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. dandintac

    BOYCOTT HOBBY LOBBY!

    George Takei (Sulu on the original Star Trek), is calling for a boycott of Hobby Lobby. I will be dong so. I hear one recently opened in my area, and my wife and I were going to go take a look. Not now.

    The issue is not really religious freedom! The Greens are perfectly free to use or not use whatever birth control they choose. No one is forcing them. But they are attempting to dictate what BC their employees can use.

    I am not mollifed by the claim that the ruling is narrow, and only effects closely-held corporations and just on this issue. This is part of a "chipping away" strategy being broadly employed by the Christian Right. It may be only four of 16 BC methods, but believe me–more is coming, and soon. This opens the door to almost anything an employer wants to claim to be violating their religious belief. What's to stop them from firing single women, people who get divorces, gays, etc., claiming that they cannot employ such people because it somehow violates their free exercise of religion?

    If you believe that an employer has absolutely no business telling you what BC you can use, or imposing their religious beliefs on other aspects of your personal life, please join me in boycotting Hobby Lobby.

    July 2, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
    • kenmargo

      I don't have an Hobby Lobby near me. But I will spread the word!

      July 2, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
  2. kenmargo

    I was watching "The Rachel Maddow show" tonight. She stated the Hobby Lobby ruling isn't just about 4 forms of contraceptives. It's about ALL contraceptives. The supreme court expanded it's ruling to include ALL contraceptives.
    Hey we're lucky they didn't ban them outright. Ladies you should take this personally and hold republicans responsible. The money is coming out of YOUR pocket. Men have ins. coverage for viagra and cialis. Why can't you have coverage for birth control?

    What people fail to realize if we make women afraid to have s3x. Who are the straight guys going to sleep with? Sponges? You ladies better wake up or you'll be forced to be pregnant, barefoot and cookin' in the kitchen. Make sure you vote!

    July 2, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
    • dandintac

      Ken,

      I find that young women in our society are incredibly complacent on these issues. They take their easy access to BC, the broad covrage of it, the availability of this and other family planning–totally for granted. They have no idea how easily it could go away.

      July 2, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
      • kenmargo

        I think times are changin' Because you are messing with people's money. This is also affects men. If women are forced to have children, we have to pay for thm also and if we don't pay our AZZ will end upin jail. Not the justices. I have 2 daughters and I'm keeping them up to date with what's happening and making sure they vote.

        July 2, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
        • dandintac

          I have four myself–the youngest is 22. I try to keep them informed, but there are other influences on them.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
  3. truthfollower01

    Fill in the blank. It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when _______.

    July 2, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Trick question. Babies aren't in the womb!

      July 2, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        What is and when does it become a baby?

        July 2, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          There is no definitive answer. The most common "definition" is "when it is born". That's why everyone says a pregnant woman "is GOING TO HAVE a baby".

          July 2, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • kenmargo

          After it's born. As long as that baby is in the mother she should have total control. I'm going to tell you some "Truth". Slavery is over. You cannot tell a woman what to do with her body.

          Please understand 80-90% of abortions occur in the first trimester when it's a blob. I have a cold. I've blown boogers out my nose bigger than the fetus in the first trimester. When a woman carries a fetus late term, her intention is to have the baby. She'll only have an abortion at that late stage ONLY if her life and/or the fetus life is in danger.

          So stop with the "it becomes a baby when" question. You never cared before. Stop being phony and acting like you care now. Remember "GOD IS WATCHING" He doesn't like phonies.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "There is no definitive answer."

          Let's say that a building was getting ready to be demolished and it was your job to press the button to cause the collapse. If I told you that there might be a person in their would you still press the button?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Akira,

          Fill in the blank. It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when _______.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          No I wouldn't because there was a PERSON in there.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Most Christians seem to believe it's okay to TORTUROUSLY DROWN ANY BABY in a womb as long as it's KILLED by God.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Ken,

          "After it’s born."

          How does the baby change the final few seconds in the womb to the first few seconds outside of the womb? What do you call the baby the final few seconds in the womb?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "No I wouldn’t because there was a PERSON in there."

          You said above that there is no definitive answer as to when the child in the womb becomes a baby. If you can't definitively say, you are in effect, pressing the button.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Can you tell the difference between a chicken egg and a hen?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Non sequitur.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Stumped?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • kenmargo

          @ can't handle the truth 00

          I'll type it slow. Maybe you'll understand it then.

          When a woman carries a fetus late term, her intention is to have the baby. She'll only have an abortion at that late stage ONLY if her life and/or the fetus life is in danger.

          IT IS A FETUS UNTIL IT IS BORN. 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4. Until that baby comes out of her "Lady Bits" or stomach if it's a c section. IT IS A FETUS.

          I CANNOT GET ANY CLEARER THAN THAT.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          That's a red herring. Are we talking about aborting chickens?!?!

          July 2, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Just like you can't figure out the difference between a chicken egg and a hen, you apparently can't see a difference between an embryo or fetus and a person.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Ken,

          "When a woman carries a fetus late term, her intention is to have the baby. She’ll only have an abortion at that late stage ONLY if her life and/or the fetus life is in danger."

          That's quite a claim that you speak for every woman in the world. Also, concerning your "blob" statement, research the development of the child at 3 months.

          "IT IS A FETUS UNTIL IT IS BORN. "

          Why? What is it about the baby that changes in the split second the child leaves the womb?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Your argument is similar to whether there is any difference between someone who is 1-minute short of their 21st birthday and an adult and just as pointless.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          When does the child become a baby? Are you prepared to give a more definitive answer? Are you against abortions past the first trimester?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • dandintac

          When there are measurable brain waves. This is the best scientific and moral line to draw–balancing protection of actual human life with maximizing a woman's family planning options and giving her some room to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

          There is broad recognition in our society that when someone is brain dead, that's it–they're gone. Anything that made them what they were as a person–is dead. It's out ability to think that makes us a special human person with protection under the law and equal rights. So if a zygote, embryo or fetus is not yet "brain-alive"–then there are not yet a person, and should not be given rights under the law. The mother's decisions must prevail.

          When the third trimester hits, large-scale linking up of neurons commences, and regular brain wave patterns become measurable. At this point, abortion should not be allowed except for special medical reasons, such as to preserve the health of the mother or extreme deformity of the baby.

          This happens to be where Roe vs Wade draws the line, although the stated rationale was viability. Still, while the reasoning may not be the best, the line is appropriate scientifically and morally.

          The line drawn at the beginning of the third trimester provides the best balance between the interests of preserving human life and providing women with broad BC and family planning choices.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Read my answer next time.

          You are looking for some rule to FIX a point on a spectrum. Pointless. When does a person become "old"?

          The majority of people consider a fetus to be called a "baby" when it is BORN. That's the best we can do. You're wasting time.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Dan that is probably the most well put argument for this topic I have seen here. Well done. Of course, I don't expect the "pro-life" crowd to come back with anything resembling cogent thinking on this subject. It's always merely
          "bible bible bible you're a nazi bible bible life begins when I want it to bible bible".

          July 2, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Dan,

          Let's say you knew someone who had a head injury and wasn't registering brain activity. However, you knew that, given a little time, the brain activity would come back. Would you say it is okay to pull the plug on this person, knowing that the brain activity would come?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          If you had to choose between an embryo and an adult and only one could live, which would it be?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          How does the baby change in the final seconds in the womb to the proceeding seconds out of the womb that makes it a baby?

          Remember, if you can’t definitively say, you are in effect, pressing the button.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Akira,

          Dan's reasoning concerning brain activity falls apart upon examination. The child WILL have brain activity just as the patient in my hypothetical situation will have brain activity. Why is it okay to kill the child for this and not the patient?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          @truthfollower

          Can you give us a single case where that has ever happened? As far as we know, once you're brain dead it's over, you're done.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • dandintac

          truthfollower asks:

          "Let's say you knew someone who had a head injury and wasn't registering brain activity. However, you knew that, given a little time, the brain activity would come back. Would you say it is okay to pull the plug on this person, knowing that the brain activity would come?"

          Good question. If if was KNOWN that they would come back, then they're not brain dead–are they? They are still there in the realm of the living. However, a fetus that has not yet started its brain activity has not crossed the threshold into the living yet–at least their brain has not. It does not matter if they have the potential to become living–every human cell has this potential.

          I view the abortion issue as a grey area morally. It's pretty white early in the pregnancy, when a zygote or early embryo is microscopic, and becomes more grey as development continues. Clearly a line needs to be drawn somewhere–for example there is no significant difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day after. When there is a functional brain, capable of thought–that is the best place to draw the line. It satisfies multiple needs of society and the individual women concerned. Beginning of the third trimester remains the best place to draw the line.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          @truth

          Talk about apples and oranges. Tell me, do you know the difference between fetal brain development and someone going brain dead?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
  4. kenmargo

    A counselor at a New Jersey women's clinic says she filmed her own abortion to show that the procedure is "safe" and to help support other women through the process.

    Emily Letts, a 25-year-old former professional actress, had been working at the Cherry Hill Women's Center for about a year when she learned in November that she was pregnant. In a column for Cosmopolitan posted this week, Letts writes that it was her first pregnancy - an unplanned one - and she had no long-term partner.

    "I knew I wasn't ready to take care of a child," Letts wrote.

    Letts said she decided to have an abortion at her own clinic. It was early in the pregnancy, about two to three weeks, she said. Having searched online herself and been unable to find a video of what the procedure actually looks like, she decided to film it - in part to educate other women who feared it.

    "A first trimester abortion takes three to five minutes. It is safer than giving birth. There is no cutting, and risk of infertility is less than 1 percent," Letts wrote. "Yet women come into the clinic all the time terrified that they are going to be cut open, convinced that they won’t be able to have kids after the abortion. The misinformation is amazing."

    The anti-abortion group New Jersey Right to Life said Tuesday "it's truly sad that an aspiring actress would use this venue" to achieve notoriety.

    "Ending a pregnancy through the violence of abortion is not compassionate and is never safe for the defenseless baby who is torn to bits in his or her mother's womb," said executive director Marie Tasy.

    Letts said she opted for a surgical abortion with local anesthesia and no IV sedation because she wanted to experience the type of procedure women considering abortions most feared and to be able to better relate to the women who visited the Cherry Hill clinic seeking her help and advice.

    The video, which she posted on Facebook, is not graphic and shows Letts humming throughout the quick procedure. She says she received some hateful feedback, but also some that was positive.

    She says she hoped to inspire other women to not feel guilty about making the decision to have an abortion.

    "Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions. Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilty for not feeling guilty," Letts wrote. "I didn't feel bad ... and I am grateful that I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt."

    First published May 6 2014, 1:43 PM

    July 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Safe? Not for the baby.

      July 2, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        @ noah..agreed...the focus is always on the mother....hardly ever the child...they pretty much try to hide it out of the picture by not mentioning it

        July 2, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
        • kenmargo

          kermit4jc says:

          "@ noah..agreed...the focus is always on the mother"

          You don't care about the mother? If you don't care about the mother, how can you care about the baby?

          July 2, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          are you serious? you are not reading my posts and following along?????? OMG I never even implied I don't care about the mother....IM pointing out the focus is on the mother only and they leave the baby out of the picture

          July 3, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • dandintac

          "IM pointing out the focus is on the mother only and they leave the baby out of the picture"

          That's because at the stage where abortions are legal, what you call a "baby" is not yet a baby or a person. There is no functioning brain. There is no consciousness, no thought, nothing that makes us a person.

          If I could be granted a series of wishes by a genie or something, it would be that all Christians who are so quick to judge young struggling single mothers live a few years in their shoes. Maybe in a nasty trailer park, trying in vain to collect child support from a deadbeat ex, struggling to support a child, working at night, constantly judged by people who have never had to struggle in their life, wondering if they'll be able to feed their kid next week.

          My wife was abandoned by her Mormon husband with three children, one of them with Leukemia, another still in diapers, and pregnant with another. The child with leukemia required her constant attention. None of her judgmental Mormon "friends" or relatives lifted a finger for any real substantive help. Without welfare and Medicaid, the child with leukemia would have died, but the pro-lifers are always quick to condemn this sort of help too. All of their concern is on the unborn–who cannot even feel or think, and without a drop of real caring for those already in the world. Single mothers are constantly talked down and treated like sh!t by the rest of society. Is it any wonder so many would rather not carry a child to term that they are not ready to take care of?

          July 4, 2014 at 1:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          There is no consciousness, no thought, nothing that makes us a person.<-prove it..in fact..consciousness is a fickle kind of thing that scientist and psychologists/psychiatrists are still not sure of yet ...there is still debate about that

          July 4, 2014 at 2:53 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          You haven't expressed ANY concern for the mental or physical health of the mother.

          You want to FORCE her to increase the risk of her own death without ANY concern for her health.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          The woman in this story ... her health was not a factor in her decision to murder her son or daughter.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher,

          Please learn basic English:

          MURDER is the ILLEGAL killing of a person.

          ABORTION is a LEGAL procedure involving a FETUS.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes it I smade legal..but that is NOT morally right and I will STILL consider it murder...no matter what the stupid law says....people are buying into the crap

          July 3, 2014 at 2:03 am |
        • kenmargo

          @noah

          Letts writes that it was her first pregnancy – an unplanned one – and she had no long-term partner.

          "I knew I wasn't ready to take care of a child," Letts wrote.

          Her mental health was the issue. Not physical. So you're saying you want a woman to have a baby that isn't mentally ready to have a child.

          Are you sure you love children?

          July 2, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          So it was simply inconvenient for her? Time to grow up and take responsibility.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • kenmargo

          "So it was simply inconvenient for her? Time to grow up and take responsibility."

          She did.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Clearly she did not. If you're old enough to play adult, you're old enough to know what might happen if you do.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Play adult? She's 25 years old! I noticed you haven't said one thing about the dad! Why is all the focus on her? doesn't he have some responsibility also?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          BWHA HA HA HA! so what shes 25 years old in age..mentally she shown she isn't! LOLOLOL my goodness....there are 40 year olds who still act like kids...shouldn't say she is all grown up and responsible cause she is merely 25!

          July 3, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Of course he does. But pro-choicers often deny the man any rights in these cases. "It's her body!"

          July 2, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Please explain "HIS" rights. I can't wait to hear this! (or read)

          July 2, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher,

          and the Anti-choice crowd believes it their body to dictate what happens.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          The child is going to be his son or daughter. Of course he should have rights. And he should be a man and step up and take responsibility.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Correction: IS his son or daughter.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • kenmargo

          @noah Be SPECIFIC. What are HIS rights? I think it's a woman's right to have an abortion. You don't think so.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "MURDER is the ILLEGAL killing of a person."

          Did Hitler murder the Jewish people?

          July 2, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If a blastocyst is a baby then an acorn is an oak tree and squirrels are responsible for more de-forestation than all the lumberjacks in history.

          July 3, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • kermit4jc

          terrible analogy..a tree is not a being

          July 3, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Every tree is most definitely a unique living enti/ty.
          Seeds and eggs are effectively the same thing.

