Open Thread — Coming out of the closet

christian closet

Comments

  1. So true!

    Blessings ~ Wendy

  2. That day has already come to nations all over the world.

  3. I think if we’re truly like Jesus, and we love our neighbor like Jesus asked us to, it won’t be half as bad as you suspect it may be. The only people who would hate Christians who are like Jesus are truly evil people that most other people would not care for either. I’ve seen very few people criticize and admit to disliking Jesus Christ, but I’ve seen a lot of people who dislike His followers because they don’t feel that we are “Christ-like.”

  4. TheWarrioress,

    Everything you said depends on your interpretation of Jesus. Based on prior conversations with you, I can pretty much guarantee that your Jesus would refrain from pointing out sins such as homosexuality and abortion – and that is not the Biblical Jesus. So called “Christians” of a leftist persuasion have substituted the Gospel of Jesus Christ for one of political correctness.

  5. The Warrioress,
    Who was more Jesus-like than Jesus? What happened to him?

  6. “What happened to him?”

    He was killed by conservatives.

  7. paynehollow says:

    You DO know that by suggesting “Christians” are facing persecution and are under attack in the US, that you come across as rather foolish and paranoid. The point of anti-discrimination laws (ie, you can’t discriminate against groups of people in the public square) is NOT to “oppress” religious folk, but to PROTECT us from discriminatory practices. Those protections are as much for religious folk as they are for non-religious folk.

    We anabaptist Christians have a long memory and know it means to be discriminated against because of our beliefs (you know, ACTUAL oppression, not merely disagreement) being in a minority belief group. There is a difference between protecting against discrimination and persecution.

    We are free, as a religious people, to practice our faith insofar as loving others, going to church, giving to the needy, preaching the gospel, etc.

    Where our freedom ENDS is at causing harm to others. Saying, “We won’t rent to you because you’re black, you’re Jewish, you’re Muslim, you’re Baptist…” is a line we free people have drawn a line at. You’re free, as a religious person, to disagree with the Jewish, Muslim, gay or Baptist person. You’re not free to deny them liberties.

    Get the difference?

    ~Dan Trabue

  8. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    I can pretty much guarantee that your Jesus would refrain from pointing out sins such as homosexuality and abortion – and that is not the Biblical Jesus.

    Umm, the biblical Jesus NEVER ONCE pointed out such “sins…”

    Just sayin’…

    ~Dan Trabue

  9. Isu,
    The “who” is not central to my point. My point is this: Many assume that being Christlike automatically means we will be appreciated by the world. This is simply not the case. The most Christlike person was, well, Christ and he was rejected by the world, and pretty much the whole world, religious conservatives, oppressive government, the crowds, etc. Yes, sometimes Christians bring the pain upon themselves by being arrogant jerks but sometimes persecution comes just by acting like Jesus and that persecution could come from any source – religious, secular, liberal, or conservative.

  10. Dan,

    First, mad-props to the anabaptists and their long history of endurance under oppression.

    Second, I’m with you that we certainly can’t claim the kind of persecution experienced in earlier eras of the church or in other parts of the world. We live in an amazingly free society.

    However, it is exactly that historical reality of real persecution, combined with the fact that it is a reality all around the world, combined with the apparent trajectory of our culture that causes us some concern. I suppose we could quibble with “fast approaching” but “approaching” is not so far fetched.

    Finally, I’m concerned about your approach to Jesus’ teaching. I hope you wouldn’t equate Jesus’ lack of a direct reference to a topic to him condoning it. Surely you wouldn’t apply the same topic to things like slavery our spousal abuse (neither of which Jesus specifically mentions) We CAN, however, say that Jesus did speak about marriage and sexuality and he showed great concern for the “least of these” and children. If Jesus cares about these areas of life, so should we.

  11. paynehollow says:

    You can’t do it, John. People are NOT being persecuted for being Christian in the US. That you can’t legally deny liberties to others does not equal persecution, nor does it equal an “attack.” That you might suggest that you aren’t free to deny liberties to others as “evidence” that you are being persecuted or attacked does not make it so.

