Stanek weekend question: Do you think abortion should be a central worship service topic?
The pro-life film 180, which includes a couple graphic pictures of aborted babies, is now being shown during mega-church worship services, according to HeartChanger.com. From a May 15 press release:
Some of the largest churches in America are equipping their members to stand up for life by presenting the award-winning movie called “180.” The powerful video, by evangelist and best-selling author Ray Comfort, uses a simple line of questioning to help eight pro-abortion individuals change their minds and become pro-life… in seconds – something that apologist Greg Koukl has called “the Colombo Tactic at its finest.”
According to Comfort, several popular Southern California churches have taken their entire Sunday morning service to show the movie then have him speak for half an hour. “It’s a great way for pastors to get their people to stand up for life – and to vote according to those convictions – because the video does all the work of changing minds about abortion,” said Comfort.
To date, “180” has been seen by over 4 million people, including 3 million views on YouTube, something that Comfort says is “unheard of for a 33-minute pro-life film.” His ministry, Living Waters, reports that the video has helped to change countless minds about the abortion issue, has saved the lives of several unborn children, and has even helped to save souls through the video’s gospel presentation.
Comfort said that the abortion issue should be a hill to die on for the Church. “However, the way to attack it is to boldly proclaim the gospel that changes the human heart,” adding that his ministry’s goal is to equip Christians to share their faith. Churches desiring to promote the biblical view of the value of life are invited to host a “180 Sunday” or to utilize the “180 Course: Changing the Heart of a Nation,” a two-part video series produced in conjunction with Kay Arthur and Randy Alcorn. The “180 Course” equips believers to talk to the lost not just about abortion but also about God.
Some people say focusing on abortion during church may hurt post-abortive mothers and fathers and intrude on their ability to worship and make church cease to be a place of respite. others say doing so may turn off seekers.
What do you say?
[Photo is of Comfort speaking at Calvary Chapel in Albuquerque, New Mexico]
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.
Yes I think it should be shown in EVERY church. It’s ONE presentation. I think post-abortive women/men should be told ahead of time (they probably would be, anyway) what the topic is going to be that Sunday, so they have the option not to attend that particular service if they so choose but, yes it’s IMPORTANT that the ENTIRE BODY that is THE CHURCH talk about this. If LIFE is not sacred to the church, what else WOULD be?
No, abortion should not be a central worship service topic. Worshipping God should be the only central worship service topic. Period. That does not prohibit discussion of abortion in any way whatsoever. I always like when the director of our local CPC comes to my church to report on his ministry. It’s good to hear what God is doing there. We don’t often talk about abortion at my church, not because nobody wants to bring it up, but because everyone knows that it’s wrong. There is no argument on that point. Certainly the pastors aren’t scared to talk about it during the sermon when they feel it is relevant. And just last week, the pastors, the announcements, the service bulletins, and several posters in the church were encouraging people to go to the “Great Turnaround” event at another local church, where Bruce Wilkinson was speaking. So I absolutely do not say that abortion should be a banned topic in the church. We should talk about it, support CPCs, and promote life, and we should do it as churches.
But any time you make anything, regardless of how good that thing is, the centerpiece of worship above and beyond focusing on God, that’s a problem. Even if it’s “just for one Sunday.” Because by doing so, the case is made that, even among God’s followers, God isn’t always the most important thing there is. And this is especially problematic in the case of Christian pro-lifers. Because that is, ultimately, where the “why human beings are valuable” question of the debate is grounded. Because humans are made in God’s image. By taking the worship of God out of the worship equation, we cut that grounding off at the knees.
Should churches show 180 and other similar documentaries? Absolutely. A lot. Should they do it during worship, as a substitute for scripture? No.
Abortion continues because the church is silent. If we are ever to end this atrocity, the churches must collectively speak out. Truth is sometimes offensive and hurtful, but it never stopped Jesus. We are his hands and feet, it shouldn’t hurt us either!
I guess my first thought on reading the title of this story was to be grateful that what is central to my “worship service,” ie, the Mass, is the Eucharist. The Mass isn’t about anything brilliant or meaningful (or not brilliant or meaningful) that the priest has to say. That said, applying this to the Catholic world: should priests talk about abortion during their homilies? I don’t see why not. Yes, some people might be upset, but the Catholic Church, as well as alot of individual Catholics via their respective prolife activities, have made it pretty clear that the Church is prolife. One doesn’t hear the topic raised very often at Mass, at least in my experience, but idk, no one’s world should go spinning off its axis due to hearing a prolife message at church.
As far as non-Catholic Christian worship, again, I don’t see what the problem would be. The same questions apply: Would someone affected by abortion be upset? Would seekers be turned off? Not sure, but is that a reason not to speak the truth (while being mindful of these issues)?
I’ve always thought the concerns about turning off “seekers” is upside-down and backwards. Did Paul and the apostles worry about turning off “seekers” with the Gospel, or did they just preach it and speak the truth? Too many Christian churches are “seeker-focused” instead of being Christ-focused, IMO. Stop editing the message in order to appeal to “seekers.” There is nothing in this world more attractive than the truth of the Gospel. When Jesus is lifted up, HE will draw all men to Himself.
That said, I’m grateful that the center of my worship is Jesus Himself, in the Body and Blood, and that never changes.
If a church is worried about “offending seekers,” then the church has big problems.
The church’s job in its worship services is to disciple believers, not to put on a good show. It seems we have lost sight of this. And we clearly need to disciple believers on the issue of abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrY1-gPM0KY
Lyrics:
I hate all your show and pretense
The hypocrisy of your praise
The hypocrisy of your festivals
I hate all your show
Away with your noisy worship
Away with your noisy hymns
I stop up my ears when you’re singin’ ’em
I hate all your show
Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show
Your eyes are closed when you’re prayin’
You sing out aloud with the band
You shine up your shoes for services
There’s blood on your hands
You turned your back on the homeless
And the ones that don’t fit in your plan
Quit playin’ religion games
There’s blood on your hands
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jon_foreman/instead_of_a_show.html ]
Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show
I hate all your show
Let’s argue this out
If your sins are blood red
Let’s argue this out
You’d be white as the clouds
Let’s argue this out
Quit fooling around
Give love to the ones who can’t love at all
Give hope to the ones who’ve got no hope at all
Stand up for the ones who can’t stand at all
I hate all your show
I hate all your show
I hate all your show
I hate all your show
Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show
I hate all your show
Addendum: A possible compromise here would be for screenings of 180 at non-worship service times. Catholic parishes could do the same, although Ray’s group, Living Waters, doesn’t seem very friendly towards the Catholic Church, so as great as 180 is, I’m not sure I’d advise Catholic parishes to support them.
