home
RSS
'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina
December 11th, 2012
01:13 AM ET

'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

By Joe Sutton, CNN

(CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new "Choose Life" license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

"The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

"This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU. "The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view."

Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the "Choose Life" plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported.

The "Choose Life" plates are available in 29 states, according to Choose Life Inc., a nonprofit that helps states that want to sell these specialty plates.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Abortion • Courts • North Carolina

soundoff (3,213 Responses)
  1. lionlylamb

    “S e x is not only a physical embolism but is also an emotionalized pleasantry. In either stance one should yes consider these issues before the "deed done" is made. Does a couple who embraces each other in the physical throngs of emotionalized pleasing do so without any planning involved? Are we all just wanting the pleasures of s e x to be had without dire planning for a child's potential birthing? If so, then aren't we found guilty of wanton s e x u a l pleasures despite said pleasures potential outcome?”

    “So then, you believe in wanton s e x u a l pleasures without the foreseeable consequences? Someone's standing upon r a p e & I n c e s t principles or a mother's potential healthiness due a child possibly being conceived is noteworthy. Should the governing bodies allow all s e x u a l activities no matter what? Is the shame for having s e x outside wedlock for pleasure's sake something to be overlooked and judgmentally weighed out-of-bounds due that everyone needs a little 'action'?”

    December 12, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
  2. Sam Yaza

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3U09DeKpg&w=640&h=390]

    December 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
  3. Sam Yaza

    as fare as I'm concurred any one who has spayed or neutered the other specie member of your house hold cannot call them self pro life

    if your in favor of deforestation or mountain top removal, you cannot call your self pro life

    if your in favor of the death penalty, (tax payer murder) you cannot call your self pro life

    if you hired an exterminator to kill the termites or any other bug on or around your property, you cannot call your self pro life

    if you are in favor of War any War, or military action, (support your troops does not equal pro life) you cannot call your self pro life.

    needles to say i am pro life, yup when a fly gets into my house i meticulously catch it and transport it out side, because all life is sacred.

    the Devil is way more fuin pro life then you

    December 12, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      fuin
      *Fuckin

      December 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  4. Colin

    It's funny how those who are against killing their child seek support in the word of a god who supposedly grotesquely killed his own.

    December 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Sorta kinda

      Does the Creator of the Universe have to explain Himself to you? You would never understand. Be happy in your own mind.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chad

      When someone dies, the issue for determining justification are always:
      1. what were the circu.mstances of the death
      2. who killed the other person, what was their motivation, what was their justification?

      -In the case of God commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, women and children included (1 Samuel 15), He had His reasons, and as creator He had the right to do so.
      -In the case of abortion, a full 93% of women have abortions for reasons of inconvenience,.. They kill a baby because he/she is inconvenient.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • End Religion

      I see the King and Queen of Stupid have weighed in on the matter in the name of ignorance.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Stepford

      ER,

      They enjoy being the abused wife and slave.

      Da Massa beats you for yo own good. Don't yo sass the Massa.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • Chad

      I guess I must have somehow missed where you explained how Gods reasons were insufficient, and it's perfectly fine to kill a baby just because it would be an inconvenience to let it live..

      December 12, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bonehead, nobody is "killing babies." I thought you had some sort of science background, Chard. Any scientist knows that the scientific term is "infant." Infants are born. If it isn't born, it's a fetus, an embryo or a blastocyst.

      Not that it matters, since you have no say in what a woman chooses to do anyway.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Is it not written that our world is not the kingdom of God? Should we not then be seeking God's kingdom whereabouts in other places than our world? Is it not written that the kingdom of God resides upon our insides? Is it not also written that our bodies are but mere buildings for God to inhabit in a dimension we cannot fully fathom in wholeness? What has science taught us about or bodies? Are our bodies made up of cellular cosmologies where science interprets the cellular insides to be made up of biomechanical shapes doing all the needed functions to sustain our body's welfares? Who but the families of God dares run these biomechanical machines? How much simpler can I make it?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      But Chad, according to your story book your God has killed everyone who has ever died. Has it always had a sufficient reason?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      God's methods and reasons for killing are sufficient for determining that he is an azzhole.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "But Chad, according to your story book your God has killed everyone who has ever died. Has it always had a sufficient reason?"

      Now how do you figure that?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Isn't his eye on the sparrow, Khrud? Isn't he omniscient and omnipotent? Is not everything under his control?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Chad

      Allowing, and causing are obviously two different things..

      December 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Only to a moron like you.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Roger that

      "-In the case of God commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, women and children included (1 Samuel 15), He had His reasons, and as creator He had the right to do so."

      Isn't that wonderful? God isn't required or expected to live by any standards or morals that he expects man to live by. No leading by example. How is this justified? One reason. Because he is the creator. Your god is simply evil. He makes makes the devil look like a Girl Scout.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I was talking to "the Other One." but anyway...you stated "Isn't his eye on the sparrow, Khrud? Isn't he omniscient and omnipotent? Is not everything under his control?"

      Yes, yes, yes. But we die...that is the nature of the world we live in. God certainly allows it and knows about it...but he did not cause it. In fact if you will read the Bible in Genesis where sin entered into the world by one, and death is caused by sin...so who's actually at fault?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, so his eye is on the sparrow, but he doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to it?

      How convenient.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Christian: Morals come only from god, otherwise morality is subjective and "might makes right."

      Nonbeliever: So why does god kill people and manipulate them for his own purposes?

      Christian: Because morality is different with god because he's the mightiest and so subjectively he cannot do anything wrong.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Krhodes

      God designed the system that "broke" into a system that has death. If a car maker designed an engine, that went into nuclear meltdown if you put the wrong gas in the tank--killing everyone in a half-mile radius, would the manufacturer be liable for such accidents or not?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Colin

      My point is that those opposed to terminating a small group of cells, or even a larger fetus that is not even yet self-aware will base their opposition on the supposed views of some mythological creature that, according to their Iron Age Palestinian mythology, caused a grown adult to be tortured and killed in a grotesque, barbaric fashion.

      It demonstrates how silly and self-contradicting their mythology is.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      The idiotic clamoring of the unrighteous revelers in atheistic cynicisms are tyrannical perverts of predispositions posting their crap to make follies of those religious fruit loops who can't even rightly divide the word of truth into being parables and fiction and historical! What a load the both sides truly are!

      December 12, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • krhodes

      Roger that

      "-In the case of God commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, women and children included (1 Samuel 15), He had His reasons, and as creator He had the right to do so."

      "Isn't that wonderful? God isn't required or expected to live by any standards or morals that he expects man to live by. No leading by example. How is this justified? One reason. Because he is the creator. Your god is simply evil. He makes makes the devil look like a Girl Scout."

      What standard would you have God live by and who would command him to do so? Does God issue commands to himself? How is God evil?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @Colin "caused a grown adult to be tortured "

      =>where does the bible say that???

      you making stuff up again?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So not everything happens according to your gods will then? I guess he's not sovereign.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @Colin "My point is that those opposed to terminating a small group of cells, or even a larger fetus...."

      =>oh, and dont forget, the only difference between the current law, and what God desires, is the ~20 weeks from conception to "viability".

      It is illegal to murder an unborn baby past the age of "viability", it is currently legal to murder him/her prior to that.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Colin

      krhodes – this is the poblem the son-worshippers face. Morality has moved on, but the Bible cannot. They are left having to fill a large gap between what we consider moral today and what the Iron Age Palestinian authors of the Bible considered moral in their violent times.

      they cannot, so they retreat to mysticism, like Chad did – "you cannot undestand the ways of God" "God moves in mysterious ways" etc.

      The first refuge of the cornered fool.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • Colin

      @ Chad – the whole Christian theory is that God the Father sent his son to die on the cross to forgive the World of the original sin of Adam and Eve – a mythological couple. Silly, barbaric, primitive nonsense.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Chad

      you (again) dont understand what "sovereign" means.
      It DOES mean having supreme power/authority.
      it DOES NOT mean that the sovereign person cant allow things to occur that arent in line with their desires. As a sovereign person they are certainly free to do so, that's what sovereignty is all about.

      Perhaps the definition will help, but I doubt it..

      sov·er·eign (svr-n, svrn)
      n.
      1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
      a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
      b. A national governing council or committee.
      2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
      3. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.
      adj.
      1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
      2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince.
      3. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion.
      4.
      a. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy.
      b. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • krhodes

      Moby Schtick

      @Krhodes

      "God designed the system that "broke" into a system that has death. If a car maker designed an engine, that went into nuclear meltdown if you put the wrong gas in the tank–killing everyone in a half-mile radius, would the manufacturer be liable for such accidents or not?"

      No it did not break...the ability to choose was always there. God warned of the consequences. Man did want he wanted in spite of the warning..who,s fault do you think it was? If God had left the ability to do the opposite out of the equation then there would have been no choice, thus no freedom or free will to choose what we want. If God had wanted mindless beings...i am quite sure he could have created them.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Moby
      It is God’s plan to bring about the eternal separation of Good and evil. The way that plan is set up very few choose eternal life. That would be your fault not Gods as you have been given the gift of life eternal.

      As for the rest of the pain suffering and death that results from natural consequences of life your beef is with nature. Now if you have a better plan to filter out evil so that only good remains I would sure like to hear about it.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Chad

      Guess you somehow missed it..,

      @Colin "caused a grown adult to be tortured "

      =>where does the bible say that???

      you making stuff up again?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Colin

      It's always very funny to see the religious zealots scream about what they "know" their god wants, but when it's an uncomfortable contradiction then "oh god can't be understood" or "who are you to question god"(might makes right?).

      December 12, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • krhodes

      Colin

      "krhodes – this is the poblem the son-worshippers face. Morality has moved on, but the Bible cannot. They are left having to fill a large gap between what we consider moral today and what the Iron Age Palestinian authors of the Bible considered moral in their violent times."

      Morality has moved on...according to whom? Society...is that who decides morality? If that is so then it is subjective to the particular society and what an evil society does in fine given that is what they believe. If God decides what is moral and places that knowledge in all humanity then it is objective and grounded. As far as what is moral in the "violent" times. What world do you live in? The world is more violent today and the previous century proves that to be so.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      It's a term used often to describe the concept that god is in control of everything, and nothing happens that isn't part of god's will (predestination). If you're going to be so disingenuous about different usages, then you might want to choose something more obscure.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      God is sovereign yet God allows one and all to be free to do that according to their own wills. Commandments? 10 of them. No more! No less! But many make perverse their will to abstain from the big 10! May all the perverted generations reap in their parent's follies their childishly righteous rewards!

      December 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Roger that

      KRHODES,

      For starters, read Job again.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Colin

      Chad – I answered u. The essence of Christianity is that God the Father sent his son to die on the cross. The whole doctrine invented by Paul to account for the fact that JC was a complete political and millitay failure.

      Krhodes. Quoting mythology to prove mythology is a circular argument.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • Chad

      predestination refers to something entirely different,, you'll need to do some reading on Calvinism and Arminianism to understand what that refers to..

      December 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly (formerly known as dreamer)

      Both positions are supported in the bible. Then again, picking and choosing is a trademark of Christianity.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • krhodes

      BTW colin, talk about "violent"...look at the very subject we are discussing. You don't think abortion is violent? You don't think the fetus feels pain? You need to take a long look at the practice you are defending, especially when accusing God of being evil.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Or, instead of just making an assertion, you could actually provide the information. Oh wait, that would mean you actually need to back up what you say. I'm sorry I forgot.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Colin

      John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This is why one will often see “John 3:16” on church billboards and elsewhere.

      The idea is that the Christian god impregnated a virgin with himself, to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself to negate the original sin of a couple we now all know never existed.

      This single concept is riddled with a plethora of logical inconsistencies. It’s God. It makes the rules. Why did it “have to” go through the gruesome act of the crucifixion to forgive us? Why not just forgive us? Why did we need forgiving anyway? Holding us accountable for things that happened before we were born is ludicrously unjust.

      What about when we realized Adam and Eve was a myth and there was no original sin? What does it even mean for a god to have a human “son” and then demand him as a sacrifice? The whole thing is nothing short of preposterous.