    But by all means, if you have some evidence of actual systemic persecution in the US for one’s religion, go ahead and cite one or two, if you can, and we could take a look at them. Caveat: One COULD probably find isolated incidents of people physically attacking Christians or Muslims or other faith groups because of religious hatred is not what I’m speaking of.

  12. Really? You’re going to present James Dobson’s Family Research Council as a credible source to support your perception that Christians are persecuted? Are you really trying to make yourself out to be a victim here?

    • Well, Z, it’s not an opinion piece, if it were you’d have a point. It actually cites court cases and examples from the main line news agencies.

      Talk about the genetic fallacy and poisoning the well.

    • Oh, and I’m not making myself a victim, I haven’t been affected yet even though I intentionally push the envelope at work (I’m a federal govt employee) and no bites. So no, it’s not about me…yet. I was just responding to Dan’s asininity.

  13. Dan,

    Would Jesus point out such sins? I didn’t say He did; I suggested that He would. Do you think He would?

  14. “You DO know that by suggesting “Christians” are facing persecution and are under attack in the US, that you come across as rather foolish and paranoid.”

    What we know is that people like Dan T will suggest such a thing. I suppose we’re to wait until we’re actually tortured and murdered before a legitimate claim of persecution is appropriate to one like Dan T. Of course, doing so insures it will happen, or at least makes it more likely People with their eyes wide open see the signs and prefer to nip it in the bud by pointing out the less harmful forms of persecution.

    Also, Dan has absolutely no history dealing with any persecution himself when he speaks of “we anabaptists”.

  15. paynehollow says:

    We anabaptists read and remember our history, Marshall.

    ~Dan

  16. paynehollow says:

    Also, if I measured persecution by the measure that YOU all measure persecution, I could certainly cite examples. But no, that is my point, we – none of us – are facing anything like real persecution. To call what you endure “attacks on Christianity” and “persecution” is to belittle the real folk who have dealt with real persecution.

  17. paynehollow says:

    Okay John, looking at your FRC report and giving them the benefit of the doubt that the facts are as presented (a HUGE benefit, given their propensity for twisting facts), let’s look at their first example of “hostility” which I presume equates to “persecution” in your mind…

    1. two veterans’ memorials containing crosses violated the Establishment Clause.
    Congress saved one of these memorials by transferring the land to private
    ownership, but the government required that a fence be built around the memorial.

    On public, state-owned property, someone allegedly made the claim that having a cross violated the establishment clause and asked for it to be fixed. They built a fence around the one and made the other private ownership. This was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court.

    First of all, if true (and I’m sure it could be), it is without a doubt, a rather petty and small-minded claim. I have to imagine that any cases like this going to higher courts would be overturned.

    Regardless, this is not an example of harassment, of hatred or of persecution. This is someone asking the state to alleviate an inferred support of a particular religion. It is an admittedly silly example of someone over-reaching to strive for religious equity, NOT a sign of oppression in any serious manner.

    Do you seriously call this a sign of an “attack on religious liberty…”? Do you think the Court’s purpose in this case was to denigrate Christianity and to limit Christian’s rights? Or do you think their purpose was to uphold the Constitution (with what appears to THIS non-legal scholar to be rather dubious reasoning)?

    Example two…

    these cases both involved challenges to Ten Commandments displays,
    one at the Texas capitol and one in a courthouse in Kentucky. The Supreme Court
    heard both cases at the same time and held that the Texas display is permissible
    because there were other, secular monuments around it but the Kentucky display
    is impermissible because there were insufficient secular displays nearby.

    Again, this seems to be the Court trying to protect religious liberty, not oppress it. The State, according to the Constitution, can’t promote one religion over another. The Supreme Court in this case said that having ONLY one religion’s graven image on State land equaled a promotion of that particular religion.

    Here again, I think this is a rather petty and small-minded approach to the Constitution, but it does not in any serious way represent an attack on Christianity. By their reasoning, if there had been a Muslim statue only on the State property, that would have been a promotion of one particular religion. Noting that and making changes is an effort to PROTECT religious liberty, not attack it.

    How about this, John, go through your FRC report and see if you can find one that, to you, represents a real and actual attack on religious liberty and I’ll take a look at that.