I think this is a great idea and think there is no greater act of worship that educating the church about LIFE and saving lives. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the LIFE.” I am come to give you LIFE and that more abundantly.” There is nothing more sacred than promoting LIFE and I think the reason why we have so many abortion-minded young ladies in our CPCs who say they are “Christians” is that the church has not addressed the topic of life strong enough and let them know their is a way for them to “choose life so that they and their seed may live”. They don’t even consider adoption only abortion. I would gladly give up some of the “worship time” in church to save lives and offer help and healing to those who are pre and post-abortive. I say bring it on!!!
I absolutely think that abortion has to be denounced from the pulpit and in all the churches. We can’t be silent and just not say anything because we might offend someone or hurt someone. That’s what abortion DOES. When people at church start hearing the Pro-life message, when they’re exhorted to get out their and fight abortion… they will.
Sounds like a good idea, as the more people see it, the better.
Jesus should be the central topic of EVERY sunday.
To say that a church should do this or should do that is to say that you know the will of God and the calling on their congregation better than God does.
To say a pastor should definitely speak about something, to me, is darn near the height of prideful arrogance.
What if the church is called to a different mission? What if a church really works towards bringing new believers in, getting them in small groups where they better understand the word and dela with tougher topics. What if the church is older and rural, and in another place of maturity?
To say ‘All churches should do X’, in my opinion, is idol worship – it is putting something else at the same level, if not higher, than Christ.
Absolutely! The church cannot be silent on the issue of abortion. If it is, as it has been in the past, the culture of death will continue in our country.
Showing a presentation of “180” ONE Sunday is hardly “idol worship”, EX.
I didn’t say that Pamela.
I answered the question presented and said that declaring that every church should have abortion as a central worship service topic is idol worship.
Or is that what you are saying?
Evangelical worship services should be all Ray Comfort, all the time. Here’s one of his greatest hits that would surely enrich the hearts and minds of any believer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
I think Jill’s question is not that we should replace God or Jesus with the topic of abortion people, that is ridiculous. I hear Jill asking if the church’s should include the topic from the pulpit, If the church’s should be outspoken about this present day holocaust in our midst, and I say absolutely, the church’s including my own have been silent for too long, silence in the midst of such a great oppression against our children and the very sanctity of life, is to side with and aid the oppressor. Gods children need to be awakened to this evil in our midst, and God’s people need to all pray in one accord against it, and then perhaps God will hear from heaven and heal our land of this murderous, evil, and blood money thirsty industry called abortion. The church can avert their eyes and look the other way, but we are all going to held accountable for allowing this evil to exist legally, Lord have mercy on us all, starting with the baby in the womb.
What if the church is called to a different mission? What if a church really works towards bringing new believers in, getting them in small groups where they better understand the word and dela with tougher topics. What if the church is older and rural, and in another place of maturity?
What does this even mean? Called to a different mission – as if saving innocent life is not part of our human “mission” or even a mission of the church? I think the early church would beg to differ. Evangelism is crucial, obviously, and small groups are great – but abortion IS a tough topic believers should be discussing. To act as if killing our own children is just “another topic” that isn’t all that important is to be completely clueless.
Does being in a place of “maturity” mean you don’t really care about the children being killed by abortion? Are you saying that you believe abortion is only an issue for certain segments of the population and that more “mature” or “older” believers have bigger fish to fry?
Sometimes, I read your stuff like this and I realize that while you claim to be pro-life, you really DO NOT GET IT. Be sure to sing a little louder.
Kel -
The church I go to has had services about abortion. The pastor believed that was a message that should be taught.
So if a pastor doesn’t preach about abortion ever, because he feels that God is pointing his congregation towards other issues – is that pastor sinning?
What percentage of the time should a pastor devote to abortion related services? What is the Biblical formula?
And what other issues are “must-haves” in the church?
I’m saying that different churches need different messages – read Paul’s letters in the new testament and argue for a one size fits all message. I’ve visited congregations have an average age in the 70’s – might abortion or sexual sin be a message they need to hear? Maybe. But I’m not going to override a pastor and say he HAS to preach on those subjects to be approved by this blog site.
I don’t think that having this in church hurts people’s ability to worship. There can be times in the same service when you have singing worship, and the movie and talk about the movie can be during the time when the sermon would otherwise be preached.
As for those who’ve had abortions, it can be stated that we’re not condemning them, and lead them gently to repentance. Some really good pro-life people had abortions and became pro-life because they suffered the consequences. They want to stop other women from making the same mistake they did.
The church needs to deal with hard topics and not run from them.
Of course pastors should talk to their congregations about abortion. As the shephards of the particular flock or church they are entrusted with, pastors are remiss when they don’t talk to their congregations about matters that are clearly defined in God’s word as a moral wrong.
Not that you care about the feelings of Jews regarding the abortion/Shoah analogy but here’s how Abe Foxman and the ADL feels about this movie
“New York, NY, November 9, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today derided as “cynical and perverse” a movie that unequivocally compares the murder of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust to women having abortions in the United States, calling the film “one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years…”The film is a perverse attempt to make a case against abortion in America through the cynical abuse of the memory of those killed in the Holocaust,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. “Not only does the film try to assert a moral equivalency between the Holocaust and abortion, but it also brings Jews and Jewish history into the discussion and then calls on its viewers to repent and accept Jesus as their savior. It is, quite frankly, one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years.”..
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/6159_52.htm
What do you folks feel should be done about those faith communities that support abortion. How will abortion “end” if these churches continue their pro-choice theology? Back in the “good old days” when the Catholic Church ruled supreme, there was an Inquisition. But we live in a secular society. These churches aren’t wavering. So other than declaring them “apostate” and cling to the belief that they’re all going to hell, what can be done about them – if anything!
CC 3:29PM
I think that it is the opinion of one organization.
It proves what?
For the first time EVER in my 35 years of Sundays at a Lutheran church, the pastor spoke directly about abortion – in the context of the otherwise “normal” and entirely Jesus-y sermon. That was this year on annunciation Sunday. It was definitely unusual, but awesome. Awesome because it is the right thing, but also because, similar to my own recently revived fire for life, I feel Mr. Obama’s extremism is awakening sleeping churches.
