home
RSS
Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle
June 29th, 2014
08:19 PM ET

Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor

[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

Washington (CNN) – For the Greens, the Christian family behind the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, their battle with the Obama administration was never really about contraception. It was about abortion.

After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples.

Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA - Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .)

“We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.”

Evangelicals as a whole may be relative newcomers to that view, but since the 1980s it has become nearly gospel. (The Pew Research Center has a helpful guide to other religious groups' stance.)

As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has argued, evangelicals arrived at their current stand on life issues through a combination of factors, including biblical interpretation, moral accounting and political calculus. Others also add the influence of early architects of the religious right and the example of the Catholic Church, which has opposed abortion for centuries.

But given the importance of scripture to evangelicals, it's no surprise that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals cite the Bible in the second sentence of their policy stance on abortion:

And because the Bible reveals God's calling and care of persons before they are born, the preborn share in this dignity (Psalm 139:13).

You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."

(You'll also see that verse cited by many Mennonites, so it makes sense that a Mennonite business, Conestoga Wood Specialties, joined a companion challenge to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court.)

If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians.

In addition to Psalm 139, you'll also hear evangelicals and Mennonites cite several other Bible passages that they believe affirm the sanctity of human life.

Genesis 1, for example, says that mankind is made in God's image; the Ten Commandments make murder a crime against God; and Job, the old Testament sufferer, frets about what would happen if he mistreats his servants because:

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Again, you see the divine and womb interacting, which is why evangelicals like the Greens so strongly oppose contraception that prevents embryo implantation in the womb.

Still, those verses may not be on the Greens' minds after Monday's decision. Instead, Steve Green has said, they'll be thinking about Daniel 3:17-18

If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Belief • Bible • Bioethics • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • evangelicals • Health care • Obama • Politics

soundoff (2,278 Responses)
  1. peggyloonan

    Everyone is missing the point. It's simple. IUDS and Plan B and Ella don't cause an abortion. Period. Medical science says they aren't abortifacients. Personal/religious belief that says they do cause an abortion is just that a personal opinion not a medical or scientific one. People are free to believe what they want and personally act upon that by, for example, not using those birth controls but when you run a for profit business you should be required to abide by the law in this case insurance coverage of these birth controls. The blogger says the Greens don't object to 16 of 20 birth control methods but that's not true. It can't be true because Plan B and Ella – morning after pills work exactly the way "THE" birth control pill does. In fact a woman can use a different dosage of many of the birth control pills on the market as emergency contraception which is what Plan B and Ella are. http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/dose.html The fact is that the Greens really do object to ALL female hormonal birth control. The Patch, Depo Provera, and Norplant also act in the same manner as birth control pills and emergency contraception. Female hormonal birth control can prevent ovulation or implantation. Medical science says a pregnancy doesn't exist until implantation because neither a doctor nor a woman knows until implantation when her body begins to send her signals that she's pregnant. NONE of the female hormonal birth control or IUDS interfere with an established pregnancy – after implantation – therefore they DO NOT cause an abortion. Again if you believe that fine but DO NOT try to skirt the law laid out for – for profit businesses or force your personal beliefs upon your employees when medical science disagrees with faith about when a pregnancy begins. That's unethical. Hobby Lobby can become a non-profit but they may not use their personal/religious belief to deny women insurance coverage of any birth control of their choosing. I am constantly shaking my head at writers and media who seem not to understand the medical facts or science regarding birth control and because of that mislead readers about the truth about birth control and what it does and doesn't do and the truth around so-called religious objections as it applies to the health care law.

    June 30, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • Alias

      Nice rant.
      Firstly, some people believe that keeping a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortion.
      Srecondly, even though they are not using the argument, this is also about the christian nutjobs trying to keep single women from having sex.

      June 30, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Wo men have 16 options that are not obje ctionable and objecting to paying for the other four is "keeping single wo men from having se x?" This is not about making the four illegal. It's just about not being willing to pay for someone else to use the kind that force abortions.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • Alias

          Please enlighten me as to the 16 you are talking about-
          And more importantly how is it any of the employer's business what prescriptions a doctor writes for a female patient?

          June 30, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Alias, I don't have the list handy. I was simply referring to the 16 noted in the article above. We will see how the court decision details shake out.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:19 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Akira, well, apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. Not being a medical professional I can't really argue that point. I just read what everyone else reads, and that is what I have read, including here on CNN.

        Keep in mind that apparently this decision only affects closely held (family style) businesses, not all corporations. At least that is what I have read at this time.

        June 30, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • nclaw441

          Akira, I appreciate your point about Scalia opposing all birth control. Former Justice Powell opposed the death penalty, but still participated in cases involving the death penalty.

          June 30, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        Akira, well, appa rently the SCO TUS disag rees. Not being a medical professional I can't really argue that point. I just read what everyone else reads, and that is what I have read, including here on CNN.

        Keep in mind that app arently this decision only affects closely held (fa mily style) businesses, not all co rporations. At least that is what I have read at this time.

        June 30, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • ragansteve1

          I guess I need to be more patient with this site.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:26 am |
  2. idiotusmaximus

    We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.”.....

    I think that's great if that's what they want to believe...but what people believe are not necessary facts......and should not ever dictate what other people believe or do.....this gives them power over other peoples lives in areas that is none of their business......what if everyone stopped supporting their business because the didn't agree with them... they wouldn't have a business and therefore would not have this control over other peoples lives ....it's kind of like stupid...I'm going to shoot myself in the foot to show you thinking..

    June 30, 2014 at 10:20 am |
  3. Alias

    What we really need is to get the politics out of SCOTUS.
    The next seven judges appointed should be moderates. We do not need conservatives or liberals with their strong biases imposing their extreem philosophies instead of just interpreting the laws.

    June 30, 2014 at 10:15 am |
    • nclaw441

      Choosing "moderates" also involves politics.

      June 30, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
  4. jasoncdanforth

    I wish Christians fought for the poor, hungry, and unemployed as much as they fought for the unborn. They ignore the parts of their bible that explicitly tell them what to care about and pay attention to things their bible never said.

    June 30, 2014 at 10:09 am |
    • raymeiers

      You are willfully blind. Walk into any evangelical church and ask for a list of the programs they support with money and time. My church has dozens that benefit poor people.

      June 30, 2014 at 10:28 am |
      • observer

        raymeiers,

        Yes, but churches have also collected tens of millions of dollars just to fight giving equal rights to all Americans.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • nclaw441

          I dispute that claim.

          June 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          The Mormons in SLC put millions of dollars into the Prop 8 fight in California, and it wasn't even a referendum in their own state.

          Game. Set. Match...

          June 30, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
  5. Clint

    Knuckleheads are predictable.

    "Abortion" is not justice for a woman who has been raped. Abortion will never heal the wounds of a raped woman. Not all abortions are the result of rape. Rape victims just account for 1% of all abortions. Exceptions to the rule cannot be used as a justification for mass murder, the murder here being "aborting" the unborn.

    June 30, 2014 at 9:26 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Fortunately ignorant blemishes on humanity such as you don't make the rules.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      So...riddle me this, Commissioner–is it Murder(tm) when a bomb drops on the head of a Muslim baby and his pregnant mother? Or is that somehow okay?...

      June 30, 2014 at 9:34 am |
      • awanderingscot

        ignorant hypothesis, of course it's murder to both the mother and unborn infant; maybe not according to your ignorant immoral thinking.