    If they all are of that caliber of “example,” then no, I can’t take it seriously.

    These are not attacks, they are differences of opinion on how best to PROTECT religious liberty.

    ~Dan

  18. paynehollow says:

    Steven…

    I suppose we could quibble with “fast approaching” but “approaching” is not so far fetched.

    Then we’d have to disagree on that. While there are always those around with an agenda against any religion (not just Christianity) and there are those around with an agenda against atheism, I simply don’t think one can seriously argue that we have a serious problem or “trajectory towards” persecution here in the US.

    All of the examples I’ve seen thus far provided are examples of people fighting FOR religious liberty – and against the idea of a State Religion, which in many of our minds equates to religious oppression, not religious liberty. Now, sometimes, some folks’ conclusion on how best to fight FOR religious liberty may disagree with ours – I certainly don’t have a problem with a cross or a star of David or a Muslim or other symbol on someone’s gravestone, even in a state-owned cemetery – but look at the intent: It’s to protect religious liberty, not oppress it.

    For people who disagree with me about how best to protect religious liberty, I’m not concerned about them one day saying, “…and finally, the BEST way to protect religious liberty is to remove everyone’s opportunity to worship how they think best…” that just seems like paranoia and completely unfounded, looking at the facts.

    Steven…

    Finally, I’m concerned about your approach to Jesus’ teaching. I hope you wouldn’t equate Jesus’ lack of a direct reference to a topic to him condoning it.

    No, I wouldn’t. As you will note, I did not say anything like that. What I did was respond to Terrance who seemed to suggest that Jesus said something he didn’t say.

    I think a serious concern we who are Believers must watch out for is the imposition of our cultural ideals onto God and God’s Word. Much too often, I think we say, “Well, Jesus says…” or “the Bible says…” and then insert something that the Bible/Jesus does NOT say, but rather, what WE say. This is, to me, dangerously close to self-idolatry and supplanting God with Self.

    I don’t think we should be sloppy with our words, especially if we’re inferring that Jesus agrees with us.

    Steven…

    We CAN, however, say that Jesus did speak about marriage and sexuality and he showed great concern for the “least of these” and children. If Jesus cares about these areas of life, so should we.

    Absolutely, Jesus clearly supported good, healthy, loving, committed families and marriages. But does that equate to Jesus disagreeing with the same for gay folk? I don’t think one can seriously make that case.

    And yes, Jesus absolutely cares for the least of these and especially children. But, does that equate to Jesus being opposed to a modern medical procedure called abortion, in any and all circumstances and that Jesus supports the State stepping in and telling people that they can never use that medical procedure?

    I think if you make that leap, you have leapt too far.

    People of good conscience seeking the very best for the “least of these” and for cherished unborn children have come down on both sides of the question of whether having an abortion is morally appropriate in certain circumstances. Jesus has not told us one side or the other is the One True Side.

    Make sense?

  19. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    Would Jesus point out such sins? I didn’t say He did; I suggested that He would. Do you think He would?

    Glad to hear you acknowledge Jesus didn’t say that. No, I don’t think the case can be made that Jesus would have reached your conclusion. We disagree on that.

    ~Dan

  20. Dan,
    I believe we are coming to terms. I do understand your position a little better, which is good. There are a number of areas we agree (we are not NOW experiencing persecution, we should not say that Jesus directly said something he did not directly say) and a few we disagree (the “trajectory” of our culture, the Bible’s teaching on homosexual behavior, the morality of abortion).
    In all honesty, I’m not terribly concerned about the possibility of persecution. I could not claim to tell the future – neither outcome would be terribly surprising to me.
    The other two issues are probably debates for another day. The authors of this blog, in my opinion, write very well on both topics so I’ll let them carry the weight here.
    Since you’re an anabaptist I’ll point you to Richard Hayes’ book “Moral Vision of the New Testament” He presents the anabaptist position on a number of ethical issues and I find quite a bit of agreement with his position.
    Blessings, Steve

  21. What I did was respond to Terrance who seemed to suggest that Jesus said something he didn’t say.

    I didn’t suggest for a minute that Jesus referred to abortion and homosexual acts as a sin, but His father certainly did in the Old Testament. Paul certainty referred to homosexual acts as a sin in the New Testament. I’m suggesting that Jesus would not be shy about calling a sin a sin. And frankly, I’m quite tired of having to explain things to you as though you were a child.