      But, once you drink the kool aid and buy into the myth, you just have to answer every inconsistency with a nauseating "God moves in mysterious ways" "God is sovereign" or "we cannot understand the mind of God" etc. The myth, like DNA, has a self healing remedy built into it.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @Colin" I answered u. The essence of Christianity is that God the Father sent his son to die on the cross. The whole doctrine invented by Paul to account for the fact that JC was a complete political and millitay failure."

      =>ah, ok, I see. I thought you were referring to the cananites..

      Now, if Paul invented this.. how did Peter, James, John and the rest of the disciples come to believe that they had witnessed a resurrected Jesus BEFORE paul did?

      In fact (you dont know this, because you havent read the bible, so I wont hold it against you), Paul (formerly Saul) was a persecutor of the early Christians.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Colin

      Simple, Chad, all 4 authors wrote years after Paul did. They all likely had access to his writings when they wrote. The author of John, who I quoted, wrote about 60 years after Christ was executed. Paul wrote about 45 years earlier.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • fred

      Colin
      You have the Christian story but framed with the devils pitchfork.
      What you see with the torture and mocking of Christ is the face of evil. The forces behind sin in the world are evil. When you see the sin of man poured out on Christ by man you have the picture of what sin looks like and does to the holy purity of God. God took on all that weight and brutality brought about by sin and forgave man for all past, present and future sins. Anyone that would accept Gods forgiveness of sin has eternity with God.
      You are free to reject Gods offer for your sin and free to reject Gods offer of eternal life. That is the love of God, That is the grace and mercy of God. God is goodness which is freely offered to all.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • krhodes

      Colin "Krhodes. Quoting mythology to prove mythology is a circular argument."

      I used no circular argument...i noticed you did not critique anything i stated other than to call it circular. Maybe i will use use your previous statement given you made no argument only an accusation...perhaps ""The first refuge of the cornered fool."

      December 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      With so many gospel variables to choose from I can honestly believe one to pick and choose one's stance to make! Cynical atheists like I said are tyrants all looking for nooks and crannies to poke and prod the religious who are short of brain yards and weak in their will power! Does prodding and poking the weaker folks of Christendom make you feel good in your heart's poorly construed bitterness? I am a 'closet Christian' and will not attend any church function yet for those that do attend, they need their one day fix in order to lesson the life's load of taking other's crap!

      December 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • Colin

      Krhodes. You said "If God decides what is moral and places that knowledge in all humanity then it is objective and grounded."

      In other words, you quoted the myth of your god to prove the concept of objective morality. You cannot use mythology to prove a point, you can only use facts and logical deductions therefrom. There is no god and there is no "objective morality" there is only morality which many people might agree with.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • Colin

      Fred – I would debate with you, but I suspect you are very old (I hope so for your sake) so I will not waste my time. You are way too far gone. Atheists hoping to help Christians rise above their silly childhood superst.itions have to concentrate on those we can help.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Colin,

      You lay one thought towards my families children trying to subvert these precious young, I will see to your demise personally!

      December 12, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Christians fail across the board.

      If god designed the system, then anything that happens is to his credit--be to his praise and glory or to his shame and guilt. He made the system that put forth the consequences that are disgusting--he could have made the system with different consequences but he didn't-–he liked these consequences (death and desruction) just fine. Deal with it.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Moby Schtick,

      1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

      WE labour TOGETHER with God not against him, doofus!

      December 12, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      so kinda the big guy doesn't have to explain his evil to any one; because hes Lex Luther

      December 12, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
    • fred

      Colin
      “Atheists hoping to help Christians rise above their silly childhood superst.itions have to concentrate on those we can help.”

      =>Gads, I did not realize you were attempting to bring the children of God back into the light. The Bible says Jesus was the light and John says ‘The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it. If you are indeed the evangelist for darkness and offer a better world than Christ offered I have yet to see that world. I would think that any children of God that have read the Bible would run from you.
      Paul in 2 Corinthians wrote: “for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light”.
      That said it is an interesting side I was not aware of in that you believe you are helping Christians. That is good and honorable because I thought I was helping atheists recover from godlessness. Not to be negative but I hope you have met with less success than I have on this site.

      December 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Sam Yaza,

      God is so very small in physical stature, he wouldn't even measure the width of one's hair! God is so small, he can fit inside of our bio-molecular machines quite easily! Did you not know, Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within/inside you? Or 1Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building?

      As we generationally go forth, there will be a vast majority of the young who will fall upon rockiness ways. Only those who find there way to the rich soils of the most righteous will ever be the benefactors of goodly virtues. Richness is not in the money to be made but rather richness is found in one's heart and the treasures of a rich heart will ever rule over the lost and forlorn!

      December 12, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • End Religion

      The sheer amount of insanity and stupidity coming off the nutters is quite something to behold. Just crazy, circular post after post with no concept of truth in any of it, continually breaking the "bearing false witness" commandment while wagging their finger about every other commandment that their fascist god himself doesn't even follow. How does a nutter get up and face himself in the mirror each morning? So much fraud. Those chains must weigh heavy after a while.

      December 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Khruddy says: BTW colin, talk about "violent"...look at the very subject we are discussing. You don't think abortion is violent? You don't think the fetus feels pain? You need to take a long look at the practice you are defending, especially when accusing God of being evil.

      No, Khruddy, the fetus doesn't perceive pain until the very latest stages of pregnancy. Do some research, why don't you?

      The issue of fetal pain is just another attempt by the anti-choice nuts to insert themselves into a private matter that is between a woman and her doctor. What part of YOUR prostate surgery should I have a say in? Same principle applies. And no, it does NOT matter that a fetus is involved. The issue is the same. Women have the right to decide. You don't get to decide for them.

      December 12, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son,

      “So then, you believe in wanton s e x u a l pleasures without the foreseeable consequences? Someone's standing upon r a p e & I n c e s t principles or a mother's potential healthiness due a child possibly being conceived is noteworthy. Should the governing bodies allow all s e x u a l activities no matter what? Is the shame for having s e x outside wedlock for pleasure's sake something to be overlooked and judgmentally weighed out-of-bounds due that everyone needs a little 'action'?

      December 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: "Now, if Paul invented this.. how did Peter, James, John and the rest of the disciples come to believe that they had witnessed a resurrected Jesus BEFORE paul did?"

      Oh brother, wherefore art tho unfounded folklore? Oh! Right there is Gullible's Travels.

      Authorship of John – many if not most NT scholars believe that John nor one of 12 wrote John; James – most agree not authored by James, and sometime in 2nd century AD; Peter – a mystery – some think that it could have been an early template for the other gospels; Luke – a mystery; Mark – finally it seems like we really might have another original author here – or were he and later Paul just using a very early Peter story? And most scholars think Matthew is just based on Mark. But again, most don't think it was written by one of the 12.

      It's pretty obvious that, as old as this stuff is, for just being written iterations of the same story with a few new twists here and there, that the collected books of the Bible do little to actually validate the stories. I mean everyone likes creative writing, right?

      If you believe this stuff you certainly ought to believe what the witnesses of Joseph Smith & Related Families &Co., Inc. profess. They, like mainstream Christianity, started with some fable and just piled some new neat-sounding stuff on to dazzle, scare and control with.

      December 12, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @Colin “The whole doctrine invented by Paul to account for the fact that JC was a complete political and military failure.”
      @Chad “if Paul invented this.. how did Peter, James, John and the rest of the disciples come to believe that they had witnessed a resurrected Jesus BEFORE paul did?
      Colin “Simple, Chad, all 4 authors wrote years after Paul did. They all likely had access to his writings when they wrote. The author of John, who I quoted, wrote about 60 years after Christ was executed. Paul wrote about 45 years earlier.”

      @Chad “well, lets see if we can figure out why no atheist debater that I am aware of ever attempts to make that argument in a public forum of any kind.

      Ok, so, your theory is that:
      – The original disciples never reported meeting a resurrected Jesus.
      – Paul never persecuted anyone (if Paul persecuted anyone, it would have been for a belief that he didn’t hold, and you are saying that Paul invented the whole resurrection story and convinced the “disciples” to pretend later)
      – So, after Jesus death, the disciples went back to their occupations and stayed that way for 10 years or so (the date of Pauls earliest letters)
      – Then, Paul, a successful member of the Jewish authority decided to invent a new religion. A religion based on a declaration that a person dead for 10 years had actually been resurrected and seen by many. A religion that was sacrilegious to a Jew, as it made a man equivalent to God. A religion guaranteed to get the members kicked out of the synagogue.
      – Paul embarks on this made up religion, knowing it will mean non stop persecution, surrender of his position in Jewish society, and surrender of his relationship with the REAL God of Israel (remember, Paul knows it’s a lie, so he is separating himself from God by doing this), condemn himself to an eternity in hell.
      – Paul goes to Jerusalem, convinces all of the disciples to abandon their occupations, abandon their positions in Jewish society, abandon their relationship with the God of Israel, condemn themselves to an eternity in hell, lie and claim that they had seen a resurrected Jesus 10 years ago, claim that Paul had earlier persecuted them, and embark on a life of non-stop persecution, hardship and ultimately torture and death. All for what they know is a lie.

      – I don’t know how the lying paul and the lying disciples are somehow able to convince people that the Jesus that they saw get buried, isn’t Jesus.. Because it doesn’t make sense that a movement based on a resurrected person could survive in the presence of the body…

      – And, I cant make sense of how the movement could exist based on so many fallacies that were easily debunked by persons still alive who had witnessed the events of the day (“this is the first time we’ve ever heard of anyone claiming that Jesus was resurrected! What’s this about you seeing Him 10 years ago!!”, “What are you talking about Paul, you never persecuted anyone!!”, and on and on…)

      So.. what do you think? Sound reasonable? Starting to understand yet why no serious atheist scholar ever attempts to make that argument?

      Cue: “it doesn’t matter, it’s all nonsense, you cant prove anything”

      See, that’s the thing. The anti-theist has a faith that Jesus isn’t real in spite of all the evidence. It simply doesn’t matter that for over 1900 years people have been trying to find some problem with the historicity of Jesus, and just have never been able to .

      December 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k Authorship of John – many if not most NT scholars believe that John nor one of 12 wrote John;
      @Chad "you seem blissfully unaware of the actual facts :-)
      which doesnt surprise me I guess..
      Scholarship virtually unanimous that Gospel of John originally written ~90 AD, we have original papyrus dated to 120AD.

      ========
      @mama k "James – most agree not authored by James, and sometime in 2nd century AD;"
      @chad "@Chad "you seem blissfully unaware of the actual facts :-)
      which doesnt surprise me I guess..
      I'm not aware of ANY scholar that claims it was not written in the first century.
      you are of course welcome to supply your source :-)

      and on , and on. Give me any scholar that makes the claim that any of the New Testament writings were produced later than 100 AD :-)

      you'll find that nonsense is very easily refuted... Best if you stay away from it.

      December 12, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • mama k

      For 1900 years, Chad, people have only asserted the "magic" in the Bible via writings and no credible evidence has been found to prove those stories. As I said, authorship of most of the books of the Bible are in question and tend only to be variants of the other stories, roughly in the same time period and "neighborhood" – most often with no specific author – therefore it is very reasonable to think they are just variations on the same story.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k "For 1900 years, Chad, people have only asserted the "magic" in the Bible via writings and no credible evidence has been found to prove those stories. As I said, authorship of most of the books of the Bible are in question and tend only to be variants of the other stories, roughly in the same time period and "neighborhood" – most often with no specific author – therefore it is very reasonable to think they are just variations on the same story."

      =>all this hand waving!!
      you make all these assertions, which are one by one shot down, then your refution is "it's all nonsense".

      pretty typical :-)

      of course, you are welcome (I see you declined to give your source of all those late dates of authorship you claimed :-)
      anyway, you are welcome to provide your source for "variants", etc..

      but, I forsee more handwaving..

      that's really the amazing thing about anti-theists. They simply dont provide any real data. You simply can not refute a single piece of the historicity of the life, death and resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ.
      you simply can not, no one has ever been able to.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Chad

      oh, and you probably dont know this as it isnt on infidels.org, and you've never actually read the bible.. but the Gospels dont make any claim of authorship, they are unsigned..
      so, to say that authorship is "disputed" is obviously misleading.. the only ones disputing it are scholars amongst themselves. The gospels themselves make no claims of authorship..

      but, no way for you to have known that..

