: Except that the harmony you proposed in Orange does not say what Trent said, which was that we have freewill to assent of ourselves when grace is given. That was not what Orange said. Orange said it is grace that MAKE us strive, etc., for God.
And you got to be kidding me about Augustine.
The earlier Augustine indeed held to your version of freewill. But the later Augustine who wrote the anti-Pelagian writings went off the deep end many times. He was only not Calvinist in regards to that he held to one can walk away from salvation.
But he flat out stated passages like 1 Tim 2:1-6’s reference to all men (in writings such as Enchridions), really mean not everyone without exception, but to all classes of people, ie, all the elect from all over the world. Calvin and later Calvinists got their ideas of these passages to harmonize with their views of predestination from none other than Augustine. Augustine had errors of limited atonement and irresistable grace, where Luther erred with him on the former early in life (in Lectures of Romans) but moved off that later on (like in commentary on Galatians and even in Bondage of the Will, he affirmed universal atonement), and never held to his views on the latter (even in Bondage, Luther did hold to while freewill is void in matters of conversion, when it comes to grace and word of salvation, it is still for all and resistable).
Augustine’s views of predestination were pretty hardcore as any Calvinist, outside of the perseverance issue, in writings I read from him like Grace and Rebuke, Enchridions (his view on Romans 9 is shared by Lutherans and Calvinists and his view of 1 Timothy 2 and other like passages are copied by Calvinists to this day), Grace and Freewill, Predestination of the Saints, etc.
The bottom line is Trent’s statements that we have freewill to assent to God’s grace when it is given flat out contradicts Orange’s statements, even the one you provided.
Kelli: Paladin and Punisher, may I gently suggest that you exchange emails and continue your discussion/debate in that manner? We seem to have drifted off the topic at hand and, while it has been a good and respectful discussion, it is getting rather lengthy. Thank you! :)
Me: My apologies, Kelli.
Paladin, my email is Tron4JC@aol.com
Have Todd’s actions caused any of the churches he has protested at to take any further pro-life stand or actions?
Outsider,
Why not ask them? Todd’s probably busy.
Punisher, just FYI: I replied with my contact info., but it seems to be stuck in moderation (maybe I put too many hyperlinks in it for WordPress’s taste…); thanks for yours!
Click on my name, and that’ll take you to my (woefully self-neglected) blog, where my e-mail address awaits…