    Abortion and homosexual acts are sins, and I don’t think Jesus would be shy about pointing this out. That you disagree means you have substituted the Gospel of Jesus Christ for one of political correctness.

  22. paynehollow says:

    You’re free to hold that opinion if you wish. I don’t find it moral, reasonable or biblical, but then, you are free to disagree with me.

    But, factually speaking, you are wrong to say that I have substituted the Gospel for “one of political correctness.” You are free to disagree with me, my brother, but making a false claim is a false claim, and that is wrong.

    ~Dan

  23. ” none of us – are facing anything like real persecution.”

    You are wrong. Because the level of persecution doesn’t rise to torture and crucifixions doesn’t mean persecution isn’t being perpetrated. No one is saying the what is going on meets the level of persecution experienced by early Christians at the hands of the Romans, or Jews at the hands of Nazis. But then, YOUR history is one of narrowly defining words so that their use must fit your narrative.

    As to that, YOUR history as an “anabaptist” has never been one of persecution. I believe you called that “whining” at your blog.

    In any case, a florist denying flowers for a homosexual wedding is not in any way denying anyone of their liberties. If that was true, any time a store closes for the night, they are denying many people their liberties. More to the point, the homosexuals in question were still able to pursue their happiness. There is no Constitutional mandate that anyone must take part in providing that happiness. Instead, the florist’s pursuit of her own happiness, based at least in part on her religious beliefs, has been denied by virtue of the lawsuit leveled against her. The homosexuals could have found another florist more concerned with monetary profit than spiritual and thereby had their pursuit of happiness satisfied. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of “pursuit”. Their pursuit was stymied by the florist’s desire to please God, who called homosexual behavior an abomination, so they could have simply continued their pursuit. The only party who suffered an infringement of rights was the florist.

    “You’re free to hold that opinion if you wish. I don’t find it moral, reasonable or biblical, but then, you are free to disagree with me.”

    Clearly you are not moral, reasonable or biblical. You’ve made this crystal clear in all your years of trying to force immoral, unreasonable and unbiblical meaning into Scripture. My brother.

  24. paynehollow says:

    No doubt there is truth in that, Marshall. Still, I try as best I can by God’s grace. Perhaps if you could pray for me and my wisdom as I do for you?

    ~Dan Trabue

  25. paynehollow says:

    On the other hand, Marshall, is it possible you are mistaken?

    For instance, could you provide even ONE instance of someone here being actually persecuted for their religion?

    And, while I could ask this in the same manner that John did (if you have any integrity, you’d concede that you’re wrong…), perhaps it would be more respectful and adult to say, come pals, let’s reason together. These examples that John gave, isn’t it much more reasonable and accurate to say that those are NOT examples of oppression or attacks on Christianity, but rather, attempts by people of good will to PROTECT religious liberty?

    There was no intent on the SCOTUS part to attack Christianity, right? Wasn’t that an example of them just trying to honor the Constitution as they understand it and PROTECT religious liberty?

    Using the right words is important, which was my point to begin with. If you call those attempts at protecting religious liberty “attacks,” well, doesn’t that make your belief system seem rather petty and small and timid and emotional itself?

    • Dan

      Are you so dense as to suggest that preventing religious expression and punishment for expressing your religion is a means to protect religious liberty?

  26. stevenkopp

    “My point is this: Many assume that being Christlike automatically means we will be appreciated by the world.”

    I agree with you. It’s a mistake. John 15:18-20 is quite clear.

    Two points:
    -Christlike is not equal to Christian.
    -Persecution could come to any.

  27. Am I wrong in thinking that as Christians we should expect persecution?

  28. Craig, you’re right. See John 15:18-20 as Isu mentioned above as one among many places in the Bible where it’s made clear that Christians can expect persecution. We shouldn’t bring it on ourselves (1 Peter 4:15) but we’re “blessed” if we suffer for the sake of Christ (1 Pet 3:14).