          July 3, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          you are changing words here..IM talking of a personalble being....a tree does not talk to you...it doesnot have an emotional relationship to you...comparing humans to trees? come on, get real...sure..zygotes and such don't talk..but they ARE humans even if you don't think they are.....they are not potential humans either....they have all the traits of being human....

          July 3, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          They are potential humans, just like every woman's eggs and every mans sperm is a potential human being

          July 3, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          comparing apples to oranges....seeds and eggs are not same as fertilized egg..which contains all the dna a human needs....eggs and sperm do not contain all DNA on theirown, only till they converge

          July 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Doesn't matter. They are still potential human beings. For people that believe something mystical happens when a sperm and egg meet, I can see why you think it is a baby at that point. The problem is, nothing mystical does happen. It is just biology and happens to virtually all life forms on this planet.

          July 3, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "..a tree is not a being"

          Why isn't it? It is alive...it reacts to injury, some tress have been shown to nurture their young, they react to attack by other plants, and some attack other plants while avoiding attacking their species.

          It has been shown that plants/trees do have many of the behaviors we see in animals, including ourselves.
          These findings are making us question the whole idea of what intelligence is.

          When you chop a tree, it reacts...that smell of fresh cut grass...is not the smell of the cut grass, but a chemical it releases when injured.
          Perhaps a tree will ignorantly say you are not a being.....

          July 3, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • kermit4jc

          sheesh..playing semantics here aren't we? IM referring to a being that has a soula conscious and all..trees don't have that

          July 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          People don't have souls either...at least not provable ones. That is just something you believe.

          July 3, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • bostontola

          There is solid science showing that plants respond to the sounds that caterpillars make when eating plants and that the plants respond with more defenses. Chemicals are released that taste bad to to the insects. By just playing recordings of the sound and measuring the chemicals in the leaves, it has been definitively demonstrated. Plants also give off chemicals into the air to warn adjacent plants that they are being attacked by insects. Those plants then synthesize insect repellant chemicals. Other plants emit chemicals to confuse insects that cooperate to attack plants. Plants have their own form of intelligence and are very active.

          July 3, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          A zygote is single cell which is formed immediately after fertilization.
          The zygote then becomes a blastocyst with a diameter of about 0.1-0.2 mm .

          July 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I wasn't born yesterday....sheesh..I know all this info

          July 3, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If you argued that a foetus has all the characteristics of a human being, that'd be more legit.
          In nature, around half of all fertilized eggs (zygotes) are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
          Do you consider those to be dead babies?

          July 3, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          dead humans..sure....

          July 3, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • austin929

          good question.

          July 3, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Do you hold a funeral every time your wife menstruates then?
          A/ssuming you were intimate some time between periods, there's a good chance she expelled a human being.

          Now – estoeric concepts such as "the soul' put aside for a moment (since The Bible states that nobody can know when ensoulment happens despite the many differing opinions from prominent theologians throughout the ages), what characteristics define a human being and how does a single cell possess them all? Remember, you reject the idea of "potential human", so to say that it has the capacity to develop the neurons necessary for thought is a non-starter.
          So, does a zygote think and feel?

          July 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          my wife does not let out fertilized eggs at menstruation time...uh..don't ya know the womans body?

          July 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          KERMIT:
          "n nature, around half of all fertilized eggs (zygotes) are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time."

          So there is a good chance that between periods, a HUMAN BEING was mercilessly expelled from your wife's uterus.

          July 3, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          it may be possible..sure..but that don't mean I get to hold a funeral everytime.....I wouldn't know if there was one expelled....kind of ridiculous to go thatway

          July 3, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Yep. Looks like God is constantly doing non-surgical abortions.

          July 3, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You're being awfully glib about your complicity in the death of human beings – and not potential humans either....they have all the traits of being human.

          I'm still waiting for you to explain what those traits are in the single cell.

          July 3, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • dandintac

          In response to Kermit's comment above,

          "There is no consciousness, no thought, nothing that makes us a person.<-prove it."

          No problem. This can be proven by measuring brain waves. It is well-established beyond reasonable doubt that if there is no brain waves, there is no brain activity, therefore no consciousness.

          Furthermore, before the beginning of the third trimester, there is no signficant linking up of neurons. In other words, there is no functioning brain.

          There is far more evidence for the beginning of conscious thought near the beginning of the third trimester than there is for the existence of any gods.

          There is no controversy about this–except perhaps amongst certain Christians grasping at straws in their struggle against logic and evidence.

          July 4, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
      • kenmargo

        You said you have a 3 month old baby. Is the 3 month old still in the mother? NO. According to the article it was 2 to 3 weeks after she realized she was pregnant. There's no way you could compare your 3 month old baby to a fetus in the first trimester!

        July 2, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
      • dandintac

        topher–there was no baby yet. No functioning brain, no human being.

        It is our ability to think and reason that makes us human and distinguishes us from all other animals, a piece of tissue, and a baby from an embryo with no measurable brain waves.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      ""I knew I wasn't ready to take care of a child," Letts wrote."

      This says a lot..kudos to her for doing the right thing for her.

      July 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        ... but not the right thing for her baby.

        July 2, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher,

          Maybe she did the best thing for her NEXT child which she would love and want and give a MUCH BETTER life.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          EXACTLY...what selfish ideals..not love the first baby..but love the next one....she has no love whatsoever..she knows no love whatsoever

          July 3, 2014 at 2:07 am |
        • kenmargo

          @noah,

          You have zero idea if the fetus will survive? She could miscarriage, still birth, the mother could die giving birth. Birth defects etc. There are no guarantees.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          She wasn't ready for a child...at least she admitted this and didn't bring a child in to this world to add to the numerous that are already waiting to be adopted.
          It's her body, it's her choice and since you're not paying for the cost of raising that child, it's not your business.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • kenmargo

          @noah..........Knowing what we know now. Should Osama Bin Laden mother aborted him?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          No.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • kenmargo

          WOW. So even if the baby grows up to be a murderer of 3,000 people that's ok by you. You have a 3 month old. What if she was a victim?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          kenmargo

          "WOW. So even if the baby grows up to be a murderer of 3,000 people that's ok by you. You have a 3 month old. What if she was a victim?"

          You could never look into the future and see what that person would choose to do in their life. It's a straw man argument.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Ken

          Do you think murderers and rapists should be punished?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher,

          It would be interesting if God could be punished for his "MURDER" of EVERY child, baby and fetus on the face of the earth.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          God hasn't murdered anyone. And you're avoiding the question.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher

          I'm not avoiding the question since it wasn't asked of me, but I'll answer it.

          Yes murderers including God should be punished. Although the Bible doesn't support punishing rapists, they should be punished.

          Do you think murderers and rapists should be punished?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          God never murdered anyone. But He does get to say who dies when.

          And yes, murderers and rapists should be punished. And thieves. And liars.

          And God says that ALL liars will be punished in the lake of fire. Because that's how high his standard is. He demands perfection.

          That's all for me for tonight. Have a good night, everyone.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Science Works

          But topher

          it made woman out of a rib eh ?

          July 2, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Whoa big fella. One at a time.

          Should rapists and murderers be punished. Sure, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

          Way ahead of ya. Abortion isn't a crime.

          God can't punish anyone. God isn't real.

          You're right. We can't predict the future. But, If you can as'sume the baby is going to be good. Why can't I as'sume it's going to be bad?

          I know I wish Osama bin Laden mother aborted his azz. Since all childred are "gifts" from god. I guess Osama is a gift also. If god creates a man that can kill almost 3,000 people. I know I won't worship him. GUARANTEED.

          July 2, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          here we go again playing the idiotic blame game..God created man with FREE will! the MAN (Obama) is SOELY to blame for HIS actions that HE chose to do..NO blame on God

          July 3, 2014 at 2:12 am |
        • kenmargo

          Ok noah is calling it a night. When the questions get toooo intense. He shuts it down. He'll be back on as soon as he finds a safe landing spot.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " And you're avoiding the question. "
          Absolutely the funniest post in weeks, from the master of deflection.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I was watching "The Rachel Maddow show" tonight. She stated the Hobby Lobby ruling isn't just about 4 forms of contraceptives. It's about ALL contraceptives. The supreme court expanded it's ruling to include ALL contraceptives.
          Hey we're lucky they didn't ban them outright. Ladies you should take this personally and hold republicans responsible. The money is coming out of YOUR pocket. Men have ins. coverage for viagra and cialis. Why can't you have coverage for birth control?

          What people fail to realize if we make women afraid to have s3x. Who are the straight guys going to sleep with? Sponges? You ladies better wake up or you'll be forced to be pregnant, barefoot and cookin' in the kitchen. Make sure you vote!

          July 2, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        not so..she should not have conceived it in first place..had MORE responsibility in her se x life

        July 3, 2014 at 2:06 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Do you only have sex for the purpose of pro-creation? Have you never had sex in the heat of the moment?
          Thankfully voices like your voice are being silenced more and more, Roe V Wade will never be over-turned, so your battle is lost and as always the facts win out over religious nut jobs.

          July 3, 2014 at 4:47 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Oh Geez....grow up! of course..and when it happens I will take responsibility..so will my wife! that's NOT reason to justify murdering a baby..and I said it numerous times before..se x is not for precreation only! how many times do I have to say that to you truthprevails?? huh?

          July 3, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "NOT reason to justify murdering a baby"

          Again, if you just used a DICTIONARY you'd see that "murder" is the UNLAWFUL killing of a PERSON, while "abortion" is the LEGAL killing of a fetus.

          "murder" is more like when God killed EVERY child on the face of the earth without them committing ANY crime or even a sin.

          July 3, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that's nt definition of muder by a god...very poor...show me that God has noright to take life..and yo assume that death is punishment in all cases...sorry..thats another ignorant statement

          July 4, 2014 at 2:42 am |
  5. lunchbreaker

    I recommend Implanon for birth control. It lasts for 3 years and while some strangely don't like this particular side effect, it completely stops the menstral cycle. My wife and I enjoy that. Just imagine fella's, no babies and your wife'e aunt flo doesn't come to visit.

    July 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Does insurance cover it?
      Is the procedure complex?
      Are there other side effects?

      July 2, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Does insurance cover it?
        Mine doesn't fully, we had to pay about $200, but compare that to the cost of 3 years worth of condoms
        Is the procedure complex?
        Local aneasthetic, inserted under the skin of the inside of one of her arms, with a device that inserts it in one motion. Removal is slightly more complicated.
        Are there other side effects?
        My wife hasn't had any other side effects. I'm sure there are other's listed on medical sites. My wife has used it and other implants for over a decade, with no other side effects. Now I'm not sure of the correlation, but her boobs got bigger.

        July 2, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Why don't we hear more about it? It's cheaper than children by a mile.

          July 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • kenmargo

          You mentioned removal is complicated. Would you recommend it to a young woman in her 20's if she planned on having children in her 30's?

          July 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
  6. kenmargo

    I would love to be able make money providing birth control and/or abortion services. The religious right would hate my guts and I would love every second of it. The first thing I would do is have an abortion performed on TV LIVE to stop the nonsense that it's a baby. To show women how easy it is and to remove the stigma of having one.

    July 2, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
  7. noahsdadtopher

    "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

    James 4:4

    July 2, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Who is your target audience?

      July 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
    • kenmargo

      More worthless religious garbage.

      July 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
  8. observer

    kermit4jc,

    If your wife/sister/daughter/mother, etc. needed an abortion to save their life, would you say "tough luck" or do you SUPPORT ABORTION?

    Why won't you answer the question? It DOES OCCUR so why are you AFRAID to answer?

    July 2, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      i HAVE answrered the quesiton a couple of times..and from the readings wheer I said that it was a side issue SHOULD have given you something to chew on...are you so lame brained I have to spell every dsingle thing out for you?? serisously..i mean sorry to say such a thing..btu I have explained it over and over and frankly Im tired of you not paying attention to a da mn thing I said...that issue isa moot point because the REAL tragedy is the over 2 millions abortions done in name of convinience! and of those LESS than 1 percent is due to saving a womans life..thus it is nOT an issue at the moment..if you wantt to make THAT a side issue..then bring it...for me personally...I live with people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for another person...something that you people seem to show yo uknow nothing about..MY wife is willing to sacrifice her life for another...as is my mother and most of my fmaily (I have large family...cant say for those I don tknow) It would sadden me of course..but then again It would encourage me as well..to see that the yare TRULY loving people

      July 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
      • observer

        kermit4jc,

        Why do you persist in LYING? You have not answered the question. You just say it doesn't happen often. So what? That doesn't change a thing. It DOES HAPPEN so it is a VALID QUESTION.

        SO is your ANSWER "tough luck" or DO YOU SUPPORT ABORTION?

        Simple answer. Why so AFRAID to answer?

        July 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      i ansered you FIVE times in the last 3 days!!!! I am NOT going to answr again..do your homework buddy....I said it enough times you should have caught it

      July 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
      • otoh2

        Akira, I haven't seen it today, but a while ago he said he went to Simpson University (aka Simpson Bible College), a small (around 1200 students) school in Redding, CA.

        July 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        someone answer akira for me PLEEEASE..Im so sick and tired of repeating myself..AGAIN..for the 6th time!!!!!

        July 3, 2014 at 2:10 am |
      • Doris

        Well we all know how sloppy kermit's output is here. I suspect he received some kind of certificate or award from Simpson and he just didn't read it carefully. Maybe it was an award; not like an Oscar, but a Homer perhaps...

        July 3, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • kermit4jc

          nope..it was a four year bachelors degree....

          July 3, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        IM notgoing to answer..I already answered you too many times....Im tired of the BS youre pulling ok? Ask someone else about how I answered..I don't see you asking others..I know they saw my answers

        July 3, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        I NEVERpretended I was a doctor! that's YOu assuming and not reading myposts..see..this is what I mean about context..yuopeople don't CARE for context..thus YOU people make up stupid things about others...and about the Bible..I rest my case

        July 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  9. kenmargo

    Since there are people that believe women SHOULDN'T have all the birth control choices they deserve. What other choices do you want to take from women? Please state if you're a woman or man.

    July 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      whaty about absitnance? what is so wrong with waiting? we ALL can control our bodies.....do ANY of you have the urge to shag your loved one in plain view on the sidewalk and proceed to act on it? no! I pretty much would believe you all are not that perverted..yyoud wait till you got somewhere to do it..like home..a hotel...Humans ARE capable of controlling their urges...thus if you ar enot ready for having a baby..dont MAKE them in first place..wait till youre ready

      July 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation.
        how Catholic of you.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          i NEVER said such!.in fact if you been following me I SAID NUMEROUS times that se x is NOT for procreation ONLY..in fact maybe a few words should have given you the implicaiton..using se x RESONSIBLY should have given you a hint

          July 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what????

          July 3, 2014 at 2:11 am |
        • Science Works

          Say what kermit – the devil in the bedroom is completley NUT !