        June 30, 2014 at 11:02 am |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      the arguement isn't whether or not abortion is legal, because that battle has already been fought and roe. vs wade.

      the arguement here is whether or not a for profit company (public company) can use religion to deny benefits to it's employees.

      the whole anti-abortion vs pro-choice debate has already been decided, case closed.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:36 am |
      • Vic

        Well, this is a new and uncharted territory.

        This is all based on the belief that Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine contraceptives are in fact abortifacient; therefore, it becomes a "religious right to exclude such contraceptives from ACA coverage" issue.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Yet science has proven that the 4 at hand do not cause abortion and it is the professionals who should be listened to, not the ones using the belief to wield power.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • Science Works

          Hey vic

          Since the rib made a woman is a joke – that makes god(s) a joke eh ?

          June 30, 2014 at 10:47 am |
        • Science Works

          Hey Vic

          Logic overload ?

          June 30, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
    • Ramses

      Bunch of 'karmis' have responded to that post. karmis speak a different language and are from another part of the world and it requires a different mindset when dealing with karmis.

      Karmis are eager the change the western culture, abortion is rampant in their culture, they justify female infanticide.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Question: Do you always talk this stupid? Or is this blog a unique circumstance? and BTW it is spelled 'kharma.' If you are going to rant about something... the least you can do is spell it correctly.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Using your Hare Krishna terms are as meaningful to me as christian terms

        June 30, 2014 at 10:03 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Oh my making up words to fit your ignorance. How much cash do you have banked to support all those unwanted children??

        June 30, 2014 at 10:12 am |
  6. zhilla1980wasp

    let's just get to the heart of the issue.

    if hobby haters win that opens the door for every company in america to side-step almost any equality laws on the books.
    women....nope bible saids i don't have to
    minorities.....nope bible saids i don't have to
    lgbt.....nope bible saids i don't have to

    seriously this will be a disaster. people think things are rough now, wait and see how the extremists of american religions make life that much harder for all those that had to fight through the years to get anything close to equal rights.

    June 30, 2014 at 9:19 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      zhillia, I'm more and more convinced that the right wing in this nation seeks nothing less than a Balkanized Amurka(tm) as the pretext for Civil War Part II. This decision–I'm still calling it 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby–is a direct result of Citizens United (the Corporations Are People case), and indeed allows anyone to use religious objections as a magic phrase to allow anyone to break any law they like...

      June 30, 2014 at 9:26 am |
    • igaftr

      It also opens the door for corporations to have religious beliefs.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:36 am |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Next up–corporations can vote as an enti.ty in local and state elections. The'll get all the rights of citizens without any of the responsibilities...

        June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am |
  7. Theo Phileo

    What about a purely logical argument against abortion…

    Abortion is not about a woman’s rights over her own body. Obviously, in a legal sense a woman has the right to do with her body whatever she wishes, however:

    1)What exists in the womb of a woman in the form of an unborn child is not the woman’s body.
    2)No one has the right to use their body to kill another human being in cold blood.

    In order to support those two premises, you must first realize that the unborn child is a human being from conception. This is easily seen using simple comparisons. Any characteristic or description of the unborn child can only fit into one of four categories:

    1)Size
    2)Level of Development
    3)Environment
    4)Degree of Dependency

    Take any one of these, and use them to parallel an unborn child with a born child to see the point. For instance: a baby in the womb is smaller than a 3 year old child, but the 3 year old child is smaller than me. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me? Obviously, not. Well, a baby in the womb may not be fully developed, but a 3 year old is not as developed as I am. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me? Obviously not. What about environment? The baby is in the womb. Yes, separated from the outside world by a matter of inches. I was at home a few hours ago, 22 miles from work, where I am now. Am I somehow less human when I am at work than when I am at home? I may feel that it does sometimes, but it does not. OK, lastly, degree of dependency. That baby is 100% dependent on the mother for its existence. Yes, that’s true, but my father is 100% dependent on the heart stints that exist in his body to survive. Is he less human than I am just because I don’t depend on them? No.

    Therefore – the baby is human, and no one, not even the mother, has a RIGHT to kill that child in her womb.

    June 30, 2014 at 8:39 am |
    • igaftr

      Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what rights other people have.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:54 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Unfortunately, godless men who wish to make the act of cold-blooded murder perfectly legal for the sake of convenience and change definitions to protect the guilty make the laws.

        June 30, 2014 at 8:59 am |
        • igaftr

          All men are godless theo, until someone can show any "god" to exist. Either EVERYONE is godless or EVERYONE has a god or gods. Belief is not relevant.
          Trying to legislate from your religion is immoral and illegal.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          But I gave a purely logical argument against abortion, which no one can refute.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          Fortunately for the majority, we have maintained the separation of church and state or religious zealots like you would quickly replace are inalienable rights with an unbearable theocracy.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          ausphor,
          Once again, I gave a purely logical argument against abortion, and instead of giving a sensible argument against it (which cannot be done) you are choosing to let your bigotry shine, and attack my faith, which did not even enter into my discussion above.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          All you've done is alter the definition of murder to suit your own political agenda. It seems that in RWNJ World, words don't really have actual meanings...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          All you've done is alter the definition of murder to suit your own political agenda.
          ------------
          No, what I have done is to use logic and reason to irrefutably prove that the child in the womb is a human being. It is secular legal experts who have changed definitions to protect the guilty.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:54 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "But I gave a purely logical argument against abortion, which no one can refute."

          No, Theo – your argument was illogical on the point of dependency. A heart stint did not produce your father..lol.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • ausphor

          Poor Theo
          You who declare that you know the only TRUTH that applies to all 7 billion people on earth have no grasp on LOGIC, you see yourself as god.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • igaftr

          Apparently your argument can and is being refuted, otherwise there would be agreement.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "godless men" aren't like God. They don't want to "MURDER" EVERY child, baby and fetus on the face of the earth LIKE GOD DID..

          June 30, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • joey3467

          Theo, I must have missed the "logical" part of your argument.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • nclaw441

        And so you support the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

        June 30, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • igaftr

          no. That is a corporation, not an individual.

          Is hobby lobby going to continue taking profits from people that have had or would have abortions or are they hypocrits, making money from people that have had abortions, but not supporting their own people from those profits.

          they have justiufied that because of what they ACTUALLY worship...the almighty dollar.

          June 30, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Because a zygote is THE EXACT EQUIVALENT of a 36-week fetus, you betcha...

      June 30, 2014 at 8:56 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        At the moment of conception, it is a human being, and the logic of my argument can NOT be denied.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Then God really IS the biggest abortionist in the universe, because MOST pregnancies end in miscarriage, nearly all before the woman even knows she's pregnant. You might want to learn a little actual biology, TheoCrat, instead of the garbage you swill from the First Bahble-Beatin' Baptist "Church"...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Then God really IS the biggest abortionist in the universe
          ------------------
          So?
          God is the only one who holds ultimate authority on who lives and who dies. Humans are stewards over capital punishment over capital crimes, but no human has the right to take a life of one who has committed no crime against men.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:08 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Oh, I get it.

          ONE MORE TIME..."If Gawd(tm) does it, it's all right." Sort of like "if the President does it, it's not illegal." Are you saying that Gawd(tm) is Richard Nixon?...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          fortheloveofellipsis,
          Red herring.
          If you really want to make a statement, then refute the logic of the SLED argument that I gave above.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:15 am |
        • igaftr

          "God is the only one who holds ultimate authority on who lives and who dies"

          Baseless belief. Until you can produce this "god" of yours, you have no argument.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • 1970gt

          Your argument cannot just be denied, it can be completely ignored. It really comes down to a woman's right over her own body. Your argument is based on an iron age book written by men who obviously felt that woman are second class citizens who should be owned and controlled by a man. So they created this thing called religion to try and marginalize woman and whoever else the author(s) didn't like, gays, atheists, etc. Your book is outdated as well as your opinions. I am sure you are probably a war monger too which explains your dislike of abortion, those unborn need to live so they can grow up and die in whatever war you deem righteous.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          1970gt,
          wrong on all accounts. First off, my argument was based on logic, not Christianity. Second, the child in the womb is NOT the mother's own body, this is a biological fact. Next, no one is permitted to murder an innocent person by using their own body. Please re-read the SLED argument above.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:46 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "logic of my argument"

          "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

          Then again, to TheoCrat, words don't have actual meanings, so their definition can be changed to whatever he wants it to be...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Then again, to TheoCrat, words don't have actual meanings, so their definition can be changed to whatever he wants it to be...
          --------------
          So instead of attacking the argument, you attack me? You do know that you have to be over 18 to post on the Beleif Blog, right?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: take it from someone that lost the ability to access most of the emotion centers of the human brain; your arguement isn't logical in the least.

          your main failing point is that the fetus is:
          A) human. it is not human at that moment in time. it has the DNA base code for developing into a human, yet isn't quite there.
          B) isn't part of the mother's body. seeing the fetus shares half the mother's genetic coding, i would say it is part of her body.
          C) your arguing from the stand point of a religious male, thus you have no say so.

          a male's only choice and control over a pregnacy is whether or not to add his gentic material to that of the female's.
          after insemination males lose all control over whether or not she will allow that fetus to develop to term........well outside the obvious violent out bursts that cause many thousands of women to not only miscarry but also either lose all ability to have children later or lose of their lives.

          men have no right in a strictly women topic.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • G to the T

          You do realize that most fertilized eggs don't attach to the utero wall and are flushed out a woman's body every month?

          Honestly, life at conception wasn't even a christian concept until the last century. Until then it was always dependant on the first breath taken OUTSIDE of the womb.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:43 am |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Then a seed is an oak tree, skippy, because the embryo is the exact same thing as the grown and independently functioning organism. Are you advocating that the police and FBI investigate every single miscarriage in the country, because that's exactly where your "every zygote is Sacred(tm)" shizzle takes us...

        June 30, 2014 at 9:23 am |
        • awanderingscot

          isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Hey look, everybody–scottie has added another whole sentence to his mass-paste posting! Your caseworker must be so proud of you!...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          forthe: nah he didn't if you read carefully scot only repeated the last sentence twice. lmao

          kindof how you get error codes on computers when their logic fails.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      theo regardless of how much you and your ilk whine about it; roe vs. wade is law and women have the right to opt out of giving birth.

      either choice they make will impact their lives for the rest of their lives, whether they have the child or abort it.
      you're a male thus you have no say, thank goodness, so thump your bigotry somewhere else.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:31 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Please tell me how being a man makes me irrelevant in the discussion over whether or not a woman has a right to kill her child? We've already established that the child in the womb is NOT her own body, and to make the statement that I don't have a right to say anything about it makes the as.sumption that it IS the woman's body. This is biologically a false premise.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "We've already established that the child in the womb is NOT her own body"

          Look up "Begging the Question" and write a ten-page report...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          fortheloveofellipsis,
          If the child in the womb IS the mother's body, then how come it has a different DNA than the mother? What about how it can have a different blood type than the mother?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo:

          hey genious, 50% of that fetus' DNA is of the mother; thus it IS of her bodya nd seeing it requires her to survive she and SHE ALONE has the right to choose.

          men have no right to say anything one way or the other due to the fact if you want the child so bad, you carry it.
          let your body nurturer the parasite for 36 weeks. when you can get pregnant then you have the right to say how you feel otherwise men only inseminate.

          that is the level as to a man's power over pregnancy; you can choose whether or not to donate your genetic material in the attempt to procreate.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: " then how come it has a different DNA than the mother? What about how it can have a different blood type than the mother?"

          1) the DNA of the fetus is 50% the mother's 50% the father's; thus it is both the mother's body and the father's body.
          1a) the difference in ability to decide what to do falls to the one that gestates the fetus.......unless you know something i don't only women can gestate fetus'.
          2) blood type has nothing to do with how the child develops, outside the odd occurance of the RH factors being different and the mother's body (created by god according to you) attempts to abort the foriegn body (fetus) because it doesn't blend in with the mother's defence systems.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          hey genious, 50% of that fetus' DNA is of the mother; thus it IS of her bodya nd seeing it requires her to survive she and SHE ALONE has the right to choose.
          --------------------
          Some DNA from the mother, some DNA from the father – the child has a different DNA from the father and the mother, hence it is NOT the mother, neither is it the father, it is a new being. And to think that just because he is dependant on his mother's body to survive gives her rights over her life is wrong. A 1 month old child is also 100% dependant upon his parent's care to survive, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to murder him.

          men have no right to say anything one way or the other due to the fact if you want the child so bad, you carry it.
          ----------------
          This is just a snarky comment based on Misandry, and carries no weight.

          let your body nurturer the parasite for 36 weeks. when you can get pregnant then you have the right to say how you feel otherwise men only inseminate.
          ----------------–
          Again, this is just misandry, pure and simple.

          that is the level as to a man's power over pregnancy; you can choose whether or not to donate your genetic material in the attempt to procreate.
          ----------------–
          Again, misandry.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: Misandry /mɪˈsændri/ is the hatred, dislike, contempt for or ingrained prejudice
          against men and/or boys.

          hey genious I AM A MALE.

          as being such i realize the limits of my ability to impose rules on another living human being; which BTW isn't a fetus.

          pop quiz theo: in the situation to where the mother isn't getting enough to eat, what does the body forst get rid of?
          ANSWER: a pregnacy.

          you can boo hoo and cry all you want to, however yet again; roe vs. wade has already been decided.
          hint your side lost that battle.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:16 am |
    • ragansteve1

      Excellent points! Wish I had thought of those.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:48 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        I wish I had too! I heard it in a lecture many years ago and I never forgot it... I did forget who the lecturer was unfortunately...

        June 30, 2014 at 9:50 am |
    • bchev

      Theo Phieo,
      Your logic can't be refuted in the way that a "house" that is just a pile of bricks can't be demolished. It doesn't have any structure to destabilize. You take it as a winning position because other people can't show your statement to be false, but they hold no valid point to begin with.

      1)Size- noone says you can abort fetuses because they are small, irrelevant
      2)Level of Development- this is the big one
      3)Environment- in the mother, done here
      4)Degree of Dependency- really just ties back to mother, but for the first 20 week it is absolute

      "Take any one of these, and use them to parallel an unborn child with a born child to see the point"

      There. It took one sentence for your argument to fall apart. You can't parallel an unborn child to a born child, because while they are both "humans" they are not the same. an egg is not a blastocyst, which is not a zygote, which is nto a fetus, which until the end is not a newborn. There are MAJOR disimilarities between them that prevents parallel comparison.