  29. Maybe Christian’s can empathize with how blacks, minorities, Jews, Muslims, etc. feel all over the world. Members of almost every group has been discriminated against – except Christianity (in the US, in recent history). Maybe the lesson we can take away from all this is live and let live. Understand how hard it is to be part of a minority and respect others.

  30. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Are you so dense as to suggest that preventing religious expression and punishment for expressing your religion is a means to protect religious liberty?

    I’m sorry, is that an answer to my question? You’re answering my questions to you with a question rather than an answer?

    To answer your question:

    I don’t think I’m any more dense than the next person.
    I’d appreciate prayers for any lack of understanding I might have.
    WHO is preventing religious expression?

    Are you suggesting that a ruling that says a STATE-OWNED cemetery can’t have gravestones with religious markings is “preventing religious expression…”? Because you know, they are free to bury themselves elsewhere and have the “religious expression” of a cross-shaped gravestone, if they want, so there is no prevention there.

    WHO is being punished?

    Again, if you all could provide JUST ONE REAL WORLD example of someone being “attacked” and “persecuted” for their faith in the US, that would be helpful.

    So far, it seems you’ve only pointed to a list of people disagreeing over how best to PROTECT religious liberty which, hopefully we can agree, is not an attack on Christianity.
    Are you saying, John, that efforts to protect religious liberty are somehow an “attack” on Christianity?

    OR, are you saying that these disagreements we’ve looked at are not actually efforts to protect Christianity but rather, intentional attacks on Christians with the intent of persecuting religious people?

    Could you answer some of my questions, please, so that we can have a reasoned discussion? Thus far, I have not seen any evidence of persecution and attacks. Do you have any? Just one would suffice.

    ~Dan Trabue

    • Dan

      Until we can get past you thinking that restricting Christian’s religious liberty actually preserves religious liberty, there is no way to discuss this with you. I find it interesting though how you would take that position.

  31. Atticus.

    Who do you believe Christians are not respecting?

    Also, I believe you are quite wrong to say that Christians in this country are not victims of discrimination. It’s still a matter of degrees, and the degree to which Christians have become the victimized might not have reached a level such as that experienced by, say, blacks, but what does degree matter? Should we not address it when the degree is low, or should we wait until we line the Appian Way? People have lost jobs for their religiously based opinions, and as shown, others have been sued. Chai Feldblum suggests that between the fictitious “rights” of homosexuals and the already Constitutionally protected right of free expression of one’s religion, the latter must take a back seat for the benefit of the former. Dr. George Yancy has written about the troubles people of faith face in their pursuit of a career in academia. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure for his beliefs. How badly must things get before “persecution” and “discrimination” are aptly applied?

  32. paynehollow says:

    So, you can’t even try to answer the question?

    I find that interesting, but sadly, not unusual.

    I don’t find it “restricting” religious liberty to say that a state-owned cemetery can’t have its own rules. Would you find it to be a restriction of religious liberty for a state-owned (or private, either) cemetery to have a rule that bans gravemarkers with curse words or lewd imagery?

    Do you think it’s restricting religious liberty for the post office to close on Sundays? Or is it just an example of a particular gov’t agency having a rule about its hours?

    Do you think that the intent of the SCOTUS was to “persecute” and “attack” Christianity in their ruling I cited?

  33. paynehollow says:

    John…

    you thinking that restricting Christian’s religious liberty actually preserves religious liberty

    By the way, John, do you NOT agree with this? IF someone believes that “death to the infidels” is the best way to practice their religion and serve their god, then surely you DO agree that there “liberty” to practice their should be restricted, right?

    Almost certainly, we can agree that there can legitimately be SOME limits to religious liberty that are acceptable. If one religious view interferes with another’s rights or religious views, then rational adults can talk about “How do we best preserve religious liberty?” and include in that conversation some restrictions.

    Do you support Muslim or Pagan or Hindu teachers leading school children in prayers because they think that is part of their religion?

    Surely we can agree that some limitations are reasonable and done for the purpose of PROTECTING religious liberty, not oppressing it?