          The religious right’s #1 obsession: Policing women’s se-x lives by any means necessary

          http://www.salon.com/2014/07/03/the_religious_rights_1_obsession_policing_womens_se-x_lives_by_any_means_necessary_partner/

          July 3, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          IMstill lost as to what youre getting at

          July 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Science Works

          Well Kermit someday you might get it – But maybe not ?

          Extinct human cousin gave Tibetans advantage at high elevation
          Date:
          July 2, 2014
          Source:
          University of California – Berkeley

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140702131738.htm

          July 3, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOWHERE does thatarticle show or claim fossils and that they are common ancesotr with apes.....in FACT...they sait is is MYSTERIOUS ancestor......there is hardly AnY confidence that the Denisovans was a common ancestor to apes or even "partly human"

          July 3, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Science Works

          Crickets eh kermit ?

          July 3, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          MAKING certain words in all CAPS apparently makes your argument MAKE more SENSE!

          July 3, 2014 at 2:53 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Hawaii....this guy has real anger issues and is totally unable to control himself. I believe you can get your point across without being a total p-rick. He can't.

          July 3, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • kermit4jc

          would You not get angry after having to repeat yourself for the umpteenth time about something???

          July 3, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Nope....and I don't. I find myself constantly repeating myself in this blog.

          July 3, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yeah..your cronies aint harassing you..of course

          July 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          No, but yours do.

          July 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Akira, not only has he not answered, he won't. He is too heavily invested in the fiction of being a "doctor".

          July 3, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I have answered...MAYBE the blog is nOT posting my answers? I been answering 6 times now...ask around please, stop making sensless accusations

          July 3, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kermit
          The argument you give is that people should abstain from se.x until they're ready to have a baby.
          This implies the idea that the primarily desired result of intercourse is to make a baby – that a couple must be open to the possibility of breeding each time they get it on.
          And that is a very Catholic way of looking at s.ex.
          "Just say no" doesn't work when it comes to s.ex – abstinence is an unrealistic ideal and when coupled with imposed shame and guilt for failure can be psychologically damaging.
          It's like telling gay people that they can get right with God if they just decide to forgo the kind of relationships to which they are naturally inclined for the rest of their lives.

          July 3, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT at all! I said it in the CONTEXT of using it RESPONSIBLY...knowing that children would be an outcome....you don't read very well do you?

          July 3, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          btu I am NOT instilling shame or guilt as you presume!

          July 3, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Are you referring to my BS degree?

          July 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          sheesh....how much clearer can you get with :se x is not for procreation only? I said THAT many times! word for word!

          July 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Yes, but you also said that couples should not have s-ex unless they were ready to conceive a child....just in case. I can see where people were confused

          July 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and I ALSo said MANY times that se x was NOT exclusive to procreation..WORD FOR WORD

          July 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          OK.
          I'll have you know that I worked hard to get my Sacred Theology Doctorate from the University of Baptist Scripture.
          I'm very proud of the STD I got from the U of BS.

          July 3, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
      • observer

        "..Humans ARE capable of controlling their urges...thus if you ar enot ready for having a baby..dont MAKE them in first place..wait "

        Great idea! No more r@pes! No more failed contraceptives! And of course no more abortions for women needing them to SAVE their lives.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Kermit as usual you didn't answer the question. What else do you want to take away.

        You and others keep saying wait. Give us YOUR IDEA of when a women should be allowed to have s3x. Hopefully the man will agree.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHICH quesiton you referring to???

          July 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Kermit for junk christ

          WHAT OTHER CHOICES DO YOU WANT TO TAKE FROM WOMEN?

          July 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          nothing else sir..just taking away the choice to murder a baby is all Im going for

          July 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          nothing else sir..just taking away the choice to murder a baby is all Im going for

          July 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • kenmargo

          It's amazing a man that calles himself a christian can lie like that. It's NOT a baby. That's why I want to televise an abortion. There was a woman that put her abortion on the internet. unfortunately it wasn't a graphic display.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          it is a baby....just because yu ouse a scientific temr does NOT negate the FACT it is a HUMAN beiong! and televising it would defeat your purpose once people find how violent abortions truly are! apparently YOu don't know what abortkion entails! WHY do yo uthink people find posters of aborted children OFEINSIVE? (And Im referring to those who want the abortion) they fight for to make people stop carrying signs of aborted fetuses around clinics and anywehere else cause they find it offensive

          July 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          The stages of development are embryo, fetus and then baby.

          As people say, a pregnant woman "IS GOING TO HAVE a baby".

          July 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kermit
          The "shock and awe" graphics used in anti-abortion campaigns are typically of a late term foetus.
          The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed within the first few weeks of pregnancy, before the embryo becomes a foetus. Meaning before there has been sufficient development to allow the development of a nervous system that allows for even the semblance of thought.

          July 3, 2014 at 11:13 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        We are sexual beings. We need to stop shaming sex.
        I'm not going to convince you change your opinion but I don't think it ever hurts to hear another side.
        We have witnessed the reality that abstinence simply doesn't work, if it did we'd have a lot less people on this planet.
        We know that people get pregnant against their will more often than we hear...incest and rape are shameful and so announcing it is not easy.

        Tell us please since you seem to have this all figured out: What is your opinion on tubal ligation or vasectomies? Both are measures to prevent pregnancy.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
  10. kermit4jc

    but not his ONLY last words..again thats something thats being added and assumed..the FACT is that the accounts are from eyewitnesses and they have different things..thenj OBVIOUSLY he said them all..there still is nOTHING to restrict he said ALl those words.....

    July 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Alias

      kermit
      when the book saya he said ' whatever ,' then he gave up his ghost; it means that he diesd immediately after saying 'whatever'.
      If the author had just picked a good quote he had said at some point while hanging aroud, it would have been recorded as such.

      July 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        like 1 second later he died? without uttering another word..NO time to say anything else eh? what silly logic and reasoning..sorry..but FACtis..since there are SEVERAL things that witnesses say he said...it is VERY logical he said them all...WHERE did ANY eywitness say they were exhastive in reperting every single detail?

        July 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Yes, the Bible is full of quotes from not fully reliable sources.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          adress the quesiotn please..did he die one second later, leaving no time to say anything else..and how do yo uknow they are unreliable? scholars have shown Luke was exrtremly reliable..and no one has yet to satisifactorly debunk that..even secular historians agree he was very reliable!

          July 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          If the Bible was full of "FULLY RELIABLE" witnesses, there wouldn't be so many versions of Jesus's death and what happened later.

          July 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          There are no differing versions of Jesus death and what happened afterwards....don't say IM ignorant either..cause I know of some of the so called "contradictions" I studied the Bible over 25 years and I teach it to adults.

          July 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          No contradictions like in how many people were where?

          Your logic apparently claims that if one person says there were thousands of people at a game and another person says there were 5 people at a game, they both are "reliable" since there were 5 people in the thousands.

          July 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HUH?????? where did you get that from?

          July 4, 2014 at 2:31 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So the Mormons have a bunch of account written down from people who claimed to have seen miracles and Joseph Smith said he had the golden plates and translated the "reformed Egyptian" text into what is now the Book of Mormon, why don't you follow them now? There were eyewitness accounts from within the last two hundred years, surely they are more reliable than accounts written some twenty years after the fact more than two thousand years ago, right?

          The fact is people are stupid and they make shlt up to explain the unexplanable so their heads don't explode. Ever try to remember something and you know you know it and it's right there in the back of your brain but you just can't grab it? How frustrating that feels? Thats is how people feel when they witness the unexplained and their brains then fill in the blanks and come up with an explanation that usually involves them in some way so they can keep pretending to be sane.

          More and more people are rejecting stupidity which is what has organized religion so worried, it was their bread and butter for thousands of years. Now they are going to have to find real jobs providing goods and services for other humans instead of just stroking their egos giving them emotional hand jobs for money as virtually all priests and pastors now do. "You are the best! God loves you! God wants you! You are forgiven all your sins! Now please pass the plate..."

          July 3, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
  11. observer

    kermit4jc

    "why do you propose to think for me and speak forme? I find that arrogant...you don't know me..you do NOT know my wants...."

    CLASSIC line from someone who CLAIMS to know that gays are not telling the truth about always being that way.

    WELL DONE. Your lack of logic can be ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.

    July 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      CLASSIC line from someone who CLAIMS to know that gays are not telling the truth about always being that way.<-did I say they were lying???? youapparently cannot read..I never said such things..please refrainfrom putting wordsin mymouth as well..thanks

      July 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        my God..are you seirous...that I would iply they lie? HOW about they are MISINFROMED? huh? why do you and other like you always assume only ONE other option out of many? From my view I never even IMPLIED they lied..all i see is they are misinformed, and unfortunately taking the bait from others.....

        July 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • observer

        kermit4jc,

        How about just a TINY BIT of HONESTY from you?

        You have claimed that being gay is a choice. Skip the LIES.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • observer

        kermit4jc

        "all i see is they are misinformed"

        Another CLASSIC line. So gay guys who ALWAYS wanted to play with dolls are MISINFORMED that they did that? Guess they MISINFORMED themselves.

        Classic!

        July 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your last post does not merit much a response..playing with dolls and such..that almost is offensive to gays as you think my words are offensive to gays.....plus....Im referring to REASON...the HOW......sheesh...try to read my FUILL posts instead of skimming ok?

          July 2, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
      • observer

        kermit4jc,

        I have heard several gays say such things on national tv.

        TRY to address my statements. You completely FAILED to divert the topic.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          read all my posts..i have addressed them

          July 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        however..YOu have not addresssed the WHERE and HOW in your questions..you ONLY state they are attracted...I di dnot deny they are attracted....neverf implied it.....MY argument has ALWAYS been the source! the HOW and WHY....

        July 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        they are baited t obelieve they have nothing to do with it...that its not a choice but that they are born with it...even though science has YET ot reach a definitive conclusion!

        July 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • igaftr

        kermit
        "even though science has YET ot reach a definitive conclusion!"

        From everything I have read, all of the scientist HAVE agreed on one thing....it is not a choice. There is NOTHING to support that assertion. There are many factors that come into play, that is true,,,but all agree...choice represents a conscious decision...there is no conscious factor involved that any can find.

        July 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          then y ouhave read very few and very little! you ever notice wording in the studies yo uread? words like "perhpas" "maybe" "possibly" those do NOT come from defintive conclusions! they still are in DOUBT!!! and not very many agree on that...try it..read those studies again..look for those words and see how confident they truly are in saying itis not a choice

          July 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        You were born that way. You are WIRED that way.
        The how and why are PRECISELY THE SAME, EXCEPT FOR THE SANE GENDER!<-again no studiy has conclusively shown this as fact....

        July 2, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        maybe you should learn to read those studies closer...tell me....what does "probably" "perhaps" "may" mean to you..are they words used in CONCLUSIVE findings??

        July 3, 2014 at 2:05 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        Akira...it is virtually impossible to argue with anybody that believes that being gay is a choice. I don't need scientific proof to know that nobody in their right mind would choose to be ostracized and impugned the way they are. The people that truly believe it is a choice are idiots.

        July 3, 2014 at 11:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ten we don't choose to be Christians either.....we are born this way 🙂

          July 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....actually, you are born that way. And, if you had been born in the mid-east, there is a 95% chance that you would have been born a Muslim. And, if you had been born in India, there is a 95% chance you would have been born a Hindu. So yes, you are right that you were born that way.....or at least indoctrinated that way.

          July 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          bad argument..Im going on according to being BORN that way genetically..not geographically

          July 4, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....this is too easy. Had you been born in India, there is a 95% chance you would be a Hindu. If you had been born in the middle east, there is a 95% chance you would be Muslim. Aren't you lucky you were born in the geographical area most prone to Christianity? With only a 5% chance in most other places, I doubt your particular god would have found you. Chances are good that you would be chanting 'kill the infidels' right now.

          July 4, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your argument is a red herring...sidestepping the issue....

          July 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....had you been born in India, there is a 95% chance you would be Hindu. Had you been born in the Mid-east, there is a 95% chance you would be a Muslim. Those are actually facts, not conjecture. Sorry you do not like facts, but they are indeed, facts.

          July 6, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I DO NOT care..because that is nOT what IM talking of! IM referring to GENETICS.or the supposed thoughts that genetics played a role...YOU are basing yous on CHOICES....youre missing out entirely on the point and line of argument....I NEVER denied that what you said..MY beef is your argument is nOT part of what we were talking of

          July 7, 2014 at 2:11 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....well, that is what I'm talking about. Aren't you lucky that your particular god allowed you to be born in a geographical area that indoctrinated you to the 'correct god'?

          July 7, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • kermit4jc

          who cares at the moment? youre distracting from the issue...if you wanna talk of that..we can make another issue of it ok? I think it is inappropriate for this line of argument I was in

          July 8, 2014 at 2:14 am |
  12. neverbeenhappieratheist

    It's a slippery slope... likely due to the placenta...

    July 2, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • tallulah131

      I really, really didn't want that image in my head.

      July 2, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      When I saw my infant daughter come into the world, I cut the umbilical cord with shaking hands and thought she was the most beautiful thing in the entire world.
      This feeling was short lived as immediately afterwards, the most disgusting, gloopy, slurping mess in the world followed.

      July 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
  13. kevinite

    Personally I find the SCOTUS decession rather unsettling. Perhaps in private organizations or clubs or nonprofits that might be acceptable but for businesses that do business with the general public to make money and hiring those who to work in a business that is open to the general public to make money, it does certainly seem like that SCOTUS decision provides a means to discriminate.

    July 2, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • tallulah131

      The SCOTUS is simply continuing on it's path to take the rights of citizens and give them to corporations. It's corrupt and unconstitutional, but I expect no better from Justices appointed by Karl Rove's pet President and their cronies.

      July 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
      • Reality

        But this is the same SCOTUS that approved the ACA, a law by the way that does not cover contraceptives for men. I am sure the SCOTUS will address this discrimination in the near future if Congress does not.

        July 2, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • tallulah131

          One can only hope. Men need to address their own contraceptive responsibilities instead of condemning women for theirs.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • tallulah131

          If they make abortion illegal, I would like to see that every father of every unwanted child not only do their part to support that child, but to also be forced to endure at least an equal physical burden to the one that the woman suffer for the length of the pregnancy. They should be forced to work through nausea, physical aches, hormonal imbalances and pain equivalent to labor. If a woman can be forced to bear a child she does not want, then the sperm-donor should do his equal share.

          If this were the case, then I bet abortions would not illegal for long.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OMG you pick pain over a person....how pathetic..that shows again the low value of life...its not worth the pain obviously...again showing how the person is more obsessed with self oand their own comforts

          July 2, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • tallulah131

          No, kermit. I think that you as a man will never actually have to deal with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. You get to walk away if you want, and on top of that you call women "murderers" for making the hard choices that you will never be forced to make.

          I think you are a punk and a fool and a bully, and that you care more for fetuses than for the real living women and the real living children who live with the consequences of poverty and violence every day, because too many kids are being born to people who don't have the emotional or financial resources to do the job right.

          I think that the only person you love is yourself, kermit, and that you embrace religion because it gives you the only authority and importance that you will ever have in your life. I think your god is your only friend, which is sad, because you can't even prove that he exists.

          July 4, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I will NEVER walk away from such a responibility

          July 4, 2014 at 2:55 am |
        • kermit4jc

          oh yeah..speaking out foe the unborn says I love myself more than others..GREAT sense of logic there

          July 4, 2014 at 2:55 am |
        • tallulah131

          Do you speak for every man, kermit?

          This is the simple fact. You will never be in the position to make the decision to have an abortion. You will never have to consider the factors of your life - your health, your financial and living situation, your current relationship, any children already have - and weigh them against what will happen if you carry an unwanted child to term. No matter what you claim, you have the option of walking away. The pregnant woman does not.

          It isn't cheap and it isn't comfortable to be pregnant, kermit. And when I mentioned pain, it was because most women don't have the luxury to simply stop working if they become pregnant. It's hard to hold a job when you're sick every day. You happily ignore the very real factors that affect a woman's choice, because you don't care. All that matters to you is what you have chosen to believe, damn the reality.

          Sometimes you don't get a good choice. Sometimes you just have to make the least bad choice available. But you just don't care, do you? I have never read a single compassionate word for women out of you. You imply that they're whores and you imply that they are murderers, but you don't even allow that they are humans. You save that designation for cell clusters that don't even possess nervous systems. How very misogynistic and messed up is that?

          July 4, 2014 at 3:24 am |
        • tallulah131

          Your misogyny is not virtuous, Kermit. Don't make yourself out to be a hero. You are nothing more than a jumped up bully.

          July 4, 2014 at 3:26 am |
      • Reality

        Again, it is not complicated, practicing safe se-x pertains to both partners. Don't practice safe se-x and suffer the Brutal Effects of Stupidity.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
    • G to the T

      On this we can agree. I don't see how a company can have "religious convictions" to begin with.

      July 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  14. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    "Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery."

    Don't forget the ACLU is an agent of Satan and the Communists...until you are said druggie conservative radio host being prosecuted by the gov't....then they are your best friend.

    July 2, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
  15. ausphor

    To whom it may concern.
    "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct for reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
    Old Thomas Jefferson knew a good scam when he saw one. I will continue to Ridicule, Deride, Mock and show Contempt for those poor suckers that have fallen for the scam.
    "The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster cruel vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast like god one only needs to look at the calibre of people that say they serve him. They are always of two classes fools and hypocrites." Old Tom, again reminds one of scot and Theo, in that order.

    July 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Why post any of the founding fathers as if they were experts? The only thing that separates them from many in this day and age is that they were willing to die for what they were most passionate about. It's hard to find anyone these days passionate about anything outside of their own notions of comfort.

      Thomas Jefferson may have been a great architect, but he was no theologian, and I've got pages and pages of notes outlining the Bible's doctrine of the Trinity, to and include parallels that call The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit all by the same ti.tles: the are each called God, Creator, Life Giver, Eternal, Savior, and on, and on. Do you want me to start listing these? Or would you rather just admit that Jefferson was an amateur in hermeneutics.

      July 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • tallulah131

        They are called Founding Fathers because they founded the government of the United States. It is important to remember that they very deliberately separated church from state and very deliberately gave rights to citizens, not churches, princes or corporations. It is important to remember this, so that you can be reminded how very, very unconstitutional this act by the republican members of the Supreme Court is

        July 2, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • ausphor

      Theo
      How does your mind work? Where do I say he was an expert? Like me he probably was a Deist and certainly was an anti (Christian) theist. My point being that even at the time of the founding of the country there were people in high office that saw Christianity as a scam populated by fools and hypocrites. You are the latter no matter how much you deny it.

      July 2, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        How does your mind work?
        ----------------
        Ummm, electrochemically?

        Where do I say he was an expert?
        ----------------–
        When people make quotations, it is usually to cite someone of some importance in a certain field in order to give credence to a position because of the expertise of the individual on the subject. For instance, I would not look for a quote from a lame man in order to make a point about ice skating.

        Like me he probably was a Deist and certainly was an anti (Christian) theist.
        --------------------–
        Right, and he even wrote his own version of the Bible, but without the miracles in it. (It was a pretty short book) So if he started with the as.sumption that miracles don't exist, then how can he make a definitive statement about the doctrine of the Trinity that is everywhere taught in the Bible?

        My point being that even at the time of the founding of the country there were people in high office that saw Christianity as a scam populated by fools and hypocrites.
        ---------------------------
        I don't argue that there were non-believers then, just as there are now. What is so sad is that there are actually so many people who attempt to use the Bible to their own gains, thereby coloring the Bible with the sinfulness of man. Theirs will be the greater judgment.

        You are the latter no matter how much you deny it.
        --------------------
        I'm sorry, how do you see me as a hypocrite?

        July 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "the doctrine of the Trinity that is everywhere taught in the Bible?"

          I find this very funny because Christians have stolen the God of the Hebrews and claim he is three gods when the Hebrews never worshiped a trinity and still don't. I have read the bible cover to cover several times, both Hebrew and Greek, and those few Greek scriptures that are the basis for the trinity doctrine are so thin its hilarious that anyone believes it. The fact that Theo claims it is taught "everywhere in the bible" is simply laughable.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I find this very funny because Christians have stolen the God of the Hebrews and claim he is three gods<-that's funny..we never said he is three GODS...he is three PERSONS..Father Son and Holy SPirit HUGE difference

          July 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          How does your mind work? You do not care what I think about you, remember, it is none of your business, so what is the point of asking me? Needless to say I will add that you are a pompous, arrogant hypocrite, not that it is any of your business. Mockery suits you.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          person: noun 1. a human being regarded as an individual.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          BTW let me follow up on "in order to give credence to a position because of the expertise of the individual on the subject."
          Now you have declared yourself to be many things on this blog from carpenter to business man. You have also declared yourself to be a long time biblical scholar and expert. So put your money where your mouth is for a change. What degrees do you have in theological subjects from what inst!tutes of higher learning, what peer reviewed papers or thesis do you claim to have published or is it all in your own mind, hypocrisy.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          From my study of the bible I had a hard time accepting the trinity I was told to teach and eventually it was one of the doctrines that made me question the whole thing and question the motives of my Church. The trinity is a lie and was never taught in the bible by any prophet or by Jesus. He consitantly re-directed attention to his father that sent him and away from himself as anything other than a tool being used by God to complete the ancient God Yahweh's will.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          What degrees do you have in theological subjects from what inst!tutes of higher learning, what peer reviewed papers or thesis do you claim to have published or is it all in your own mind, hypocrisy
          ---------------
          I never once have said that I attended seminary. As a matter of fact, many moons ago I carried out a conversation with Topher openly declaring that I've never been to college for theology.

          I hold a degree in Architectural and Mechanical Design.

          Since when is a paper on the wall the only qualification for being knowledgeable about something?

          July 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          So your so called knowledge is just what you say it is, how convenient for you. On an anonymous blog you can claim anything you want I suppose but your constant use of apologists as learned references belies your claims of personal expertise. Go troll you favorite web sites that tell you how to interpret every bible verse to suit your purpose, expert.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "we never said he is three GODS...he is three PERSONS..Father Son and Holy SPirit HUGE difference"

          Yes, that it different. People have limitations, unlike gods.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I did not say people....don't change words..I said persons..apparently you don't know much of definitions (PLURAL) of person...persons are nOT always considered human beings....One of the definitions you will find in the dictionary of a person is "a self conscious rational being".....that is not exclusive to human beings

          July 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Alias

          Kermit
          squabble over peop;e vs persons all you want, it does ot change the fact that the trinity defies logic.
          Even the RCC calls it a 'mystery'.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so ANYTHING that seems to defy logic can NOT be true..right> logic makes it truth.right?:

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          If something defies logic and is not provable, it makes it much less believable, so....yes.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Giod has been provable..He is Creator....all that you see did not come from nothing by itself

          July 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....prove it. Prove that we were created by a god, and not just a god, but your god. You have no proof, you have only a belief...big difference.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Ive already started it....by the fact of Creaiton..all that you see (and don't see with your naked eye) are products of creation...it did not appear out of the blue by itself...there was someone behind it.....to say there isno Creator God..THAt is fairy tales........

          July 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....you are just guessing. You do not know for a fact. And you certainly do not know for a fact that your particular god was your creator. You have no proof, you only have belief.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          LOL..not as much as scientists are guessing..it is LOGICAL reason....that nothing comes from nothing...using logic it has a creator.....using logic of the study of the cosmos down to the DNA..this is not chance....

          July 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          You can LOL all you want. You still have no proof that your particular god is any creator at all. You have no proof, only a belief.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Jesus is proof of that God..not of Zeus.....He claimed and showed he was God to eyewinteses..unlike Zeus....he was in real time..UNLIKE zeus....etc etc..sorry..but to argue or add zeus is comparing apples to oranges

          July 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...Jesus is proof he was a man. An exceptional con artist, but still just a man. You have no proof of any divine deity....none. You have no proof of any god, just a belief.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          oh yeah...a good con artist to fake his death (one does not escape flogging and crucifxion alive) he was good at convincing his disciples he was brought fully to life..he was good at walking great distances on feet that were nailed only days before...come on who are you kidding?

          July 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          You believe a man rose from the dead....who is kidding more here?

          July 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that does not answer the question

          July 2, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          but then of COURSE anything that is greater than us WOULD seem to defy OUR logic....

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          No....there are many things greater than us; the oceans, the planets and stars, gravity, etc that do not defy logic. And they are verifiable.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes...those are things...not personable beings...especially ones that create us...create all tings...think about it..if God is creator of all things....do you think we can box him in and make him logically in our puny finite minds?>?????

          July 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          That's the beauty part of your belief. You can make god out to be whatever you want, just like every believer of the thousands of other gods. You have no proof, just a belief.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          why do you propose to think for me and speak forme? I find that arrogant...you don't know me..you do NOT know my wants....please refrain from telling me what I want ok? I found the true God cause of what I FOUnd..I wanted truth and found truth..I did not make God to be anything.....

          July 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....contrary to what you think, we all know you on this blog. You make god out to be whatever fits your need. All of you that find god so admirable do it, you just do it with zealous passion, which of course gets in the way of reality at times. You are not logical and your posts reveal that about you.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and yuoall thought wrong..ididnot make Godout to be this way...sorry to burst your arrogant bubble

          July 2, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....I'm not being arrogant at all, just perceptive. Your posts tell people all about you. It's not very difficult either. You have made your god to be exactly what you want him to be and ignored reality, which shows him to be a spiteful p-rick. You let him skate on the destruction of the world, what he did to Job, etc. All with no proof.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all..youre perceotions are very wrong..this isnot something I got cause I want god to be this way.....just admit yorue wrong on this ok? I know myself better than you know me....second....youre FEELINGS about God does not make him so...so he seemed to be a pr i ck.....doesnt mean he is one..its from your personal perception that frankly has left out too much and does not want to seem to accept consequences for acitons

          July 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....nope, I am not wrong. Your posts make you an open book. The illogical way you defend every unreasonable action by your personal creator is astounding. You make god out to be exactly what you want him to be, with absolutely no proof....just a belief

          July 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and IM tired of you assuming..bring me PROOF that this is what i want..even your last post has nothing of worth to prove it....give me empircal evidence 😉

          July 2, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....your thousands of posts are the proof. They really are self explanatory, which is why everybody picks on you so badly.

          July 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          You believe what you want kermie, but after studying the bible for nearly 30 years and having read it cover to cover several times in my life I don't believe the Christ depicted believed in a trinity nor did any of his followers nor any of the prophets not even Abraham himself. The trinity is simply not taught in the bible and is only taught by Christian groups that accepted some very bad interpretations of a handful of scriptures that just happen to mention the father, the son and the holy spirit in the same sentence. For what should be a core tenet of belief that if true should be very clearly spelled out in the bible it is barely even inferred if at all.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          it is speledoutvery clearly..youforget this was written BY Jews....as such to look at it from Jewish point of view..the first Christains were JEWS, so to assume all Jews do not believe or accept this is misrepresentation. Jesus made it clear inJOhn 8:58 "Before ABraham was I am" showing that Abraham "was" had a beginning..and an end...Jesus did not have a beginning and an end..He IS Mark chapter 2 has Jesus forgiving sins.....only God forgives sins these two alone are veryclear and plain....in fact..so much so some of the Jewish leaders tried to kill Jesus for blasphemy!

          July 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • ausphor

          Doris
          A self conscious rational being, maybe in the dolphin species or maybe not. Kermi is a hoot.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Doris

          I was just thinking about the dolphin from kermit's response, ausphor. We seem to have more immediate evidence of a self-conscience rational being in a dolphin than in any alleged spirit.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          It also DEFIES ANY LOGIC that you could clam that God changed all the rules about killing people for working on the Sabbath but did so without changing his mind. Classic!

          No death penalty. No killing others. No punishment from mankind. Now anyone following that command is SUPPOSED to violate the Ten Commandments. No direct punishment on the SINNER.

          Yep. NO CHANGE. lol.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I agree with you..it does defy all logic from YOUR limited andmisinformed point of view! God is all knowing..how doesone change his mindifheis all knowing? Goid did not change...Heis still God! that's the thing that defies logic withme.is your unwillingto comprehend that "God not changing" refers to God still being god..and not changing..he did not cease to be God..you don't seem to grasp that andit boggles my mind of something so easy and plain to grasp

          July 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          It would be easy to grasp...if there was really proof of your particular god. You have no proof, only a belief.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Alias

          Kermit
          "so ANYTHING that seems to defy logic can NOT be true..right> logic makes it truth.right?:"
          Your first statement is an excellent generalization. There are always exceptions, but if it defies logic it is very likely untrue.
          However, you jump to anything that fits logically must be true is so stupid I would be surprised if it had come from anyone except you.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "God is all knowing.."

          Yep. God KNEW he was going to REGRET how mankind turned out.

          lol. Get serious.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God did not regret...try useage of the words from Jewishpoint of view...the Bible was not originally written by Americans in English..plus even then..God still could have "regretted" he knew it would happen....what is so wrong with that?

          July 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "it did not appear out of the blue by itself...there was someone behind it....."

          GOOD argument to show that Zeus must exist.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Alias

          kermit
          Since when has it been proven that the big bang happened from nothing?
          That has not been proven, just written in your silly book.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I never said the big bang happened from nothing..where did yo uget that idea?

          July 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Alias

          kermit,
          you posted "....all that you see did not come from nothing by itself"

          July 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..according to what some people believe..it did not come from nothing by itself...as for what I see..it all come from something..GOD

          July 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • Bob

          A reasonable, critical reading of the bible demonstrates that the Christian god as described in it does not and cannot exist. And that is a good thing, because the god creature described therein is a murderous, vindictive ass hole and human rights abuser.

          July 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and so what was it that showed you that this God could not and did not exist?

          July 4, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
  16. ausphor

    Akira like.
    Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you are a conservative radio host and/or a councillor of Theo Phileo.

    July 2, 2014 at 10:37 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      So now you're calling me a drug addict? Dude, I don't even drink alcohol. You don't know me.

      July 2, 2014 at 10:40 am |
      • Doris

        Theo – I don't think ausphor was calling you a drug addict.

        Not sure who ausphor was thinking of by druggy "counsillor" – but perhaps:

        Rush
        one of your Westminster Divinyls, or maybe even
        John of Patmos

        July 2, 2014 at 10:49 am |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        How did you manage to jump to that conclusion? Akira was referencing Rush in his comment and I was referring to you using Rush as a source of info. You are confused again.

        July 2, 2014 at 10:51 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        OK, I re-read the post. So, if I read it right this time, you're as.suming that I need a counsellor, that I actually have one, and that I stress them out bad enough that they have to take druge... Hmmm. No. And I still say that you don't know me.

        Doris, do you have proof that John the Revelator was a drug addict, or is that just an as.sertion based on the imagery of his writings?

        July 2, 2014 at 11:00 am |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        It is quite obvious from the body of your comments that you rely on apologists opinions to a greater degree than anyone else on this blog, that and your constant interpretations of verses from the book of silly. Your twisting and changing of words has been pointed out many, many times. You are a slippery slithering thing but not a drug addict, my opinion.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:08 am |
      • Doris

        No proof, Theo. I can only imagine someone coming up with that mess being a druggy. But I supposed he could have crashed his camel into a field of poppies on short notice or something similar...

        July 2, 2014 at 11:13 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        It is quite obvious from the body of your comments that you rely on apologists opinions to a greater degree than anyone else on this blog, that and your constant interpretations of verses from the book of silly.
        ----------------------
        The metanarrative of my life is Soli Deo Gloria. That one idea informs all other aspects of my life. Coram Deo.

        Your twisting and changing of words has been pointed out many, many times.
        -------------------
        No, I merely use words in accordance to the original meanings based on their roots. For instance, a Sodomite, having its roots in the story of Sodom in the Bible, that the city was filled with both men and women hom.os.exuals, the term came to mean a h.om.ose.xual of either s.ex. Not just men, and not just a certain act. That is a modern rendition, but not the original meaning.

        You are a slippery slithering thing but not a drug addict, my opinion.
        -------------------–
        What you think about me is none of my business.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        Of course "the sin of Sodom" was GREED, but like most Christians you'd prefer to PRETEND that wasn't the case.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:18 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        But I supposed he could have crashed his camel into a field of poppies on short notice or something similar...
        -----------------–
        There were poppies on the Isle of Patmos in the 1st Century? Beyond that, is it fair to automatically as.sume that a fantastic story must have come from an intoxicated mind? If that's the case, then I would submit most children's books as evidence to your hypothesis.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Of course "the sin of Sodom" was GREED, but like most Christians you'd prefer to PRETEND that wasn't the case.
        ---------------
        Sure, one of it's sins was that they didn't help the poor and needy (Genesis 13:13, Ezekiel 16:48-49). But by saying that it was the ONLY sin, or even the greatest sin, you ignore not only the Genesis 19 story, but also 2 Peter 2:6-10 where Peter claims the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was the “sensual conduct of unprincipled men” who “indulged their flesh in its corrupt desires,” and “despised authority.”

        July 2, 2014 at 11:22 am |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        That's what God said. So was he LYING or IGNORANT or just a BAD SOURCE?

        July 2, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        Jesus read your comments. What I think about you is none of your, the Theo's business? Really, then why did you get all upset when you thought I called you a drug addict. How does your mind work?

        July 2, 2014 at 11:25 am |
      • Doris

        "Soli Deo Gloria" – "everything that is done is for God's glory to the exclusion of mankind's self-glorification and pride."

        I guess that makes sense for a believer. Hopefully, most people realize pride is a double-edged sword whether they get that from religious belief or not. Of course, you could take it to the max and join Rainer and Scotty's flagellation workshop.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:30 am |
      • G to the T

        "2 Peter 2:6-10" – you mean the one that's believed to most likley NOT to have been written by Peter somehow affirms Paul's beliefs? Go figure...

        July 2, 2014 at 11:34 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Of course, you could take it to the max and join Rainer and Scotty's flagellation workshop
        ---------------
        I did lay down on a bed of nails once. But then, it was a physics class in college.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:39 am |
      • Doris

        I'm guessing the potential for injury from a bed of nails has something to do with the sharpness of the nails and how far apart they are from each other.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:42 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        "2 Peter 2:6-10" – you mean the one that's believed to most likley NOT to have been written by Peter somehow affirms Paul's beliefs? Go figure...
        ------------------
        Only if you're a liberal theologian. And in fact there are comparatively few theologians who actually buy into this. Actually there's no evidence whatsoever that this wasn't written by Peter. All of the objections are answered by the fact that Peter admits to have written through an amanuensis in 1 Peter, and the differences in themes and audiences accounts for grammatical differences.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:43 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        I'm guessing the potential for injury from a bed of nails has something to do with the sharpness of the nails and how far apart they are from each other.
        ------------------------
        Well, that and one's willingness to get a better grade by being the guinnea pig in a physics demonstration. You can put up with a LOT more pain from an improperly executed bed of nails if there's extra credit involved.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        "But by saying that it was the ONLY sin, or even the greatest sin, you ignore not only the Genesis 19 story, but also 2 Peter 2:6-10"

        That's what God said. So was he LYING or IGNORANT or just a BAD SOURCE?

        July 2, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • Doris

        I don't know why you say "only if you are a liberal theologian" Theo. History shows that NT scholars have long wrestled with the authorship of Peter 2.

        Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman (that truthfollower01 uses as a source above), among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5]

        3. Brown, Raymond E., Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible, 1997, ISBN 0-385-24767-2. p. 767 "the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work."
        4. Erhman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31 "Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.". ISBN 978-0-06-182514-9.
        5. Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14.

        =====

        from Bible.org:

        "Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.

        The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.

        The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation."

        =====

        Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42.4 (1999):

        "J. N. D. Kelly in his commentary on 2 Peter confesses that 'scarcely anyone nowadays
        doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.' [1] Indeed, from the very start this epistle has had a difficult journey. It was received into the New Testament canon with hesitation, considered second-class Scripture by Luther, reluctantly accepted by Calvin, rejected by Erasmus, and now is repudiated as pseudonymous by modern scholarship. Joseph B. Mayor agrees with the current consensus when he declares that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter, whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself .... We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.” [2]

        "The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter turns on three main problems: (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly, 2 Peter has a plethora of problems. Most scholars believe its path towards canonical status was littered with pitfalls and detours for good reason."

        1. J. N. D. Kelly,
        A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude
        (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) 235.
        2. Joseph B. Mayor,
        The Epistles of Jude and II Peter
        (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) cxxiv.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        That's what God said. So was he LYING or IGNORANT or just a BAD SOURCE
        -----------------------–
        If I told you that I spoke to a man at the gas station today, and later a witness tells you that there were actually 4 men there at the gas station, are either one of us wrong? No. I spoke to one man, as I said, and there were other people standing near us. Just because one person doesn't give you the entire story doesn't mean they are lying to you, nor does it mean that they are trying to withhold information. They are merely relaying to you what they felt was important at the time. One must get the whole picture to fully understand. And in the case of Sodom, there are many corroborating stories in the Bible that their greatest sin was that of ho.mos.exuality.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • G to the T

        "All of the objections are answered by the fact that Peter admits to have written through an amanuensis in 1 Peter"

        Did I mention 1st Peter? No, I believe I was referring to 2nd. And you are reading some really old books if you think the majority belief is that Peter wrote (w/or without assitance) 2nd Peter. And the use of a secratary (which has almost NO historical backing) wouldn't explain the use of Greek Rhetorical devices. Either Peter new them and related to a secratry or the secratary was paraphrasing Peter's words, in which case, they weren't his words anymore.

        Honestly, I have to imagine that the only people that hold the opinion that a secratary was a common practice haven't actually looked into the historical data.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        "THE SIN of Sodom was GREED"
        – God

        "doesn't give you the entire story"
        – Theo Phileo

        July 2, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
      • Alias

        As you well know Theo
        There is more to language than the literal text of a conversation. For example, when someone is talking about a death and tells you what the person said before they died – That does imply it was said immediately before their passing. It would be misleading to quote something from a previous conversation, or even omit theri last words. This is why anyone who reads your bible with a working brain correctly concludes that there are contradictions in the gospels about JC's last words.
        If you had a conversation with 4 people present and only mentioned 2 later, then yes you were wrong. To say you spoke to one person suggests that there were only 2 of you present. When one specifically names 3 people who went ot a grave, it definately conveys that they were the only ones there.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Observer,
        It is now on you to give the verses of scripture that says that the ONLY sin of Sodom was greed.

        And yeah, the Scripture is full of stories where you gather a little here and a little there. Look at the passion week. In order to get a complete picture, you've got to run a parallel of the gospel accounts.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        This is why anyone who reads your bible with a working brain correctly concludes that there are contradictions in the gospels about JC's last words.
        ----------------
        Alias, there really are no contradictions in the passion week as you may think. It is the cursory examination that leads one to that conclusion. To see differently, one must really see the gospel accounts in parallel.

        I would advise you to get a parallel, or a chronological account written from parallels such as the book "One Perfect Life." There are many like this one, but it is an exceptional example.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @ alias..in NO point of the Gospels did ANY claim the last words of Jesus was the ONLYlastwords....the SMART person would put ALLthe accounts together and see that Jesus says ALL those things before He died...criminologists would disagree with you since they get reports from all eyewitnesses as possible and piece it together

          July 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • G to the T

        "In order to get a complete picture, you've got to run a parallel of the gospel accounts."

        Then I would contend you are creating your own "mega gospel" by conflating the accounts. In doing so you lose the authors' (whomever they were) intent/message. You create a new book that no-one intended to write. You try to reconcile items/events that are clearly depicted differently in each account and then try harmonize them. I don't believe that is the best way to analyze these texts.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          G to the T.....excuse me..but thatlogic don't work....there were MANY eyewitneses to events of Jesus....not all will give every piece of detail....which is why we are to piece it together...let me give you an example.....two people, a store clerk and a customer witness the robbery of the store...the customer says he did not see a gun..while the store clerk says there was a gun...does it contradict? not if one understands the whole context..the store clerk was facing the robber, and saw the gun..the customer ws BEHIND the robber, and thus could not see the gun....from whatI see in here by the skeptics...I am close to believing they will see this and yell "contradiction!" and then when we harmonize the events they will say we are trying to put a spin on it...this is exactly what I see in here

          July 2, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Alias

        To see differently, one must really see the gospel accounts in parallel.
        ---------------------------–
        To see it differently you must start with a conclusion and find a way to interpret it to fit your preconceived notion about what it means.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        I don't believe that is the best way to analyze these texts.
        ----------------
        Then you stand in stark contrast with every theologian I've ever heard of.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        To see it differently you must start with a conclusion and find a way to interpret it to fit your preconceived notion about what it means.
        ------------
        So you're not starting with the conclusion that the Bible is false? Why not come to it from a neutral stance and actually an.alyze it.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • kudlak

        Theo Phileo
        The “sensual conduct of unprincipled men” could apply to the intended ra pe of the angel/men in the Lot story, correct? They intended to force them, which is something that gay people are as much opposed to as anyone else.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        It's good that we can agree that God's answer was far from "perfect".

        July 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Then you stand in stark contrast with every theologian I've ever heard of."

        Ahh! At last we've found the difference. I DON'T view the bible from a theological standpoint. I view it from a historical standpoint. To view it from a theological standpoints means starting with the assumption that is god's word. I try to view the texts in as much of the context (including literary devices, ancient languages, cultural norms of the times) as I possibly can. And I do that for EACH book. Instead of reading them through as if they were a continous narrative, I read them in parellel – and when you do – and allow each author speak for themselves, they are often saying very different things. I do my best to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and thus far, it has not led me to conclude that the 4 are telling the same exact story and doing so is disingenous in my mind.

        July 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          state examples of how they are saying very different things?

          July 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • Alias

        "So you're not starting with the conclusion that the Bible is false? Why not come to it from a neutral stance and actually an.alyze it."
        ----------–
        I did. I was christian at the time.
        Now I know just how flawed the bible is.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • Alias

        Kermit
        "in NO point of the Gospels did ANY claim the last words of Jesus was the ONLYlastwords"
        Really? Do you not understand what 'last words' imply? It menas that was the last thing he said. It does not mean 'something he said at some point durring his life'.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          wellduh...and the phrase "last words" isnot found in those accounts!! NO where does it say "and these were his very last words"

          July 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
      • G to the T

        "state examples of how they are saying very different things?"

        There are many – but I'll give you two I recently read about – When did the curtain in the Temple tear... and why? What were Jesus' last words on the cross... and why.

        You can try to harmonize these events but they only really make sense (i.e. don't contradict) when you start looking at what each author was trying to say for themselves – not as some combined "mega-gospel" that plows under these (very real) differences.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          What were Jesus’ last words on the cross… and why.<--why can they not ALL be his last words? nowhere doesit imply those were his ONLY last words in each Gospel....the curtain was torn after Jesus died..according to Luke it still shows it after death of Jesus..notice...it did NOT say the curtain was torn at noon..only there was darkness at noon..the curtain was torn at 3 PM

          July 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
      • Alias

        Kermit
        "NO where does it say "and these were his very last words"
        Correct green fly eating one! However, it does quote jesus and say that then he 'gave up his ghost'.
        That would make the quote his last words. Too bad English isn't your first language.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  17. Theo Phileo

    You forgot the one about life on earth being seeded by aliens.

    July 2, 2014 at 10:26 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Rush didn't. Stephen Hawking did.

      July 2, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Wow I hope not. That would have been a long interview...

      July 2, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • igaftr

      You are really misrepresenting what he said theo.

      Life could have existed in some distant galaxy that was since destryoed, but tiny pieces of life, some of the building blocks, could have traveled to our solar system and been deposited on our planet. Life destryed elsewhere could have been the seeds of life in our solar system.

      It is quite possible theo, why do you have a problem with the hypothesis? You seem to accept your own god hypothesis when there is just as much showing your hypothesis is correct than that one.

      It is only one of many possibilities.

      July 2, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • tallulah131

        Theo is a pro at misrepresenting. On this blog, the more pious the poster, the bigger the lies. I'm glad I know christians in real life, because if I had to judge them by their online presence, I'd say that christians are some of the most dishonest, hateful people I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.

        July 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • tallulah131

        You know, I take that back. Theo is better than some on this blog. I still think he misrepresents a lot, but he's not as dishonest as a couple of others here.

        July 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      • igaftr

        yeah, he often does stuff like respond to what you said by saying..."well then you mean this, or so you believe that", when that was not what you were saying at all, then misrepresenting things like Stephen Hawking above.

        One of the biggest things is to make sure you get definitions for things. Even in that he's not as bad as dalahast, where you need to get the definition for every word he uses, and then you catch him saying stuff like I have definitve proof, quickly followed by I could have been decieved...so you never know where he stands.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Well, I haven't listened to a lot of talk radio, and when I do, it's usually Herman Cain when he's on.

      July 2, 2014 at 11:57 am |
  18. igaftr

    OK...so Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for things that violate their spiritual beliefs...as a corporation....

    OK listen up America. Paying for war violates my spiritual beliefs. Give me back my taxes.

    July 2, 2014 at 8:58 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Hey, I've always wished for a list of check boxes on my tax forms that said specifically where I did and where I didn't want my moneys going for the following year!

      July 2, 2014 at 9:02 am |
      • joey3467

        As long as one of the check boxes says to return my money to me, I am o.k. with that.

        July 2, 2014 at 9:25 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I concur... Our infrastructure is falling apart. We don't need another aircraft carrier. I would rather pay for new roads, bridges and modernized/secure power networks.

        July 2, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • ausphor

          LET
          You are paying for them, just not in the USA, but in Afghanistan and Iraq.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Paying with our taxes, our blood, sweat and tears.

          I've lost enough friends in those crap holes... let them burn.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I've lost enough friends in those crap holes... let them burn.
          ---------------
          All the men on my dad's side of the family were in the Navy except my dad, he was a Marine. I never got a chance to serve because of a severe ankle injury, but I've also got a Nephew in the Coast Guard, a high school friend in the Coast Guard, and another good friend in the Air Force who is getting shipped out to anonymous so that he can so some anonymous work.

          You ever get the feeling like you want our nation to turn it's bayonetts to our borders, become an island, and forget about the rest of the world for a change? I know, I know, that can't happen. But I already had to un-train one friend when he came out of the Marine Corps, and THAT was not fun.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:32 am |
    • igaftr

      When I see things like George HW Bush declaring that atheists are not only not patriots and they should not be citizens because of HIS belief in a god...the world should worry.

      When I see a rep in NC try to instate a state religion...the country should worry
      When I see a guy runnng for office declare that gay people should be stoned to death....humanity should worry.

      It truly amazes me how people are always trying to legislate belief...baseless often nonsensical belief.

      July 2, 2014 at 10:28 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        George HW Bush declaring that atheists are not only not patriots and they should not be citizens because of HIS belief in a god
        --------------
        Really? I don't remember that... I'm not saying he didn't say that, but where was that, and what were his exact words? Do you have a quote?

        July 2, 2014 at 10:35 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Akira,
        Wow. Well, if indeed that was true, then his opinion flies into the face of the ideas of the founders of this country. They came here fleeing religious persecution, and wanted to have a place where anyone could believe what they wanted to believe, or have no belief.

        But of course they were illegal immigrants here, and had to perform mass murder in order to first lay claim to the dirt here.

        July 2, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • igaftr

        theo

        positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

        At the time he said it, I was serving in the AF...his election was one of the reasons I left the AF...I could not possibly get behind a "leader" such as that.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        igaftr,
        And this is exactly why I question the recent decision. You can't expect a large company who knowingly hires non-Christians to come together for a secular purpose, and then force your beliefs (or non-beliefs) on them.

        If we're talking about a business that must knowingly hire only Christians in order to conduct its business, such as a Theological Seminary, then they are well within their rights to enforce their hires to obey a given code of ethics. I mean, you have the right to only hire employees that align with your business model.

        But if we're talking about a business that employs non-Christians for secular purposes, then I think you give up that right to enforce certain ethics or beliefs.

        July 2, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • igaftr

        theo
        Agreed.
        While questioning the decision, one must look at why this case was brought in the first place, and their beliefs are likely not the real reason.
        Look at what they had covered before the Obama plan.
        This was an attack on Obama's plan...not even well disguised.
        Their "christian" beliefs are only the excuse...not the reason.
        It was a political play...not a moral one.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • Alias

      Akira - FYI
      I will be using this – after I clean it up a bit.

      July 2, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
  19. Doc Vestibule

    I find it odd that so many Christians are of the steadfast opinion that the Bible states that life begins at conception when there are several passages that indicate otherwise.
    All throughout the Bible life is equated with breath.
    God breathes life into Adam (Gen 2:7), Isaiah describes God as "who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" (Isaiah 42), Ezekiel has God give the breath of life to fallen soldiers (Ezekiel 37).
    Passages like those are why Jewish theologians have traditionally argued that life begins at first breath.
    In Exodus 21:22, the penalty for causing miscarriage is laid down and juxtaposed against the punishment for bodily harm to the mother.
    " If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
    Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

    This is a doctrine of equal measure.
    Inflict bodily harm on another person and you will suffer the same harm.
    Kill another and you too will be killed.
    And yet the punishment for ending the life of the unborn is a matter of paying the husband a fee determined by the local magistrate.

    July 2, 2014 at 8:25 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift from God who personally creates every life, ergo no conception is ever an accident
      Psalm 100:3 – Conception is an act of God
      Psalm 104:30 – creation is through the Spirit
      Job 10:8-12, Psalm 139:13-16 – Both David and Job credit the formative work of life in the womb to God
      Exodus 4:11 – There are no biological accidents—that includes deformities and disabilities
      Job 12:9-10 – life is in God’s hands
      Job 31:15 – God makes us in the womb
      Job 33:4 – the Spirit of God makes us, and God gives us life
      Jeremiah 1:5 – Personhood of the pre-born
      John 9:1-3 – Every aspect of our being—even those we might consider flaws or defects—has been ordained by the Lord according to His purpose
      Genesis 1:26 – we are made in the image of God
      John 1:3 – Nothing—including man—has come into the world apart from His creative power

      July 2, 2014 at 8:29 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift from God who personally creates every life, ergo no conception is ever an accident
        You're adding your own spin to it.
        The psalm says that kids are a heritage and a reward, so you should have lots of them and raise them right. Nothing about conception.

        Psalm 100:3 – Conception is an act of God
        Says nothing about conception, only that God creates us as sheep.

        Psalm 104:30 – creation is through the Spirit
        The whole poem is about how awesome God is becuase He created everything from storks to fire breathing sea monsters. Nothing about abortion./

        Job 10:8-12, Psalm 139:13-16 – Both David and Job credit the formative work of life in the womb to God
        "Your hands shaped me and made me.
        Will you now turn and destroy me?
        Remember that you molded me like clay.
        Will you now turn me to dust again?"
        Job is making an allusion to Genesis and Adam's creation – Adam who was not alive until he took a breath.
        Psalm 137 mentions being "knit together in the womb", but it also says he was "woven together in the depths of the Earth".

        Exodus 4:11 – There are no biological accidents—that includes deformities and disabilities
        Leviticus 21:18 indicates that God doesn't think much of the deformed and disabled since they are forbidden to approach His altar.

        Job 12:9-10 – life is in God’s hands
        This passage talks about all the horrible things God can do to people.
        Nothing about abortion or birth.

        Job 31:15 – God makes us in the womb
        But not necessarily at conception.

        Job 33:4 – the Spirit of God makes us, and God gives us life
        And here is another example of life being equated with breath – not conception.
        "the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

        Jeremiah 1:5 – Personhood of the pre-born
        This is Jeremiah bragging about how special he is as a prophet.
        Gave gave him special consideration, watching him all his life, putting words in his mouth and giving him the gift of prophecy, which he pretty well uses to tell the Jews that God is angry and on the verge of getting smitey.

        John 9:1-3 – Every aspect of our being—even those we might consider flaws or defects—has been ordained by the Lord according to His purpose
        That interpretation is a pretty far stretch – this bit is about Jesus healing a man that was blind from birth.

        Genesis 1:26 – we are made in the image of God
        We go back to the whole life began with BREATH thing in Genesis.

        John 1:3 – Nothing—including man—has come into the world apart from His creative power
        "including man" is your add on.
        John 1 just established that John was an Apostle who knew Jesus personally and has the super power of baptism. There's nothing even tangenitally about birth, conception or abortion

        July 2, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Let me ask you something, what is your metanarrative for scripture? What is your central interpretive motif?

          July 2, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "meta narrative" ?
          I have found great value in studying the Bible. It is remarkably insightful when it comes to human nature – our vices, virtues, and instinctive drives. The character of Christ as the ideal of what man can be is rare – there are few religions that promote humility, compassion, charity, and forgiveness as the character traits to develop. Compared with Greek, Egyptian, Old English or even Jewish heroic ideals, the Christian messiah's message is far better for encouraging people to be kind.
          I read the Old Testament with the same mindset with which I read Beowulf or Gilgamesh. The stories give insight into the values of ancient cultures in ways far more poignant and illuminating than archeological artifacts.
          Through a society's myths we begin to know its people.
          Mythology teaches us about ourselves, but it is not literal truth.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Then, having studied, you understand that there are certain terminologies that cannot be found in scripture, but the principles that are taught have bearing on those terminologies. For instance, we don't find the word "abortion" in the Bible, but the principles taught in scripture, teach us that it is wrong.

          For instance, when we see the word "conceive" in its various forms, we need to ask, what is conceived? Look at Job 3:3, "a boy is conceived." Not, a glob of unformed goo is conveived. It was a boy – a person – at conception.

          Furthermore, murder is taught as the killing of an innocent person. Although no man is guiltless of sin before God, many CAN be guiltless before men of any crime, and a boy who was just conceived is certainly innocent.

          Therefore, intentional killing of a "boy who was conceived" is murder.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          The problem is that the only unambiguous reference to abortion in the Bible is a how-to guide – (the trial of bitter water).
          Plus the numerous occassions on which God commanded the slaughter of innocents and even the aforementioned psalm in which he who commits infanticide should rejoice!

          July 2, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • fintronics

          "Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones."

          July 2, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The problem is that the only unambiguous reference to abortion in the Bible is a how-to guide – (the trial of bitter water).
          -----------------------------–
          Like most things, like the offering for a cleansing of leprosy, it was largely symbollic. This water included dust from the tabernacle floor and the ink used to write the curses. (hardly a concoction able to cause an abortion) The woman was to drink the water, and if she was guilty, the water would make her life bitter by carrying out the curse of making her thigh rot and her belly swell. The public, frightening nature of this test could not fail to make guilt or innocence appear when the conscience was so assaulted.

          Plus the numerous occassions on which God commanded the slaughter of innocents and even the aforementioned psalm in which he who commits infanticide should rejoice!
          -------------------------–
          I won't go off on a huge tangent here for fear of taking up too much space, but there is a difference between how man sees guilt and how God sees it. All are guilty of sin against God, though many may be innocent of crimes against men.

          God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing, nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of innocent life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people for instance, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become "utterly sinful." Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin. Finally, one of the reasons that the Lord is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God's people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah's Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures. The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah via the destruction of the ungodly.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          You can likely be the first person in history to tell us EXACTLY what sins all the embryos and fetuses on the FACE OF THE EARTH had committed to JUSTIFY God's "MURDERING" them.

          This should be interesting.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:57 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Observer,
          The Bible tells us that we are not sinners because we sin, rather, we sin because we are sinners.

          We are all sinners from birth. (Psalm 51:5) We all have a sinful nature that we inherited from our father Adam who willfully chose to disobey God. Because of his sins, like an inherited deformity, we are all sinners from the moment of our birth. (Romans 5)

          July 2, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          If everyone is a sinner from birth onwards, by your own argument all the infants slaughtered in the Old Testament ethnic cleansings went straight to hell.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          So it isn't actually COMMITTING sins that is bad.

          So much for any Christians NONSENSE about free will.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • ausphor

          Doc
          Even the zygotes in the petri dish at the parenthood clinics are "sinners". Theo Phileo beliefs are hilarious.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          If everyone is a sinner from birth onwards, by your own argument all the infants slaughtered in the Old Testament ethnic cleansings went straight to hell
          -------------------–
          No, because although salvation is an act of God, we are also required to make a choice. This is the coterminous actions of God and man. And since some people are incapable of knowing right from wrong, and making any choice either way either through age or handicap, the Bible tells us of a special grace that exists over certain individuals should they die.

          Probably the best evidence I can give you are the words of Jesus.

          Mark 10:13-16 – And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them.

          1)Jesus never blessed those who are cursed

          2)Jesus never pronounced a blessing on anyone who did not belong in His kingdom

          3)Here, Jesus identifies people as a part of His kingdom who could do absolutely nothing to earn it, this then becomes a powerful demonstration that salvation is by grace alone, not of works. Conversely, it is a condemnation of self-righteous legalism

          4)“For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these…” In other words, salvation belongs to all children – they are under special divine care. This doesn’t mean they are sinless (Psalm 51:5, John 3:6, Romans 3:10, Genesis 8:21, Isaiah 48:8). Children are not born morally neutral, they are born morally corrupt, but they are not yet old enough to make conscious choices that evidence their corruption and to reject God. They belong to God under a special grace until they reach the condition in their life that they become personally accountable for their actions.

          5)This does not mean one can lose their salvation. Not that God grants them eternal life or salvation, then takes it away when they become old enough to be accountable, it merely means that there exists a conditional form of grace for children that God will redeem them if they die (Deuteronomy 1:39, 2 Samuel 12:16-23)

          July 2, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          "No, because although salvation is an act of God, we are also required to make a choice."

          What CHOICE did ALL the embryos and fetuses on the face of the earth make?

          Please tell us how a 2-week old embryo can make such a decision.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          So much for any Christians NONSENSE about free will.
          ---------------–
          Whoever said that man's will is free? Certainly Pelagius and Erasmus did, and their writings have influenced many even in Christendom today, but they have been proven wrong through Scripture, and through the writings of men like Augustine, then Luther, then Calvin...

          July 2, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          What CHOICE did ALL the embryos and fetuses on the face of the earth make?
          --------------------
          None. What choice does a man born blind have over his blindness? None.

          Please tell us how a 2-week old embryo can make such a decision.
          ---------------------
          They can't. That's why I explained the special grace that resides on the ones who are incapable.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          So man is already programmed to fail and has NO FREE WILL to choose otherwise.

          What a terribly DEPRESSING religion your version of Christianity is.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          You were totally unable to come up with anything in this magic "special grace" that addresses embryos and fetuses.

          Your weak example was that Jesus said to "BRING THE CHILDREN to him". Should they abort fetuses and bring them?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          So man is already programmed to fail and has NO FREE WILL to choose otherwise.
          --------------------
          Calvin once said: "If we mean by ‘free will’ that fallen man has the ability to choose what he wants, then of course fallen man has free will. If we mean by ‘free will’ that man in his fallen state has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then ‘free will’ is far too grandiose a term to apply to fallen man.”

          What a terribly DEPRESSING religion your version of Christianity is.
          ------------------
          Yeah, that's because you appear to not understand the Bible.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          You were totally unable to come up with anything in this magic "special grace" that addresses embryos and fetuses
          ----------------------–
          Job 3:3 (and others) make it clear that the unborn child is a person from conception. Given that the special grace rests on those who are incapable of making any choice towards righteousness or unrighteousness (and the unborn child certainly falls into this category), then that child in the womb, should they die, will be taken to heaven.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          So do they have a special place in the after life for zygotes that never get implanted in the uterus? Would it matter if it was an aborted zygote, a miscarriage, or a zygote discarded from a petri dish? You can duck and run if you like because you have been doing so all day.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          Wrong again. If we are sinful by nature then as soon as a new person is conceived they are deserving of hell.
          Dead babies cannot enter the kingdom of heaven fo rthey have not accepted jesus, and that is the only way to the father.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Nail clippings are blameless, I think. Surely they can enter heaven.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          If we are sinful by nature then as soon as a new person is conceived they are deserving of hell.
          --------------
          That is precisely what the Bible says.

          Dead babies cannot enter the kingdom of heaven fo rthey have not accepted jesus, and that is the only way to the father.
          --------------------------
          Then support your claim about babies going to hell by using Scripture. I can cite many more passages that infer a special grace on those who are incapable of knowing right from wrong, but I challenge you to find just one that proves that infants go to hell when they die.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Nail clippings are blameless, I think. Surely they can enter heaven.
          -------------
          And if 90% of dust particles are made up of human skin cells, then I think there's a naked man living under my bed... And he's HAIRY!

          July 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Assuming you're right, and a fetus is a person, all these forms of contraception do is prevent the fetus from finding safety in the womb, right? Pregnancy is still risky for women. What right does the state have in demanding that one person, a woman, must endanger her life in order to save any another person? Can the state force you to donate organs, or prosecute you for not running into a burning building to save someone?

          July 2, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          a woman, must endanger her life in order to save any another person?<-again less than 1 percent of abortions due to this are performed....out of the over TWO million done for other nonsense reasons!

          July 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          kudlak,
          I've posted this before as a quote from "Wretched Radio" that seems to sum up the Christian position on the matter fairly well:

          "No action should be legally permissible if its intent is to take the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is enti.tled to the protection of the law under all circu.mstances and at every stage of pregnancy. In those rare instances in which the pregnancy poses an immediate and life threatening risk to the mother, she should be allowed to direct her physician to perform any medical procedure that is necessary to save her life, provided that in that effort, the physician must always do whatever is possible to save the lives of both the mother and the baby. If, as an unintended consequence of saving the mother’s life, her unborn child loses its life, that should be viewed as a profoundly, deeply sad, and regrettable, but lawful outcome."

          July 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I'm so glad not to have to worry about where babies souls go when they die. It is such a relief to dump the archaic belief in an invisible soul.

          Since there is no soul to worry about then it is a matter of deciding when a fertilized egg should be given its own rights as a human and that line has been drawn by the courts at viability outside the womb which from virtually every educated medical doctor will tell you is at around 20-22 weeks. After that abortion is illegal except in cases where a mothers life is in danger. So if you want to debate whether it should be 18 weeks or even 16 weeks, thats fine, have that debate, but don't try and force your belief in an invisible soul onto others. Don't attempt to create theocratic legislation where a law is based on some supernatural claim of an immortal soul that is magically created when an egg is fertilized.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Alias

          theo
          "Then support your claim about babies going to hell by using Scripture."
          john 14:6
          Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."
          As the embtyo could not have know jesus or accept him as a savior – it is the fires of hell for eternity for them.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          thats not proof....first of all..WHAT is sin? sin is trangression against God..sin is a CINSCIOUS decision to d osomething aginast god..do babies do that?> NO...do babies comprehend salvation, rightvs wrong, hell..? no...sorry alias..but yo uare way misinformed

          July 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Alias

          Kermit
          You missed the post above where your friend Theo stated that we are of sinful nature. We do not have to sin to deserve damnation in his argument.
          Sinful Nature + not finding jesus = trip to hell.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I read his posts..and from what he has been saying..he thinks the same as i mentioned! SInful nature means we will have the propensity to sin..I saw NOWHERE that we go to hell for sinful NATURE...but for COMMITTING the sins...

          July 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Kermit
          Goodthing there was no ORIGINAL sin then.
          THAT would have been with us BEFORE we had a chance to sin OURSELVES.

          July 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I don tkno whow y uoview it..but original sin is not something Im paying for..nor does the Bible say that...im accountable for my own sins....no one elses..not even adam and eve..nothing in the Bible says we are

          July 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Every pregnancy is risky to a woman. There is never a 100% guarantee that a woman won't hemorrhage, have a stroke, or something. That's just an added consideration to add to all the rest. Even if you can establish that some are just done out of "convenience", can you be forced to even give blood even if it's just inconvenient for you to do so?

          July 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          grasping at straws..i know every pregnancy is risky...the issues wrere for me of those who did itout of concinvinince..not cause it was risky..and for those who truly did have a risk..its still a low number...and is not the cause of my concern at the moment (being that very few abortions are done for that sake) MY issue is the bigger picture

          July 2, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Every pregnancy is risky, that's the point. I give blood on a regular schedule, and while I've never had a bad reaction, it's still a voluntary action on my part partially because there is still a risk. If a fertilized egg is like a person floating down a river who would naturally grab onto your arm as it dangles off a bridge like that egg would implant upon a womb, then you would have the right to withdraw your arm in order not to endanger yourself just as women have the right to "withdraw" their wombs using one of these disputed forms of birth control.

          As far as the rest of your quote argues, what of people who desperately need organ donations from specific people? Can you be forced to put yourself at risk in order to save them? That is also a biological reality, isn't it? The only way you can possibly make that argument work is to establish that a fetus somehow has more rights than a grown adult citizen, which is just ridiculous.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Yes, every pregnancy is risky, which is why women have to want to be pregnant to actually go through with it and the law shouldn't force any woman. Tell me, would you just quietly allow the government to force you to do anything risky to yourself? Can you be charged for not risking your life to save someone from a burning building, or from dropping to their death on a cliffside?

          Every year, thousands of people die due to lack of donated organs. Actual tax-paying citizens are dying, and some are saved by people who are willing to take the risk of having a kidney or something removed, but the Law can't even mandate that you have to donate your organs after death because it recognizes your right to control what happens to your body, right? If the Law can't do that, why do you believe that it has the right to force a woman to maintain a pregnancy? Fetuses require a donated womb just like other people require donated organs. It's the exact same principle. That's the BIG picture, my friend.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          dude! seriously! That is nOT on the mind of over 2 million mothers aborting the baby!!!! YOURE trying to sidetrack the issue! NO ONE has even had the GALL to address it! NO ONE has even ADDRESSED the fact of over 2 million abortions a year due to CONVINIENCE!! NOT cause it is risky..not cause of ra pe or in cest or the child endangering the life of mother...You guys are so dishonest and trying to avoid the issue!

          July 3, 2014 at 2:02 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "NO ONE has even ADDRESSED the fact of over 2 million abortions a year due to CONVINIENCE!!"

          Speaking of DISHONESTY -

          While there are always people who will "beat the system", your myopic and simple-minded FANTASY that 2 million abortions are only for "convenience" ignores the gut-wrenching decisions that many women have to consider and make.

          July 3, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          GUT wrenching? my God if its just a fetus...why is it a gut wrenching decision? such contradiction and double talk....sheesh...talk about dishonesty

          July 4, 2014 at 2:32 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Doc – "Through a society's myths we begin to know its people. Mythology teaches us about ourselves, but it is not literal truth."

          Theo – "we don't find the word "abortion" in the Bible, but the principles taught in scripture, teach us that it is wrong." "Therefore, intentional killing of a "boy who was conceived" is murder."

          I know it's way back at the top where this all started but I think it's hilarious that Doc basically says he believes the bible is historical fiction and in the very next comment Theo says the bible proves that abortion is murder.

          So Theo, first prove any God exists, then prove it's your God and that the bible is his word and then I will accept that the bible is the moral arbiter for humanity. Until then it is just one of thousands vying for that spot.

          July 3, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          So, women are aborting simply because pregnancy for 9 months followed by delivery is just a "inconvenience" then?!?

          Try telling any woman who ever delivered that what they went through was just an "inconvenience", and see where that gets you!

          July 4, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          THAT is what they are saying..its coinvinient...yes..and most women (thank God) are WILLING to do this for another..rather than serve themselves

          July 4, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Once again you are DELUSIONAL to think you can read the minds of TWO MILLION women and know that they ALL made an easy CONVENIENT decision to have an abortion.

          The majority of them were likely CHRISTIANS. Ask your fellow Christians how they felt.

          Wake up! Get into the real world.

          July 4, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MY God! I got this from STATISTICS of wmen s responses..that they ADMITTED to doing it for convenience!!!!!! you are so dense!

          July 4, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and what KIND of Christians..name only..or of true faith and following of Jesus (CHRISTian means a follower of Christ) and yes..we DO make mistakes as well...but to use that argument is side stepping the issue at the moment

          July 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
      • kudlak

        kermit4jc
        Have you asked all those women what's on their mind, because I wouldn't be surprised if every pregnant woman considers the possibility that things might go terribly wrong. Approximately 650 women die in the United States each year as a result of pregnancy and delivery complications. In comparison, a woman is more than 4 times as likely to die this way as from gun in an intentional homicide in the USA.

        For most men, having to walk an extra 30 seconds to where you parked is an inconvenience. I think that you're insulting women by calling an unwanted pregnancy the same thing.

        July 3, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Oh yeah! By all means, ask any woman who went through even a wanted pregnancy whether they'd call it just an "inconvenience." Tell your own mother that carrying you for 9 months was just an inconvenience, and see how well that goes over, eh?

          That's why I think that it's ridiculous for men even to have a voice in this conversation. What right do we have to decide what women can do with their own bodies?

          July 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      FYI
      the baby breathes through the mother while in the womb.

      July 2, 2014 at 8:33 am |
      • G to the T

        Noooo... it receives oxygen, etc. via the placenta. They do "breath" liquid as a way to build up the diaphram prior to birth, but to say they breath is a bit of a misnomer.

        July 2, 2014 at 8:39 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did you ever see that movie "The Abyss?" Remember that scene where the guy has to do a REALLY deep dive, so he wears a rig that allows him to breathe a liquid similar to the same fluid that a child breathes in the womb. Is that even possible?

          July 2, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • awanderingscot

          fulfills the same function, if someone were to ask "well how does the baby breathe in there?" then a technical discussion could ensue.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:45 am |
        • G to the T

          Theo – Loved the Abyss – one of my favorite movies – and yes – the liquid breathing apparatus exists, but I'm not it's as advanced as shown in the movie.

          Scott – to say the "breath" would be disingenous to me, as I consider the first breath to be when they become an actual person (just like most Christians did up until very recently). The action they are doing is not providing them oxygen, so it's not actually breathing.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • awanderingscot

          GT
          many more scientists today are coming to the realization that life does begin at conception. this is in line with what the bible teaches, most famously David's "for You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb." Psalm 139

          July 2, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          (just like most Christians did up until very recently
          -----------–
          It certainly seems that way since it hasn't been until recently that Christians have aggressively taken up the fight against abortion, but the testimony of scripture shows that we have always viewed life as beginning in the womb, at conception.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "many more scientists today are coming to the realization that life does begin at conception"
          Incorrect.
          Since we do not know that much about life, claiming that is when life began is inaccurate. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, when they combine aren't they really a new configuration , a combining of two pieces of life into one? So for anyone to claim they know when life begins....how could they possibly know?. We have no way of detecting life itself...only signs of life , not life itself.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:23 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          You have yet to address zygotes created outside the womb, they are conceived in a petri dish, not a womb. Can't you find a verse in your 2000 year old bible on what to think?

          July 2, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If you think it begins at conception, you're simply being arrogant and assuming you know how God works.

          "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

          July 2, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          No, I have addressed this. According to the Bible, life begins at conception. (In the body or out of the body is irrelevant as long as conception occurs)

          When we see the word "conceive" in its various forms throughout scripture, we need to ask, what is it that is conceived? Look at Job 3:3, "a boy is conceived." Not, “a glob of unformed goo” is conceived. It was a boy – a person – at conception.

          This is again seen in Luke 1:36 – “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.”

          And again in Romans 9:10 – “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac…”

          July 2, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • igaftr

          When life begins is seen differently in different cultures
          In Ja.pan, you are 1 year old the moment you are born. representing your time in the womb.

          This is not meant to define when life begins or continues or whatever, just noting that different cultures view it differently.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc, we are not being arrogant as long as we are merely repeating that which has been revealed to us in Scripture.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • igaftr

          "It was a boy – a person – at conception."

          Incorrect...it is not a person if there is no personality. A single cell is not intelligent. It takes trillions of cells before there are brain cells, and who knows at what point sentience begins, intelligence begins. The cells are alive, but not sentient...no sentience, no personality, no person. Poor choice of words there.

          If you claim that as a single cell it has value of a person, then the trillions of single cell organisms you kill every day...they have less value simply because they don't have human DNA?

          Your argument is wholly invalid.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          You can't be arrogant if you babble on about what is in scripture, how arrogant. HAHAHA.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:12 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          So the zygotes that are discarded because of in vitro fertilisation procedures are what exactly? Are the doctors guilty of one of your rather silly Christian sins?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Incorrect...it is not a person if there is no personality.
          --------------
          You have claimed before that asperger's has gifted you with logic, but I fear that it has robbed you of it. I know a man who has such mental handicaps that he is incapable of interaction of any kind, and has no visible signs of personality. He just exists... Are you now saying that he is not a person? You are cold.

          A single cell is not intelligent.
          -----------------
          I guess not, I don't know. But in either case, a fertilized egg is not a single cell. Pretty much the rest of your comment is moot.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • G to the T

          "many more scientists today are coming to the realization that life does begin at conception."

          Then that is their opinion. In my opinion, life started about 3 billion years ago and is a continuous process, not something you can say "this is alive", "this isn't" at any one point along the continuum. But even more to the point, "life" is not the same as "person" and that is at the heart of the disagreement.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • G to the T

          "but the testimony of scripture shows that we have always viewed life as beginning in the womb, at conception."

          I'm sorry Theo but I don't think you are getting it. I'm telling you what Christians (and the majority of the west) believed until recently. How they interpreted those verses in the Bible has changed as poeple's views have changed. There is no unbroken line of reasoning from biblical times to now in this regard, only the one you are trying to create.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • igaftr

          "But in either case, a fertilized egg is not a single cell"

          It isn't? Do tell.
          Single cells are not intelligent. A single brain cell has no intelligence. It takes many to make intelligence, no one know what sentince is, so once again it comes down to your argument iss invalid.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I'm telling you what Christians (and the majority of the west) believed until recently.
          -------------------–
          That may or may not be the case, I don't know. I can only speak to what the scriptures say, and according to Job 3:3 and others, life begins at conception.

          How they interpreted those verses in the Bible has changed as poeple's views have changed.
          --------------------------–
          That's true. And when they interpret the Bible in a manner not in keeping with the Analogia Scriptura, then they are most certainly wrong.

          There is no unbroken line of reasoning from biblical times to now in this regard, only the one you are trying to create.
          --------------------–
          Men do not dictate truth. Only God does, and He is most certainly consistent with Himself. And when men re-interpret scripture to fit their own purposes, they do no service to Scripture. Teaching that life begins with conception can be demonstrated to be the Biblical teaching.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • G to the T

          "That's true. And when they interpret the Bible in a manner not in keeping with the Analogia Scriptura, then they are most certainly wrong."

          Then thank God that someone 2k years later finally got it right Theo (i.e. you) because this has been the common interpretation up until most of the way through the previous century. And I'm certain every one of them felt just as justified in their beliefs as you do.

          So who should I believe is the most accurate witness? Your interpretation or theirs?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • igaftr

          no theo, the lapse in logic is yours.
          "and has no visible signs of personality. He just exists... Are you now saying that he is not a person? You are cold. "

          Did not say that. Just because there are no outward signs does not mean no personality. If there is no brain activity,then maybe...but again, since we do not really know when life, or sentience really begins.
          I am not cold simply because I am being clinical.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So who should I believe is the most accurate witness? Your interpretation or theirs?
          -------------–
          Don't take any man's word for it. Use the analogia scriptura. (scripture interprets scripture)

          And in order to make the claim that the personhood of the pre-born child is a recent "invention of men," then you would have to run down the list of theologians from previous centuries and see what they wrote about children in the womb. Men like A.W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon, R.A. Torrey, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Paris Reidhead, John Bunyan, and Stephen Charnock just to name a few.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did not say that. Just because there are no outward signs does not mean no personality. If there is no brain activity,then maybe...but again, since we do not really know when life, or sentience really begins.
          ----------------------
          So, if you claim in one sentence that you don't know when life or sentience begins, then how can you make a claim that "the having of a personality" is the only condition under which one can be granted personhood, when you just said that you don't know?

          July 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Use the analogia scriptura. (scripture interprets scripture)"

          I can understand where you are coming from on this Theo – but from my perspective (studying it from a historical point of view) that would be inappropriate to say the least. I believe doing so gets rid of the very thing that most christians complain non-believers don't respect – the context. For me, it doesn't make sense to read is as continuous narrative, because that wasn't the author's original intent (I doubt they were planning a 4-part gospel that would eventually be "the bible"). Each author had his own views and beliefs and tried to convey that. Doing otherwise would be to disrespect that effort (again, in my opinion). Each book has it's own context I guess is what I'm trying to say.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          theo
          You are likely confused because of the words used. You claim "person"...a "personality"...look at the root word.
          No personality...not a person.
          No brain activity but alive....the individual has no sensory input...there is no personality...it is a living bag of meat. The way people treat it is in defference to their own wishes...not the individual since they are not a person. The person is gone.
          At what point does a developing human become a person...at what point does sentience begin? There is now way of knowing for certain, maybe when certain brain activity is registered, but which activity?
          As it is, we have no way of detecting life...signs of life, yes, but not life itself.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The definiton of breath:
        "the air taken into or expelled from the lungs"
        breathing:
        "the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs."

        In utero, the lungs are undeveloped, un-inflated and filled with amniotic fluid.
        Oxygenation is entirely, 100% contingent on the mother's act of breathing.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • G to the T

          Yup. And with the dangers that come with preganancy it should be the women's choice. And for there to be a choice, there must be options, the more the better.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      the key word here is 'mischief'. If it were truly an accident, the punishment is not death. on the other hand, if there was intent to harm the mother/child or blatant disregard for their safety, and it can be proven, then the punishment is death. no mystery, no devaluation of life.

      July 2, 2014 at 8:42 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        " If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow:"

        Mischief meaning further complications that threaten the woman's well being.
        The loss of the foetus here isn't presented as being any big thing.
        Infants under 1 month old aren't given any value in the Bible – which isn't surprising given the infant mortality rate back then.

        July 2, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Mischief meaning further complications that threaten the woman's well being.
          – when scripture refers to mischief, the reference is to intent

          The loss of the foetus here isn't presented as being any big thing.
          – this is an unqualified statement you make, nothing in the test indicates such

          Infants under 1 month old aren't given any value in the Bible – which isn't surprising given the infant mortality rate back then.
          – you have no support in this statement and it is pure conjecture on your part.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:47 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          We're arguing semantics here, which is pointless since neither of us speak ancient Hebrew.
          Like most Biblical passages, the word "mischief" has been translated in various ways.
          "יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן–עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים. 22

          http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm

          And we've talked about the infants under 1 month old thing before. You just ignore it.
          "And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them."
          – Numbers 3:14-15
          God tells Moses NOT to count babies less than a month old. They don't yet merit counting because there was a very good chance they'd die anyways – infant mortality rates were astronomically higher in the ancient world.

          "The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels ; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekelse; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekelsh and of a female at ten shekels."
          – Leviticus 27
          Infants have only a fraction of the worth of an adult to God.

          You said the bit in Leviticus 27 is about how much work the various people can do for the temple – but is there a qualitative difference between what a 6 week old can do for the church as opposed to a 3week old?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Once again, since the Levites were the tribe assigned to the priesthood it makes sense that every man, woman, and child belonging to the Levites was to assist in all the priestly functions in the day by day duties of the tabernacle which could be considerable especially while they were on the move. This was without exception. it would have been relatively easy for any family to know exactly when a baby turned 1 month old and thus at any stage of life thereafter according to that person's ability to assist with duties was mandated. it's highly unlikely that anyone under the age of 5 would be able to do much of anything useful; however, it most likely would be encouraged of the child to do little things and why not? don't we teach our children in "little things"? so again it was a census taken for the purpose of measuring service to the Lord. This command was of course to teach the Israelites and not some arbitrary burden.

          as for voluntary vows given, the silver in shekels speaks of redemption, and in no way refers to a person's worth. it was only a value given for the supposed amount of work a person could do in service to the Lord. obviously the small amount attributed to a small boy or girl would be given in silver in lieu of dedication to service to the Lord in the Tabernacle. remember these vows were entirely voluntary and made in appreciation for the blessings the Lord had bestowed upon them.

          July 2, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Leviticus was meant for the instruction of all Christians.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Leviticus was meant for the deranged.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          There were Christians when Leviticus was written?

          July 2, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          that's right Tom, if you were to read your bible you would know this.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no Akira, it provides a type and is discerned by those born again.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot

          By all means explain how there were christians when Leviticus was written long before Jesus allegedly lived.
          no one would have heard of the man as he wasn't born for many years after Leviticus.

          Also, wasn't Leviticus written for the Levite preists, not intended for anyone else. as every other chirstian has tiold me?

          please explain.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          You'll have to enlighten me, scot. My Bibles don't mention Christ or Christians until you reach that last bit that was tacked on much more recently than Leviticus.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          read the book and i'll consider explaining it to you.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " it provides a type and is discerned by those born again."

          Translation: To a born again Christian, it means whatever they want it to mean. Hence, they can cherry pick the bits about what is an abomination unto the Lord (like malakoi and ar.senkotai) and yet still not feel bad about eating a cheeseburger or getting a crucifix tattoo.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          I have read the book. Considering many of your posts...it is likely you have not, or if you have, you have not comprehended much.

          Tell me how the Levites were christian.
          I can see where Jesus was a Buddhist, considering the majority that he allegedly taught was taught by the Buddha 400 years earlier, but I do not see how people were christian long before jesus lived.
          Even Jesus wasn't christian.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        are you able to qualify this? disagree with me about what?

        July 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” – John 8:56, NKJV

        – this is all i will give to you Akira, if you really want to know more, pray for His spirit.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        EVERYTHING in His word is applicable, holy, and just; one must have eyes to see it, ears to hear it, and the mind of Christ to discern it.

        July 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Why was this not mentioned in any of the earlier writings about Abraham?

        July 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        yes Akira, and many "Christians" consider the epi.stles written by Paul, Peter, and John to be non-relevant today as well.

        July 2, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
    • ausphor

      Doc
      And yet these guys runaway from a discussion on in vitro fertilization or when a fetus becomes brain alive, hilarious.

      July 2, 2014 at 8:55 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        No, I didn't run away from your discussion. The reason I didn't answer you on this is because you are merely looking for an opportunity to mock.

        You're like the kid who runs up to you and says "as.sphincter-says-what?" "What?" "EXACTLY!"

        July 2, 2014 at 9:23 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          You ran away, but I will keep pursuing you to expose your silly Baptist beliefs. Best to mock someone who says that HE knows the only TRUTH that applies to all 7 billion people on earth, such arrogance.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          silly Baptist beliefs
          --------------–
          I don't have "Baptist" beliefs. My beliefs are rooted in the teachings of the Bible. Not an insti.tution. I may go to a Baptist church, but that doesn't make me a Baptist. What I am, according to 1 Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:1-7, and Acts 11:26, is a saint. And a Christian.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          Lets see you are a creationist, 6000 year old earth guy, the great flood is a fact, the tower of Babel was real, that a supernatural messiah actually existed, that the bible was not written by men but is the inspired word of god, etc., sorry but mockery is clearly in order, Baptist or not. Why would someone attend a Baptist church and not call themselves a Baptist, ashamed of yourself?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Why would someone attend a Baptist church and not call themselves a Baptist, ashamed of yourself?
          ---------------–
          Would you attend a war game club and call yourself "Sails of Glory?" No, you'd be a wargamer who plays "Sails of Glory."

          In like manner, I am a Christian, a saint who attends a Baptist church. I could still be a Christian and attend a non-denominational church. See?

          July 2, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • awanderingscot

          ausphor
          "sorry but mockery is clearly in order"
          so you have made it clear now once again that the only reason you are here is to mock other people in their beliefs. that you yourself are bereft of any spirituality notwithstanding, aren't you motivated by hate in doing this? isn't it true that your evil heart motivates you to come here and attack the faith of others?

          July 2, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • Alias

          Scot,
          We are here to deliver you from your darkness and bring you into the light of the truth.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Alias
          "..and this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." – John 3:19-21, NKJV

          July 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      ” If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.<-thisis nOT miscarriage IF NO HARM IS DONE......its referring to PREMAtURE birth..NOT miscarriage.....I know SOME transkations say miscarriage...but most Jewish scholars say this is mistranslation and it is "bringing forth" merely causing borth...(THEN include the following..and NO MISCHIEf-harm) done) thus the baby in THIS case is ALIVE

      July 2, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • observer

        (Exodus 21:22-25) “Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.”

        [Contemporary English Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version, New International Version]

        Those are likely the SAME scholars that claim that God said "forever" rather than "NOT forever" about killing people working on the Sabbath. Guess they are smarter here.

        July 3, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
  20. ausphor

    To the pro life crowd, in particular Theo, Topher Kermi and Vic.
    You do understand that zygotes can be and are produced outside of the human body, in vitro fertilisation. Zygotes are often produced in quant!ties of 2 to 7 and are allowed to develop from 2 to 6 days before implanting in the uterus. Normally one of the zygotes is picked as the most viable and is implanted the others are destroyed. So the question is do you consider the doctors that perform this procedure child murders (hint the law of the land does not)? The morning after pills perform the same function in reverse, preventing the zygote from being implanted, the zygote is no more of a potential child than those in the petri dish.

    July 2, 2014 at 7:10 am |
    • ausphor

      Oops, should have said "the zygote is no more of a potential child UNTILL IMPLANTED than those in the petri dish."
      I would also direct you to dandintac's excellent point (below) about a fetus being "brain alive" to considered a viable child.

      July 2, 2014 at 7:30 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      As a Christian, I understand that life begins at conception, (I don't care how wicked men define when life begins) and such a flippant disregard for human life to the point of willful and guiltless murder is demonic. (Psalm 106:35-39)

      All murderers, though they may escape justice in this life, God will judge.

      Incidentally, I watched that video below of that young girl ranting about the Hobby Lobby case, and she seems to be one of those people with the false premise that Hobby Lobby is denying women access to birth control. Someone needs to tell her that employees still have access to 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. And incidentally, they STILL have access to them, they just have to pay for them themselves.

      And one other question... WHAT is it with the black eyeliner? She's a beautiful young girl, but when women wear black eyeliner, it makes them look like someone smoked them in the face with a frying pan.

      July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am |
      • fintronics

        @theo... "(I don't care how wicked men define when life begins"

        Funny....... cauz I don't care how deluded hypocritical religious nut jobs like you define when life begins...

        July 2, 2014 at 7:55 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The methods of birth control that the Greens oppose can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. That's abortion. That's murder.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:00 am |
        • fintronics

          No it's not "murder" no matter how much your sick fairytale deluded mind says so..... ...

          July 2, 2014 at 8:51 am |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        So do you have an opinion of in vitro fertilisation? Did you and your wife consider that procedure or adoption since you have stated you have no children, adopting a homeless child/orphan would seem to be the Christian thing to do?
        Take your time, consult Rush if you can not formulate an opinion on your own.

        July 2, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          You are condescending. You do not deserve an answer.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:15 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          Christian cowardice at its finest, cut and run as usual. Nice of you to admit that you judge people on how they look or what they do with their bodies not only those opting for an abortion but the LBGT community..

          July 2, 2014 at 8:24 am |
      • igaftr

        theo
        If they are murderers, so is your god.
        Since abortion is legal, it is not murder, by definition regardless that YOU rehect the definition. Your opinion does not change the FACT.

        July 2, 2014 at 8:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          sorry..wrong logic..God isnot the murderer, since HE owns life..He reserves that right..He is judge..HE is Creator NOT you..not me..NOT any woman....

          July 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Psalm 106 is about apostasy, not abortion.
        God is upset because he ordered a pagan village to be razed and everyone in it killed, but His followers instead went native, rejecting Jahweh so thoroughly that they sacrificed their own children to other gods.

        Psalm 137 gives an instance in which infanticide should be a joyous occasion!
        "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

        July 2, 2014 at 8:30 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Women have approximately 400 eggs. By your silly ana<blogy they should all be considered sacred; by your silly ana<blogy no form of birth control should be allowed (all of it is preventative, just like the 4 that HL fought against).
        I get that you don't have the slightest care about the laws in the country that you reside and that the only laws you feel you are bound to are the ones in the bible.
        Someone further down mentioned the fact that these 4 were once covered by HL and it seems rather hypocritical of them to take the stance they are now, especially when it was proven that the 4 at hand do not cause abortion.
        The thing here is that HL specifically used their belief to justify their actions....if any other religious group stepped up and did the same thing, Christians would scream blue murder.
        Facts are facts and prevention is key.
        Btw: The next time you think about screaming about LGBT adopting, think about this situation. Someone needs to step up and care for those children and we know that LGBT couples do a wonderful job at raising kids.
        You don't get it both ways.

        July 2, 2014 at 8:30 am |
    • kermit4jc

      terrible logic..if its law..then its morally ok..sorry..they had laws against BLACKS andslaves inUSA 1800s...did that make it right?? of course not! so one cannot really go by law and say it IS moral if its law

      July 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
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.