      December 12, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • mama k

      @Chad: "all this hand waving!! you make all these assertions, which are one by one shot down, then your refution is "it's all nonsense".

      Christianity is what has made the assertion, Chad – about supernatural experiences. They come from writings of similar stories that as you admit, have no claimed authors, but where the authors are mostly in question – meaning we have little to no proof who the actual authors were.

      @mama k Authorship of John – many if not most NT scholars believe that John nor one of 12 wrote John;
      @Chad "you seem blissfully unaware of the actual facts

      So Chad – are you claiming that John, the disciple that Jesus loved is the author of John? If not, do you claim to know who wrote the gospel of John? Do you think it was one of the 12? If not, what is not true in my statement above?

      @Chad: "I see you declined to give your source of all those late dates of authorship you claimed "

      Exaggerate much, Chad? I only gave one date – OK, so I must have had Adams on the brain, and I would agree that doesn't make sense for it to have not come from the 1st century. Regardless of when, it still fits the same pattern – we don't know for certain the author. In Graham Stanton of Cambridge Univ.'s Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible, he is of the opinion that Peter died before that was written as an example.

      @Chad: "anti-theists. They simply dont provide any real data. "

      I would just like to see some real data about the wild claims the Bible has made to justify Christianity. What's that expression, Chad – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" – sounds reasonable to me. "This person told this unnamed person about what they hear this person saw, and so I wrote it down, but you won't know who I am either" just doesn't cut it, Chad when it comes to supernatural claims.

      @Chad: "The gospels themselves make no claims of authorship.. but, no way for you to have known that..

      I was pointing that out to the readers at large – to make the point that because there is no claim, and many of the sources are unknown, that these writings often simply describe earlier purported events, that's all the more reason to question them.

      December 13, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • End Religion

      King of Stupid, your jesus never existed. No god in mankind's pantheon ever existed. I say, for another 2000 years, got any proof?

      December 13, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Chad

      @mama k " As I said, authorship of most of the books of the Bible are in question and tend only to be variants of the other stories, roughly in the same time period and "neighborhood" – most often with no specific author – therefore it is very reasonable to think they are just variations on the same story.""

      @Chad "those are your assertions, back them up! :-)
      as you are well aware "Christianities claims are false until they are proven true" is just as fallacious a statement as "Christianities statements are true until proven false".

      =====
      Good that you acknowledged that the Gospels dont claim authorship, and that no serious scholar claims any of the NT docs were written later than 100AD.

      ====
      "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is a nonsense claim. Here is a good explanation of why:

      this standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace. For example, you would not believe the reports on the evening news that the numbers chosen in last ni.ght’s lottery were 4, 2, 9, 7, 8, and 3, because that would be an event of extraordinary improbability. The odds against that are millions and millions to one, and therefore you should not believe it when the news reports it. Yet we obviously believe we’re rational in concluding it’s true. How is that possible?…if the evening news has a very high probability of being accurate, then it’s highly improbable that they would inaccurately report the numbers chosen in the lottery. That counterbalances any improbability in the choosing of those numbers, so you’re quite rational to believe in this highly improbable event.”[7]
      This principle can be applied throughout history- it may be considered extremely improbable for someone to have conquered the known world by the age of 33. Yet it is reasonably accepted that Alexander the Great had done so, and there is plenty of evidence to verify it[8].
      One can strengthen this point even further by illustrating it through the example of the existence of hom.o sapiens. It is considered fantastically improbable for, not only the universe to provide the physical laws necessary for life to arise, but combined with the unlikelihood of the human race being exactly as it is now, we are faced with an extraordinarily improbable event. However, it is abundantly clear that the human race is as it is (this is no more than mere tautology), and so we can see that what may originally seem improbable is in fact the best explanation of a given circu.mstance. And so, ironically, the more emphasis that is placed on the original argument, the less we can accept the theory of evolution, or even our own existence! The weaker the argument from the New Testament becomes, the stronger the teleological argument becomes- and so to use the “too extraordinary” argument as an argument against the existence of God is literally self-refuting!

      December 13, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  5. Sorta kinda

    Today is the feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe, patroness of North America and of the Pro Life movement. Anyone who has had an abortion and is distressed by that "choice" ask for her comfort. Your Mother understands.

    December 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Colin

      Even the Catholic Church now accepts that the whole Juan Diago story was a crock of local superst.itious bulls.hit

      December 12, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Sorta kinda

      Colin, I wasn't talking to you. Now I am. You are a liar.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • End Religion

      Unfortunately reality is not a concern for these people.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • reality

      Colin:
      Nope. No reason to do that. You see, the Church encourages people to examine reports of miracles and only promotes those that meet its high evidential standards.

      In fact, the image of Our Lady on the cloak can't be explained apart from the account of the miracle. The cloth should have disintegrated hundreds of years ago. The image has no trace of paint or any sort of treatment to color it. It would be impossible to produce anything like it with materials available in the 1500s.

      The most unusual thing is the reflection in the picture's eyes. Read up on it sometime...

      December 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
  6. E101

    Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
    Human Evolution (1 of 2)

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevo.shtml

    December 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
  7. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    I have a question for any pro-life Christian.

    If your god gave all of us the "gift" of free will, why do you think you are justified to take it away?

    December 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Dave

      'Choose Life' is not a call to take away free will – it implicitly supports choice. The point is to encourage a specific choice, not to take anyone's choice away. I will acknowledge, of course, that there are many who wish to take choice away. Their answer to your question, I suspect, would be that society should limit the exercise of free will when it is harmful to other human beings, including (they would assert) a fetus. It's actually a pretty reasonable position – if the fetus is a human being. Seems to me that the central question remains when life begins.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • D.I.

      We aren't trying to take anything away. We are trying to enforce God's laws as we understand them to be. God will not force us to do anything and will rarely intervine- sometimes it goes unnoticed. It is our job to teach others the ways of Him and try our best to make sure that His rules are followed by all. God said that we aren't suppose to murder.

      That is the best that I can explain it in short form.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • sam

      @DI – "We are trying to enforce God's laws as we understand them to be."

      Is there another way they could be, then?

      Enforce God's laws in your own yard. Leave everyone else be. That's where free will comes in.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Yeah Right

      Dave and D.I., that's total bull. Religious people have been strongly forcing a repeal of Roe v Wade. They have been uping laws to prevent free will like gay marriage. I bet both of you voted for or supported at least one of those free will limiting actions.

      Once again, religioous people cannot tell the truth for the life of them.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "We are trying to enforce God's laws as we understand them to be."

      In a free society it is not your job to enforce your god's law any more than I should enforce my god's law. The only law that is to be enforced here is man's law. What you are arguing for is Theocratic law and that is something that is incompatible with freedom of choice.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Dave,

      Deciding when a "life" starts is fine as long as it is not legally based on religion, therin lies the issue.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • jnjtoys

      They want freedom – the freedom to tell everyone how to live, who to love – basically control and exploit the natural human fear and ignorance. They say they believe on something, but are very selective about it. Their beliefs go out of the window when they are the ones in a difficult situation themselves.

      Whether he existed or not, I like the ideals of Christ (be a good person, love thy neighbor, etc.), I do not like Christians. They are not like Christ at all. At least not American Christians. I have traveled widely and lived in a number of countries. Christians in other countries do not have the problems of hypocrisy and intolerance. Most of those Christians get it with gays, climate change, etc. They may not agree with a lot of it, but they tend to be more tolerant and not try to take away other people's rights.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Guy

      D.I.
      We are trying to enforce god's laws, you are serious. That is exactly what the Mullah's and Taliban are all about, we do not want a society ruled by what some mythical god wants, it is destructive.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Dave

      The question is not about when life begins. It's never really been about when life begins.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • Guy

      D.I.
      You, like Chad, did yesterday use the term murder, so let me ask you the same question....What would you do with/to the 1.2 women that have abortions, murder in your view, every year? Chad ducked the question, will you?

      December 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • Guy

      Oops
      1.2 million women

      December 12, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Primewonk

      D.I. wrote, " We are trying to enforce God's laws as we understand them to be."

      This cuts to the heart of the matter. Religious nutters, like D.I., seem to be under the impression that we are a theocracy.

      We aren't. Neither your version of a god, nor any version of any other god, has standing in our secular laws. Whatever it iis that you think your version of a god wants, needs, desires, or demands is irrelevant.

      I would suggest that if you ignorant nutters want to live in a theocracy that you move. Because if you try and set one up here, you better be ready for a bloodbath.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Roger that

      DI

      The Bible doesn't mention abortion. So we don' allow murder because of God's law? I don't think so. If God existed and was here on earth, he would be incarcerated for his crimes against man's law.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Akira

      This bears repeating yet once again:

      Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.

      83% of women getting an abortion are freaking Christian.
      How the HELL do you reconcile that??

      December 12, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
  8. sassysticks53

    Thank you Judge James Fox!

    December 12, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  9. Thoth

    States need to get out of the activist license plate business altogether. That's what bumper stickers, magnets, etc.... are for. Activists who believe in these causes should donate the $ they spend on a vanity plate directly to the cause.

    December 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
  10. Truthiness

    As a wiser person than I once said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

    December 12, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Bet

      “If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be like a Starbucks. There would be two in every block and four in every airport, and the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.” – Nasim Pedrad

      December 12, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  11. Sara

    Medical concerns and things like r.a.p.e aside, I think a little responsibility goes a long way. I'm all for my rights as a woman, but I don't think I should get to end a life because a child would be inconvenient for me. If I'm promiscuous, I need to understand the risks associated with that activity.

    Just my two cents...

    December 12, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Funtimes

      And it is your right to decide this for yourself. But not for anybody else.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Huebert

      @funtimes

      Well said.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Sara

      I suppose not, but I do think a woman choosing to get an abortion for anything less than a medical issue or crime is not good. It makes us look like we're not willing to take responsibility for our actions. Too much of that going on in the country as a whole if you ask me!

      Again, just my two cents.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Huebert

      Sara

      How is getting an abortion not taking responsibility for your actions?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Bet

      Are you really so delusional that you think only *promiscuous* (whatever that means) women get abortions? Or that women who've had only one partner don't have unintended pregnancies? Or that birth control of any kind is 100% effective? Or that having an abortion and taking personal responsibility for your actions are mutually exclusive?

      It sounds more like you think that an unintended pregnancy is a just punishment for women who are such who.res that they have s.ex, and maybe lots of it, outside of marriage.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Ann

      – or, INSIDE of marriage, Bet. How about this scenario? Married couple has accidental pregnancy. Money is tight. Someone loses their job. Can't afford another baby. Might lose their house. Already have other kids they're responsible for. I think it would be a VERY responsible decision to terminate the pregnancy, if they both feel that's the right thing to do.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Sara

      Wow Bet, bitter much? I said it was my two cents. Your acceptance of my opinion means nothing to me.

      No Hubert, I do not believe that getting an abortion is a responsible way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. Perhaps I would reconsider if that happened to me, but I have had friends give up their child for adoption. While this decision was very gut-wrenching for them, they were very complimentary of the agency involved. I believe I would opt for this type of decision.

      Again, and in reference to you Bet, this is simply my two cents.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Sara

      Let me rephrase, why do you think it is not responsible for a woman to get an abortion?

      December 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • Sara

      Hello Ann. I can certainly understand your scenario, though I do think there are alternatives to that couple aborting the child. In the end, I would agree with you that the decision should be made by that couple

      Where I think things can get into a grey area very quickly are in other parts of the world where the resources we have in this country are unavailable. I am not able to speak to those practices intelligently.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Sara

      I think my biggest objection to abortion, Hubert, is the alternatives that are available in this country. Ultimately a woman needs to choose what is best for her. In the event that alternatives were not available, I do think abortion may be the only responsible thing to do. For me personally though, that would have to be a last option for me to consider it. That is me though...I certainly cannot speak for all women!

      December 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Sara

      Fair enough. My only real objection was that you seemed to be saying that abortion is inherently irresponsible. If you accept that it can be a good decision I have no disagreement.

      One more question, since you say you cannot speak for all women, I as.sume you consider yourself pro-choice, is that correct?