So if a pastor doesn’t preach about abortion ever, because he feels that God is pointing his congregation towards other issues – is that pastor sinning?
What percentage of the time should a pastor devote to abortion related services? What is the Biblical formula?
And what other issues are “must-haves” in the church?
Here’s the thing – I don’t think I’ve ever been to a church where an entire message was preached on abortion. But the value of life, including that of unborn life, and the disdain and sin of child murder was discussed in the context of various sermons.
And your last sentence above just reinforces my point that you don’t get it. Abortion is child murder. It is murder. It’s not just some pet political issue, Ex. It’s a serious transgression of God’s law. If churches are discussing adultery and idolatry, then I would assume they would have no problem discussing murder, which is what abortion is.
With the manner in which you’re addressing this, it seems to me you put abortion into a “special issues” category. It isn’t. The problem is that some Christians seem to *think* it is, which makes it easier for them to write it off as “a personal decision” or “a political issue.”
I encourage Pastors to first make sure they talk about post-abortion healing, emphasizing God’s mercy, love, and forgiveness, while also showcasing the many life-affirming, loving pregnancy resources that are available to anyone who may be facing the challenges of an unexpected pregnancy, prior to actually talking about the serious moral sin of abortion, so that anyone who is sitting in the pew knows there is help available. Make sure your church really is helping families, supporting moms, and welcoming children. Redeemed and forgiven post-abortive women can often be the most beautiful and inspiring messengers to convey this important teaching of our Christian faith.
If churches are discussing adultery and idolatry, then I would assume they would have no problem discussing murder, which is what abortion is.
But I doubt that they’re discussing adultery by screening Fatal Attraction during worship services.
YES!!!
Pastors should be talking about abortion and what God has to say about abortion AND offering the hope of Jesus Christ and His healing and forgiveness to those that are post abortive!!!!
If one in four have had abortions then shouldn’t we be looking around and offering hope??
If not now WHEN???
CC, I mean it this time.
NEW TALKING POINTS.
You’re boring, seriously.
Kel -
Again, my pastor preached about abortion, it was a good sermon, and I was glad that he did.
But it isn’t a fundamental central worship topic in my mind that churches have to hit on to be a Christian church. Again, many churches preach of Christ’s love and in small groups and other manners, talk about sinful behavior and dealing with it.
I’m not saying it is special, I’m not saying churches should NOT preach about it – I’m just not willing to say that churches MUST have it as a worship service topic.
I mean, if a person is going to go that far, they should really put together a list of all the topics that should be covered.
I don’t believe that they should be trying to influence voting during church services. I go to church to learn about Jesus, not about how evil Obama is. As long as we want to keep a separation of church and state, we should keep politics out of church.
Off topic.
EGV,
All I can do is echo Kel’s comment, which encapsulated in four words what I’ve often tried to say with thousands of words: you don’t get it. Your capacity for seeing the fight against abortion as “one mere avocation among many” is stunning… and saddening. It’s difficult to know where to begin, to dig out such deep error and/or ignorance.
(BTW: I’m not trying to ignore you on the older threads; finals season is upon me, and old e-mails/messages are in a holding pattern for a few weeks. I’ll try to get to them ASAP.)
I don’t believe that they should be trying to influence voting during church services. I go to church to learn about Jesus, not about how evil Obama is. As long as we want to keep a separation of church and state, we should keep politics out of church.
This is a false equivalence. Abortion would be still be evil even if Obama were not, was evil before he was elected, and will continue to be evil after he is out of office–no matter when that is. And it’s a bit rich that whenever churches want to talk about abortion it’s a political issue and they’re trying to influence voters but whenever politicians want to talk about abortion, it’s a religious one and they’re trying to build a theocracy. If a church is right to condemn unjust war and murder, even though those things are also political in nature, then they are just as right, for just the same reasons, to condemn abortion, despite its status as both a political and moral issue.
KEL says:
Be sure to sing a little louder.
At least the Germans had a reason for their reluctance to speak up against the attrocities…if caught criticizing the regime they would be taken away in the night never to be heard of again.
What is our excuse? Yes, we should speak out frequently and with great fervor. In some modern congregations there is an opportunity for films and the such to be shown as a central part of their service, so by all means they should show them.
In the ancient eastern and latin rites it is more appropriate to hold off until the end of the liturgy and have a seperate meeting for the showing of these things. Of course the celebrant of the liturgy should take the opportunity to speak to the issue from the pulpit.
Paladin/Kel – You believe that abortion is the biggest evil in the world and if we could just get rid of that, all will be well.
I think that Jesus is the only healer in this world – that we could ban abortion tomorrow and we’d still have a massively broken world where evil will manifest itself in other ways.
So I just don’t get it, in your opinion. I don’t think you get it. I don’t understand how you think that somebody can get a calling from God, and yet you think you have a trump card over that calling in regards to what should be preached and in what proportion. Do you have issues with the letters from Paul and the proportion in which they addressed certain issues? How about the ministries of many evangelists that bring people to Christ – upset that there isn’t enough about sin in those? Maybe those folks don’t understand their calling?
Again – I’ve said it many times on this posting – I think it is great if a pastor believes he’s called to give a message about abortion to his congregation.
I will NOT go the step to say that abortion MUST be a central worship service topic (I presume, the next step of the question would be “to be following the will of God” or “to be a good church”). I’m not going to put God in the box that you two seem comfortable putting Him into.
For my part, I think it’s important for churches to worship authentically and speak prophetically.
A church that doesn’t worship authentically but aims to speak prophetically is just reducing itself to weak-tea social-gospel pap. You don’t need God for any of that.
When those who esteem God as ultimate first and foremost also go on to speak prophetically, it’s another matter entirely.
Elijah on Carmel continues to be a fascinating example. One either leans into the God who is there to show himself strong, or one does not.
OK, I’d never seen 180 before.
Good grief this is good stuff.
Margaret Sanger said in order to make abortion acceptable, they needed to take it to the churches (paraphrasing here) So to make it unacceptable, we need to take it back to the churches.
EGV wrote:
Paladin/Kel – You believe that abortion is the biggest evil in the world and if we could just get rid of that, all will be well.
You, sir, wield such a broad brush, and paint such ridiculously exaggerated caricatures of your opponents’ positions, that it’s nearly impossible to take you seriously.
And Paladin – I feel you dig so deeply into individual words that you fail to read a person’s post and understand the full picture. I think you’ve written your reply before reading and understanding a person’s position.
I’m very excited for you to enlighten me though – here is the question of the post:
“Do you think abortion should be a central worship service topic”.
I’m also interested in, because I think the question is begged here – what do you feel about a church in which abortion is NOT a central worship service topic?
Also, what is a “central worship service topic”?
Just to clarify we are coming from the same perspective – I feel that the postings and question are suggesting that for a church to be a “good” church or Christian church, that abortion should be something brought up regularly – (whatever you want that to me – quarterly, every six months…) – and if it is a central worship service topic, it would need to be a central sermon theme.
Once again, how do you folks deal with the reality that some major religious groups are pro-choice other than describing them as “apostate.” Or do you just ignore this “incovenient truth?”
CC – I’m sure there are some religious groups that are pro-choice. In regards to Christianity, I don’t know how anybody could ever see abortion as a good thing.
That may be the stupidest question you have ever asked, CC. And you really do ask some dumb ones. I deal with it the same way I deal with anyone who is wrong about something: when opportunities present themselves, I try to change their minds. What do you want us to do? Run around in sackcloth and ashes? Not very productive. Set up bilboards… Wait, that’s already happening. Organize debate… Never mind, people are doing that, too. Hold rallies and mar… I’m starting to sense a pattern here.
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. That some religious people think pro-lifers are wrong? Well, yes, they do. So what? Lots of people think lots of other people are wrong for lots of reasons. That someone thinks you are wrong is, by itself, not a good reason to alter your views.
I know, I know, don’t feed the troll. But my gosh, she keeps hammering on this like it actually means something and it’s nails on a chalkboard, I swear. Forgive me, Paladin.
EGV wrote:
And Paladin – I feel you dig so deeply into individual words that you fail to read a person’s post and understand the full picture. I think you’ve written your reply before reading and understanding a person’s position.
Oh, please…! Of all the disingenuous nonsense…
EGV, you wrote, as your intro comment:
Paladin/Kel – You believe that abortion is the biggest evil in the world and if we could just get rid of that, all will be well.
You now seem to be suggesting that, so long as you have some sort of point to make (whether or not you ever make it clearly and validly), you’re quite entitled to say whatever straw-man-esque misrepresentation of another’s position comes to mind, and to decry anyone’s criticism of it with a pathos-ridden plea of “But you’re reading too deeply into what I said! Can’t you see the big picture, and forget the minutae?” By that winsome exhortation, you exonerate yourself from all responsibility to make any real sense at all, and from all responsibility to avoid straw men of various shapes and colours. Balderdash, sir. If you seek to be understood and taken at all seriously, then you really do have at least a minimum responsibility to be coherent, and to avoid at least the silliest and most obvious of fallacies/inaccuracies.
I’m very excited for you to enlighten me though – here is the question of the post: “Do you think abortion should be a central worship service topic”.
I’m aware of that. But in the meantime, you make such a grossly distorted portrayal of Kel’s position (and mine) that it is pointless to address the rest of your argument (if we can call it that) which is quite obviously based on that antecedent nonsense. I’m not quite sure you realise the extent to which your mischaracterisation was gross to the point of being humourous:
Example:
Kel: “You know, I really like vanilla ice cream, and I wish our store carried it!”
EGV: “So what you’re saying is that vanilla ice-cream is the height of fulfillment for you, and that if only you had some, you’d have no more worries at all, about anything.”
Paladin: “I really do wish the practise of student cheating on tests could be eradicated, and I think we should be pro-active in trying to stop it.”
EGV: “In other words, the fight against student cheating is paramount in your mind, and if only that could be eradicated, you’d have no more worries, ever.”
Ken: “I really want Barack Obama out of office, now, and I won’t rest until he’s out.”
EGV: “I see… so you hate Barack Obama with a demonic passion, you want him tortured and killed in the streets, and you want his family burned alive; after that, you will commit suicide, since your entire reason for existence [i.e. hating Barack Obama] will be gone/fulfilled.”
Now, on the (rapidly vanishing) hope that you comprehend the repeated theme behind these examples: can you see how I really might be excused for taking a bit of time to urge you to abandon some of your sillier caricatures and straw men, and address our arguments AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE? Anything else is a waste of time, at very best.
Re: your main question (since that, at least was asked clearly, and without any silly misrepresentation of opposing views): I took it to mean that abortion should (at least once, if not on an occasional ad hoc basis, at need) be the main point of the sermon/homily/focus for outreach… and I think that this position is quite right.
I’m also interested in, because I think the question is begged here – what do you feel about a church in which abortion is NOT a central worship service topic?
That depends. I don’t think even the original poster meant that abortion should be the exhortation theme, AND NOTHING ELSE; and I think other commenters have said as much, above. There are at least five possibilities:
1) abortion is never mentioned, under any circumstances
2) abortion is rarely mentioned
3) abortion is mentioned with average frequency, compared to other topics
4) abortion is the dominant theme, though others are alternated with it
5) abortion is the only theme, ever
I don’t think that #5 would be right (since the eradication of abortion is merely the means to the end of honouring and preserving God’s children, for God’s sake, and worship is the duty to give honour and glory to God for His Own sake, which is a higher priority than even the most urgent demands of justice). I also think that #1 would be negligent and cowardly, and quite probably sinful (though the actual culpability would depend on the awareness, freedom and circumstances surrounding those who make the decisions). If you’re asking whether it would, in our culture, be wrong for a faith community to take position #1, then I would say “yes, unless some extraordinary and otherwise unknown factor is at play”). I think that #2-#4 (which were, I think, the ones advocated by Jill, et al.) are all legitimate ways to handle the issue. Does that clarify?
Also, what is a “central worship service topic”?
The theme of the sermon, homily, missionary service focus, or what-have-you, I’d suppose.
Just to clarify we are coming from the same perspective – I feel that the postings and question are suggesting that for a church to be a “good” church or Christian church, that abortion should be something brought up regularly – (whatever you want that to me – quarterly, every six months…) – and if it is a central worship service topic, it would need to be a central sermon theme.
I agree with them… and I think there’s strong basis for that position. If toddlers were being sacrificed to Moloch every day (on a parental volunteer basis, of course: let’s not be monstrous, here! Need I add the sarcasm tag to that?), I doubt that you’d be so blase and sighingly say to various Christians: “MUST you speak of Moloch sacrifice so often? What about health care, and social security, and welfare, and an equitable tax system?” Am I right?
(*laugh*) Alice, if it’s any consolation: I empathise, very much, and I sometimes break my own rules on that front. (Heavens, look at the verbiage I use on EGV, despite the inevitable merry-go-round!)
Paladin
Then we’re good – #2 and #3 are fine with me – if we’re saying in #4, that abortion is spoken above all other topics – I would have an issue with that…spoken about more than other sins, that is fine with me if that is a subject that congregation needs to hear.
I’m in agreement that neither 1 or 5 would be good.
See – when you just take the time to explain yourself and read other people’s posts, we are all good.
I think you can learn something in all of this. :-)
:) So, EGV… once I take the time to explain myself, that’s all you’ll ever need, in any possible walk of life, and you’ll pray your “Nunc dimittis”? You’ll embrace every last pro-life candidate (and pro-active pro-life cause), drop the blithering nonsense and moral equivalence between the slaughter of unborn children and (forgive the alliteration) pet political prudential projects, give up your penchant for spinning in pointless rhetorical circles, and stop annoying pro-lifers with your moral-relativism-ridden gadflying, if only I write in a style more to your satisfaction?
Well… why on earth didn’t you say so, earlier? Why, to get you as a full-fledged pro-life convert, I would even limit myself to one or two sentences of one syllable each! If only the converts of the rest of the world could be so easy! :)
I’ll see you at the next March for Life, then, praying in front of the D.C. Planned Parenthood, my dear new convert!
(I spoke too soon about your ridiculously broad-brush caricatures; in the right setting, they’re rather fun! :) )
I’d be interested to see if your acceptable response – “#2 – abortion is rarely mentioned” is what others have in mind when the question is “central worship topic”.
Maybe everyone is marching to the same drumbeat here – I just didn’t get the feeling from the posters before that “abortion is rarely mentioned” was acceptable.
“Rarely” and “Central Worship Service Topic”, in my mind, didn’t seem to go hand in hand.
On the rest of your post – I thought it was cute.
On the rest of your post – I thought it was cute.
But you did not, however, distill the actual point of the satire, nor should I expect you to act on it or reflect on it in any substantial way. Ah, well…
Once I can find any politician who doesn’t treat abortion like any other issue, maybe they would be worth voting for.
Heck, what do you think the top five issues people will gauge the Presidential election on will be? Do you think abortion will be top 5? Top 10? Top 15?
I suppose I could pretend it was as big of a deal to politicians as you’d like it to be – but lets live in a realistic world here. Obama’s going to talk pro-choice enough to get his money, Romney is going to talk pro-life enough to get his money, and then they’ll both be on their way to talk about other issues.
Much of the New Testament — the epistolary material — is in our hands precisely because Paul et al. were diligent to speak to the issues each church faced in its place and time.
Church’s don’t exist to preach dusty, thread-bare notions that have no contemporary relevance. Pauline exhortations were applying universal truths/morals of Judeo-Christian faith — the teachings of Jesus and the implications of his saving work on our behalf — to particular challenges in particular places. The universal truths remain so. The particulars change. If abortion is where the battle rages, then it’d be bizarre for churches to avoid the issue.
What would the apostle Paul do? Duh.
“I deal with it the same way I deal with anyone who is wrong about something: when opportunities present themselves, I try to change their minds. ”
But you won’t. And all the demonstrations and prayers won’t change anything. And until these groups go out of business or have a road to Damascus experience, abortion won’t end – despite the demonstrations and prayers.
My dear Alice. You do fancy yourself quite the intellect but you just made the argument that faith communities can’t have an impact on abortion because not all faith communities share your zealotry. While you folks obsess about the evils of abortion, there are other faith communities that don’t. Too bad, so sad….
“Pauline exhortations were applying universal truths/morals of Judeo-Christian faith — the teachings of Jesus and the implications of his saving work on our behalf — to particular challenges in particular places. The universal truths remain so.”
Ah Rasqual, another frustrated philosophy major working far beneath his extraordinary intellectual capacity. ”Universal Truth” – how bout Protestant Reformation? How bout Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism that don’t accept your Pauline pablum?
EGV wrote:
Once I can find any politician who doesn’t treat abortion like any other issue, maybe they would be worth voting for.
(*sigh*) And perhaps, someday, you might be moved out of the delusion that Obama and company are utterly inactive on abortion.
Heck, what do you think the top five issues people will gauge the Presidential election on will be? Do you think abortion will be top 5? Top 10? Top 15?
For those of us who have a moral compass which is NOT determined by opinion polls or perceived political expediency, the very question is irrelevant to the point of lunacy.
I suppose I could pretend it was as big of a deal to politicians as you’d like it to be – but lets live in a realistic world here.
Moral conviction beyond spot-politics = not realistic. I see.
Obama’s going to talk pro-choice enough to get his money,
…and have Obamacare mandate an abortion surcharge, and repeal the Mexico City Policy, and support Planned Parenthood by blackmailing states who defund PP with removal of Medicare funds, and appoint pro-abortion judges and justices, and…
EGV, do you even listen to yourself?
Romney is going to talk pro-life enough to get his money, and then they’ll both be on their way to talk about other issues.
I’m not one to sing the praises of Mitt Romney. In my eyes, a vote for Romney (which I’m not sure I’ll give, at this point) would be a choice to minimise evil… and not much more than that.
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
Awww, just because I don’t agree with the pro-life playbook, I’m a troll. Fine. Just stay in your cozy little fetus worshiping bubble while the rest of the reality based community views you as a bizarre vestige of the Middle Ages.
I totally agree with Carla. Hope all mommies had a great mothers day. Carla, I’m taking on a new approach with abortion. Women need understanding..not our hate. I’d say that the Lord is helping me to grow as a Christian!:}hope you are well. I’ve missed you.
Many women who abort are NOT selfish. Like my girlfriend who found herself pregant at 13 and her mother gave her no choice. Shes in her 40s now and has regrets. Shes with SNM. A 13 14 or 15 year old are often looking for love through sex so i cant say that when their families force them to abort that they are selfish girls.
@cc LMAO fetus worshipping bubble? Okay then you stay in your dead baby bubble. How do you come here to brag about how smart you are when you cant even understand basics? An uborn child is a human being. If you were smart you ougt to know better. Keep up your abortion fetish. It’s all you baby. BTW have you8 stopped discussing your imaginary abortion yet? SPARE MEEEEE!
Actually, CC, I think Paladin has some justification in deeming you a troll.
You said: “Ah Rasqual, another frustrated philosophy major working far beneath his extraordinary intellectual capacity. ”Universal Truth” – how bout Protestant Reformation? How bout Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism that don’t accept your Pauline pablum?”
…which is pretty much what you said on September 21, 2011 at 10:29 am as well: “And where would our understanding of world events be without Rasqual’s ponderous pontifications? (Has to be a frustrated philosophy major who didn’t quite get that spot…”
…which I dignified with a response (pace Paladin). But you didn’t re-appear in that thread, so perhaps you missed it. I’ll paste it here in case you have a human side:
And where would we be without CC’s slim inferences regarding others’ careers?
You’re partly right, though. I set aside the first three candidate careers on my short list (despite 8 years in the first, and 5 additional years preparing for either of the other two), ending up doing something I’d never even thought of — work that let me be an engaged and present father to my four kids (and, as of last week, a first-time grandfather as well — woohoo!) while serving others in a socially valuable role.
I didn’t need to learn from these unplanned redirections that life’s an adventure, though. I suspect I welcomed them because I’ve always been adventurous. Frustrated? No. Insanely thankful that I’ve experienced such diverse scenery along the way? Yep!
Our wills and fates do so contrary runThat our devices still are overthrown;
Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own
(/end)
My comment in this thread was intended intramurally. That’s permitted, right? It also should have been evident. Do I seriously need to issue disclaimers, something like “the following is intended for Christian ears?” Why would that be necessary among intelligent people, when the content signals that obviously? Your oblivious pedantry is unseemly.
That you haven’t even inferred that I’m non-Catholic shows, as far as I’m concerned, that you don’t really learn anything here — neither about anyone, nor, I’d infer by what I deem warranted extension, anything.
Ridiculously, the substantive point of my remark is something you can understand and agree with. It doesn’t require religious faith to affirm; indeed any Biblically literate atheist would consider my point about that nature of Paul’s writings uncontroversial.
“I deal with it the same way I deal with anyone who is wrong about something: when opportunities present themselves, I try to change their minds. ”
But you won’t.
…Are you a prophet now? I thought that kind of superstitious nonsense was only for those blinded by religion. You can tell the future? You know how the abortion debate is going to end? Or is such blindingly implausible insight granted to everyone who takes up residence in an “enlightened” state? And how do you get from “not every faith agrees about abortion” to “therefore no one of any faith can have an impact on abortion.” If you need 100% consensus on everything to change stuff in your “enlightened” fairy land…well, that would explain a lot. I would like for all faiths to be pro-life. But, even if they aren’t, I don’t actually need to sit around and wait for everyone to get the life issue right to start working for change. Why do you think that anyone would?
We’re both feeding the troll, Alice: “But you won’t. And all the demonstrations and prayers won’t change anything. ”
We’re dealing with hatred of pro-lifers — not a rationally balanced analysis of the effect sincere people have on other good-faith fellow travelers.
The video at issue demonstrates how wrong CC is about the power of persuasion. Prayer prepares the saint as much as it reaches the ears of God. Those who pray are prepared because their motives and plans have checked in deferentially with the will of God, as revealed in special revelation and validated existentially via the Holy Spirit. (hey CC, in case you can’t infer, this is intramural! I know it’s hard to tell…)
Anyone who thinks Ray Comfort isn’t well-praypared for his actions is really. not. understanding.
At any rate, CC obviously believes that pro-lifers are impotent, and she also wishes to discourage them. She’s wrong on the first count, and it’s a bit mysterious that she imagines anyone might believe she’s right. As for the second count, she has enough evidence on this board that pro-lifers are not readily discouraged by her steady stream of invective. It seems to me that it is SHE who is returning over and over to be discouraged — not the other way around. And it really pisses her off.
I had to wash my eyes with soap after reading that 7 pm comment :(
@rasqual: I definitely agree that CC has a bizarre addiction to hanging out with those she sees as irrelevant ideological relics. But she’s got a…well, not an argument, but a conclusion lurking at the back of what she’s been saying in these last few posts.
1. Not all members of all faiths agree that abortion is wrong.
2. Pro-life Christians agree that this is fact.
3. Therefore…???
It’s killing me. Therefore what? Why is this significant? What difference does it make? How does this fact alter the abortion debate in any meaningful way at all? Granted, this being a CC Original Production®, there’s every chance that whatever the conclusion is, it will either make no sense or be totally unsupported by the premises, but curiosity is just driving me bananas here.
Navi: Maybe that’s CC’s cunning plot — get pro-lifers to wash their eyes with soap all the time.
Resist the urge. Stare into the abyss of CC’s nihilism. Stare it down.
Alice: CC obviously imagines that some of her points are coups de grâce of some sort or another. That they kind of fall on the floor and lie there, inert (like dead fish, bug-eyed and not even flopping about), is a peculiar thing to you and me even as to her, they’re a triumph. It’s all very strange.
I have gotten your last two posts mixed together in my head and am now imagining engaging in a staring contest with a abyss full of dead fish with enormous, unblinking eyes. As a result of this mental image, I am periodically giggling like a lunatic at my computer screen. I’m not sure whether I should thank you for that.
Thank me down the road a piece, if this results in the image sending you into giggling fits while responding to CC. It could be kind of, well, like this:
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
You do it when responding to
CC’s acerbic lies
If you do it every day
(to rhyme I must say “pies”)
Staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Because Paladin told me
do not feed the vile trolls
My conscience kept me feeling bad
’cause I could not control
The urge to offer repartee
to counter such a**holes
The biggest turd was so absurd
as everybody knows!
Oh, staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
You do it when responding to
CC’s acerbic lies
If you do it every day
(to rhyme I must say “pies”)
Staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
So when the trolls have taxed your patience
and you want to scream
Just drift off in your mind to where
this fish thing is a meme
Hold off the urge, do not reward
trolls who provoke your team
Just gaze into that pit
and you’ll preserve your self-esteem!
Oh, staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
You do it when responding to
CC’s acerbic lies
If you do it every day
(to rhyme I must say “pies”)
Staring down abyssal fish with huge unblinking eyes!
(Explanation: If folks around here are going to be accused of operating at a seventh grade level, well, I for one am darned well going to see to it that I deserve such an indictment.)
;-)
Absolutely. Yes.
Where do people go when they are faced with a huge life crisis?
Where do women go when they find themselves in a crisis?
CHURCH.
This is THE issue of our day. Look at what just happened with the HHS MANDATE, CHEN GwanCHENG, and what is going on with the Phillip Kline case.
Abortion is it. A Catholic church with a youth group recently decided to put a regular notice in their bulletin serving young women (unplanned pregnancy) in crisis and the youth with issues like abstinence. I was fifteen when I was first confronted with a friends request to help her help another friend have an abortion. Let’s face it, the kids need to talk about abortion.
The elders in many Church communities want nothing to do with it. And they are the ones running the churches.
They know it’s wrong, but it’s not polite to talk about it, and even so it’s too controversial. Most have felt like they already lost the case, and they don’t want to lose it again in front of their kids.
LET’s talk about SEX. It’s time. We need regular columns in our bulletins at Church, and in the brochures kiosks and all over the place really, in the bathrooms-posters on the wall, SOMETHING to help these young women who are placed in sex saturated culture witha life-line which will service them and their needs as young exploited mothers.
Most church’s are concerned the topic will drive away parishoners or bring on time-consuming debate while creating a financial shortfall that will be ruinous.
But if you increase awareness of the goodness of life, or the awsomeness of human nature, of our divine right to not have to consider the inhumanity of sexual sterilization and the horror of feticide, this barbaric and outragous practic we call abortion or worse, this great lie-CHOICE, you will increase your population and in the long run-your communities respect for what your doing for them. Instead of just being a self-righteouse money collecting mouthpeice for the out-dated issues of the graying population=-( church’s bolstered in Christ will sustain economic hardship and defy the odds in a miraculous demonstration of God’s divine grace. Any they will have the babies (miracles) to prove it!!
Bravo to the churches showing this wonderful video. Churches are the places who, at least in theory, should have the largest number of people who are sympathetic to the pro-life message. Unfortunately, some Christians don’t know that they should be opposing abortion, so this video may just help them.
Jesus should be the main focus in any place(a building with four walls) where people meet in his name.
I don’t think he would mind if we talk about LIFE— I mean after all, isn’t that the reason he came? ”I have come that you may have LIFE.” John 10:10
Jesus was in the business of saving lives—He came to take care of the sin issue and offer us life.
Unfortunately, most of the church buildings in America are led by religious leaders who do NOT have a relationship with him, so therefore they are NOT going to hear his heart on this subject.
That is why the LAW, which Ray Comfort perfectly lays out for all to realize they are in need of a Savior—will work for these leading churches, the blind leading the blind.
The law is for the unrighteous—and there are many unrighteous(not saved) people sitting in religious buildings.
The remnant seem to be the only ones who take a stand for life.
If the church had seen the prolife field as a mission field when abortion became legal in 1973—I personally believe over 50% of those babies would have been saved, as well as the mothers.
The babies saved physically, and the mothers saved spiritually–born again.
However, that being said, I see many people in the Prolife field treating the abortion issue as a works, but saving babies will not get you into heaven, only a relationship with Jesus Christ.
John 1:29 and John 10:10—
The church is not a building.
WE are the church.
Saving babies that are dying today is being treated as a “work?” WHO KNEW??!!
Wow.
This is a COMMAND!
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. Proverbs 24:11
First, if you have not watched 180, go watch it. It is amazing! I’ve shown it to students & seen the scales of passivity & unbelief fall from their eyes. Many “christians” don’t know why they are against abortion – they simply say they are because it is the “right” thing to say. Films like this inform and educate both the seeker and the believer.
Should it be central to a Sunday service in church? If the Holy Spirit leads a pastor to do so, then yes! Many ideas, issues, & topics are brought up on Sunday morning. The key is to show the people what GOD says in his word about the topic.
Would it be hard for the post-abortive woman? YES! I am post-abortive & thankfully, forgiven & set free. Many women are not – especially in the church. Although this might make them uncomfortable, it would be a fantastic opportunity to let those women know that they are loved by God AND the church. It would be an invaluable in-road to direct them towards healing through one of the many bible studies going on to help them deal with their choice.
I also attend a seeker-sensitive church. I’m sure some people would be offended or turned-off. Our job is to speak truth in LOVE. If we do that, the rest is up to the Spirit. No pastor should shy away from the HARD things.
Oh and CC?
Funny how you must burn with hatred for us and loathe our very passion to save the innocent……BUT you are the one who continually comes here to comment.
Which cracks me up. So thanks for that.
I’m staring it down. . . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKDtUzRIG6I
Rasqual, Alice, Praxedes, et al.: the only thing stopping me from rolling on the floor, laughing like a maniac, is the barest grip on decorum (I’m at work, and I’d rather not be spirited away to the lunatic asylum by concerned bystanders, just yet). I’m seriously saving this thread in a text-file for future enjoyment…
(Any reference to the Fish Heads song deserves at least 10 “likes”, if only I could supply them!)
“I would like for all faiths to be pro-life. But, even if they aren’t, I don’t actually need to sit around and wait for everyone to get the life issue right to start working for change.”
Ka-ching! You did it. You made one small step towards rationality. In saying that not all faiths are pro-life, you underscore the absurdity of the desire, articulated on this blog, to “end abortion” because as long as adherents to pro-choice faiths are still adhering, then abortion ain’t gonna end anytime soon. And if you do realize that, it’s probably a source of some personal angst that not everybody is on your side, so score one for me. Bottom line is that I did get you to admit the “inconvenient truth” about the issue of abortion in today’s very religiously diverse America. And admitting the truth is one small step in a long therapeutic process. Substratum on the bottom line – the anti-choice movement is full of the sound and fury while signifying not as much as think they do.
And Rasqual – I know that you’re not Catholic. But “Pauline pablum,” as you note, spans Christian denominations. Interestingly, the Episcopal Church uses his words to support their ordination of women. I do find him interesting as his PR campaign and his writings about a person he never met really created a church that the historical Jesus, if he actually even existed, had no intention of doing. I love the picture of Paul, in the “Last Temptation of Christ,” as a raving zealot. Despite his connections to women, who were heads of the early “house churches,” his writings about women betray the misogynism of the Roman church that exists to this day. But he was not married and very, very close to Barnabas so maybe he was gay and that would be one point in his favor.
Anyway, I was able to generate some troll baiting and more sophomoric silliness so score another one for moi. Ya think! (Besides – that ups the stats for Ms. Stanek’s blog so it’s all good in the hood)
Oh, and Rasqual. You and I have something in common. I spent most of my career in social services – part of which involved dealing with sexual abuse, some of which was perpetrated by the most devout Christians!
In saying that not all faiths are pro-life, you underscore the absurdity of the desire, articulated on this blog, to “end abortion” because as long as adherents to pro-choice faiths are still adhering, then abortion ain’t gonna end anytime soon.
The one doesn’t follow from the other. The fact that not all people of all faiths are pro-life does not mean abortion can’t be outlawed. You can’t go from the first point to the second.
And if you do realize that, it’s probably a source of some personal angst that not everybody is on your side, so score one for me. Bottom line is that I did get you to admit the “inconvenient truth” about the issue of abortion in today’s very religiously diverse America.
Yes, I am bothered by the fact that people actively advocate for the largest human rights violation of our time. I am not ashamed of that; I’m proud of it. I’d much prefer to be able to say to my grandchildren when they ask about this movement that I was on the side that cared about the people being killed. But, the fact that not everyone is pro-life is a known one. The pro-life movement wouldn’t exist if everyone were pro-life. The reason we have to exist is because there are people who disagree with us. That some of those persons disagreeing belong to one religion or another makes this fact no more or less inconvenient than it already is.
Therefore (see what I’m doing, I’m sticking a conclusion on the train of thought here!), the fact that some religious people are not pro-life is one I have known for some time and have long since come to terms with; you can not hurt me with it. But the fact that you seem to feel you “score” when you believe you have caused personal anguish in your opponents is appalling. I honestly did not expect this, but at least now I have the end to my above summation of your comments.
3. Therefore, such an admission may cause pro-life Christians pain, and I like seeing them hurt.
Really? What a horrible little woman you are.
(*sigh*) I’d trot out my “Do Not Feed The Trolls!” graphic if I could, but the new forum HTML doesn’t let me; I’m trusting you all to be on the honour system, here… :)
Summary: one cannot argue against illogical, irrational, hate-based screed; it only feeds the trolls in question, which makes them come back for more, spout more irrational screed, and the like. There are plenty of abortion-tolerant people who frequent these boards who are non-trolls; it would do your blood-pressure and psyche good to engage them, rather than the trolls (who can only spew flames and venom).
Is it wrong that I sometimes find illogical, irrational, hate-based screed so darn funny?!?
The incongruity of “You made one small step towards rationality” and everything that follows is hilarious!
Lrning,
Er… no accounting for taste, I suppose. :) (Just kidding!)
CC: You’re surprisingly confident that the implications of thin inferences you draw from events and histories you find quite doubtful …would not support people you happen to disagree with.
Existential hermeneutics has a way of validating whatever you happen to believe.
orthodox Christianity is the anti-validator. It crucifies the self. Obviously I understand how this is anathema to those who deem themselves worm food.
But seriously: “I do find him interesting as his PR campaign and his writings about a person he never met really created a church that the historical Jesus, if he actually even existed, had no intention of doing.”
That’s just such an amazing statement. You’re doubting the existence of Jesus himself, in which case, of course, any words attributed to him are who-knows-what. But you’re extremely confident in your take on what he would have intended had he existed.
Isn’t that a bit bizarre?
I’d be happy if my church took a Sunday to show this film. We’ve had corporate prayers that ask for comfort for Dr Tiller’s family. It was horrifying. I don’t care if he was killed in the lobby of a church- sinning priests were killed before the altar in the Old Testament, and it was taken as a sign from God that things were not right. Dr Tiller getting killed in the lobby was a sign that that church was sick at its core, and needed a wakeup call.
Ray Comfort reaches out to people and brings conversion to their souls. He’s a bringer of living water. We stay home some sundays, for family worship. The spouse puts on a Ray Comfort TV show, and the kids learn from him, maybe more than they would at church.
Oh, and Rasqual. You and I have something in common. I spent most of my career in social services – part of which involved dealing with sexual abuse, some of which was perpetrated by the most devout Christians!
CC,
This explains your hatred for the Church. You’d be much happier if you sought counseling so you could learn how to let go.
No more feeding of trolls.
Paladin :)
Abortion should be discussed as the moral wrong that it is in the light of a merciful God who forgives. The Sacrament of Confession is a blessing and emotional relief for those post-abortive women who need to talk it through with some one, even just an informal meeting with a priest is helpful – I believe a Catholic priest would be happy to talk to a person of any faith; it would help to find one who is experienced in this area since some priests are probably more understanding than others. (They are human after all.)
Janet wrote:
No more feeding of trolls.
Paladin
:) The lesson is learned; my job here is done!
Paladin,
You say that like I’m the worst culprit. OK, fine….
Oh, heavens, no… you’ve fed them less than I have, in fact (in the interest of full disclosure)! :)
Really? What a horrible little woman you are
Oh, mercy buckups. My devout Irish Catholic grandmother would so agree with you. But then she had no problem with the priests who molested her son. So it’s all good.
yeah yeah yeah…it’s always those Christians you know! Child molesting “christians” men picking up prostitutes are usually “christians” Heres a tip. If these people doing such things are calling themselves Christians then guess what? They arent!!!! Do uou ASK them if they are Christians cc? Jewish people molest kids and pick up prostitutes too. Some abuse their kids BUT IT’s ALWAYS the good old CHRISTIANS in your book. Christian bashing is very unfair because you are insulting each and every one of us who believe.
Er… :)… friendly reminder, Heather: don’t feed the troll! It’s frustratingly hard not to do so, sometimes, I know…
True Paladin..I keep forgetting. She seems to believe all Jewish people are pro abortion. I have tried to tell her that my husband is Jewish and so is his brother and they are both PRO LIFE! It just doesnt seep in to that hard head of hers. But let’s just blame everything on the Christians because were a bunch of nut wings in their books. Never mind the fact that CC is a total MOONBAT!
And CC is a social worker who works with troubled families? Okay if that is true then fine BUT when she goes on her child abuse calls does she actually ASK these people “Are you a Christian?” LOL I DOUBT it! Anyone beating their wife or kids and claims to be a Christian has either backslidden or NEVER was one at all. It’s really quite simple. I don’t think a child hater like CC has any bussiness working with kids anyway. …Just sayin.