      "For instance: a baby in the womb is smaller than a 3 year old child, but the 3 year old child is smaller than me. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me? Obviously, not"

      Like I said, size is irrelevant.

      "Well, a baby in the womb may not be fully developed, but a 3 year old is not as developed as I am. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me?"
      Yes it is. a 3 year old doesn't have adult teeth, its bones still need to harden, it s reproductive hormones and organs haven't kicked in yet, and the brain has a lot of maturing and learning to do, but a 3 year old IS a fully formed human. the 3 year old has everything you have, it's just in better condition. BUT, a 3 year old has lots of things that unborn babies might not have, like lungs, a heart, a nervous system, digestive tract, a spine; the list goes on. there is a world literally an entire lifeform of difference between a 3 year old and an undeveloped egg/zygote/blastocyst/early fetus. To compare that to the difference between a child and an adult is extrememly disengenuous.

      "What about environment? The baby is in the womb. Yes, separated from the outside world by a matter of inches. I was at home a few hours ago, 22 miles from work, where I am now. Am I somehow less human when I am at work than when I am at home?"

      I try to be respectful of all arguments, but this is stupid. There is no valid comparison between being INSIDE of another human, and being inside a building.

      " OK, lastly, degree of dependency. That baby is 100% dependent on the mother for its existence. Yes, that’s true, but my father is 100% dependent on the heart stints that exist in his body to survive. Is he less human than I am just because I don’t depend on them? No."

      Your father is not 100% dependent, there are other medical procedures that could replaces the stint. There is NOTHING known to man at this point that can replace the mother's womb. Also, the stint doesn't ahve to give anything in this instance. it suffers othing by serving its purpose, that is its purpose. And most importantly, a stint isn't a human, a mother is. Noone cares what a stint thinks or feels or experiences, because it doesn't do any of those things. But a mother does, and she alone has to go through the proces of the potential human growing inside of her, relying on her, feeding off of and affecting her. This is an absolutely horrible comparison becaue it ignores that the mother is a person too, the fetus isn't the only life involved.

      Your "logic" needs a lot of work on this one.

      June 30, 2014 at 10:50 am |
    • G to the T

      "No one has the right to use their body to kill another human being in cold blood. "

      Not a human being until it's born and taken it's first breath. Otherwise you could charge every woman when a fertilized egg doesn't attach to the utero wall with murder.

      Every other aspect of the law does not treat the embryo as a person – We don't take census on pregnancies, we don't claim dependants on embryos, we don't (officially) name them until they are born, etc. Until it is completely viable outside of the mother's womb, it is not yet a person, it is a person in potentia, but not a person yet.

      June 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
    • dandintac

      Theo, I'll answer this one.

      First of all, your real premise is the following: "you must first realize that the unborn child is a human being from conception". You are basically asking us to accept your conclusion right from the get-go. Well, of course if we are willing to accept your underlying conclusion right from the beginning, yes, your logic is correct.

      I do not however. I do not agree that what makes us human is conception. DNA is not enough. Any piece of tissue on our entire body has the complete DNA needed for a complete human being. What is the difference between a pound of flesh from my leg or gut, and the rest of me? Let's go further. What's the difference between a decapitated body kept alive by machines and a regular thinking, functioning person?

      Isn't it obvious? A functioning brain. I reject the notion of personhood with rights and legal protection when this "person" either does not yet have or no longer has a functioning brain. In our society, there is a pretty broad consensus that a person who no longer has a functioning brain is dead for all practical purposes. Even former representative Tom Delay, so famously "pro-life" had no trouble recognizing this with regards to his own father. It is thought–human thought–that distinguishes us and makes us worthy of rights and protection under the law.

      "Life begins at conception" is strictly a religious dogma. Life is an unbroken chain going back to the first reproducing cell. Drawing the line at conception is arbitrary and unscientific. It is strictly religious dogma. Drawing the line at the point when a fetus develops a functioning brain with cognition that can be measured through brain waves–this is a far more rational and scientific approach. When does this happen? Around the beginning of the third trimester.

      June 30, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
  8. Clint

    Really?

    Human beings need to be reminded of the sanctity of human life?

    June 30, 2014 at 8:38 am |
    • Clint

      It's common sense that, when a woman is "pregnant", she's carrying a child in her womb. To harm that child in any way, shape or form is injustice to that unborn child.

      Wise up! If you don't want a child, don't get pregnant. Is it that hard for you to understand that simple fact- you knucklehead?

      June 30, 2014 at 8:43 am |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        So, Daniel, are we not to be allowed to respond to Clint's blatant drivel? I've been blocked four times now...

        June 30, 2014 at 8:53 am |
        • igaftr

          forthe
          If it gets blocked immediately, it is likely getting caught in the silly word filter, and not blocked for content. Try re-wording and try again.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          igaftr, I re-worded it four times, and got four blocks...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:06 am |
        • igaftr

          Look for things you would not expect, like t!t, as in const!tution cannot be used due to the T!t.

          Some people have a list of verbotten words.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:13 am |
      • Ramses

        Most people who post here don't understand the word 'sanc t I t y of life'. When you are in Rome speak Roman!

        You need to speak their language, tell 'em, 'karma' will bite 'em in the rear if they harm another human being, it may register.

        The key operative word for 'em is 'karma'.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Okay, Ramses, I'll ask you–are you in favor of capital punishment? Do you believe in ending poverty programs that feed children? If so, don't give me any of your crapola about the Sancti.ty o' Lahf(tm)–you're only in favor of forced pregnancy and birth...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:08 am |
        • Clint

          Point noted!

          June 30, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          I see neither of you have answered–do you support capital punishment? Do you think the poor should just starve? If so, you don't really believe in the tagline you're selling...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:29 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No fool; it is you who doesn't comprehend the sanctity of life. When you force a pregnancy, you put that child at risk immediately. You have failed to consider the chance that the child may end up living a life of being hated or a life of poverty...how every selfish of you to wish such horrific thing upon a child.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • G to the T

          "Karma" works both ways. How can you be sure it wasn't the embryo's "karma" to never be born?

          June 30, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        So what you're basically telling us is that you blame the victim on incest or the victim of rape for not protecting themselves.
        A fetus is not viable outside of the human body until around 20 weeks gestation, however the laws usually set the dead-line for terminating a pregnancy at 12 weeks...theses laws were meant to settle the issue and the studies show you are wrong.
        Roe vs Wade should have settled this but yet so many remain stuck in their caves forgetting that this is the 21st century and men no longer have rights over women.
        Unless you're willing to support those children, you might be best to mind your own business and focus on your own life instead of sticking your self-righteous nose in to the private lives of others. You have failed to consider the implications of your words...stop being a blemish on humanity and join the 21st century!

        June 30, 2014 at 9:15 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      And I'll bet cash money you're for capital punishment and against food support for children. In other words, you pick and choose your "sanct.ity of life just like you pick and choose which parts of the Bahble(tm) you believe...

      June 30, 2014 at 8:58 am |
  9. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    This trolling of hits on your crappy music...(so that you can receive advertising money from YouTube?) is more annoying than articles about Evangelicalism.

    June 30, 2014 at 8:09 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LOL... Thanks Daniel, the video got schwacked before I finished typing...

      June 30, 2014 at 8:11 am |
  10. Theo Phileo

    Acts 5:29 – “We must obey God rather than men."

    June 30, 2014 at 7:25 am |
    • Reality

      The complete passage:

      Acts 5:29New International Version (NIV)

      29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings

      These are the same guys who ran out on Jesus when times got tough. And what they really were saying was "You must obey us other than other human beings". And this from a few mostly uneducated males from the first century CE. Give us a break !!

      June 30, 2014 at 7:37 am |
    • rogerthat2014

      Warren Jeffs lives by that verse. In a Texas state penitentiary of course.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:04 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      See and that is where the issue lies! Given that it is man who makes the laws of the land (and always has been), those are the laws you must abide by. Your god is one of many believed in and none get special privilege. Try to tell a judge that you refused to hire someone because they were LGBT and see how far your god's laws get you then. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice it; to stand on a street corner and preach it; to harass me by coming to my door and preaching it...not the freedom to dictate rights and laws.
      Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to impose the owner's beliefs on their employee's when their employee's probably have different view points. If this goes through, they will lose in much bigger ways. I'm hoping they are denied their request to remain bigots and intrude in to the personal lives of their employee's.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:20 am |
    • gauge2

      So what? Join a different book club.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:23 am |
    • igaftr

      "We must obey God rather than men"

      Said the men who imagined a god and wrote him into a book.
      By obeying "god" you really are obeying men.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:30 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Except of course that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was just a man.

        June 30, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          No evidence he was a man at all in fact.

          June 30, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          If you posit that Jesus never existed, then you are in the minority of minorities, and either you have never studied the evidence and writings (both holy and secular authors), or you are in the class of historical revisionists occupied by Bart Ehrman, the Jesus Seminar, and those guys who say that the Confederate States of America won the War of Northern Aggression in 1865.

          June 30, 2014 at 8:47 am |
        • igaftr

          sorry theo...ALL of the evidence of Jesus existance shows he was just a man. Same evidence as there is for you.
          It is the supernatural stuff there is no evidence for whatsoever....meanwhile there is a great deal of evidence that men made up the whole thing.

          June 30, 2014 at 8:51 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Really? then do tell, what evidence exists that "men made up the whole thing" as you say. And, while you're at it, show me how a prophet named Isaiah foretold by name 145 years before the deed was done who would free Israel from Babylonian captivity.

          June 30, 2014 at 8:57 am |
        • igaftr

          The fact that man has made up thousands of gods...the fact that many of those stories were taken from previous cultures, the fact that 90% of what Jesus allegedly said was taught by the Buddha 400 years earlier...FAR more evidence of any of the supernatural claims, which is absolutely zero, nothing , not one shred of evidence ever.

          Note I never said conclusive, but you really have NOTHING, while we an see the creation of your religion mirrors countless others, and because we can see man likes to create gods and religious beliefs, it is obvious that your book is just another one on the pile of baseless made up nonsense.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:09 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          ...but you really have NOTHING...
          -----------–
          Actually, that's not true at all. And if you would read, I would be glad to give you a reading list of authors who build up cases that are irrefutable.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:12 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "And, while you're at it, show me how a prophet named Isaiah foretold..."

          Theo, people have shown you for individual verses on this BB time and time again. In case you don't believe what has been shown to you here, go talk to a rabbi – they should be able to show you the error of your Isaiah translation and interpretation. Then maybe you'll finally see how it has been hijacked for the purposes of trying to make Gullible's Travels, Part 1 fit Gullible's Travels, Part 2. You're always suggesting that I read this and that from classical theologists to learn the true nature of your Christ. What is obvious, from what you've posted so far on this is that these your "classical" theologists seem to place their bets on the unlikely – that Peter understood and could write Greek for instance.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          that Peter understood and could write Greek for instance
          --------------–
          And yet, you have never shown how one can actually make a statement like that. How do you know that Peter was uneducated? How do you know he didn't know Greek? I can take you to some backwater towns in Eastern NC where poor fishermen there speak several languages, and they never graduated high school. Same in Louisianna... Same in Florida...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • Doris

          What I alway find amusing is early Christian apologists and their "evidence" for supernatural things.

          Justin Martyr and others claimed that Satan was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order to fool people and that's why some other stories similar to the Gospels occurred before the Gospels. What I don't see any evidence of from these early apologists, is any evidence that they investigated to find to what extent the devil was trying to fool people (beyond their immediate needs for the deity). If it were true, maybe the devil's involvement was much more extensive and had all of them fooled as well.

          This may sound absurd to someone who grew up assuming their was ample evidence for the supernatural claims covered in the Gospels, but without ample evidence, involving another deity – especially one that was likely used to scare people into believing (and for the sake of explaining why something didn't seem right in historical sequence), is pretty fishy.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Doris

          I didn't say I knew Peter didn't read & write Greek, Theo. However, the evidence that you choose to ignore is that most NT scholars believe they have good reason to believe it was unlikely and it is one of several reasons, for instance, that they find it unlikely that Peter was the author of Peter 2, for instance.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:47 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "cases that are irrefutable."
          That is hilarious that you think that, but they are all refutable. Not one of them can show any "gods" exist. That refutes all of them.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:01 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Then GTFO out of my country and go start one of your, own, skippy...

      June 30, 2014 at 8:59 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        How come those who preach "tolerance" more than anyone else are the least tolerant of beliefs opposing their own?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Nice talking points, TheoCrat, but when YOUR beliefs end up in MY law code, I don't sit still for it...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:10 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          EXACTLY!!! Now you are in the place of Hobby Lobby. "What happens when YOUR secular beliefs end up in laws that I as a Christian must obey?" Now, what do you do when those beliefs collide?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Umm...since when does a CORPORATION have religious beliefs?...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:17 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Umm...since when does a CORPORATION have religious beliefs?...
          ---------------
          Corporations do not exist without people. Without people, a corporation is nothing. And you cannot place regulations on a corporation that do not place regulations on people.

          Let's say I own a Christian business, say a Christian bookstore. Would it be right to place a regulation on me that says that I have to give BOTH sides of the discussion, and start carrying heretical books like "Your Best Life Now" and "Heaven is for Real?" Or what about the delusional book "The God Delusion?"

          What about this, should a regulation be passed that would force PETA to accept members who eat meat and wear furs, and speak out to promote whaling in American waters...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am |
      • awanderingscot

        ellipsis
        isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Okay, you've got the cut-and-paste function down, and you even know how to add text to a docu.ment–now, I guess your next lesson is capitalization...

          June 30, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • awanderingscot

          isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

          June 30, 2014 at 10:21 am |
    • G to the T

      "Render unto Caesar" Matt 22.21

      June 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
  11. Reality

    And once again, the real abortion issue is by-passed:

    Only for the new members of this blog–

    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 Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : 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:

    "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."
    See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

    And from:

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," 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.'" (Maybe 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).

    June 30, 2014 at 7:20 am |
    • Reality

      From Guttmacher Insti-tute's 2014 report on contraception:

      "•The male condom is 98% effective with perfect use. However, the method failure rate increases to 18% with typical use. The male and female condoms are the only contraceptive methods available that also protect against STIs and HIV. [3,15,16] "

      June 30, 2014 at 7:42 am |
  12. thesamyaza

    lets talk for a moment say the supreme court does OK hobby lobby do to religious convictions, can I as a Druidic Shinto, not provide any western medical assistance at all for my workers. you know only cover what they get at the local herbals shop, because my faith is pretty anti synthetics in medicine, i mean its like so your broke you leg and want some Heroin derivative for it nope here is an opium salve close as your going to get, oh that's illegal and no insurance covers it, to bad, will power. pulled a muscle want some alive nope go get some Arnica oh no insurance covers that ether. Willpower.

    t just seams wrong to me to push my religious convictions on others, these are the things I do, it's unreasonable to ask others to make that choice.

    its just offensive to hand some one an anvelope entitled "health care plan" them to open it up and pull out the one peace of paper with a single word in bold print on the center

    WILLPOWER

    which i actually have in my cars first aid kit.

    June 30, 2014 at 1:21 am |
  13. realbuckyball

    Plan B does not cause "abortions". The heads of the world's OBGYN Departments agree.
    Turns out the biggest "abortionist" is Jebus, (if you buy into that nonsense). 50 % of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
    A clump of cells with no neural tube is not a "human", it's a potential human. No one here can say when EXACTLY "fertilization" EXACTLY takes place. It's a long complex process, not an "instantaneous "moment" (of conception).
    Just more religious fanatics who are ignorant of what they think they're talking about.

    Quoting from ancient texts, the writers of whom were TOTALLY ignorant of science, (they actually thought the ENTIRE baby was contained in the sperm, and if the woman was "fertile" if it could grow in her.), is in no way helpful to modern humans.

    June 29, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

      June 29, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Take your pick, and tell us when the (poof) "soul" pops in.
        a. sperm approaches egg ?
        b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
        c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
        d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
        e. sperm entirely in egg ?
        f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
        g. DNA replication begins ?
        h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
        i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
        j. 2nd DNA completes ?
        k. zygote forms ?
        l. zygote multiplies ?
        m. zygote begins to travel ?
        l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
        m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
        n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?

        There is no "absolute" anything in the Const'i'tution with respect to religion. If my religion says I can't/ don't have to pay taxes, is that to honored ?

        June 29, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          the soul has an Bio-electromagnetic field that's can be visible in certain condition, in ancient times it was called an Aura and Bio-electromagnetic called spiritual energy (Ki) so I'm guessing B.

          these does not change the fact that it is still a parasitic organism. it as does not change the fact the bible considers life to began when god breathes it into your longs. (First breath)

          Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

          "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:4

          June 29, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Genesis 3:19
          "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

          Psalm 39 :
          "Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again,
          before I depart, and am no more"

          Psalm 115 :
          The dead do not praise the Lord,
          nor do any that go down into silence".\

          No souls. No "immortality" (that early).
          Of course that changed, and we know approximately when that happened, but still no "soul" (for a while).

          When the Witch of Endor conjures Samuel's "shade", Saul asks the witch, "What do you see". She answers, "I see a DIVINE being, (the word is "elohim"), coming up out of the ground. (Only the witch could *see* or perceive the shade). Saul asks "What does he look like ?". She describes him. And the text then says, (just as the text in the New Testament does about the "Road to Emmaus" incident), "So Saul knew it was Samuel...etc" because of the description. The dead "shade" (all shades lived in Sheol in a "dormant" state) had to be inferred. In Hebrew culture, the dead did not have recognizable human shapes. or appearances. This is important later, when the same words are used about Jesus' "shade", and it explains why no one (was to to) recognize him.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • saggyroy

          Religions do not pay taxes, nor do they have to file the disclosure paperwork that other non-profits do. Then there is the parsonage exemption.

          June 30, 2014 at 5:29 am |
        • awanderingscot

          bucky
          you are lying once again concerning what scripture says. the medium saw a "spirit", not someone "divine"

          And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?”
          And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.” and he said to her, “What is his form?”
          and she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down. – 1 Samuel 28:14-15, NKJV

          June 30, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • realbuckyball

        a wandering scott,
        Wrong again.
        The word in archaic (Biblical) Hebrew, (which YOU know nothing about) is
        Read "The Trouble with Resurrection' by CHRISTIAN seminary NT professor B.B. Scott, and tell HIM he's lying.
        *As if * you know what he knows. Hahahahaha.

        The word is not "spirit". It's "divine" or "god-like".
        יג וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ אַל-תִּירְאִי, כִּי מָה רָאִית; וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-שָׁאוּל, אֱלֹהִים רָאִיתִי עֹלִים מִן-הָאָרֶץ. 13 And the king said unto her: 'Be not afraid; for what seest thou?' And the woman said unto Saul: 'I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.'

        June 30, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      bucky, the RWNJ language has a different definition of "abortion" than the one that actual sentient beings use. Remember, in RWNJ World, words don't have actual meanings...

      June 30, 2014 at 9:02 am |
  14. thesamyaza

    I'm so profile I'm anti human, lets reduce the population of humans on this planet before the chock out life for the rest of us. their population is killing our ecosystem, if we don't do something their won't be a life in the future

    June 29, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
  15. Vic

    I am a born again Christian Protestant —mainline— and I am totally against abortion except for when the mother's life is at stake; however, I have no problem with contraceptives since I believe conception happens at "implantation." Whether contraceptives prevent implantation or not, that's above my pay grade.

    Although most Pro-Life advocates believe life begins at conception, the definition of conception differs from one group to another. Some groups consider conception is the fertilization of the ovum/egg into a zygote during the first day or two after insemination. Others consider conception is when pregnancy begins. In medical science, pregnancy begins with implantation —the attachment of the zygote onto the wall of the uterus— eight to nine days after insemination.

    p.s. @Daniel Burke

    The passage you quoted from the "Book of Daniel" is actually Daniel 3:17,18.

    June 29, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
    • igaftr

      That is not what this case is about.

      The case is about whether a corporation can claim religious views, and if they can impose their will on others. Basically, they believe their beliefs trump their employees beliefs.
      It opens the door for someone to discriminate against gay people because of their views on the subject, or so any of thousands of religious based nonsense.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:44 am |
      • crittermomagain

        Or to refuse to hire women, because after all we are supposed to be at home.

        The entire argument is ridiculous. Don't want to follow employment law? Don't be an employer.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:09 am |
      • awanderingscot

        igaftr
        isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • igaftr

          Once again scot. no it isn't true. Just like most of your posts.

          Are you going to start in with the name calling now?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          how has the Christian faith ever wronged you personally? be honest.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          That's easy.
          The hijacking of the Pledge of Allegience to exclude those who do not believe. Caused a lot of issues for me when I refused to recite a lie.

          the Hijacking of the national motto. The national motto on our money is a flat out lie, and is an embarrasment to me personally.

          George H. W. Bush declaring ( while I was serving in the military, and just before he became president) saying that atheists not only are not patriots, but they should not be citizens, and declared it was because we are one nation under god...a belief that he can not prove...he never apologized.

          The fatc that there are many states that have laws that exclude atheists from holding public office is a personal source of embarrassment. The rest of the country should be embarrassed as well.

          Countless personal incidents where christians told me I am going to hell, that I am cursed, that I am "spritually dead" and many, many, many other incidents.

          My sister in law has an aunt who is a retired nun. When at a Thanksgiving dinner, she made me pray with everyone else, even though she knows I do not believe. The following year, she tried to lead everyione in grace. I told her that in MY house, she was welcome to pray in silence, but no religious display would be practiced at my table. She left and will not speak with me, causing an issue in the family. She could try to force HER beliefs, but when I stand up for my beliefs, it is an issue.

          I can go all day long on how christians religious beliefs effect me every day scot...all day long.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:33 am |
      • Vic

        Well, this is a new and uncharted territory.

        This is all based on the belief that Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine contraceptives are in fact abortifacient; therefore, it becomes a "religious right to exclude such contraceptives from ACA coverage" issue.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am |
      • awanderingscot

        igaftr
        "not what this case is about" .. well the, why do you mention gays then? and aren't you imposing your will on someone else forcing them to pay for something you don't believe in? sure you are.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • igaftr

          No scot.
          This case is about a CORPORATION that is claiming religious beliefs.
          If it is a CORPORATION, then legally, there is no individual, so religious beliefs are not a valid claim.
          HE incorpoarated, which puts him under a certain set of laws, and now he wants exclusion from those laws. He wants the protection of being incorporated but then wants to impose his beliefs. Cannot have it both ways.

          If he is allowed to impose his beliefs, it opens the doors for someone who thinks that being gay is a choice, and be able to discriminate based on their likely false beliefs.

          Can I, due to my beliefs, not hire black people because they are cursed descendants of Ham, cursed by god for the first murder? To you, that would be legal?
          If I believe that all christians are actually pawns of Satan, can I legally ask if someone is a christain and discrimate against them because of that? As a corporation?

          You have a lot to learn about const!tutional law , discrimination, and how they relate to individuals vs. corporations.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:06 am |
      • robrich72

        No, ifaftr. It is about truth and lies. It just so happens that where there is truth, my God is there. My God is the truth. And it simply seems to me that people are dancing, here. It's a waltz to the left, the a waltz to the right. Is is a baby, is it not a baby. Fools! If you are pregnant, it is a baby. If it is not a baby, then go home, you are not pregnant. Really, it is just that simple. (Oh, then their is the Plan B stuff. Well, if you take poison that will kill a baby when you suspect one is coming, then perhaps only you and The Lord, know if you have committed an abortion. And perhaps only The Lord. But who would want to put theirself in that position?)

        June 30, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
  16. fortheloveofellipsis

    Oh come on, kids, we know how this decision will fall out; I'll call it here the night before.

    5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby. Remember, you heard it here first.

    I'll even tell you how the vote will go: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy for Hobby Lobby; Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer against. The first fruits of Citizens United, the single most disastrous decision in the history of the SCOTUS. After all, the SCOTUS that told us corporations are people too, my friend, is about to tell us that corporations, like people, can have religious beliefs too. And can inflict them on their employees...

    June 29, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Yep. The Supreme Court was carefully loaded with conservatives that care more for their own political party than they do the Constitution. The republican party has become an ugly, un-American thing.

      June 29, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        Too simplistic.

        Were SCOTUS "carefully loaded" with liberal justices, as has been the case in the past, and were tomorrow's decision found not in favor of Hobby lobby, Republicans would be belly aching that " liberals care more for their own political party than they do the Consti tution."

        This is primarily about ideology, not party loyalty. As much as the members of the Court claim non bias in their interpretation of the Consti tution, it simply cannot be so. Ideology and presuppositions cannot help but come into play, hence the labeling of liberal/conservative. Problem is, when decisions are handed down that go against are particular bent, we tend to create blame.

        June 30, 2014 at 2:03 am |
        • tallulah131

          Frankly, all I want are Justices who look to the Constitution instead of their political party. Some of them are capable. But there are some who are not and they tend to lean toward the republican side.

          June 30, 2014 at 2:56 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Well, I called it. Right down to the individual votes. This so-called SCOTUS is as predictable as a clock. Does this make ME a prophet too, or does it mean I just understand the RWNJ "mind"?...

      June 30, 2014 at 11:39 am |
  17. tallulah131

    So basically, the story remains the same: Hobby Lobby does not think that women should be allowed to make their own reproductive choices. The religion of the owners should not be taken into consideration when it comes to a for-profit business obeying or disobeying the laws pertaining to for-profit businesses. A for-profit business is not a person and does not have religious rights.

    June 29, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
    • G to the T

      "A for-profit business is not a person and does not have religious rights."

      Agreed.

      June 30, 2014 at 8:09 am |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Until, of course, Kennedy Roberts and the Scalito Triplets say they do later today...

        June 30, 2014 at 9:32 am |
  18. observer

    The Bible NEVER mentions abortion. However, God did announce a procedure that apparently causes abortion.

    The Bible actually offers MORE to support abortion than to oppose it.

    June 29, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Religion has never really been about what "god wants". Religion has always been the tool by which people who want power bribe and scam people into giving them that power.

      June 29, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
    • workingcopy12

      "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" Psalm 139:13. You want a verse that prohibits abortion straight up: Though shall not have an abortion. It's not there. But if the God of the Bilbe exists, if that God has a plan for each one of us. If that God, is in fact, creating each person in the womb, then abortion is human kind's effort to supplant its will for His: the broad based definition of sin.

      June 29, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
      • observer

        workingcopy12,

        As I stated, the Bible NEVER mentions abortion AT ALL.

        June 29, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          Numbers 11 -31

          it details an abortion, and not just that when it may be called upon, here is a spoiler, when a pregnant woman cheats are her Husband, or the Husband thinks she did.

          11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure–or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure– 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"– 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath–"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. " " 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "

          June 30, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • observer

          thesamyaza,

          And, as typical of the Bible, there is no such concern or testing for whether the man is faithful.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • thesamyaza

          yes because it was woman who invented sin.

          seriously the whole book is garbage.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:58 am |
      • tallulah131

        So Workingcopy, you're saying that even though god did not include anything about abortions in the bible, he got it wrong and you know better?

        June 29, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
      • workingcopy12

        Why do you think He was required to account for every conceivable wrong? He gave us a conscience and told us not to murder. If you can't see that that encompasses abortion, you are truly ignorant.

        June 29, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • observer

          workingcopy12,

          Speaking of being truly ignorant, MURDER is a crime where a PERSON is killed and that is ILLEGAL. Abortion involves a FETUS and is LEGAL.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:07 am |
        • thesamyaza

          the bible only count murder as killing ones brother in faith. Christian on christian, Jew on Jew, Muslim on Muslim so what do you care when its a non christian who does not support your idea of life beginning killing their fetus.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:08 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        "But if the God of the Bilbe exists, if that God has a plan for each one of us."

        And if that is the case than obviously "god's plan" for some people is to be born and get cancer. Supporting Oncologists would be against god's will. You should be working to outlaw chemotherapy too.

        Asinine argument you have there.

        June 30, 2014 at 12:21 am |
      • awanderingscot

        akira
        isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:36 am |
      • bchev

        workingcopy12,
        What if "God's" plan was for that zygote to be aborted? If "God" had any other plan, how would humans subvert it. If humans are able to ignore "God's" plans, he's not a very effective god.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:10 am |
    • cskoog2014

      Excellent observation! The book of Numbers, 5:21-28 specifically references "drinking the water" to eliminate a pregnancy and the water in question contained an herbal abortifacient known as Silphium. This chosen method used to induce miscarriage was so widely used by the ancients that the plant was literally driven into extinction. Of course most of these so-called Christians never bother to read their own operator's manual and even most of those who do never bother to do the historical research necessary to put it all into context. Ah well, I guess ignorance really can be bliss.

      June 29, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
  19. lordssword

    The particular phase of divine omnipotence chosen by David is the marvelous development of a baby in his mother's womb. In a speck of watery material smaller than the dot over this i, all the future characteristics of the child are programmed—the color of his skin, eyes and hair, the shape of his facial features, the natural abilities he will have. All that the child will be physically and mentally is contained in germ form in that fertilized egg. From it will develop:
    . . . 60 trillion cells, 100 thousand miles of nerve fiber, 60 thousand miles of vessels carrying blood around the body, 250 bones, to say nothing of joints, ligaments and muscles.
    David describes the formation of the fetus with exquisite delicacy and beauty. "You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb." Yes, God formed our inward parts; each one a marvel of divine engineering. Think of the brain, for instance, with its capacity for recording facts, sounds, odors, sights, touch, pain; with its ability to recall; with its power to make computations; with its seemingly endless flair for making decisions and solving problems.
    And God knit us together in our mother's womb. This aptly describes the marvelous weaving of the muscles, sinews, ligaments, nerves, blood vessels and bones of the human frame.
    David bursts forth in praise to the Lord. As he thinks of man, the crown of God's creation, he can only confess that he is fearfully and wonderfully made. The more we think of the marvels of the human body, its orderliness, its complexity, its beauty, its instincts and inherited factors—the more we wonder how anyone trained in natural science can fail to be a believer in an infinite Creator.
    The psalmist reverts to the time when his body was being formed in his mother's womb. Notice here that he uses the personal pronouns I, my, me to refer to the embryo or fetus. The scriptural view is that human personality exists before birth and that abortion therefore, except in cases of extreme medical necessity, is murder.
    David was aware that God knew him through and through from the very beginning. His frame, that is, his skeletal structure was not hidden from God when David was being made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. It cannot mean below the surface of the earth; no one is formed there. In the context it can only mean "inside the mother's womb." A similar expression is found in Ephesians 4:9, which speaks of Christ as having descended into the lower parts of the earth. Once again in the context it refers to His entering the world through the ante-chamber of the virgin's womb. It is His Incarnation that is in view.
    When the psalmist speaks of his unformed . . . substance, he uses a word that means something rolled or wrapped together. Barnes and others think that the word most aptly denotes the embryo, or the fetus, "where all the members of the body are as yet folded up, or undeveloped; that is, before they have assumed their distinct form and proportions." Even in that preliminary phase of his existence, God's eyes beheld the sweet singer of Israel.
    And in God's book, all the days of David's life were recorded by the divine Architect before that historic moment when David announced his arrival by that first lusty cry.The psalmist thinks of God's careful planning in the creation of his spirit, soul and body. How precious . . . are His thoughts—His attention to the minutest details.

    June 29, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
    • tallulah131

      A for-profit business is not a human, therefore does not have religious rights. A for-profit business is subject to all laws that pertain to for-profit businesses, not matter the religion of the owner. If you cannot obey the law of the land, you should not be in business. Religious people seem to think that they deserve special rights even as they dry to deny others basic rights. Shame on them.

      June 29, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      You do realize, skippy, that MOST pregnancies-as in the numeric majority of them–end in what you would call "abortion," otherwise known as spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage. And the huge majority of those will end without even the mother knowing she had ever been pregnant. So are you saying that God is the biggest "abortionist" of them all?>..

      June 29, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      And in God's book, all the days of David's life were recorded by the divine Architect before that historic moment when David announced his arrival by that first lusty cry.

      -- So then, David had no free will. I see.

      (Such drivel). Prove one sentence of it is true

      June 29, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        And speaking of David and abortion...

        "13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 1 Samuel 12:13,14

        Guess he didn't have any plans for the child...

        June 30, 2014 at 9:02 am |
    • evolveddna

      lordsword..your god sure is wasteful.. why so may sperm to make one human if god has already programmed the human to be born? why not one supersperm that has info in it? This sperm wasting is across the board ..every critter.. we are no different . Why is that if we are "special"?

      June 29, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
      • observer

        evolveddna,

        Yes. Why all the bother? It would be a lot easier if God just kept making humans out of dirt whenever he wanted.

        June 29, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          observer
          isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

          June 30, 2014 at 9:38 am |
      • realbuckyball

        50 % failure rate. And they have the gall to call that "intelligent design".

        June 29, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
    • cskoog2014

      Dear lordssword, It never ceases to amaze me how you Christian hypocrites cherry-pick your Bible Verses. How about Hosea 3:16 where it says "...their infants shall be dashed to pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up." This was God's command and you seriously want to make a case for the rights of the unborn? Oh, and how about all of the innocent unborn that were slaughtered during the Great Flood and also in the destruction of Soddom and Gamorrah? Get a clue and cease and desist in your bearing of false witness!

      June 29, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Yes the Lord sure "respected" the innocent lives of the first-born of the Egyptians. Haha.

        June 29, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        cskoog
        isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:38 am |
      • awanderingscot

        cstoog
        there is no Hosea 3:16 you moron.

        June 30, 2014 at 9:54 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          He meant Isaiah 13:16, and yeah, it's right there...

          June 30, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • cskoog2014

          Yes, it was in fact Isaiah 13:16 – I misspoke.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          How about Crap 2;34;55 is that in the book or is it the whole book?

          June 30, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • cskoog2014

          You are correct, it was Isaiah 13:16 that I should have referenced – my mistake.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • cskoog2014

          You are correct – I misspoke. The reference was supposed to be Isaiah 13:16 – my mistake; but the base argument is accurate. Cherry picking the scriptures is paramount to lies by omission.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
    • thesamyaza

      but that single speck of Energy does not contain the inter written code of what the birth will be. diet of can alter everything from gender to body type.

      June 30, 2014 at 1:03 am |
  20. lordssword

    Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You.
    For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
    I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
    My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
    Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
    How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! – Psalms 139:12-17

    June 29, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      If you NEED to prove to someone you can copy-paste Babble quotes, we get that. The ONLY person you're going to impress is yourself. You have not demonstrated that human texts from 2000 years ago should guide people in 2014. First rule of conversation : know your audience. You get a "F" for today.

      June 29, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        rbb
        isn't it true the only reason you are here is to work on destroying someone's faith? isn't it true you are a hateful person with an evil heart here to attack people of faith and that's the only reason you are here? since you admittedly are an unbeliever, aren't you only here to attack people of faith?

        June 30, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          Well ....destroy faith??????????????????

          Faith is not based in reality...it's arbitrary arrived at by whomever is believing what they want to believe so if you feel that someone is out to destroy your FAITH...maybe you better REEVALUATE YOUR FAITH if its that weak........take 2 plus 2 which is 4 and can't be destroyed because it's based on facts through experiments...

          June 30, 2014 at 10:27 am |
    • evolveddna

      lordsword... who designed god?

      June 29, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
      • idiotusmaximus

        People have designed gods throughout history.....like Aristotle said 2400 years ago....IF HORSES HAD GODS THEY'D PROBABLY LOOK LIKE HORSES.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • cskoog2014

      You are either incredibly ignorant or downright delusional. See my previous response and seek help. For ye are as the Pharisees and I call ye hypocrite.

      June 29, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
    • igaftr

      Why do religious people always use that lame light/dark argument, when all darkness is is a measurment of light. Since we now know what light is, that analogy simply fails.

      You cannot separate light from dark...except when doing laundry.

      June 30, 2014 at 11:22 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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.