      December 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Sara

      You know Hubert, my gut instinct would be that abortion is not a good decision with the resources we have available in this country. That said though, I am not able...nor would I feel it is my right...to make that decision for another woman. If I was asked my opinion, I would certainly encourage a woman to explore any other course of action first.

      To answer your question though, I do suppose I would be labeled as pro-choice.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Bet

      Bitter? Really? How's that?

      Because I asked you questions for which you don't have the answer? Because I pointed out that your assumptions (that unintended pregnancy is the result of *promiscuity* and that having an abortion equals a lack of personal responsibility) are both delusional, meaning not based in reality, and untrue?

      Please answer the question. Why do you think that personal responsibility and abortion are mutually exclusive?

      December 12, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Sara,

      I think your position is the position of most pro-choice supporters, my issue with the religious pro-life side is they do not want to support the very things that have been shown to have to largest impact on reducing abortion, s.e.x education and contraception. They are not so much pro-life as they are anti-s.e.x.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Ann

      Sara – by alternatives, I assume you mean adoption. That would be an admirable choice in some ways, in that it would avoid an abortion (which no one likes to have) and would help some other parent find a child.

      Couple problems with that, though. (And yes, I'm carrying this example on way more than necessary – I promise I'll stop after this.)

      Let's say, in our fictional married couple, the husband is the unemployed one, with no immediate prospects. They're depending on the wife's income, and her health coverage isn't great. What the heck – let's make her self-employed. Continuing the pregnancy, which neither of them wanted, and risking complications that could make her unable to work as well – is that financially responsible?

      Also, I mentioned that they already have kids. How do you explain to the kids that Mommy and Daddy are giving away the new baby? They'd probably freak out and think they'll be given away next.

      Anyway, enough. I don't think I could ever have given a child up for adoption, because once it was born, I would feel responsible to raise it. Since I don't think of an embryo as being an equivalent to an actual person (my opinion, yours may vary), I would probably have chosen an abortion if the situation had come up. It didn't, fortunately.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Sara

      You know Bet, I feel as though I have answered your question in my conversation with Hubert. If something specific does not make sense, I am happy to clarify for you. I do believe that a woman getting an abortion is taking a quick fix to her situation. Again, this is with the understanding that there are alternatives to that available to women in this country. For me, I would not choose to get an abortion and I would advise any woman asking my opinion the same. Personal responsibility as it relates to this situation for me would be to exhaust all other alternatives before even considering abortion. As I have said here many times though, that is my opinion.

      Blessed are the Cheesemakers,

      The biggest issue I see with the religious pro-right side is their blanket stance on issues such as this. There is no catch all for every situation and any attempt to do so is very shortsighted in my opinion. I agree wholly with your position that s.ex education is a critical component in reducing abortion.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Sara

      Haha Ann...at least you haven't named our fictional couple or their kids yet!

      I fully understand your point and would agree that this couple would need to take all angles into consideration and make the very best decision for them. I laughed out loud with the existing children concerned they would be next!

      I also agree with you, I am certain I could never give up a child for adoption. I don't know how I feel about an embryo vs. an actual person. I think once I heard the heartbeat though, there was no question that he was my child.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Sara,

      I can tell you from personal experience that the choice of abortion is not taken lightly and it is not abdicating responsibility. All options are considered.

      Notice that the pro-life people not only want to limit people's choices on abortion but also contraception and s.e.xual knowledge as if s.e.x is itself evil. I think that is why you are getting some blowback about whether abortion is "responsible". The religious right wants it taught that the ONLY responsible choice is s.e.x within marriage. While some may consider that a noble position it is a completely unrealistic one.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • The Truth

      I think both sides to this debate are not addressing the real issue. Sara say's there are other options that to abort a child, I agree, there are, and the fact is that it's illegal to abort a "child" except for medical neccesity, the real issue is when do we consider the fetus a child. Right now the law draws the line at when the fetus can live outside the womb without the mother which is generally 22 weeks. After that it is already ILLEGAL to abort a "child" before that IT"S NOT A FVCKING CHILD, BABY, PERSON OR SOUL!! Debate the time all you want but don't pull this "well i think it's a child as soon as the sperm works it's way into the egg because I believe in God and I think he gives the mass of cell's a soul" bull shlt. We are a SECULAR nation you morons, and we make laws based on whats best for everyone, not just whats best for your non-existant "souls". You cannot prove you even have a soul let alone a fetus, so get your slimy hands off of my government. You get to practice your silly religion all you like, it's just when you attempt to inject that into my school, my courthouse or my government that I will stand up and shout in your face, so don't act all surprised when it happens like "Oh, well, we just didn't know, we thought everyone wanted us to force our religion on the rest of society..."

      December 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Sara

      Blessed are the Cheesemakers,

      I do understand your point that s.ex does occur in many areas and stages of life. My college days and those memories are very...um...shall we say, free-spirited?

      I think my issue with abortion as it relates to this board is that it appears many believe that abortion is a first response kind of thing. I doubt very seriously that it would be taken so lightly, but to read this blog is almost to find abortion being defended. I think that is misplaced. I think our society needs to educate...as you stated...our youth on s.exual responsibility and also on options if one becomes pregnant. I do not feel as though we are doing a good enough job on either of these fronts.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Bet

      My issue is with your statements that abortion is a "quick fix" (your words) and that you still seem to feel that women who have an abortion do it without exploring other alternatives first. That's an as.sumption that you are not qualified to make.

      It's fine for you to not have an abortion, but advising other women not to have one is really none of your business. I'm pro choice, if someone asks my advice about an unintended pregnancy, I simply help them learn about all their options and don't offer my personal opinion about their situation. I do offer them support and love no matter what they decide, and I advise them not to let anyone talk them into doing something that they don't want to do.

      I would still like you to explain your comment about promiscuity (I'm going to as.sume you mean someone who has casual se.x, correct me if that's not the case) and personal responsibility. Birth control fails without regard to the marital status or number of partners of the woman using it. Why do you as.sume that a woman who has casual se.x is somehow not being responsible? How is she at any more "at fault" for an unintended pregnancy than a married, monogamous woman?

      Finally, if a woman IS an irresponsible jerk with no regard for the consequences of her actions, why would you want her raising a baby anyway? As punishment? Who really gets punished in that case? The child.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Sara

      Oh Bet, I am growing bored with trying to speak with you as you only hear what you want to hear. Read my conversations with to both Hubert and Blessed are the Cheesmakers. Then, if you really still can't figure out my position on this subject, maybe speak to one of them as they seem to understand me just fine.

      By the way, when a friend of mine asks me for my opinion, I give it. That does not mean I condemn them if they choose something different.

      If you truly need help with your understanding of the word 'promiscuity', then let me help you...yes, it is having casual s.ex. If you are trying to tell me that a woman enters into a causal, s.exual relationship without the knowledge that birth control is NOT 100% effective, I believe you are quite mistaken and are operating with the idea that women are idiots. Pregnancy is caused by having s.ex. Protected s.ex is no guarantee. If you get pregnant, you have options...one of them being abortion. If a woman is being responsible for her body, takes all the precautions necessary, but STILL gets pregnant, I would hope that abortion would be a last resort option in her case. Even the 'irresponsible jerk' who could absolutely give her child up for adoption to a couple that is not able to have children of their own.

      I'll try one more time, not that I believe you will understand me anymore than you have before. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. A WOMAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE AS SHE SEES FIT. IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE HER LAST RESORT OPTION.

      If you are still struggling with my position, please direct further inquiries to someone that speaks your language as I obviously do not.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Bet

      Oh, Sara. You must have forgotten about writing this to me: You know Bet, I feel as though I have answered your question in my conversation with Hubert. If something specific does not make sense, I am happy to clarify for you.

      I do wish you could have responded without being so condescending. Your whole little diatribe about se.x causing pregnancy, using birth control, etc. was unnecessary and patronizing.

      I fully understand your position as stated to others. I simply asked you to further clarify a few points that you did not address with them. Which you invited me to do. Yet when I took you up on that, you accuse me of hearing what I want to hear and say you are bored. If you don't want to explain your position, don't post it. And don't invite me to ask you for clarification if you aren't prepared to do so without the snotty at.itude.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Sara

      My goodness...it's like a conversation with my 16 year old! I really shouldn't respond, but I cannot help myself!

      From Bet:
      My issue is with your statements that abortion is a "quick fix" (your words) and that you still seem to feel that women who have an abortion do it without exploring other alternatives first. That's an as.sumption that you are not qualified to make.

      My response:
      Please see any of my posts to anyone else. I do feel that abortion is a quick fix when there are completely viable solutions available in this country. If you do not agree with me, that is fine. I believe a woman that has the ability to carry the child full term should do so. That is my opinion, which I am more than qualified to make.

      From Bet:
      It's fine for you to not have an abortion, but advising other women not to have one is really none of your business. I'm pro choice, if someone asks my advice about an unintended pregnancy, I simply help them learn about all their options and don't offer my personal opinion about their situation. I do offer them support and love no matter what they decide, and I advise them not to let anyone talk them into doing something that they don't want to do.

      My response:
      If my friend asks me my opinion, I am not supposed to give it? I would not be much of a friend if I could not be honest when asked my opinion. If you are not comfortable giving someone who asks your honest opinion, that is between you and them. I do absolutely offer them love and support regardless if they take my advice or not. I resent that you believe my support for any of my friends is conditional.

      From Bet:
      I would still like you to explain your comment about promiscuity (I'm going to as.sume you mean someone who has casual se.x, correct me if that's not the case) and personal responsibility. Birth control fails without regard to the marital status or number of partners of the woman using it. Why do you as.sume that a woman who has casual se.x is somehow not being responsible? How is she at any more "at fault" for an unintended pregnancy than a married, monogamous woman?

      My response:
      Please see my response above as I feel that I have answered you.

      From Bet:
      Finally, if a woman IS an irresponsible jerk with no regard for the consequences of her actions, why would you want her raising a baby anyway? As punishment? Who really gets punished in that case? The child.

      My response:
      Again, please see above.

      From Bet:
      Oh, Sara. You must have forgotten about writing this to me: You know Bet, I feel as though I have answered your question in my conversation with Hubert. If something specific does not make sense, I am happy to clarify for you.

      My response:
      I did not forget, but you also appear to have not read any of my comments to anyone else in this thread.

      From Bet
      I do wish you could have responded without being so condescending. Your whole little diatribe about se.x causing pregnancy, using birth control, etc. was unnecessary and patronizing.

      My response:
      I am sorry if you feel that way, but you simply are not listening to anything I am saying. It is getting tiresome to restate my position repeatedly.

      From Bet:
      I fully understand your position as stated to others. I simply asked you to further clarify a few points that you did not address with them. Which you invited me to do. Yet when I took you up on that, you accuse me of hearing what I want to hear and say you are bored. If you don't want to explain your position, don't post it. And don't invite me to ask you for clarification if you aren't prepared to do so without the snotty at.itude.

      My response:
      See my previous response.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Bet

      What the heck are you so upset about? You offered to explain, and I asked you to please do so. What about that is so out of line that you're practically foaming at the mouth?

      December 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Sara

      Bet,

      I do not believe I am 'foaming at the mouth' as you say. I do have a difficult time repeating myself though. It is very much like a conversation with one of my children when I have answered them repeatedly only to have the question asked again. I do not understand what you do not understand about my stance on this issue at all. I posted the above to make certain I addressed everything you had asked me, which I feel as though I have done.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • Bet

      I feel sorry for your kids. You seem to have a pretty low frustration threshold, you take offense where none is intended, and you assume you know what people are thinking.

      I didn't say your friendship was conditional, that's what you read into it for some reason. I was describing how I would speak to a friend who was in that situation and added that whatever she decided it would not affect MY love and support of HER. For you read that as me accusing you of being unsupportive to your friends is insecure and paranoid to say the least.

      You also as.sumed that I didn't read posts you made to others. I did. If you had answered my questions in them, I would not have asked you to repeat yourself.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • End Religion

      @sara: "It makes us look like we're not willing to take responsibility for our actions"

      Religion means refusing responsibility for your actions. Everything is god's will. Even if you have "exercised free will" it may be chalked up to "god works in mysterious ways" or "god must have some plan for me." Even the act of contrition is simply making yourself feel better without any real consequence to one's actions.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I think this whole conversation demonstrates how the anti-abortionists have taken over the way the conversation is framed. I don't think young people today realize just how much of a victory they've had. Back in the 1970s and 1980s one didn't have to drive hundreds of miles (as many do now) to get an abortion, then sometimes wait weeks to get the appointment. And most importantly women didn't have to go on and on about what a hard choice it was so they wouldn't look cold and heartless. Anti-abortionists framed it this way, pushing pro-choice advocates who were too weak to stand their ground into a corner.