    Can you answer just that question? A “No” is acceptable if you disagree, but I don’t think you do.

    • Christianity doesn’t say ‘death to infidels’ that’s Islam. Nice try attributing Muslim ideology yo Christianity in border to defend squelching it. And you have the audacity to call me brother? You’re not my brother.

  34. paynehollow says:

    I did NOT say that Christianity says “death to infidels,” John. I’m sorry you misunderstood, but that is not what I said and not what I was suggesting, dear brother in Christ (who can separate you and me from Christ, brother? Or one another? Not you, now powers above, nor powers below…)

    Rather than going on all-attack, all the time, why not just engage in a conversation with give and take, addressing the questions raised? They are not unreasonable questions and, if nothing else – if they are entirely stupid questions from an idiotic brother – why not help a brother out by answering questions I have?

    • You implied it Dan since the discussion is about, and the position you have taken, is that inhibiting public expressions of Christianity sustains and promotes religious liberty. Then you offered that component of Islam while we were discussing Christianity, so yes, you implied it.

  35. paynehollow says:

    It was not my intent and I’m sorry you misunderstood, I did NOT intend to imply that.

    So, any chance of you answering the questions I DID ask about the points I DID make?

    As to this…

    the position you have taken, is that inhibiting public expressions of Christianity sustains and promotes religious liberty.

    Please try to accurately and fairly understand my actual position, John (which is not as you just summed it up). What I’m saying is that…

    1. Religion (or Christianity specifically) is not under any kind of serious “attack” or persecution, at least not in the examples you have provided.

    2. People of good faith can disagree about how best to PROTECT religious liberty, but disagreeing about how best to protect religious liberty is not the same as an “attack.”

    3. You and I probably agree that there is no serious harm in allow a State-owned cemetery to have a Muslim or Christian gravestone, but others see ANY religious gravestone in a State cemetery as an implied endorsement of that religion. The Circuit Court ruled that this is correct and, in an effort to defend religious liberty for all, ruled that any religious tombstone is inappropriate in a State cemetery and made that ruling.

    4. In so doing, they weren’t attacking or persecuting any religion, just striving to protect all religions equally.

    Where specifically am I mistaken? Or can we agree on this rather simple and obvious point, dear brother in Christ and fellow human on this planet?

    ~Dan

  36. paynehollow says:

    I’ll take the group inability to respond to my questions as a sign that you have no good responses and that you have no rational excuse to think that I am mistaken. Which is good, because, at least in this case, it seems abundantly clear that we Christians are NOT being persecuted or attacked (words have meanings) and “examples” like “They wouldn’t let him put up a cross gravestone in a State-owned cemetery with a ruling against that” are just examples of differences of opinions on how best to PROTECT religious liberty. Sort of the opposite of John’s (and others’) claim, when you get right down to it.

    Thanks.

    ~Dan

  37. Oh, jeez! It could be that people have other things to do and might just get to your “questions” later. It could be that some have simply moved on to newer posts and have no passion for answering questions they feel are…less than intelligent.

    But you always have me, Danny-boy!!!

    As to your cemetery question, the Circuit Court is wrong. There is no issue with someone putting a religious symbol on the graves of loved ones, because allowing it does not establish any religion whatsoever. You offer the scenario of curse words on tombstones. But the 1st doesn’t really protect foul language, though it has come to be viewed as doing so. Thus, I would not take issue with ANY cemetery, private or state-owned that disallowed such engravings. The posting of crosses, Stars of David or even whatever the muslims use, is not offensive, except to those wishing to stifle the religious expression of others, which is far more offensive to me than seeing a muslim symbol ever could be.

    More of your questions:

    “Perhaps if you could pray for me and my wisdom as I do for you?”

    I have been. So far no luck. But I must say, for some reason, God is responding well to your prayers for me, for I can see right through your weak arguments quite easily. Thanks.

    “On the other hand, Marshall, is it possible you are mistaken?”

