Warm hearts face chill winds to witness for life
Posted by Matt Yonke on Monday, April 28th, 2008
UPDATES: Pictures from the rally are available on the Pro-Life Action League's Flickr page. If you took video at the rally, post a "video response" to Eric's Video Invite on YouTube. Also, several Balloon Reports have come in.
Winds ripped across the vacant lot outside Planned Parenthood Aurora Saturday morning, April 26, making the spring morning feel unseasonably cold. But a chill in the air was not enough to keep the Fox Valley's pro-life community from coming out in droves to stand up for unborn babies and their mothers.
Over 400 people came out to Families Against Planned Parenthood's "It's a Matter of Life and Death" rally to protest the presence of Planned Parenthood in their community. The rally featured a picket line of New York St., a peaceful prayer presence all over the area, and huge displays showing the beauty of life and the horror of abortion.
New York St. was lined with huge pictures of babies, both born and unborn, on the south side and graphic pictures of babies lost to abortion on the north side. These signs presented a jarring contrast that made clear the truth that abortion is the murder of an innocent child. Reactions from passing motorists was mixed. As usual, the pro-choice drivers by and large yelled profanity and gave rude hand gestures while pro-lifers offered blessings and waves.
On Oakhurst Dr. just north of Planned Parenthood a "Cemetery for Choice" was displayed. Tombstones were set up with the names and details of women who have lost their lives to the deadly hands of the abortionist. It was a somber sight to see people walking amongst the tombstones, praying for these women and their babies and for an end to abortion. These tombstones represented only fifty of the hundreds of women who have died due to legal abortion.
Just like every day Planned Parenthood is open, sidewalk counselors were stationed across the street from the facility to try to reach women patronizing Planned Parenthood in the crucial moments before they enter the building, and to offer help and support when they come out.
Eric Scheidler, communications director for the Pro-Life Action League, spoke to the gathered crowd. After a show of hands of those who were at a rally at Planned Parenthood for the first time, Eric encouraged pro-lifers by reminding them of Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard. Some came early in the day, others came later, but they all did their best and were rewarded by God. In the same way, some have been in the pro-life movement for years, some are just getting involved, but they all came when God called them and will be blessed by God for standing up for His little ones.
The rally ended on a high note with a commemoration of babies who have been saved from abortion. Here at Planned Parenthood Aurora, at least a dozen mothers that we know of have chosen life because of our prayer and counseling presence here, and that’s just a fraction of the babies that have been saved across America by the efforts of pro-life ministries. To celebrate the lives of these babies, pink and blue helium balloons were distributed and pro-lifers tagged their balloons with a name for one of these babies. The balloons were released together in a beautiful display of the joy of life and the success of the pro-life movement.
When Planned Parenthood Aurora first opened its doors, pro-lifers protested their opening in huge numbers. At the time, Planned Parenthood’s Steve Trombley predicted that in a few months, everyone would forget about Planned Parenthood and go back to the normal activities that fill their Saturdays. What Trombley doesn’t understand is that, for him, abortion is a matter of business, but pro-lifers know the truth: Abortion is a Matter of Life and Death. We haven’t gone away yet, and we’re not going anywhere till Planned Parenthood gets out of Aurora.
[...] There's a full report on Saturday's rally in Aurora, IL here. [...]
April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Could you post links to some of the pictures taken at the rally? Thanks
April 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Join pro-life prayer supporters in front of Planned Parenthood in Chicago, every Saturday morning, 9:00 am to 11:00 am.
Pro-life prayer supporters meet regularly every Saturday morning at the Planned Parenthood Near North abortion clinic located at 1200 N. LaSalle St at Division, to pray for the women, their babies, the fathers, and the abortion providers.
We have had two recent "turn-aways" on recent Saturdays, thanks be to God and prayers.
Please consider joining us and tell your friends in and around Chicago to join us as well.
God is good!
Where: PP Near North, 1200 N. Lasalle St., Chicago
When: Every Saturday morning, 9:00 am to 11:00 am
April 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The rally was indeed awesome! In spite of the wind and cold, everyone's warm hearts made it a piece of cake! My friend, Debbie and I were walking the picket line and were just talking about how great the weather was the last few days and how cold we were now (but at least it wasn't raining.) We thought how Satan was grinning at how we had to endure the cold and extreme wind, and hoping we would all go home! FAT CHANCE! Then as soon as we finished saying that, the hat of a Christian Moto cycler guy with a nice big bushy beard blew off his head and we heard him say, "He ain't getting my hat!!" We started laughing. Then Debbie's little 7 yr. old daughter, Sarah who went to their car, (that was parked right by the hill in front of block buster, we could see her) and came back with a holy card. She did not hear what we had been talking about; guess what card she handed us? The St. Michael Prayer. So Debbie and I prayed it together. Then all of a sudden the wind died down and the sun came out big time.Co-ink-e-dink?
The balloons were wonderful. It inspired such hope in my heart, and conviction to keep at it! Never stop! Never quit working and praying to defend life! I don't know if you noticed, but after most of the balloons were released, there were two that went up together. I had to laugh, I found out later as we were driving home that my 15 yr. old daugher, Brita and her friend; MarySusan tied their balloons together and planned to release them when they did. They said that they were twins, Maximum and Wilma. ":) Also, we who were blowing up the balloons decided after today, if worst came to worse we could all get jobs being professional balloon blower uppers!:) I truly feel blessed to know all you pro-life supporters,God Bless.
P.S. I arrived at around 6:45am to sidewalk counsel and a couple times got tongue tied. I told Randy (who is the man known for holding the baby signs) that there should be a video of sidewalk counselor bloopers (just kidding) .Believe me I take very seriously the seriousness of what we are trying to do as sidewalk counselors, but I do know our Lord does want us to keep light hearted and find joy in all of His work He has us do. I believe that joy in our hearts is then evident, and conveyed well to those we are trying to reach. I suppose what I am saying is that life is hard, and sometimes unbearable, but we have nothing to fear with the love of Jesus, the only thing that is truly terrible, the worst thing that could ever, ever happen is to lose our souls.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
P.S.S. Those of you who were praying for baby John Henry, thank you. Originally they didn't think they could even operate on him due to where the cancerous tumor was located. Then they did operate and it was not sucessful, in fact the second operation he lost so much blood they had to give him a blood transfusion. Well this past weekend he received a liver transplant and the doctors said it went exceptionally well. Please keep praying for him, and pray for the baby that died and the parents who lovingly donated to Henry. Pray that people value all life, in the womb and out. Thank you and God Bless! This makes me think of all the babies who did not even get a chance to even see their mother's face. Pray.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I was incredibly honored to be part of this rally, one of God's efforts in Aurora! I have never prayed the whole 4 Mysteries of the Rosary before without a break. It was very powerful (to say the least). We sent the prayers towards the clinic in agreement with the Lord's Will for these women, their doctors and clinic workers and perhaps most importantly for the innocents being deprived of a chance to be part of God's plan. It is exciting to be part of this effort.
May God Bless abundantly all who helped to organize this powerful statement against the horror of abortion for money!
April 28th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I'm very happy that the rally was a success
However, I'm disappointed in the choice to celebrate life with a balloon release, which will ultimately cause so much death and destruction. Once they go up,they must come down, and when they do, countless animals on shore and in the water are endangered by them. I urge you to consider alternatives in the future that are more environmentally friendly. As you are celebrating the importance of human life, please do not forget animal life as well, and consider engaging in displays that will not further pollute our world, the world the children we fight to save will grow up in and which they need preserved for them.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Here's to 500 people at the next rally. When we got home from the rally my kids wrote messages to God on them and released them into the sky. Mel, it is just the fact that they are not biodegradable or do fish and animals try to eat them and choke on them?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keep up the fighting spirit! Those babies deserve to live… and deserve our time to reming those who have forgotten it.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:05 am
It felt so good to be part of the rally. The day was chilly but out hearts were warm. Thanks to everyone who was responsible for putting it together. I especially loved the releasing of the balloons and the Jericho march. God bless all of you and may the clinic close very soon.
Pat
April 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I was glad Eric told us about the gentlemen who was celebrating his 78th birthday on Saturday by giving a $78 donation to FVFAPP. My father, Don Lange, died on April 3, 2008, at the age of 91.
There is nothing my dad treasured more than the births of his 3 children, 11 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Here is why - my parents were married 11 years and were not able to have a baby. It was discovered that my mom had a tumor the size of a grapefruit and once the tumor was removed, she would never have children. When my mom was wheeled in for the surgery, there was no trace of a tumor anywhere. After 12 years of praying and trusting the Lord, they were finally able to start their family in 1955.
We were truly blessed to have 2 parents who taught us to value every life and to always trust the Lord in every situation.
To celebrate the life of my dad, Don 'Poppo' Lange, I will be giving a $91 to FVFAPP in his memory. I will also commit to being part of every monthly rally to stand for life!!!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It was a great day of witnessing by all who were there and those who couldn't but were with us in prayer. The balloons of life were inspiring. I especially enjoyed open feeling that we all had with the fence being down and wasn't it amazing how all us violent protesters didn't misuse the open lot even without a fence. I smiled as I saw a woman picking up litter from the lot. What an unruly crowd they PP/Dominicks are trying to keep off the grass!
Hope to see more of us at the next rally and each week at the site.
BTW, can someone post the balloon link as I can't recall it to check on my balloon.
peace!
April 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Felipe,
Go to http://balloons.prolifeaction.org to check on your balloon.
Glad you enjoyed the rally!
Matt
April 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Kind of late notice, but worth trying to go to:
North Central College
Chapel Speaker Series Presents
All Things Pro-Life
Mary-Louise Kurey
Director of the Respect Life Office of the Archdiocese of Chicago
Thursday, May 1
12:00 PM
North Central College’s
Koten Chapel in Kiekhofer Hall
325 School St.,
Naperville, IL
The term Pro-Life encompasses many different topic areas- from abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia to quality of life.
Mary-Louise Kurey is a nationally known speaker, author and former Miss America finalist. She is one of the foremost speakers and authors on pro-life and chastity issues in the United States . She brings a huge store of talents and accomplishments to her dynamic speaking appearances, which have generated an enormous response from more than 150,000 teens and young adults in 30 states. Mary-Louise currently serves as the Director of the Respect Life Office for the Archdiocese of Chicago, in which she speaks for the Archdiocese on life issues and coordinates pro-life and chastity education, activities and ministries for more than 2.3 million Catholics in the Chicago metropolitan area.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Sex Education Will Be an Issue This November
by Fran Eaton -Illinois Family Institute
The abstinence education issue even made its way into Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago in Pennsylvania. Obama said he wanted his daughters exposed to comprehensive sex education rather than "be punished" with an unwanted baby or an STD.
"Comprehensive sex ed" is really a pretty good description of what kids learn via those programs. They learn everything you ever wanted to know about sex and were afraid to ask, as well as everything you didn't want to know about sex but were forced to find out.
Comprehensive sex ed includes hands-on experiments in condom application skills, encouragement to shower together, as well as explicit information about oral and anal "outercourse" as an alternative sex to intercourse, among other numerous sexploits. Frankly, it's almost too embarrassing to describe in mixed company what our kids learn via Planned Parenthood's sex-ed curriculum.
The U.S. Congress allocated $370.5 million to such exploitive sex-ed programs in 2007, while at the same time setting aside only $174 million to teach kids that it's normal and preferable to wait for sex until marriage.
Read more… go to: Illinois Family Institute
May 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
KarenK,
I responded in detail to your prior post about AO education, however, 36 hours later it is still "awaiting moderation." I included many references to back up my statements.
"Comprehensive sex education is defined as an instruction program that includes abstinence as a proven method for preventing pregnancy, but goes beyond "Just Say No" to provide medically accurate information to help young people make healthful choices over time. Stacks says it is age-appropriate and covers everything from "good touching/bad touching" in elementary school to STD prevention and contraception in later grades."
Cite
Organizations that believe comprehensive sex education is a good idea include:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
World Health Organization
American Nurses Association
Institute of Medicine
"The Mathematica Policy Research Inc. released the results of a congressional-mandated evaluation over 10 years of government-funded abstinence-only programs. The evaluation found that abstinence-only programs had no impact on students’ age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, or condom usage."
“Over the last decade, over $1.5 billion of federal and state tax dollars have been spent on abstinence-only-until marriage programs to see if this is the best way to spend taxpayer dollars on the education of our young people," said Stacks. "The results came in last week and the message is clear: the abstinence-only experiment has failed.”
Mathematic Study
The question becomes, do you really want to reduce the number of abortions or not? If so, we need to give our kids the facts. Hope this doesn't get stuck in "moderation" again.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
KarenK,
I've responded to your post. However, I'm "awaiting moderation" once again (2nd time). My bet is we don't want the facts to get out.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
This is taken from Janet Smith's writings on Contraception:
Has it made for fewer unwanted pregnancies? The statistics on this are wild. In 1960, some 6% of white babies were born out of wedlock. Six percent. In 1992, 22% of white babies were born out of wedlock. Almost a four-fold increase, and it's rapidly rising. Rapidly rising. In 1960, some 22%, same figure, 22% of black babies were born out of wedlock. Anybody know the percentage now? Sixty-eight percent. Sixty-eight percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. That took thirty years. I don't think it will take thirty years for the 22% of whites to go up to 68 if we follow down the same path we are currently following. Now, here's my connection: First of all, the world tells us that if we have more and better contraceptives we can solve these problems. There will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. But the point was, in 1960, there were almost no contraceptives available, especially to teenagers. You had to know some tacky gas station somewhere and have a few quarters and that's about the best you could do. But any teenager now can get contraceptives from the guidance counselor, in fact, from some welcome-to-school kits in some schools. We live in a culture in which condoms can be handed out in schools and Bibles can't. And I think that tells you everything you need to know about our society. So, it seems to me that clearly, more and better contraceptives aren't going to help. Teenagers have incredible access to them. But teenagers are just as good at using contraceptives as they are at making their beds and doing their homework and doing their chores, at about the same degree of reliability.
I used to help with a pregnancy help center in South Bend. We would talk with these young girls and we'd ask them, “Did you use a contraceptive”, and they would say, “No, no. I wanted to buy a Prince album this month and I had to use my money for that”, or, “I didn't like the side effects so I stopped”, or, “We broke up and I thought we weren't going to see each other again but he came around again.” And they get pregnant and they're surprised. And, of course, we have a million and a half abortions a year. And how did these happen? Fifty percent of women who go to abortion clinics tell us that they're there because of contraceptive failure. Fifty percent. Eighty percent tell us that they are contraceptively experienced, that they know about it and they've used it before, but, again, for one reason or another, they've stopped.
But the real point, in my mind, is that contraceptives have launched people on a lifestyle that makes for sex outside of marriage — makes for sex in which babies and bonding are not welcome likelihoods. And when pregnancies occur, disaster strikes. People now say, when they're having sex outside of marriage and they get pregnant, what do they say? They use this wonderful phrase, “I got pregnant by accident.” And I always was mystified by this phrase and I would say, “Tell me, how did that happen again?” I know I'm rather naive but I caught on to this some time ago and I know you can't get pregnant by accident. You can get hit by a car by accident, fall off a cliff by accident, but you can't get pregnant by accident. It actually means something's gone right with an act of sexual intercourse, not that something's gone wrong. But because people are using contraceptives, they get pregnant and they're surprised. “My gosh! We got pregnant! We didn't have that in mind. That wasn't part of this picture. So, we have to do something about it. What'll we have to do? We have to trot down to the abortion clinic.”
May 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Thank you, Karen, for your thoughtful posts/excerpts. I'd like to add another, along the same lines:
Benedict XVI and the Lies of the Pro-Choice Movement
by Colin Mason
May 1, 2008 (pop.org/LifeSiteNews.com) - On 17 April 2008, Pope Benedict XVI addressed a crowd of Catholic educators gathered at the Catholic University of America. After congratulating them on their efforts against a "crisis of faith" and a "crisis of truth," he went on to tell them why American education was failing.
"We observe today a timidity in the face of the category of the good and an aimless pursuit of novelty parading as the realization of freedom," the Pope said, seated in a wooden throne designed by CUA students. "We witness an assumption that every experience is of equal worth and a reluctance to admit imperfection and mistakes. And particularly disturbing, is the reduction of the precious and delicate area of education in sexuality to management of 'risk,' bereft of any reference to the beauty of conjugal love."
While these words were primarily intended for Catholic educators across the country, they hold a special meaning for the pro-life movement. They describe, in a beautifully succinct way, what we fight against every day: a sexual culture of lies, misrepresentations and illusions that results in an epidemic of contraception, sterilization, and abortion.
The modern pro-choice movement is the spawn of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's, in which a few million angry college students abandoned traditional norms of decency and the marriage bond. In its place they proposed a culture of what they termed "free love," which turned out to be a euphemism for unbridled lust; sex without responsibility or commitment.
As the world has since seen, sex without responsibility is sex without love. The "free love" of these sexual revolutionaries turned out to be not so free at all, but rather was emotionally and physically destructive on a grand scale.
The sex education establishment denies all this. With typically modern schizophrenia, they aggressively advertise sexuality as a no-strings-attached recreational activity, while at the same time spending all of their time warning against the risks of this behavior. Having never known the wonder of committed, life-giving conjugal love, its adherents are passing on the only knowledge of sexuality that they do know: sex as a momentarily diverting activity with an alarming collection of risks.
Consequently, says Benedict, sex is taught as risk management. The wonder and beauty of conjugal love is reduced to a series of don'ts: Don't get a sexually transmitted disease, don't get overly attached to your temporary "partner," and, above all, don't get pregnant.
Never mind that these dangers, real and imagined, vanish when sexual activity is relegated to its proper place; i.e., marriage. For the "children of the revolution," the traditional route is not an option.
They justify their program by claiming that, once children are taught the "safeguards" against sex's inherent "risks," they will be free to make "informed decisions" about when and how to engage in sexual activity. This is nonsense. How can children make informed decisions when they are deliberately left uninformed about the positive purpose and true beauty of the sexual act, as well as its rightful place as the consummation of marriage?
The "freeing" of sex from the marriage bond has instead resulted in the opposite of informed choice: There is a pervasive and fundamental ignorance not only of the true purpose of the sexual act, but the true meaning of conjugal love.
Sex education leads, through the treacherous sexual pragmatism of politicians and social "experts," directly to contraception, sterilization and abortion. If kids must ride their skateboards, they say, then society must mandate helmets and kneepads. In the same way, if they must experiment with sexuality, society will provide them with convenient contraception and abortion. In other words, the "culture of death"–a term coined by Benedict's monumental predecessor, John Paul II–really began as a culture of lies.
This mentality is easily the greatest boon to the pro-abortion movement. Now that love-making has been robbed of love, the fruits turn into liabilities. Children become symptoms, yet another disease that follows upon "risky sex." Abortion becomes the antidote, and the new generation flocks to it because they have never known anything else.
Sex education must be replaced by education in marriage and family; love and truth must replace statistics and risks. Children beg for guidance. It is the duty of pro-life teachers to give it to them, and explain to them why true love is never free of commitment-in the best way possible.
Colin Mason is Director of Media Production at Population Research Institute.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Oh come now Student, don't want the facts to get out?
I might not check the moderation queue every day, but have I ever not approved one of your comments?
Your comments had a bunch of links in them, that sends them to moderation. The facts present the pro-life position with nothing to fear.
That said, I'm going to take one of Karen's analogies and run with it for a minute.
Ok, let's assume your statistics aren't at all skewed by ideology (something I seriously doubt about ALL statistics, even pro-life ones) and "comprehensive" sex-ed reduces teen pregnancy more than abstinence only programs (which, btw, do far more than provide students with "Just say no" and send them on their way as your quotes inferred).
So too, I'm sure that if we informed heroine addicts about exactly how much heroine they can safely ingest, where to buy the best heroine, free clean needles, and safe places to shoot up, yeah, that'd probably reduce the number of heroine overdoses.
It would do nothing, however, to reduce the number of ruined lives sacrificed on the altar of drug-induced euphoria.
Since when did the goal of education become "raising children who might, if we're lucky, avoid egregious tragedy in their lives"? What ever happened to goals like raising moral citizens who will make responsible choices and lead virtuous lives?
The problem is all wrapped up in our disagreements about the nature of man. We believe human beings bear the image of God and have the potential to master their passions and impulses to put their lives into the service of others and of God. So it is of primary importance to us that our young people learn how and why to control their sexual impulses (not ignore them) until they can be put to use in responsible ways.
The comprehensive sex-ed position seems to be that children are animals who do not have the potential to control their sexual impulses and why would they want to anyway? So we give them the tools and information necessary to act on their every sexual impulse in a manner that may bypass some of the physical consequences. And the emotional and spiritual consequences? What are you talking about? Sex doesn't have emotional and spiritual consequences! Don't be ridiculous.
But seriously, until we can agree on what children are and what they can and should be, I doubt we will be able to get much common ground on how to educate them.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 am
yawn!
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I'll go further. Until we can agree on what type of *adults* we want, we won't be able to agree on how to educate children. That is the reason for education, isn't it? To make adults of the type we want?
With that, what type of adult do I want my daughter to grow up to be? I want her to be a healthy, intelligent, compassionate person who can make her own decisions, who knows the information to do so, and takes responsibility when her decisions hurt another person. In her personal life, I hope she finds a lot of love and has many good friendships. I want her to be un-ashamed of her body and able to decide when and where she wants to have sex, to be able to say no when she doesn't and yes when she does and to have the knowledge about how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and avoid pregnancy if she doesn't want a child.
Truthfully, I find your comparison of sexuality to heroin use to be mind-boggling. I must say that I feel sorry for you and yours if you really take that attitude. Sex is a wonderful way to show caring and love to another human being. Yes, it can be controlled and should be in many situations (positions of power, agreements with partners, risks of pregnancy and disease, etc) but it is also a wonderful part of a happy, well-adjusted life, unlike heroin.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Professor says:
Truthfully, I find your comparison of sexuality to heroin use to be mind-boggling. I must say that I feel sorry for you and yours if you really take that attitude. Sex is a wonderful way to show caring and love to another human being. Yes, it can be controlled and should be in many situations (positions of power, agreements with partners, risks of pregnancy and disease, etc) but it is also a wonderful part of a happy, well-adjusted life, unlike heroin.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Sex outside of marriage is wrong and brings with it heart ache, disease, and abortion. Young people should be taught that it is dangerous to have sexual relationships outside of marriage.It also brings with it abuse of what God intended sex for; love, life and unity in a marriage. Something that is beautiful and should be sacred between a husband and wife, is reduced to common place.
"Yes, it can be controlled"
CONTROLLED? don't forget the very people you support are telling our kids they CAN'T CONTROL themselves, so they then say, here is your "so called" protection. Controlled? Is that why there has been close to 50 million abortions in the U.S. since 1973? And 1 out of 4 girls have STD's? Not to mention more than half of marriages end in divorce. Oh, and the epidemic of Aides….All since the attempt to teach controlled sex outside of marriage.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Matt,
The last time they were held for moderation I was told it happened because I didn't use the "tiny URL" and had full web cites. Now I use the "tiny URL" and they're still held. Sorry, but it makes one wonder.
I don't think the facts I cited support a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" position. They referred to the results of abstinence only education.
Do you really equate sexuality with heroine addition? Wow! My guess is that 95+% of all teenagers will, at some point in their lives, be sexually active with at least one other person. Doesn't it make sense to give them accurate medical information? I have my doubts that 95+% of teenagers will, at some point in time, try heroin. Do you truly not see the difference? Is it better to not give out accurate information and then if someone does get pregnant or contracts an STD it's just too bad for them? Why do you hold such a pervasively negative view of sexuality?
Where do you get the idea that comprehensive sex education won't raise "moral citizens who will make reasonable choices?" Comprehensive sexual education does stress abstinance, however, it also gives accurate medical information about how the body works and how to reduce risk of STDs and pregnancy. Why is this such a problem?
I agree with you 100%.
Why do you believe this? From what source is this information derived? I've seen nothing of the sort in a comprehensive sex education program.
I would love to know why you think comprehensive sex ed tells anyone to "act on every sexual impulse." Seriously, where is this coming from? Sex certainly does have emotional consequences and those consequences should be discussed. An abstinence only program does not address these issues.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Sorry. Sex outside of marriage is not 'wrong'. It can be as wonderful and special as it is inside a marriage, and at times even better. And you seem to forget that sex *within* marriage is also 'dangerous' if you don't want children, if you are in an abusive situation, if you have certain medical problems, etc. *Any* relationship can cause 'heartache'. It is part of learning how to live life to learn how to plan ahead and understand consequences of actions. Yes, sex can be a wonderful bonding experience between two people. It is MUCH better when those people care about each other and are in a long term relationship. But it can be good other times also.
I do not intend to get married again. But I can assure you that I plan to have sex with my partner as part of our caring, loving relationship. If you see it as making sex less 'sacred', then that is your right, but I happen to disagree strongly. I really do feel sorry for you and those children you raise. Your negative attitude towards sex will cause much 'heartache and disease', I fear.
Is the desire to eat something to be 'controlled'? Yes, of course. Eating too much leads to heartache, disease, and death. Does that make eating a bad thing? No way! Does it make eating outside of meals a bad thing? Not at all. Does it make eating for pleasure a bad thing? No, not if proper measures are taken. Do I see 'eating' as primarily something that needs to be 'controlled'? No.
The same holds for sexuality. Is it good to have sex with every person that strikes your fancy? No. Can it lead to heartache, disease, and death? You betcha. But do I see it as something that primarily should be seen as a control issue? No way! Is sex a bad thing? No way! Is it wrong outside of marriage? Not at all. Is it wrong if you haven't thought of the consequences? Yes, definitely.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
The 'out of wedlock' birth rates quoted above do not distinguish whether or not the conception occurred prior to marriage. Most evidence shows the unplanned 'out of wedlock' conception rate is unchanged - the difference is people no longer choose to get married when faced with an unplanned pregnancy - even one they plan to continue. Having grown up in a household where my parents felt there was 'no choice' but to marry when they found out about their pregnancy with me I can assure you this does not make for happy or healthy families.
There are multiple economic and access to health care disparities which lead to the unplanned pregnancy rate being higher in the African American community - I find the intonation and language used in Janet Smith's excerpt offensive.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I know you mean well by what you say, but please consider how it comes across. I have considered Christianity and have read the Bible. I simply don't believe it has much connection to reality. It is fine with me that you believe whatever myths you choose. That is your right. Just don't expect me or my family to live by the rules of your religion.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Professor,
Jesus taught us to have one partner and marry. You and your family can live however you want in the United States of America as long as you follow the laws. Do you choose your lifestyle cause you see no value in marriage? What benefit do you see you are getting by choosing to live together with a partner outside of marriage?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Having grown up in a household where my parents felt there was 'no choice' but to marry when they found out about their pregnancy with me I can assure you this does not make for happy or healthy families.
Posted by sydney May 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
sydney,
It sounds like marriage did not work out well for your parents. I am sorry to hear that. You are right that marriage should not be entered into lightly. Jesus teaches us that even if a marriage does not work out, the couple may seperate, but they may not divorce and find new partners. Marriage is a commitment to be taken seriously. Would you have had greater respect for one of your parents if they had remained "faithful" to their spouse even after their seperation.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Truthfully, I don't really care what Jesus taught any more than I care what Socrates taught. Both were interesting thinkers, but were wrong a lot. This is one of those places where I see Jesus as being wrong (there are others). I see marriage as mostly a legal and financial contract that provides a slightly more stable environment in which to raise children. It can also be a way for people who love each other to let the larger community know that they intend to have a long term relationship and get a few community benefits. Since I don't want any more children and I don't really care whether the larger community acknowledges my relationships anymore, I don't see any point to getting married. In fact, from my own experience, one of the best ways to ruin a good relationship is to get that legal piece of paper.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Then Jesus was mean-hearted.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 am
I've yet to have anyone tell me why the mythology of Jesus is any more accurate than that of Osiris, Adonis, Mithras, Inanna or Persephone — all of which have the same life/death/rebirth cycle. Why choose Christianity and toss out the rest? The others are no less believable.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Professor,
The analogy that I used when we talked about sex before marriage and kids taking drugs, it was to emphases this; that just as drugs are harmful to kids and we should teach them to say, no, so should we teach them to say no to pre-marital sex. Both when done are harmful, for all the reason that we have already stated. I think you knew this, but choose to twist it to sound like something else.
P.S. How you do come to a decision what is morally good or bad? Do you relay on yourself, and your own thoughts? Or do you look solely to the government?
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:40 am
First, I do not see *responsible* pre-marital sex as being harmful. Responsible, as in taking precautions to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Responsible, as in making sure that you understand the potential consequences, both physical and emotional. Responsible, as in not blaming someone else for it when you did it of your own free will. In that case, I actually see pre-marital sex as HUGELY beneficial. It allows 'practice', it allows one to understand what is wanted out of a relationship and out of sexuality. It allows for trial and error. These, in my mind, are all good things.
I certainly do not rely solely (or even mostly) on the government. Morality is, in my mind, about how people related to other people. Are we compassionate? Do we help those in pain and need? Do we try to understand others? Do we try to teach them? Do we help them on their terms rather than ours? Something that increases overall happiness and fulfillment (yes, different things) is good. Something that causes more pain and suffering is bad. Determining which is which can be a challenge at times, but that is the basic line. I also believe in responsibility. I know way too many people that blame all the problems in their lives on other people. Even when it is true to some extent, I believe that we can all 'make lemonade out of lemons'.
In this scheme, contraceptives have been a HUGE good. They allow people to choose when they want children. This allows more fulfillment in their lives, because women can choose careers (and for other reasons). This gives people more ability to get out of bad situations and find new meaning in their lives. Now, this *has* meant a change in traditional roles, and that always causes some societal disruption. I think a great part of this disruption is caused by those who cling to outmoded moralities that no longer apply as they did in the past.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
"I've yet to have anyone tell me why the mythology of Jesus is any more accurate than that of Osiris, Adonis, Mithras, Inanna or Persephone — all of which have the same life/death/rebirth cycle. Why choose Christianity and toss out the rest? The others are no less believable."
Well, Student, you've asked this over and over again, and the answer is that Jesus was the son of God. You are welcome not to believe it, but why keep asking a question when that's the obvious answer.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
Obviously, you can say it's a myth like all the others, but this is not the place to argue about the divinity of Jesus. It baffels my mind that you pretend to be interested in dialogue and spend all this time on a pro-life site simply belittling those with faith. What a waste of your time and all of ours.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Because *all* the others were also either Gods or sons of Gods?
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Wow, Professor, your continued insistence that Jesus is not the true God and that Christianity is nothing more than a myth gets more and more fascinating and more persuasive every time you post. And your showing off of trivia is really impressive. Please keep it up because it never gets old.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Neither of my parents ever remarried or had other relationships because of their religious beliefs - I have the utmost respect for them but am sorry that they were 'forced' by the social pressures of their time to marry and that all of us had to endure their misery.
A curious question - I was always taught that in the eyes of God/Catholic church that you were 'married' to the first person you had sex with? If this is true does it mean that you could never legitimately marry after having sex outside of marriage?
Also of interest:
The Baltimore Sun on Sunday examined potential reasons for declines in abortion and birth rates in the U.S. between 1990 and 2004. There are likely many reasons for the simultaneous decline in birth rates and abortion rates. There are more contraceptive choices available, fewer unintended pregnancies and evidence that fewer teens are engaging in sexual intercourse. NCHS demographer Joyce Abma said that "from the mid-1990s through the early 2000s, we saw significant improvements in contraceptive use among teens," adding, "That involves the barrier methods — the condom in particular, as well as the pill and the newer" injectable contraceptives. In addition, more contraceptive options have become available — including intrauterine devices, sponges, patches and emergency contraception.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
A curious question - I was always taught that in the eyes of God/Catholic church that you were 'married' to the first person you had sex with? If this is true does it mean that you could never legitimately marry after having sex outside of marriage?
Posted by sydney May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
sydney, for the Catholic answer I would recommend looking at the Cathecism. It is a book published by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and contains answers to most common social issues such as what makes a Catholic marriage. On a more personal level I would say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and God. Many men and women today make a "pact" to always be faithful in love to one another, but then when they no longer feel the same way towards one another they feel free to break their promise and go their seperate ways. That is where God comes into the equation. People of faith will not easily break a commitment they make to God when they ask Him to bless their relationship and promise to always love each other. Once you promise to God it follows you your entire life. Having sex with somebody does not make you "married" unless part of that experience is ask God to bless your union together and making a vow to God that you will remain faithful to your vow to one another. Again, that is my personal understanding.
Neither of my parents ever remarried or had other relationships because of their religious beliefs -I have the utmost respect for them but am sorry that they were 'forced' by the social pressures of their time to marry and that all of us had to endure their misery.
Posted by sydney May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
sydney,
That kind of commitment to God (like the kind I referenced above) is likely what made them able to endure any misery? I can't imagine what could have caused two people who share that much faith in God to seperate. Was it an abusive relationship?
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
It sounds like marriage did not work out well for your parents. I am sorry to hear that. You are right that marriage should not be entered into lightly. Jesus teaches us that even if a marriage does not work out, the couple may seperate, but they may not divorce and find new partners. Marriage is a commitment to be taken seriously. Would you have had greater respect for one of your parents if they had remained "faithful" to their spouse even after their seperation.
Then Jesus was mean-hearted.
Posted by Professor May 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 am
Professor,
Jesus was not mean-hearted. In order to understand this you would need an understanding of the context of marriage between a man and a woman "and God". That piece of paper is not what makes a "marriage" from a Christian perspective. Since your concept of marriage does not include God, no faithfullness is required. On the other hand, if you did believe in God and you make a vow to God then you take that commitment with you regardless of other circumstances that may arise. Does that help make it clearer to you? btw - Jesus was never
wrong about anything.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Just as people bringing up Christianity never gets old. *I* didn't bring Jesus into this discussion. I simply pointed out that a particular interpretation is far from being the only one. Do I consider Jesus' teaching particularly relevant to a discussion of abortion and sexuality? No. But other people seem to.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Then our opinions about this man differ. Yes, faithfulness to agreements *is* part of my relationships. But more important that even that is compassion.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Wait! I let myself get sidetracked - the point is that the argument that the availability of contraception has increased out of wedlock pregnancies based on the rate of those babies delivered to single mothers is not valid. The rate of unplanned out of wedlock pregnancies appear to be the same or decreased - the difference is people choose not to marry. And, of course, not all out of wedlock births are unplanned - there are plenty of people who do not feel the need for marriage. I brought up my family only as an example that marriage is not always the best option in these circumstances.
Unfortunately my parents each came from very disturbed families, found each other and reluctantly married because of pregnancy before they found out how wrong they were for each other. There was no abuse but lots of seething resentment over lost dreams, goals and their ideas of what life should have been.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Yes, faithfulness to agreements *is* part of my relationships. But more important that even that is compassion.
Posted by Professor May 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Why does compassion have to be at odds with faithfullness in your relationships?
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Unfortunately my parents each came from very disturbed families, found each other and reluctantly married because of pregnancy before they found out how wrong they were for each other. There was no abuse but lots of seething resentment over lost dreams, goals and their ideas of what life should have been.
Posted by sydney May 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
What lost dreams and goals caused such resentment between them?
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
In general it isn't. Faithfulness, in my mind, amounts to living according to agreements made as equals, keeping communication open and honest. All of these are part of compassion. I'm just saying that in an ordering of importance, compassion wins.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Has anyone read Rev. Adam Hamilton's new book Seeing Gray…? Hamilton (a Methodist minister) wants pro-choice and pro-life advocates to join forces to reduce the number of abortions and he enumerates seven areas where they could find common ground. He suggests that both sides could agree that adequate information about birth control can help prevent pregnancy. If we truly want to reduce the number of abortions (and not simply promote our own dogma), isn't this a starting point? Hamilton's chapter on abortion can be found here.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
In general it isn't. Faithfulness, in my mind, amounts to living according to agreements made as equals, keeping communication open and honest. All of these are part of compassion. I'm just saying that in an ordering of importance, compassion wins.
Posted by Professor May 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
First I would like to point out that in a Christian marriage the vows we take are with God and we do not consider ourselves to be his equal. That being said, if we state "compassion" as a reason for breaking prior commitments and responsibilities, I see that as opening up a whole "Pandora's box" of problems because individuals ideas towards compassion differ and they they are subject to change. Can you provide me with a real example so I can better understand what you are referring to?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
He suggests that both sides could agree that adequate information about birth control can help prevent pregnancy.
Posted by Student May 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Student, I think everyone agrees that "comprehensive" sex education is a positive thing. Let's be clear though that the article you pointed to stated over half the abortions committed are performed on women who were using birth control. So the only real "adequate" birth control information is to abstain from intercourse unless you are open to the responsibility of becoming a parent. Planned Barrenhood and the rest of the people with interest in birth control drugs are spreading misinformation that birth control is "safe" sex and that is the type of misinformation that is leading people to believe they can "get away" with sex and resulting in unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
I also understand that a certain number of women are willing to go into intercourse knowing that they will abort any pregnancy. These women understand that birth control will not prevent pregnancy but merely reduce the number of abortions they need to have. But lets not teach birth control as "safe sex" and promote the lies and agenda (dogma if you will)of the abortion industry.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Truthseeker,
That is certainly not the impression I've gotten from reading this board, but I'm happy to hear you say so.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Truthseeker,
What did you think of the other aspects of Rev. Hamilton's thoughts on working to find common ground to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country?
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It was truthfully very hard to come up with an example. Suppose I had promised my partner that I would be home by a certain time. I can see breaking that promise in order to help out someone in need. In the time before cell-phones, this could be a breaking of faith with my partner. Now, I would give a call to let her know the situation. As you can see, major breaches of faith in the name of compassion are rare indeed.
As for the nature of Christian marriage, you can structure your relationships as you wish. I prefer my promises and pledges to be with real people about things that concern them. I do think there is a problem when belief in God makes a person less compassionate to people. This does not always happen, but those bound by rules rather than caring tend to go that direction.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Birth control, condom usage and basic sexual health information certainly leads to "safer" sex than one would have with no education.
Posted by Student May 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Not if you teach people that sex is o.k. when you are not open to becoming a parent. That leads people to unwanted pregnancy and mother's who kill children they conceive.
*****
Planned Barrenhood? For a group that claims not to engage in personal attacks and misrepresentation there is certainly a lot of it here. I'll leave out the name calling and misinformation that I see from a lot of other types of groups.
Posted by Student May 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Planned Parenthood is a deceitful name for an organization who provide mothers with "services" to kill their babies if/when they become pregnant. Calling themselves Planned Parenthood is closer to misinformation than calling them Planned Barrenhood.
****
In my particular situation, I am not willing to become a parent (again), nor am I willing to "abstain from intercourse." So where exactly does that leave me? Fortunately, I've educated myself well in this area and the chances of my becoming pregnant are somewhere between slim and none.
Student,
I believe in the past you have stated you chose sterilization because you are unable to safely carry children throughout a pregnancy. That leaves you among the people who undergo sterilization of their reproductive organs to prevent pregnancy out of medical necessity. I am sorry to hear about the life threatening consequences you would suffer if you were to carry a baby to term, but lets not confuse your situation with typical birth control. Sterilization is certainly a better option then continuos abortions would be, but that does not lessen the saddness and hurt involved in ANY abortion you would choose to commit. In my opinion, any life a mother chooses to destroy should weigh heavily on her decision to continue having sex. Since you know ahead of time you would kill and babies conceived, I would counsel you against intercourse because I believe in the sanctity of life.
****
What did you think of the other aspects of Rev. Hamilton's thoughts on working to find common ground to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country?
Posted by Student May 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Student, I agree that the later in a pregancy an abortion is commited, the more obvious the gravity of the killing. The use of early pregancy termination which is an affront to God and a Reverend in the Christian faith should not condone it in ANY way.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Truthseeker,
Then you see no common ground?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
It was truthfully very hard to come up with an example. Suppose I had promised my partner that I would be home by a certain time. I can see breaking that promise in order to help out someone in need.
Posted by Professor May 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
What I was asking was for was an example of how compassion would trump your marriage vows. Getting home late happens all the time and I don't really consider it to be a breach of faith.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Then you see no common ground?
Posted by Student May 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Student,
I find common ground that pro-life and pro-choice people are a "good fit" and that they agree on the following statement, "Abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero."
I agree that sex is supposed to be something meaningful.
I agree that pregnant parishoners should be able to find help in Christian churches.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Professor says,
As for the nature of Christian marriage, you can structure your relationships as you wish. I prefer my promises and pledges to be with real people about things that concern them. I do think there is a problem when belief in God makes a person less compassionate to people. This does not always happen, but those bound by rules rather than caring tend to go that direction.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
The sacrament of Marriage IS between two REAL people. What do you think they are, if not real people, paper dolls or something? When one is married you are always to be concerned for your loved one. Belief in God; guess what? The devil believes in God! One needs to accept the teachings and wisdom of God and do their very best to live them each day. Then living in this way one would be the most compassionate person of all. Children, when they are not allowed to do something their parents believe may harm them or not be in their best interest, think their parents are not compassionate toward them. But the parents knowing better have to enforce "the rules" for the good of their children. Do you see the analogy? Mother Theresa was "bound by the rules" of the Catholic Church, and I dare say was one of the most compassionate, self sacrificing people. God, who is our Father, tells His children to follow His "rules" for our own good. His "rules" are true and good. And the truth shall set you free. Relativism is what seems to be this day and age thinking. It is nonsense. It is just a way to justify sin. If someone says I believe something should be a certain way that makes it right. Well what if someone else believes something else. Who then is right? If I believe from my own thinking that if I just don't happen to like someone’s face I can punch it. Well you would say, that's against the law. Well, how does a government that has a whole bunch of relativists running it decides what is right and good? IT IS UP FOR GRABS! God solves that dilemma for us. His "rules" are a great gift to us.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I believe a woman's right to "choose" is really not a right to choose abortion, instead it is a right to choose to have sex. In other words, if she is raped she did not consent to intercourse and bodily domain has been violated so she was stripped of her right to choose so regardless of how I feel about the abortion I would want her to have safe and legal access to the morning after pill. We need a lot more regulation of abortion. Just last year PBA was legal. And if Obama becomes president he fight to remove any restriction on abortion. He even voted against a law preventing "born-alive" infants from being killed. How is it possible that someone with such an obviously insane position could get to be the Democratic presidential nominee? Talk about being far-far away from common ground.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Any broken promise is a breach of faith.
OK. Suppose two people get married when they are young. They agree at the time that they don't want children. Later, one of them decides that to have a fulfilling life, they need to try to have a child. The other still greatly feels that to have a satisfying life, they should *not* have a child. In this, there is no compromise. Both know themselves. Isn't it better and more compassionate for them to separate and for the one who wants a child to find a new partner that also wants a child?
I'll also say that the previous examples of marriages that become abusive are good ones. Isn't it more compassionate for them to separate and for the victim to rebuild a new life with someone else? To disallow that is simply cruel in my mind.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Well what if someone else believes something else. Who then is right? If I believe from my own thinking that if I just don't happen to like someone’s face I can punch it. Well you would say, that's against the law. Well, how does a government that has a whole bunch of relativists running it decides what is right and good? IT IS UP FOR GRABS! God solves that dilemma for us. His "rules" are a great gift to us.
And how does belief in a God solve this problem? As far as I can see, belief in a God only solidifies the divisions. Or don't you see the problems in the Middle East? You see, the problem is that those who believe in God can't agree about what God's rules actually are. So we are right back to the same place, except that now people are interested in pleasing some deity that they can't justify rather than actually caring for *people*.
Since I don't believe in the devil either, I don't see this as very persuasive. That was my point. Your deity is a myth that you use to perpetuate your lack of compassion. This shows up in your attitudes towards marriage and it shows up in your attitudes towards unwanted pregnancies. By their fruits you shall know them.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I see the analogy, I just think it's a broken one. A parent that sets up a 'rule' not to touch a hot stove is working in the best interests of the child, but the parent wasn't the one that decided that hot stoves would burn. A 'rule' not to run in the street is set up because the parents don't have the power to stop cars from hitting their child. In contrast, *all* of the harms that would come from denying your God are caused by that God. In your belief system, merely disbelieving in God justifies eternal punishment and *that* is what your God decided was appropriate. A much better analogy would be one where the parent makes a rule not to touch an electrical outlet that is usually off and purposely turns on the outlet whenever the child touches it. I think you would agree that is simply cruelty.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Update:
I gave the wrong address to find balloon reports from the rally. The correct address is as follows:
http://fvfapp.org/blog/balloons
There are quite a few up now, so take a look!
May 5th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Professor says,
Any broken promise is a breach of faith.
truthseeker responds,
O.K. Professor, but I don't "promise" I'll be home at a certain time. We must use greater care then to promise such frivolous things (things that are really out of our control)to one another. I might promise to do my best to be home at a cetain time, but I would not promise to be home by a certain time.
"But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "No" mean "No," that you may not incur condemnation."
James 5:12
********
Professor says,
OK. Suppose two people get married when they are young.
They agree at the time that they don't want children. Later, one of them decides that to have a fulfilling life, they need to try to have a child. The other still greatly feels that to have a satisfying life, they should *not* have a child. In this, there is no compromise. Both know themselves. Isn't it better and more compassionate for them to separate and for the one who wants a child to find a new partner that also wants a child?
truthseeker says,
Professor, you say when they got married they had agreed to live their lives together without children. Now one of them has changed their minds and wants to have children. Rather then seperate wouldn't it show MORE compassionate and more loving for one to accomodate the wishes of your spouse? Compassion within the context of marriage is self-sacrificing love or giving of ones self in order to help your spouse. I fail to see how you will be able to help your spouse through life by seperating from them.
As far as a spouse that is abusive, nobody should have to subject themselves to abuse and allowing your spouse to act abusively should NOT be misconstrued as helping them or showing them compassion.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Professor says,
You see, the problem is that those who believe in God can't agree about what God's rules actually are.
truthseeker says,
And those who believe God's rules are to love one another are called to peace.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Truthseeker,
There seems to be much confusion over God's rules. People killing "for God" include:
1) Jews & Muslims in the Middleast;
2) Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (although, admittedly, this has quieted down);
3) Catholic Croats and Orthodox Christian Serbs;
4) Hindus slaughter Muslims and Sikhs slaughter Hindus in India;
5) Sunni Muslims and Shite Muslims in Pakistan; and
6) and let's not leave out the Christian missionaries who slaughtered and butchered the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas in the Americas.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Professor says,
In contrast, *all* of the harms that would come from denying your God are caused by that God.
truthseeker responds,
It is not God who condemns you. God gives you free will. "Your" decision to deny God is what leads you on the path to destruction. You are merely being held responsible for "your" actions.
Professor says,
In your belief system, merely disbelieving in God justifies eternal punishment and *that* is what your God decided was appropriate.
truthseeker responds,
Again you need to take responsibility for your decision. It is your actions that condemn you.
Professor says,
A much better analogy would be one where the parent makes a rule not to touch an electrical outlet that is usually off and purposely turns on the outlet whenever the child touches it. I think you would agree that is simply cruelty.
truthseeker responds,
That would be cruel but I don't get the analogy?
May 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Professor,
In response to your post #63, I think what you are driving at is that you believe God is not a loving God because He punishes a person when they reject Him. Actually it is the other way around. A person punishes her/ himself by rejecting God. A famous saint once said that Hell has the lock on the inside. Something to ponder.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
And if I am honest in my evaluation of the evidence of the existence of a God and find it insufficient, why is that blameworthy?
I take responsibility for my judgments and actions, yes. But I honestly find the evidence for the existence of a deity to be insufficient. If disbelief in those circumstances warrants eternal punishment, then your deity is simply cruel. If the Old Testament, in particular, is any indication of the personality of the deity, this only supports my judgment of cruelty. Of course, like I said, I really don't see there being enough evidence for even this cruel God.
In your system, God controls all of the electrical outlets and the knobs on the stove. Whether you get burned or not is *solely* his choice, although breaking his rules makes it 'justifiable'. But, honestly arriving at conclusions 'He' disagrees with is enough to justify *eternal* punishment. This discourages real thinking and is ultimately cruel (and, in my mind, evil). *That* is the analogy.
Belief is something that properly comes after looking at the evidence. 'Faith' is first choosing to believe and *then* looking for evidence. It's just backwards.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Karen & Truthseeker,
Assuming you both have children, is there anything at all that one of them could do that you believe would warrant a punishment of eternal torture? That is not something ANY "loving" parent would want for their child.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Professor says,
And if I am honest in my evaluation of the evidence of the existence of a God and find it insufficient, why is that blameworthy?
truthseeker responds,
Life is a journey and though I can see evidence of God's existence I cannot always understand God's ways or God's purpose. Why would a loving God allow women to feel so burdened that they would abort their child? Why would a loving God allow a baby to get a cancerous tumor? Why would God allow evil in our world? I combat these evils as a spiritual battle and Jesus Christ is my buckler and shield. For some, like yourself, the searcch for the existence of God begins with honest evaluation of the evidence. But if you begin your search by denying the spiritual realm then you will never use the tolls necessary to wage battle in the spiritual realm. It is written that "God is close to the broken-hearted, those whose spirit is crushed he will save.". That is why people often find God when they are struck with tragedy and realize how little control they really have over "goings on" and call upon God for help. Keep an open mind. If you are willing, then give just fifteen minutes of your time each day for one year exclusively to prayer and a personal relationshipship with God. I dedicate time each day praying "the Lord's prayer" and meditating on the conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Unfortunately, most unbelievers I talk with will not even try the fifteen minutes of time each day cause they think it is a waste, so it is kind of a catch 22. But that is really all I can offer you cause that is how I keep God's presence in my life. I do not personally hold you "blameworthy" for your unbelief, and I hope my words to you can help you to find the presence of God in your life.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Karen & Truthseeker,
Assuming you both have children, is there anything at all that one of them could do that you believe would warrant a punishment of eternal torture? That is not something ANY "loving" parent would want for their child.
Posted by Student May 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Yes, and it is scary. It is a "personal" journey they take on their own. I ffer them the tolls necessary to win a spiritual battle. I pray with them daily and offer them an example of following Jesus Christ who is victory over sin and death.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Don't you get it? I don't believe in a deity (and I have looked at the evidence) and I don't believe in a supernatural (and again, I have looked at the evidence), how can I possibly have a relationship with something I don't believe in???? Sorry, I don't go for imaginary friends. Didn't even do that as a child. Belief comes *after* evidence, not before.
Your examples of those in pain simply show how emotionally vulnerable those in pain are: they will believe in *anything* that helps to relive their pain. That is how mind-washing is done. Religion is simply a form of mind-washing.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Do you understand that you can do *exactly* the same thing with 8any* philosophy with the same results? You are quite simply brain-washing yourself: repeating statements until you believe them. Don't you see the dishonesty in this?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
There is NO REASON to argue against atheists by invoking God as a basis for your argument. It's not going to convince them and it gives them an excuse to repeat, over and over again, that you are wrong to believe in an "imaginary friend." Of course, decent people wouldn't haunt a website making fun of other's faith, but then again, we're talking about two pretty self-indulgent folks here. Just stop feeding the trolls.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Do you understand that you can do *exactly* the same thing with 8any* philosophy with the same results? You are quite simply brain-washing yourself: repeating statements until you believe them. Don't you see the dishonesty in this?
Posted by Professor May 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Professor, No,no Professor…. you cannot get the same results. I guarantee you that. And no I "honestly" do not see the dishonesty in acknowledging the existence of God. As I said in my previous post, other atheists have been unable to dedicate time to God cause they see it as a waste of time, a kind of catch 22. I know that God establishes the order that governs all ages and trust he has a purpose for even the unbelievers. This site is dedicated to respecting the sanctity of life though and is here for all peoples. Where do you stand on abortion? I google "atheists against abortion" and get many hits. Do you agree with any of the secular agruments against abortion?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Your examples of those in pain simply show how emotionally vulnerable those in pain are: they will believe in *anything* that helps to relive their pain. That is how mind-washing is done. Religion is simply a form of mind-washing.
Posted by Professor May 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Professor, it is not out of pain relief that these curcumstances lead us to God. It is out of humility and the "truth" of understanding that we have only the time here on earth that "God" graces us with. It is truely illogical for you or anyone else to think otherwise. Your best plans could be swept away in an instant. Your ability to comprehend this world or the spiritual world will never rise to anything if you only believe what you can prove through scientific method. Can;t you see that you are limiting your experience by only placing your belief in empirical eveidence when the mysteries of the creation and of the world around you and the essence of life are 99.9% unprovable through scientific explanation. If you believe otherwise then you are simply blinding yourself to the truth.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
John,
Nobody is "making fun" of another's faith. However, if god is brought up as a reasoning for decisions there is no reason s/he/it shouldn't be evaluated like any other argument. I think it's rather telling of your belief system if words like "indecent" and "troll" apply to people who disagree with you. All too many times I've found this attitude typical among christians. You appear to be no exception.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Truthseeker,
I think perhaps you misunderstood. My question is:
Is there anything one of your children could do that you believe, as a parent, would warrant eternal torture?
I have three kids and, at times, had to punish them for misbehavior. However, I can't think of a thing that any of them could do that would cause me to want to torture them for all eternity. That is not something any "loving" being would do. In contrast, you say your god is a "loving" god yet this is supposedly what happens to those who "disobey." How do you reconcile this? I truly do not understand a value system that would find this acceptable.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I think it a shame that we can't teach people proper use of birth control so that the number of abortions could actually go down. Europe does a *very* good job of this: their per capita teenage pregnancy rate is a fifth of ours. They manage this by *openly* discussing sex with their children as it becomes appropriate: menstruation by around 8-9 (many girls are already menstruating by then), relationships skills (how to say no, communication of boundaries, etc), and proper use of birth control are *all* openly discussed. If you *really* want to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, THIS is how to do it. Instead, I think that too many people want to promote a religious agenda about sex outside of marriage which, truthfully, is not the role of the government: it's role is to make sure people are educated.
I think there is a moral dimension to late second and third trimester abortions. Around weeks 24-26, the brain starts becoming active in ways I consider to be morally significant. Even then, I think the woman has a right to end the pregnancy, although perhaps not to do so by killing the fetus (i.e., via premature delivery, artificial wombs if we could design them, etc).
May 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Is there anything one of your children could do that you believe, as a parent, would warrant eternal torture?
I have three kids and, at times, had to punish them for misbehavior. However, I can't think of a thing that any of them could do that would cause me to want to torture them for all eternity. That is not something any "loving" being would do. In contrast, you say your god is a "loving" god yet this is supposedly what happens to those who "disobey." How do you reconcile this? I truly do not understand a value system that would find this acceptable.
Posted by Student May 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Student,
If my children were to turn against the Holy Spirit and glory in desecrating the sanctity of life then their spirits would reap what they sow. Though I don't wish that upon them, I cannot take the gang-banger mentality and think that they should be protected and allowed to continue down such an unrighteous path just because they are my offspring.
Your question is how can a loving God judge people to suffer through eternity. That is a difficult one because I am personally against torture of any kind, even torture of people who commit unspeakable evil. Although I might enjoy putting somebodys ability to do evil to a quick end, I would not enjoy others suffering. I imagine the answer to this lies somewhere in the fact that we have freedom of choice and our choices can bring evil into our world. And the other part lies in the fact that Fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit. We should love God so much that we fear ever causing grief to the Holy Spirit. Should we work against the Holy Spirit, then I am afraid to say that yes, we are bringing an eternity of suffering upon ourselves.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I think there is a moral dimension to late second and third trimester abortions. Around weeks 24-26, the brain starts becoming active in ways I consider to be morally significant. Even then, I think the woman has a right to end the pregnancy, although perhaps not to do so by killing the fetus (i.e., via premature delivery, artificial wombs if we could design them, etc).
Posted by Professor May 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Even as an atheist your views are not as extreme os some who call themselves Christians. Barack Obama voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and against protection against murder for infants that are already born alive. This must be the "compassion" that you said can be an overiding factor in your decision making. Since that is an integral part of your being maybe that is something you could meditate on for fifteen minutes each day and try to understand it's source more deeply. Someday you may even find it is the Holy Spirit inside of you.
I believe in the Holy Spirit as the giver of "life" so life is sacred to me from the point of conception.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Professor,
Where did you get your statistics that show UK has one-fifth of the per-capita teenage pregnancy rate?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Also Professor, did the reduction in teenage pregnancies cause a corresponding one-fifth per-capita in the teenage abortion rate?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Nobody is "making fun" of another's faith. However, if god is brought up as a reasoning for decisions there is no reason s/he/it shouldn't be evaluated like any other argument. I think it's rather telling of your belief system if words like "indecent" and "troll" apply to people who disagree with you. All too many times I've found this attitude typical among christians. You appear to be no exception.
Posted by Student May 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Student, for quite some time there your posts were nothing but insults against God. Even your above post is insulting to Christians and you cannot even see it.
read it again. How can put your foot in your mouth like that and still keep talking?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
God gave us the gift of free will. He also gave us everything we need to get to Heaven. If we choose to not go His direction, to deny Him, then we choose that path for ourselves, what sense does it make to blame God for the decision WE made.
I do believe many people say they do not believe in a higher power because if they did, that would put them in a humbled position, to many this position is quite uncomfortable. They do not want a god telling them what is right or wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I wouldn't like it if god told me what to do either Karen. But I welcome it if God tells me what to do
May 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Look at page 20 of the UNICEF report of 2001:
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf
While not directly correlated to birth rates, the abortion rates are *also* significantly correlated to places with good sex education. Only Hungary is as bad as the US on this statistic and most countries are considerably better. I'd point out the Netherlands, for example.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
While not directly correlated to birth rates, the abortion rates are *also* significantly correlated to places with good sex education. Only Hungary is as bad as the US on this statistic and most countries are considerably better. I'd point out the Netherlands, for example.
Posted by Professor.
Professor,
I am not sure how you are reading this. The way I read the chart on page 22 which shows the answer to this question; It is true that the US has higher number of teenage pregnancies and the higher number of teenage abortions, but as a percentage of teenage pregnancies we have only about one-third choosing abortion, which is significantly then most of the others.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
last sentence should read:
which is significantly LOWER then most of the others.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
And yet the overall numbers are small enough that it would result in a *significant* lowering in the number of abortions. Isn't that your goal?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Truthseeker,
Well, I read it again and stand by my comments. The fact that you find fault with it and see nothing wrong in John's comments just further proves my point.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Truthseeker,
What is the gang-banger mentality? In one breath you say you're against torture of any kind, yet you find eternal torture (even for those who don't commit "unspeakable evil") by god as "loving." How do you do that? It makes no sense.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
What is the gang-banger mentality? In one breath you say you're against torture of any kind, yet you find eternal torture (even for those who don't commit "unspeakable evil") by god as "loving." How do you do that? It makes no sense.
Posted by Student May 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
truthseeker's response
The gang-bang mentality would be to support "my" even when they do unspeakable evil. You know, like gang-bangers allow gang members to do unspeakable evil to others but don't let anyone do harm to members of their
gang.
If you said I would not consider it my place to judge God, then that would be a fair statement. Butb you don't. Instead you say to me "you find eternal torture (even for those who don't commit "unspeakable evil") by god as "loving." But nowhere did I say I thought God punished those who commit no evil to eternal torture. You are really trying to stretch it by insisting God is without compassion. In previous posts you accuse God of all kinds of evil. You words are full of perjury and misinformation.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I think it's rather telling of your belief system if words like "indecent" and "troll" apply to people who disagree with you. All too many times I've found this attitude typical among christians.
Posted by Student May 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
truthseeker's response,
Student, lumping all Christians together in a condescending fashion is an insult to all Christians. Just like it would be to lump all atheists together or all Muslims together. You should have learned that in psychology/ sociology 101.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
And yet the overall numbers are small enough that it would result in a *significant* lowering in the number of abortions. Isn't that your goal?
Posted by Professor May 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Lowering the number of abortions is certainly my goal Professor. But my daughter should not require hormone injections to "prevent" her becoming pregnant. If somebody raped her I would consider it my responsibility to eliminating the person that raped her.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
If a pregnant girl comes for an abortion she is admiting that something is alive in her and she wants it not to be alive.In other words, there would be no reason for an abortion if there wasn't an alive growing human being in her womb. So, AN ABORTION KILLS A LIFE. No matter what method of abortion is used, no matter what stage of growth of the baby in the womb, abortion is murder.
All born humans need to defend the unborn humans.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
To go even further, there is ONE unforgivable crime according to Christian theology. One so unspeakably evil that there is no forgiveness. And that horrific crime? Not murder, not abortion, no, it's denying the Holy Spirit. If this sounds loving and compassionate to you, I really feel sorry for you.
Posted by Professor May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Correction Professor, that unforgiveable crime is not "denying" the Holy Spirit, it is "grieving" the Holy Spirit. And I for one am glad that in God's compassion for us, there will be no place in heaven for those who grieve the Holy Spirit.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Professor says:
But nowhere did I say I thought God punished those who commit no evil to eternal torture.
And yet simple disbelief in God is 'evil' enough to justify this?
To go even further, there is ONE unforgivable crime according to Christian theology. One so unspeakably evil that there is no forgiveness. And that horrific crime? Not murder, not abortion, no, it's denying the Holy Spirit. If this sounds loving and compassionate to you, I really feel sorry for you.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
All sins no matter how scarlet, when confessed to Jesus with a true and contrite heart will be forgiven. The greatest sin against God is to believe that your sin is too great for His Mercy.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Also Professor, disbelief in God "now" does not guarantee you eternal torture. You have difficulty comprehending this cause you will not allow yourself to believe what you cannot prove using scientific method.
There is a spiritual battle being waged for souls.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
If saying that decent people don't hang out at a website repeatedly telling people of faith that they're fools and calling those people the common internet term (troll) is too much for you, get over it. I can disagree with people agreeably. I just get tired of you and your friend repeatedly telling people who believe in God that they are doing nothing more than deluding themselves in a myth. I think you two are wasting everyone's time doing that and that the manner in which you do it is offensive. I do hope you can get off your fainting couch about someone saying "Planned Barenhood." I guess what I'd like is for you to quit pretending that you're here for dialogue and admit that you're here to belittle those with faith.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:09 am
John,
I'd like you to point me to the post where I called anyone a fool.
How about if you admit that the reason you're here isn't to minimize the # of abortions performed but to condemn anyone who happens to disagree with your worldview. My skin is tough enough that I can take being called a troll, however, don't be naive enough to believe that had I called you the same thing the moderator of this board would certainly have called me out on it. Even you should be able to see the double standard.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Truthseeker,
What does it mean to "grieve" the holy spirit? I was raised Pentecostal and that's a term with which I am completely unfamiliar. I was taught as a child that the "unforgivable sin" was taking the lord's name in vain. Perhaps that's something only Pentecostal's believe?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Truthseeker,
While I certainly share your sentiment, how does this square with your faith?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Oh get over it– a troll is an internet term for people hanging out at a website where they just pester those who are there for the purpose of the website (like a Sox fan at a Cubs message board). There's no unfair bias against you by the moderators of this board.
My point is that there's no point engaging you or your friend in an argument that uses God as a premise because it's not going to convince you. But it will give you an excuse to say for the twentieth time that we're deluding ourselves with a myth. That's called feeding the trolls. Sorry you're not web-savy. Maybe it would have prevented your case of the vapers.
I'm not going back to search for it, but I remember quite clearly the time you called people fools.
The unforgiveable sin is suicide because you've thrown away your future. I don't necessarily believe that, but that's the teaching.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Ok, the atheism/theism debate is officially over. We're going to try to keep the comments section of posts on a topic of some relation to the actual post.
If you'd like to continue that discussion privately feel free, I believe most of the parties have already posted their e-mail addresses in various threads.
P.S.
I don't want to tip my hand too far, but we're working on something that might facilitate this sort of discussion in an environment more suited to it. Keep