      Now they always had to say "Of course it's a hard decision..." If you didn't say that now you're cold and unfeeling. And that plays right into their hands. They defined the perspective on abortion. It DOESN'T have to be a huge heart wrenching experience. For many people it isn't a big deal, and it SHOULDN'T be. None of the women I know who've had abortions were traumatised by it. These are good women, one who is a child welfare advocate, another who works with poor minority youth. But it wasn't a bigBut people were suckered by both the bombings on the one hand and the manipulative emotional blackmail on the other.

      And I'm frankly sick of standing up and fighting for women who are so stupid they've given their rights away. He'll, I have no real stake in this game. If you want to play the "it's a big deal" sucker game the anti-choice folk outlined for you, go ahead. Call it a short cut. But keep in mind that its only a "short cut" if you think you're doing something wrong in the first place. You're playing their game and imprinting seriousness on something that shouldn't be a big deal. if you don't think this is a problem, you haven't been around long enough to see what we've lost. You probably think the ridiculous and costly rise in teenagers raising babies is just fine. If you say you wouldn't give a kid up for adoption, you think the average uneducated 16 year old will?

      I've watched this for over 30 years just get worse and worse. I used to volunteer and try to help, but the pro choice folks seem to just be getting dumber and dumber. You've dished it up to them on a platter.

      December 12, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • Bet

      @Saraswati

      Thank you for bringing me back to my senses. You are correct. I, too, have lived long enough to have seen the changes you brought up. It is becoming increasingly difficult for women to exercise their legal right to choose. In 87% of US counties, there is no identifiable abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%.

      Each year, more Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws are introduced into state legislatures to further restrict medical professionals from providing safe, legal abortions.

      Of course, I should have known I was dealing with just another dopey religious nutter when she confused "making an assumption" with "having an opinion".

      December 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  12. lol??

    The tag issue can be solved by the Big O. To get ye olde economy revvin' agin he can do like the "cash for clunkers" deal and renew everybody's plates. It could read, Santa Lives!

    December 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Bet

      "Santa lives" is as valid as "Jeebus lives". Santa doesn't exist and if jeebus ever existed, he's long dead and gone.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • lol??

      Chicago style Santa:..Little Johnny to Santa, "Wheweee, where'd ya get all the toys, Santa?"......Santa, "SSShhh, if ya promise not to tell, I'll tell.".......LJ, "Promise"............Santa, "From da neighbors... In Springfield."......LJ, "Heeeey, how'd ya get to be mayor, anyway?"........Santa, "Easy, kid, I own rental property in da city. Didn't have to live there cuz da Supremo Court RULED. heh, heh, heh, HO, HO, HO!"

      December 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Bet

      Da fuq did I just read?

      December 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
  13. myweightinwords

    It's fairly obvious that anyone who uses the words "pro-abortion" to describe the pro-choice side hasn't got a clue.

    What makes you think anyone is "pro-abortion"?

    Does anyone actually believe that there are people lying in wait for some pregnant woman to come along so they can strong arm her into an abortion because they are "pro-abortion"?

    As I said yesterday, abortion isn't a stand alone issue. It's complicated and it's messy, and it's filled with bad situations and scared women and all the self-righteousness on either side will do is make it worse.

    December 12, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Akira

      I agree totally, myweightinwords.
      I finally got tired of trying to explain the difference to people...
      I know of no woman, ever, who has found out she was pregnant and proclaimed, "yay! I'm finally pregnant! Now I can go have an abortion!"

      December 12, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Saraswati

      Everyone's goal is to cut down on the number of abortions. The differences in opion are just 1) How to go about doing that and 2) What else (like women's lives) we are willing to sacrifice to do it. Those aren't trivial differences, especially #2, but they really are the only differences. I fully understand that if you think a fetus has a soul to which something bad happens for eternity because of an abortion you would oppose it. What I think the Christians can't explain is what this "bad thing" that happens to this soul is or why they care about a developing embryo without any real neural structure more than about the dog-level intelligence pig they are happy to eat.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Believers can reduce the number of abortions in the USA simply by following their cult's rules. Why aren't the various gods powerful enough to prevent abortions?

      December 12, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • lol??

      "...................What makes you think anyone is "pro-abortion"?..................." UUuuuummmm, would you believe beastie comments on CNN's belief blog?

      December 12, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • lol??

      "..................abortion isn't a stand alone issue. It's complicated.........." Lies and apple pies will get you to nowheresville.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • lol??

      "...........are people lying in wait for some pregnant woman to come along........." Yes, killer docs in corps that like to make corpse out of humans.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • therealpeace2all

      @myweightinwords @Akira @Saraswati @0G

      All well said.

      Peace...

      December 12, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Bet

      I am completely baffled by this as well. It makes about as much sense as the notion that pro choice proponents have a cavalier atti.tude that it's no biggie deal.

      I used to own a business that employed a good number of young, single women. Over the years, a few of them got pregnant and knew that the guy was not going to be around to raise the child with them. They came to me to ask my advice. I simply helped them see all the choices available to them, keeping the child, adoption, abortion. I never told them which one I thought they should choose. I DD tell them that it was their decision, and that they shouldn't let anyone talk them into doing something they didn't want to do. I DID tell them that whatever choice they made, I would support them and they would still have a job with me if they wanted it. If they asked, I would help them with the pros and cons of each alternative, but that was the extent of my advice.

      Once, the father of one of my employees (she was 25 I think) called me and asked me to convince his daughter to have an abortion. She had told me that she didn't want to have an abortion, but she was scared that she wouldn't be able to afford to raise a baby on her own. His words were, "She won't listen to us, but she seems to trust you and listen to you. She can't even take care of herself, much less a baby." I was livid at this man's nerve and told him in no uncertain terms that it was HER choice, and I would do no such thing. Little wonder she didn't care to seek his *advice*.

      Pro choice proponents are just that – pro CHOICE, not pro abortion. We trust and believe that women know what is best for them, and that they alone should make the decision.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • fred

      0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
      “Why aren't the various gods powerful enough to prevent abortions?”
      =>the various gods are all manmade and as such are limited to their manmade methods. So, what you are saying is that man continues to exhibit the inability of mans enlightened godless ways to produce anything other than godless results. Not that complicated really, you cannot give what you do not have and you cannot change the errors of your ways by continuing to repeat the same errors. Tell me again why you cannot see the empty ending and repeated inhumanity inherent in the ways of the godless or those with their manmade gods.
      Is not the godless way the fulfillment of the saying insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Akira

      @lol??

      These women were apparently "pro-abortion", since you seem to think that "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" is the same thing:

      Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Akira

      @fred:
      Every god except yours is false and man-made, right?
      Interesting.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Bet

      @fred

      Is not the godless way the fulfillment of the saying insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?

      You mean like praying to a god who never answers? Waiting for a dead man to return? Telling people that your way is the only way?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • fred

      Saraswati
      “Christians….why they care about a developing embryo without any real neural structure more than about the dog-level intelligence pig they are happy to eat.”
      =>you have mistakenly comingled biology and the purpose of life. This is common among non believers as the mind regardless of reality must rationalize that which is self evident and the beliefs (world view) which govern thoughts and actions. In your case you deny what is self evident (instinctive awareness of new life) by rationalizing it is but a dog or pig that you eat. You need to ask yourself why the alarm bell is not sounding when you make such a rationalization. It is actually one of the tests used to diagnose sociopathic tendency.
      Why Christians care about a developing embryo is very simple when you understand the purpose of life. The purpose of life is to reflect and radiate the glory of God’s love. Gods plan through life yields a harvest that is bountiful in the fruits of the Spirit. Once life is conceived it is to be protected, nurtured and valued highly because life has purpose onto God. Life is greater than chemical reactions in organic matter which is self evident. A dead dog, a dead pig and child are all organic yet there is more. Sorry you cannot see that.

      Now as to soul we are speaking about the essence of the being that is eternal because it never was tied to the physical it only touches upon the physical and incorporates that experience into soul. The Bible through the example of Abel, Abraham, Jesus, Paul etc paints a clear picture of the soul of a man in contrast with the soul of Cain and the mocking criminal on the cross with Christ (Luke 23:39-43). Abortion blocks that soul from it’s full experience with the physical and is an act carried out by one of power over the helpless. Abortion is the physical experience that will be incorporated into the soul of both.

      “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

      December 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • fred

      Akira

      “Every god except yours is false and man-made, right?”
      =>there is only one God and because of our nature we build up our own world view that supports what we truly are. The result is many gods that were built up by our nature not the God who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. It is actually very simple to see the difference between manmade gods and God. Saul of Tarus did an excellent job confronting the gods of the Greeks with the truth but the best example was the life of Jesus. Take out a red letter edition of the Bible (words of Jesus in red) and see what Jesus had to say while observing how Jesus walked through this life. In short order the contrast between Cain and Able just like the two criminals on the cross with Christ is clear. God is self evident to any that seek the truth with a humble heart.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bet

      @fred

      So you believe that humans have something that sets them apart from other animals, what you call a *soul*? Okay, let's examine that.

      According to your babble book, god created humans and animals differently. He created animals and other living things by simply willing them into existence. But with Adam, he formed him from dirt, and then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life", causing him to "become a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). So, according to your god and your *holy book*, humans are not living beings, and do not have a *soul*, until they take their first breath outside the womb.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • fred

      Bet
      “You mean like praying to a god who never answers? Waiting for a dead man to return? Telling people that your way is the only way?”
      =>I agree that the gods created by men never answer because they are limited by their creator (man). The God who created the heavens and earth out of that which cannot be seen is very different from the god you have created. At least be aware they cannot be one of the same. I have witnessed answered prayer and can assure you that God answers prayer.
      =>sorry but Jesus rose again on the third day and sits at the right hand of God. It is not a dead man but the full glory of Christ that will be evident. You really need to get off your fixation on the physical as we are speaking about the Kingdom of God not this earth where we exist for such a short moment of eternity that one will hardly notice. Get your perspective on straight.
      =>no my way is not the only way. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. When Moses asked God who shall I say sent me ……God replied tell them “I AM” sent you.
      I suggest you reread the New Testament with an open heart. You will be amazed what is written when you set your god aside long enough for the light to enter.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Bet

      @fred

      I haven't created any gods. I don't believe in gods of any kind. And your god never answers prayer, it doesn't exist. You prayed, and something may have happened but that doesn't mean god.did.it.

      Jeebus, if he existed, is dead and not coming back ever.

      If your way is not the only way, what other ways are there? So far you have said only your god is the true god.

      I have read the babble book, many times. I studied it for over thirty years in several languages. I probably know it far better than you. It's nothing but the supersti.tious scribblings of ancient men who used it to control others through the fear of punishment.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • fred

      Bet
      The breath of life was a loose translation from breathed into. Long story short it is speaking about that which now has capacity for relationship with God. That capacity includes intelligence and high level cognitive functions that can share in the glory of God which was the purpose of creation. The Bible also says “for I knew you before I knit your bones together in the womb”.
      As to a particular embryo I do not have a clue as to the soul. God has a different time line relative to ours because God is not limited to our current time line which we experience. It is said for those God knew he predestined to be children of God yet we are not predestined until by free will we choose to accept Gods calling. The time line appears circular rather than linear as eternity is different than infinite from the perspective of soul. What is evident is the knowledge that the potential life and the current life experience was affected by the physical act of abortion. That has significant impact on the experience of the soul.
      There are other beings beside man mentioned and reference to spirit of the life form prior to birth (John the Baptist jumping in the womb when Mary was pregnant, the spirit of Christ preexistent to Mary becoming pregnant, etc.)

      December 12, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      "At least be aware they cannot be one of the same"

      Why is that?

      December 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @fred, you just defined sociopath as non-Christian. Nice work.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • fred

      Bet
      “I haven't created any gods.”
      =>everyone has formed a world view that is central to their belief around which they order their lives. The center of that view is your god. You are more than animal governed by more than instinct and your very character reflects your god. That god can be power, money, lust, knowledge etc. any of which is fundamental to the purpose of your existence. I have yet to meet someone who has escaped that ordering of priorities in life direction. To say your purpose is to be a loving father is in error as that is the result of a belief or world view (I do not know you so that is an example)

      “If your way is not the only way, what other ways are there? So far you have said only your god is the true god.”
      =>God knows the way for you and most likely has revealed it many times. Look to see if there is a burning bush in your life that continues to appear. Jesus said my sheep know me and hear my voice. Able just as the criminal on the cross had a heart longing for God yet we are not told of their “religion” or God they knew. A close look at the heart of the two criminals in Luke 23:39-43 makes it evident who is on the path and who is not.
      Certainly using Jesus as a model fits and is a clear path of the way the truth and the life. I know of nothing Jesus said or did that is contrary to the way of God.

      “supersti.tious scribblings of ancient men who used it to control others through the fear of punishment.”
      =>yes, that would be in keeping with the truth revealed throughout where even Jesus hammered the Sanhedrin for their manipulative wrongful twisting of the Law of the Prophets. The Bible hides nothing showing mans ways and relationship with God since the beginning. Fear of punishment is not the way to God it is the result of rejecting God.
      Our view of God is revealed in our lives as is any revelation God gives to you. It is a gift from God and it is the condition of our heart that blocks any possible gift from God. In my case I had to lose everything until the only thing left was a cry to God for help. God gave that help because of Gods character not mine. Now, given the attributes of God I would think such a journey was uncalled for but God who set up the plan knew different as this was the only way I could ever have had an experience with God.
      I am sometimes hesitant to pray for the salvation of another soul because I know the path may be a hard one.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Bet

      Long story short it is speaking about that which now has capacity for relationship with God. That capacity includes intelligence and high level cognitive functions that can share in the glory of God which was the purpose of creation

      Explain to me how a fetus has the intelligence and high level cognitive functions to share in the *glory of god*.

      “for I knew you before I knit your bones together in the womb”.

      An omniscient god would certainly know about unborn children, even prior to his creation of earth. Does that mean that all babies have actually been alive since before the earth was even created?

      Ah, the old "it's a bad translation". What a convenient fallback.

      *Breath of life* or *breathed into*? It doesn't really matter. A fetus doesn't breathe in the womb. It receives oxygen from the mother through the umbilical cord. With regard to Adam, translate the babble loosely or literally, he still wasn't alive until he took his first breath.

      John the Baptist jumping in the womb when Mary was pregnant,

      Fetuses move inside the mother all the time. How do you get from that simple biological fact to "therefore jesus is god"?

      Of course this would be more interesting if any of the babble book was true.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • fred

      Sam stone
      They cannot be one of the same because Gods ways are not mans ways. Any god that is created would reflect that gods creator (i.e. man) and be limited by that man (i.e. made of known matter and energy, limited to the known, limited to the natural etc). This is why atheists that have extrapolated the facts of biological evolution into a world view of purpose for existence (that is unsupported by the facts) clearly have a false god. They do not like to call it their god but it is the core of their belief system and directs their journey in life. This is no different than those of Abrahams day that made idols of wood and gold as their core belief which controlled the destiny of their lives.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: You said, "In my case I had to lose everything until the only thing left was a cry to God for help. God gave that help because of Gods character not mine."

      So at a time of extreme duress, you found the only coping mechanism that kept you from eating a bullet. That's not uncommon. It's a shame that's the only method you found to deal with reality though.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Yay more fred stupidity. More assertions of the "godless" without even being able to demonstrate his god. All tangents and assertions, and absolutely no substance from the fred.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Bet

      Fear of punishment is not the way to God it is the result of rejecting God.

      Requiring someone to love you, believe in you and accept you under the penalty of punishment is not a relationship. It is mental slavery.

      Feel free to worship your god however you desire. It has no place in civil law though.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Dave

      You're right. Suggesting that someone who defends the right to choose is pro-abortion is a stupid as suggesting that someone who advocates choosing life is anti-choice.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • fred

      Saraswati
      @fred, you just defined sociopath as non-Christian. Nice work.
      =>perhaps there is a better choice of clinical diagnoses that covers those who believe men are but evolved animals that have the same purpose for existence. At a minimum it would be an obsession with biologic evolution that overrides common sense for self preservation which indicates suicidal tendency.
      Consider that to abort a potential life because of a world view founded in biologic evolution would mean that only beings with certain characteristics desired by the then present alpha figure would be allowed to gestate. We lack those characteristics as evidenced by spending time on this board. Hence we would be aborted.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Bet

      @Dave

      Bulldroppings. The *choose life* movement is actively working to repeal Roe v. Wade, thereby taking away any alternative other than a full term gestation and birth. It is the definition of anti choice.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • fred

      Bet
      “Requiring someone to love you, believe in you and accept you under the penalty of punishment is not a relationship. It is mental slavery.”
      =>love does not spring out of requirement as that would have the opposite effect. The Bible makes it clear you cannot enter heaven as an avoidance technique.
      At issue is the heart of Abel, Noah etc. that is inclined towards God. Gods plan it is to bring souls into an eternal relationship that desire such a relationship. All evidence points to the fact Gods plan is working just as intended. No one has ever presented a better plan that separates good and evil.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Huebert

      Fred

      How would you define good and evil?

      December 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • Bet

      Gods plan it is to bring souls into an eternal relationship that desire such a relationship. All evidence points to the fact Gods plan is working just as intended.

      Please present the evidence that *god's plan* is working. For that matter, please present evidence that god even has a plan. Other than an old collection of supersti.tions and stories about talking snakes, burning bushes that speak, and commands to kill each other in the name of your imaginary sky ogre, you have none.

      No one has ever presented a better plan that separates good and evil.

      Your god commits more evil acts than all of mankind put together. He created an imperfect being that he continually punishes for being imperfect. He requires slavish devotion under the threat of eternal torture. Some great plan your god has there.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Still absolutely nothing of substance from fred. Talk about completely no point.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • fred

      SeanNJ
      “It's a shame that's the only method you found to deal with reality though.”
      =>to the contrary I had no idea that my observation of reality was limited by false representations by non believers. Reality is that which exists in the absence of your view and my view and is not a function of ourselves. You and I exist in the same reality and I can clearly recall the godless reality in contrast with that which is real.
      It is not that I do not see what you see as I can see that godless world you limit yourself with intentionally. I see the world and the ways of the world plus the presence of God and the souls of believers and non believers all around me.
      You are not simply an organic mass governed by chemical reactions occupying time and space. You are a being created with purpose greater than yourself with capacity for relationship that extends beyond your physical presence. Life is the process where you are being equipped and developing spiritual attributes necessary for your purpose and meaning for existence. Like the embryo this post suggests we snuff out has no clue what happens after birth we have no clue what happens after our gestation (life) is complete.
      Jesus was not crazy when he said you must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • fred

      Huebert
      God is good and evil is everything that opposes God. In the absence of goodness there is a void that is cold, formless and dark. Goodness is always up and filled with light in contrast to the deep where light does not penetrate.
      God is good while man is anything but good.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      zzZZzz
      zzZZzz

      When fred actually comes up with something relevant, that could be something of a miracle.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @hawaiiguest: He barely writes coherent English.

      @fred: You said, "You are not simply an organic mass governed by chemical reactions occupying time and space. You are a being created with purpose greater than yourself with capacity for relationship that extends beyond your physical presence."

      I am at least the former, and you have no proof of the latter. None. At all. That you believe it does not make it true, no matter how many times you beg the question. I would ask you to examine why you must cling to this "faith" with no evidence. Is the alternative really that unpalatable to you? None of we non-believers are on a ledge; why do you think that's a necessary outcome of our view? I personally enjoy being alive very much, and I really don't want it to end any time soon. This "lack of meaning" you insist on assigning to it is your failing, not ours.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Huebert

      fred

      Let me rephrase. How would you define good in terms of behavior and cognition? How would you define evil in terms of behavior and cognition?

      December 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      What could possibly be more relevant than the purpose for your existence. If you never discover you purpose in life it will be a wasted existence at worst or a missed opportunity at best.
      I see a person I see a life destined for eternity and do what I can to forward that process. When God put the Ark out there for everyone to see and you to read about you should have noticed the goodness of God that provided a way for all that reject God. There is still time

      December 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Any god that is created would reflect that gods creator (i.e. man)"

      Like love and hate and jealousy?

      December 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: Why do you think eternity would be a good thing? I have enough trouble getting through the 40-hour work week. If I go on vacation for a week, by the end of it I can't wait to get home. I really don't think you've thought this through very well.

      December 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • fred

      SeanNJ
      “I am at least the former”
      =>as I said I can see your reality and we are both at a minimum organic matter and chemical energy.
      “ you have no proof of the latter”
      Perhaps that is why the signers of the Declaration of Independence preferred to say our unique design by the creator was self evident. We are still in the same boat as you have no proof as to your limited purpose of existence or afterlife either.
      “That you believe it does not make it true, no matter how many times you beg the question. “
      =>can I say ditto to your world view?
      “I would ask you to examine why you must cling to this "faith" with no evidence.”
      =>without faith it is impossible to please God. It is faith that allows you to see the things of God and makes that which is not visible very much visible. We do not lack evidence which is overwhelming and self evident. What we lack is the ability to confine the presence of God into a form that those without faith can see. You are asking that God present in a form that is acceptable to you rather than accept what God has elected to reveal.
      “ Is the alternative really that unpalatable to you?”
      =>unpalatable is not the word I would choose. I see the physical presence of people around me yet I am very aware there is spirit that coexists. I cannot just pretend they do not have an eternal nature.
      “This "lack of meaning" you insist on assigning to it is your failing, not ours.”
      =>no, I am certain you see meaning up to the point of death. You may even have hope in a purpose after death (i.e. someone feeds your dog or invented a cure for cancer etc) all of which is different than a purpose outside of self/ greater than self.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • fred

      Huebert
      Since I use Philippians as a gauge to where my att-itude is I may as refer to it as my standard for good thinking: “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
      Good behavior is evident by the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
      In short it is behavior that brings glory to God whereas evil works against all the above.
      In the absence of God or as some claim that there is no God then Good and evil become relative or subject to the culture and time. Since we are still predominantly of the Judeo Christian World view they are currently much the same. Good behavior blesses those around them while evil is harmful physically or spiritually.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And your problem is that you completely refuse to see the fact that many people aren't convinced by you just asserting the same shit over and over and over. You saying that your god is real and that your beliefs are right doesn't make it so you small minded little bigot.
      You are completely incapable of even the slightest bit of empathy, and merely think the more pious you seem, and the more assertions you make that means your right. Wake up, and look at reality.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • fred

      SaenNJ
      Eternity is being in the full presence of God which may or may not (we are not told) include some shift in time or perception of time. Even in life today we see time passing slow or blazing by. It is a new heaven and earth in the absence of evil. A 40 hour work week or getting home after a few weeks in Margareta vill all have a touch of this world or evil in them (including the thought of boredom, fatigue). Those thoughts and feelings are not part of the new world order.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • mama k

      fred are you telling me they don't have any decent tequila in heaven???? well screw that – I guess it's not for me then.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      There is none in hell either and even if there was the fire would burn off the alcohol content.. There may be some gambling in hell for those looking for a payout from Pascals wager

      December 12, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • mama k

      Pascal was OK with math, but that's about it.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      “And your problem is that you completely refuse to see the fact that many people aren't convinced by you”
      =>I wonder if anyone has switched camps based on what is said here

      “ You saying that your god is real and that your beliefs are right doesn't make it so”
      =>I know I know and 6-8 billion believers over the span of humanity does not make it so because you pull out your ad populum trump card.

      “You are completely incapable of even the slightest bit of empathy”
      =>sorry you feel that way my heart goes out to you. Will you be coming to group tonight? Somebody needs a hug.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And there it is. There's your problem. You just don't care about anything other than what you perceive is right. You don't care about dissenting opinions, alternate ways of thinking, nor do you care about anything beyond your own proslytizing. I don't get you fred. The callous disregard for anything or anyone that doesn't agree with your assertions is baffling. The dishonesty, spin, cherry picking, and many fallacies. Do you post here just to be able to throw out whatever you want anonymously? Do you get some self-serving pleasure out of it? Do you think it makes you more pious?

      December 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      Where do you even dream up those attributes you want to lay on me? If in fact they are based upon my replies to you then you exhibit the same attributes. Let us take for example your position that God is an immoral killer. That is in conflict with those who believe in this God. That is in conflict with the God they know. That is in conflict with all their writings and assessments and is not subject to debate among these believers.
      Given you do not accept the authority of the Bible then just call it a compilations of myths written by the Hebrews. What you claim would be same as to claim Harry Potter is not who the author claims so you assign your own characterization to Harry and say Harry is a delusional school boy without any magic. Then you go about using tools of science to support your cause.
      Now, take a look at what you have accused me of doing on behalf of God and compare that what you do in defense of your against God. Exactly how are we any different based on your standards?

      December 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: You just compared your god to a character that everyone knows is fictional...

      December 13, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • fred

      SeanNJ
      Not really. Hawaiiguest does not accept the authority of the Bible and claims it is a fictional compilation of myths . I was pointing out that even under his assumption his arguments are not reasonable or logical.
      That same principle would apply to anyone else that claims the Bible is not the Divine word of God and simply a fictional grotesque story. If it is fictional you cannot transform that character into the opposite of what the writer explicitaly states and the writers contemporaries understood. The character God was their: creator, provider, protector that redeemed them from slavery and called them His chosen ones. They were the keepers of the revelation of God and loved by God. The Amalekites, Moabites, and all the other “ites” were evil with a history of them attacking and keeping the chosen from the land of milk and honey. God gave the Hebrew complete victory over every man, women and child that was or could be a threat. Harry Potter with his magic wand destroying all evil that aligned against the chosen Harry clan. This Harry did with a light that had its origin in love that destroyed all darkness in its various forms (man, women, beast and child.)

      So was Harry an immoral killer?

      December 13, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      It's interesting that you will completely ignore addressing anything that I pointed out about you, and jump straight under the cover of comparing my criticisms of you to my criticisms of the biblical characteristics of god.
      Must I point out all the things in your bible that shows gods atrocities, the orders to kill, the direct killings by your god, and then watch you justify away everything?

      Here's the crux (which you will probably ignore). when you need to justify everything that those who do not already accept your view point out, that doesn't automatically make you right. You approach the bible with your conclusion already set, and the only question is how much mental gymnastics you will need to fit it into your foregone conclusion. You ignore the contradictions of the bible, and you merely seek to justify everything that's pointed out.

      How dishonest are you willing to be for your god fred? How much longer are you willing to pile up the lies?

      December 13, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      You are hiding again. I said if I accept your position that the Bible is fiction then you are still flat out wrong. This is very different than stating you are wrong based upon the authority of the Bible. Your confusion is the result of failure to stay within your own assumption.
      Is Harry Potter an immoral killer?

      December 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      "Here's the crux (which you will probably ignore)."
      Thank you for demonstrating that perfectly.

      December 13, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Finished being a dishonest douche for today? That was quick.

      December 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      “You approach the bible with your conclusion already set”
      =>no one is without bias. Are you suggesting that somehow you escaped your genetics and socioeconomic surroundings? I approach the Bible having rejected it as foolish stories that old people told. After experiencing the presence of God the Word of God as expressed in the Bible fell in line with that experience. I am not hung up on a 6 day creation, 6,000 year new earth and the like as it does not change the truth expressed. I am patiently waiting for someone to explain a better plan or purpose for existence and they have yet to do so. You yourself have failed to express a better plan or purpose for existence than that which God has made clear.

      “You ignore the contradictions of the bible”
      =>how many times have you been shown that the Dawkins twist is just that …a twist. There are perhaps a few areas that are not clear but they are not contradictory. You boo who every explanation anyone gives you and run back to the Dawkins bible which you know was contrived with intentional bias.

      =>Was Harry Potter an immoral killer?

      December 14, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      What a lovely set of cop-outs in your first paragraph that says absolutely nothing of worth.

      And by the way, I've never read a single book by Dawkins you stupid little fuck. Oh wait that would completely shatter your moronic rhetoric wouldn't it? That would mean you're not going to believe me when I say that, or just completely ignore it until I point it out multiple times.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      I don’t know if Dawkins wrote a bible it is a phrase that refers to typical atheist speak which includes the standard list of contrived contradictions in the Bible.
      Here is some Dawkins and it sounds just like your standard line on God: “Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins, who argues that the God of the Old Testament is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser..”
      Dawkins has taken the God of the Hebrew as they knew God and characterized God in their written book and made up his own version of God which just happens to be your version.
      This is why I am trying to understand how you and Dawkins both take a work that you both claim to be fiction yet you reject the main character (God) as defined, accepted and understood by the writer and the audience of that day. Seriously do you not see that you have generated your own character that is in conflict with the writer and the understanding of his contemporaries?
      You really need to ask yourself why you have yet to answer the question: Was Harry Potter an immoral killer?

      December 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      How useless do you really plan on being? You say over and over and over "THAT'S NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE", yet the only thing you can ever do to defend that is spin away all of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and stories like Jepthah, and Abraham and Isaac. You say god is love, yet consigns people to eternal torture for not believing in him regardless of actions in this life. You say god is justice, yet eternal reward or torture for finite things CANNOT be just. You say god does not condone killing, yet kills CONSTANTLY. These are just A FEW THINGS, but you won't really address any of it. You'll default to your moronic "God can do what he wants, you're taking that out of context", or the ever present ignoring of the point completely.

      You have been shown time and time and time and time and time again how flawed what you say is, but like I said far above this post, you really just don't care as long as you can proslytize for your own self-gratification.
      By the way, I don't give a flying backward fuck what Harry Potter was, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T TRYING TO LEGISLATE BASED ON THE SERIES YOU STUPID FUCCKING WORTHLESS TOOL.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest

      That is not the point and you know it. You keep running off on other topics. I am giving you the benefit of your assumption. You claim the Bible is fiction and I would agree a fiction book should not be used to legislate anything. Why can’t you answer the question?
      Is Harry Potter an immoral killer?
      If the Bible is a book of fiction we need to review it as such. No one would review a book of fiction as a biography or a science journal then begin to apply the scientific method and claim a wand spun counterclockwise creating a vortex is not falsifiable therefore it is contradiction. Yes, you would claim circular reasoning if I support my conclusion with what Harry says.

      December 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And there you go again. The Harry Potter question is useless, irrelevant, and completely fucking worthless. How long are you planning to hold onto that completely non-sensical question in order to avoid addressing any points? Like I've asked before, how dishonest are you really willing to be?

      December 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      Perhaps you fear ridicule when your answer betrays what you felt has been a logical and reasoned approach to discredit the authority of the Bible.
      Remember you claim the Bible is fiction as is Harry Potter. If you say Harry Potter is an immoral killer the author as well as everyone who has seen the movie and read the book will ask what world are you living in. Harry Potter is a hero and loved because Harry was good and removed the darkness that would have sucked the life out of all those around. Harry killed beasts and carried out complete ethnic cleansing of those that were of the darkness. Harry Potter is not an immoral killer.

      Now we turn to your book of fiction called the Bible. You say God is an immoral killer and the author as well as everyone who read or was read the scroll would ask you what world are you living in! God is a hero and loved because God was good and removed the darkness that would have sucked the life out of all those around. God killed beasts and carried out complete ethnic cleansing of those that were of the darkness. God is not an immoral killer.

      You avoided the question because it reveals the foolishness of those that would completely discard the reality of the point the author was making and discard the understanding of the audience the author was addressing.
      I think you need to buy some popcorn and watch the movie again. Then when you understand just how unreasonable and illogical your assessment of the character is we can discuss the reality of the Word of God rather than your fictional misrepresentation of God.

      December 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Are you fucking high? Ethnic cleansing by Harry Potter?

      But once again, you completely ignore my points. You say my character of the god of the bible is wrong, yet you refuse, as usual, to back up your statement with anything other than "god is god, the bible is good because it says god is good and the bible is inspired by god, and it's accurate because it says so because it says so because is says so".

      December 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      You are at odds with the writer (Moses) and the audience (the Hebrew or chosen ones) in that day, time and culture. I think you would agree with that. Yes?
      You recognize that the author and Hebrew worshiped, honored and loved God who was their provider, protector and creator. Yes?
      This is their God as they claim God revealed himself to them not the god you claim to see. Yes?
      You believe the book is fiction and as such it is nonsense to apply scientific technology to that writing. Yes?
      You believe in logic and reason excluding subjective personal views or feelings. Yes?
      Their understanding of God cannot be anything other than what their understanding was. Yes?
      You know that there is no basis whatsoever to claim you have a better understanding of what was in their minds and hearts other than what they have claimed. Yes?
      How in the world can you possibly claim any position other than what they expressly stated was their understanding of God?

      December 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Because I'm not a bronze age thug traveling around trying to conquer everything in sight. I can see commands like stabbing pregnant women through the womb to kill the next generation of a conquered city, and keeping all the young virgins as sex slaves for what it is. The character of god is a reflection of the people, and the people were immoral fucks. Then again, it's not like you'll actually understand what I'm saying, nor will you actually address any earlier points.
      Useless fred, completely useless.

      December 14, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • fred

      I agree with you that the people were immoral. However you cannot say” the character of god” is a reflection of the people because the character of God according to their fictional writing is a protector, provider and loving creator. Manmade gods are a reflection of the people whereas God is far above the creation. The character of God is establishing order, moral codes (they fail to keep) and restraining evil according to their fictional writings. Once again why do you assign character attributes the author did not assign? Seriously, you may as well tell the writer of Superman that Superman was not faster than a speeding bullet or that Clark Kent was not a mild mannered reporter but a perv with an obsession for Lois Lane.

      December 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Still completely useless. Those things were all written as commands from that god. That's how it reflects the people at that time. Useless, dishonest idiocy fred. That's all you've been posting.

      December 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      "Those things were all written as commands from that god. That's how it reflects the people at that time."
      =>.correct the acts reflect the people at that time. Finally you are beginning to see the picture!
      Many faiths today have carved (could be physical or in their mind/soul) an image of God that reflects the people of that faith. You have carved a figure of God in your mind. Problem is that you cannot see that you have carved the wrong image. Everyone sees God differently and since we were made in the image of God we have the capacity to reflect that image. Why such a contrast in image where some find a cosmic Santa Clause and others see an immoral killer? Neither image is correct and neither one will go to hell based on their faulty image. You are scientifically inclined so when you know your model is faulty you need to get a new model. That is the process of sanctification. In that process you find God is not a cosmic Santa and God is not an immoral killer. You actually begin to know God and just as with any relationship the more personal and intimate the greater the depth of knowledge.

      December 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Talk about a Straw Man. I told you, don't try to be as dishonest as Chad, you're not good enough at it.

      December 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      If there is God or if there is no God the vast majority (estimated 5-7 billion worshipers) of mankind humbled themselves before a known God. That is a fact. Even today when I stand before you and tell you about my experience with God, when Saul of Tarsus tells of his experience with God and when Moses and Abraham tell of their experience with God we were all made aware of God. As individuals that personal experience reflects our life experiences and genetics resulting in slightly different takes. This does not mean we are making up God it means we are expressing what God has revealed to us. Simply because you have observed differing expressions concerning God does not translate into “we made it all up” nor does is mean God is a figment of mans imagination.
      You should be concerned that you claim God is not self evident. There is no logic or reason behind such a conclusion given the facts surrounding mans observable experience with God. Another clue that you are in denial is that the god you see or have fashioned is nothing like the God mankind has worshiped since creation. I seriously doubt that I am the dishonest one in this room.

      December 18, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      You really enjoy the ad populum fallacy. Tell me then, if prevalence of an idea makes it true, why did no one feel the earth change from flat to spherical when the prevalent idea switched from one to the other?

      December 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      Exactly! Just as their illusion that the world was flat did not change the reality the earth was not flat your inability to see the reality of God does not change the reality of God. When we die that reality of God will not change either.
      I am not saying there is a God because billions have worshiped God (ad populum). I am saying billions worshiped God because there is a sense of something greater than self in each individual. If you want to dismiss what each individual senses it would not be on the basis of ad populum.
      Perhaps God and a flat earth were once self evident. When someone says I exist therefore I am they would be referring to what is self evident. Their relative position in reality or physical position is not self evident and the mind will create the illusion of relative position in order to survive. You want to continue argument of physical matter justifying non physical and that is not reasonable.

      December 18, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Huh?

      " I am saying billions worshiped God because there is a sense of something greater than self in each individual. If you want to dismiss what each individual senses it would not be on the basis of ad populum."

      No, it just has to do with the brain, not a God. Religious people find it very annoying that people don't need God to be good, as science has now incontestably proved.

      For millennia, we've been brainwashed into believing that we needed the Almighty to redeem us from an essentially corrupt nature. Left to our own devices, people would quickly devolve into beasts, more violent, tactless, aggressive, and selfish, than we already are.

      Today, we know that this isn't true. With the discovery of mirror neurons by Italian neuroscientist Giaccomo Rizzolatti in the 1990s, we now have physiological proof of why - and how - our species became hard-wired for goodness. Mirror neurons are miraculous cells in the brain whose sole purpose is to harmonize us with our environments. By reflecting the outside world inward, we actually become each other - a little bit; neurologically changed by what is happening around us. Mirror neurons are the reason that we have empathy and can feel each other's pain. It is because of mirror neurons that you blush when you see someone else humiliated, flinch when someone else is struck, and can't resist the urge to laugh when seeing a group struck with the giggles. (Indeed, people who test for "contagious yawning" tend to be more empathic.) These tiny mirrors are the key to most things noble and good inside us.

      It is through mirror neurons - not God - that we redeem ourselves, achieve salvation, and are "reborn" in virtuous ways once co-opted by religions. Evolution knew what she was doing. A group of successful cooperators has a much higher chance of thriving than a population of selfish liars. In spite of what we read in the headlines, the ratio of bad to good deeds done on any given day across our planet holds at close to zero any day of the year. Although we are ethical works-in-progress, the vast majority of us are naturally positive creatures - meaning not harmful to our environments - most of the time in most of the ways that matter. And God has nothing to do with it.

      Spirituality does but God doesn't. Evolutionary psychologists tell us that our brains are hard-wired with a five-toned moral organ that focuses on a quintet of ethical values - one of which is purity, or sacredness. In a world that can sometimes be disgusting, we evolved an upper tier of emotional longing - the aspiration for purity - to keep us balanced in this satyricon of carnal delights (where animality beckons and frequently wins). Our need for sacredness is part of our ancient survival apparatus, and manifests in what we call faith, the need to connect with that sacred dimension. This has been the primary purpose of religion, of course - to congregate people for the Greater Good - but God has been, in fact, the divine carrot. The important part was communion, a context in which to transcend ourselves, if only for an hour on Sundays. Without this ability "to turn off the Me and turn on the We," moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt tells us, our species would still be wandering around as groups of nomads, unable to create a civilization.

      Aside from mirror neurons, there's oxytocin, the molecule of connection (also known as the molecule of love). It's fascinating to learn that the vagus nerve produces more oxytocin when we witness virtuous behavior in others that makes us want to be better people ourselves. We are wired by nature to be elevated at the sight of other people's goodness, mirror neurons and oxytocin conspiring to improve the species. Miraculous though it is, this natural human phenomenon has nothing to do with theology.

      December 18, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Talk about just picking a flaw and running with it. You're still just making assertion after assertion, without giving anything. Obviously your god is not self-evident, or everyone would believe in him, and faith wouldn't be required you moron. Are you really so obtuse that you can't see the flaws in your own posts?

      December 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • fred

      Huh?
      Yes, God gave man these gifts evolved or with the wink of an eye so that we could appreciate and relate to our Creator.

      December 18, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  14. Seamus Wardowski

    I'm all about Life, and I'm all for abortions, but what's with the interracial agenda they are pushing with that black dude and the white girl with the red bow in her hair??? does anybody really expect that license plate to get approved in North Carolina??? come on...

    December 12, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Heaven Sent

      You can mock the Lord my God his only son Jesus and the only true words, the Bible, but you will suffer for all eternity. The cats have gotten so fat on the road kill I have been feeding them that I had to tape them to a roller skate so they could try and get to the litter box. Satan is your guide to the eternal flames and worms eating your flesh as your fat feeds the fire.

      Amen.

      December 12, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Bet

      Is HeavyStench a sociopath or a troll?

      December 12, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Some days I miss the real HeavenSent.
      Nobody uses the terms "carnal" and "dry bones" around here anymore.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      This HeavenSent is a parody of the real HeavenSent who is a psychotic delusional believer bitch.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • therealpeace2all

      @HeavenSent

      Your continued spouting off of God, Jesus, the Bible and suffering for eternity is more christian drivel.
      I suggest you stop feeding your cats so much road kill, then you can get rid of the roller skates.
      Learn to see things from a secular perspective... it will free your mind.

      Peace...

      December 12, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Bet

      @Doc

      I knew there was something different about this HS. I miss the old one too, she was crac.kers.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Akira

      Carnal.
      What a great word; rolls so smoothly off of the tongue.
      Carrrrrnaaaaaal.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • sam stone

      The old HS surely had her Jeebus marital aid stuck deep up her rotted garden

      December 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Guy

      Akira
      I agre carnal, is fine, but
      Robin William's favorite was/is......
      Puuusssyyy!

      December 12, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  15. A-Rod

    Here is my opinion. When God stops miscarriages then I'lll stop abortions. So far in my family he up 2 to 0. Until then I think giving people the right to choose is as fair as God's right to make decisions too.

    December 12, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Guy

      According to the Chad his god should be charged with murder for causing a miscarriage, fair is fair, oh wait, that is not right in Chad's world.

      December 12, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • sam stone

      My condolences about that 2 to 0 score, A-Rod

      December 12, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • HeavenScent

      I think God is testing you to see if you will remain faithful. There's nothing that pleases God more than to see someone suffering for an eternity. Oh how I love him.

      Amen

      December 12, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Bet

      @ Heaven Stench

      You love your god because he causes miscarriages as a test of faith? So you're saying that your god loves us, but causes us misery to test our *love* for him and, if we *fail*, we get eternal torment?

      Both the concept of testing someone's *faith* by causing them heartache and misery and the idea of worshipping such a deity is sick, delusional and horrific.

      Or, you're just a troll.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • lol??

      arod, I think you missed the point on God. He judges YOU.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Actually lol, no judgement because there is no god.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Primewonk

      lol?? wrote, " I think you missed the point on God. He judges YOU."

      Your god created me knowing what I will do. How can he possible judge me, knowing that I cannot make any choices he doesn't already know I will make. Your god is quite the sick sadistic putz – creating billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • sam stone

      lol? your god's judgement is a bad joke. but then, so are you

      December 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  16. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog- see p. 8 for added details––>>>>>

    The license plates in all states should read:

    "STOP THE BRUTAL EFFECTS OF STUPIDITY"–

    from the Guttmacher Insti-tute:

    "• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use."

    December 12, 2012 at 6:44 am |
    • wow ur awesome

      your point is???

      December 12, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Reality

      The topic license plate would not even be considered if men and women were responsible and practiced safe, intelligent se-x.

      From p. 8 as referenced:

      The license plates in all states should read:

      " STOP THE BRUTAL EFFECTS OF STUPIDITY"–

      Added details:

      The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

      Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

      : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

      Added information before making your next move:

      from the CDC-2006

      "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

      And from:

      Consumer Reports, January, 2012

      "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

      Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

      "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

      Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

      The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
      – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
      – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
      Followed by:
      One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
      Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
      The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
      Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
      IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

      Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

      December 12, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • lol??

      Killin' seems to be the solution for everything for socialists. And that comes after their bullyin'.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      lol. So you're against capital punishment, guns, wars, etc. unlike the rest of you fundie GOPers.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Bet

      @lol

      Bullying? You mean like threatening someone with eternal torture unless they love you and obey you?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Reality

      As previously noted: "from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-" Obviously reading more than two sentences is too much for many on this blog.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
  17. MimiB

    At last some common sense. Why was this plate, which preaches against the law of the land, allowed to be distributed at all? This is a direct violation of church and state. People who are anti choice have the option of bumper stickers, flags, and other things which don't come at taxpayers' time and expense. Bravo, North Carolina, and now I look to Florida to hopefully follow suit.

    December 12, 2012 at 6:24 am |
    • lol??

      "..........This is a direct violation of church and state............" That is an over rated concept. "1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.".... So as you can see the ONLY way to get rid of Christians is to kill em. You must be thinking of Judaism.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @lol?? – Sorry you ignorant sockpuppet, but again, the US is not a theocracy. So what's er it is that you nutters think your version of a god wants, needs, desires, or demands is irrelevant.

      Perhaps you and these other morons would be happier in a country that is a theocracy.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  18. saggyroy

    "You have the right to free speech, just as long as you are not dumb enough to actually try it" – "Know Your Rights" by The Clash.

    December 12, 2012 at 5:50 am |
  19. Jennifer

    Seriously? What a moron. Either give the option for free speech for all sides or shut up. Freakin' hypocrite. Just slap on a bumper sticker. Holy crap.

    December 12, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • Athy

      Crap can be obtained as holy now? Can it be authenticated? That would look great mounted on a plaque on my mantle, next to my moose turds.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • Popeferatu Ratz

      Yes Athy, we at the Vatican are putting out a whole catalog of holy items. You can get either the standard model holy crap, or those who god has shone on financially can give that wealth to us for some absolutely Jesusier holy crap from Lourdes, rigorously authenticated to have performed miracles by the same careful people here who confirm the miracles of saints.

      Other holy products soon to be available are holy cow (sells well in Texas), holy guacamole for those in California, holy atomic pile batman – very limited market for that, holy smokes for those who just can't give up cigarettes, and holy mackeral for seafood lovers.

      Very expensive, but then again, so are our costumes and meals and housing and paychecks, so keep those dollars, euros, pounds and yen flowing in!

      December 12, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • Bet

      Do you have any holy sewage from the weeping jeebus?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Jennifer, So you would be okay with the government producing "God isn't real, get over it!" license plates with taxpayer money?

      December 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
  20. Maxine Rhoads

    "A great day for free speech" -really? What about the free speech rights of the "Choose Life" folk? Where's the ACLU when their rights to free speech are being violated? It seems the ACLU only fights to protect the rights of some and then force it upon the rest of us. A very hypocritical group who obviously has its liberal agenda to push–not the defender of rights for all people.

    December 12, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      You know, you can put a bumper sticker on your car that says most anything you want. In states that don't require front and rear plates you can even have a plate made that says "Choose Life" and put it on your car. The state absolutely shouldn't be about proclaiming things that are ultimately religious in nature.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • Jill

      I have a bumper sticker that says "I aborted Jesus on the way to the gay bar".

      December 12, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jill,

      Let's get SC to put that on a license plate and we will have something!

      December 12, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • fire marshall bill

      free speech is for everyone...but when your trying to push your religious agenda on everyone, (especially something that is on all vehicles) that is BS....you dont like abortions dont have one

      December 12, 2012 at 5:40 am |
    • Oh Maxine Maxine

      You can have every word you just typed printed on a bumper sticker right here: http://www.makestickers.com/cp/1020/make-your-own-custom-bumper-sticker?gclid=CJn-hvbllLQCFQ45nAodf3AABw

      Whew, freedom of speech saved again. State government has to play by the rules, they can't pick a side. If they made 2 plates, one pro life and one pro choice, this wouldn't have been an issue, You can have your Choose Life plates here in NC as soon as North Carolina lawmakers pass an amendment that creates a pro-choice alternative

      December 12, 2012 at 6:53 am |
    • Bet

      Did you bother to read the article? The issue is that free speech was provided for anti choice proponents, but an alternative plate giving the same right to free speech to pro choice proponents was voted down by the legislature.

      Had they voted to give equal rights to the pro choice proponents, this would not have been an issue.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Brian

      This is indeed a victory for free speech. There was an "opposite side" license plate up for vote. They voted against it. This plate could have been released, had the other been released. This violates the freedom of the opposition side's speech. How can anyone not see that?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.