    As with all those other times you’ve asked this question, the answer is: NO. Persecution is not something that has to be organized, but is an attitude that prevails across a wide swath or our culture these days. You refuse to acknowledge it because you are a part of it, supporting the very same unChristian doctrines, beliefs and agendas that actual Christians oppose. As to examples of persecution, I listed several in a recent comment to Atticus on May 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM. That was merely a sampling and not the least bit a comprehensive list of examples of persecution.

    “There was no intent on the SCOTUS part to attack Christianity, right? Wasn’t that an example of them just trying to honor the Constitution as they understand it and PROTECT religious liberty?”

    I didn’t read it, but I think I get the jist based on comments here. So the answer is “NO, they are indeed infringing on the rights of people (even the last wishes of those who are now dead or their survivors) to express their faith. There is no harm to anyone by erecting a religious symbol over their grave. Trying to bring up “death to infidels” is just another desperate attempt on your part, by which you use the most outrageous example and try to make a connection to the topic being discussed. Such crap is insulting and transparent and doesn’t further your position at all, but only serves to expose your pettiness.

    What other questions do you have?

  38. Abortion is not a sin. Illegal, unsafe, blocked access to abortion that leads to sepsis, toxicity and potential death for the woman IS the only sin. Blocking access so you feel safe, while women who ACTUALLY need the service become gravely ill is an awful sin. The British Medical Journal reported in 2003 that 70,000 women a year die from unsafe abortion in countries where it is deemed illegal, equivalent to an airplane crash killing 400 women of reproductive age every few days and noting that such a crash would be reported as a tragic event with wide news coverage. The paper pointed out that deaths of women from unsafe abortion equal 168 such plane crashes every year and deserve our attention.

    People have always had (recorded from before Jesus’ time in Ancient Greece) abortions, and always will. You getting in the way means women end up dead or hurt. Jesus would not approve.

  39. Alice,

    Abortion is not a sin.

    Elective abortion is akin to murder, therefore elective abortion is a sin.

    Illegal, unsafe, blocked access to abortion that leads to sepsis, toxicity and potential death for the woman IS the only sin.

    Are you suggesting that abortion should be legal because women are injured or killed obtaining illegal abortions? Stupid. That’s like saying grand theft auto should be legal because high speed chases lead to high-speed crashes and death. If a criminal is injured while breaking the law, too bad.

    Furthermore, if something is wrong, like murder, it is wrong regardless the consequences of prohibiting it, something pro-choice philosopher Mary Ann Warren admits to.

    Blocking access so you feel safe, while women who ACTUALLY need the service become gravely ill is an awful sin.

    Unless their health is in immediate danger, then no woman “needs” abortion.

    The British Medical Journal reported in 2003 that 70,000 women a year die from unsafe abortion in countries where it is deemed illegal, equivalent to an airplane crash killing 400 women of reproductive age every few days and noting that such a crash would be reported as a tragic event with wide news coverage. The paper pointed out that deaths of women from unsafe abortion equal 168 such plane crashes every year and deserve our attention.

    You’re an idiot. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in third-world nations that lack proper maternal care, antibiotics, and disinfectant solutions. Look to Ireland, a developed nation, for evidence that prohibitions on abortion are not the death sentence you seem to be suggesting.

    Furthermore, isn’t it curious that you’ve failed to mention the unsafe nature of legal abortion? Or, are you unfamiliar with all the medical research which shows abortion drastically increases one’s risk of developing severe psychological problems, oftentimes leading to substance abuse and even suicide?

    Also, it’s impossible to know how many abortion-related deaths actually happen in the United States. There is no formal way of reporting abortion-related deaths. It’s not something that can be listed as a COD on a death certificate, so oftentimes abortion-related deaths are reported as complications of pregnancy.

    People have always had (recorded from before Jesus’ time in Ancient Greece) abortions, and always will.

    People have murdered in all of recorded history as well. Not exactly a strong argument in favor of it, ‘eh?

    You getting in the way means women end up dead or hurt.

    By their own actions.

    Jesus would not approve.

    No, I don’t think Jesus would approve of the way you disgusting people justify the slaughter of unborn children. You’re a pig, baby-killer. Get out of here.

  40. paynehollow says:

    “Pig.” “Baby-killer.” “Get out of here.”

    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…

    ~St Paul

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: