Comments
181 - 200 of 287 Comments Last updated Mar 9, 2013

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#183 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is pretty much by definition a bias.
I posted a site from a coaltion of religious thinkers in opposition to what Serious Lady claimed is the ONLY acceptable view for people who are Christian.
As a non religious poster but the son of a Baptist minister,
I have only on question for you skimmer.......

If you could sit down on the shore of Galilee and have a conversation with the historical Jesus,(that I believe existed) what do you think he would have to say about your positions and your Christian light religion?
Do you think Jesus would be pro abortion really?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But Yeshua said to them,“Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.”

Here is what my father would tell you about Jesus light.....

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

I prefer honest folks as well..........

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#184 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, for starters, post #84, you said this:
"The number of 'unwanted' pregnancies climbed and continues to climb with the addition al of sex ed in the school, birth control and even the morning after pill, being given to young people without parental notification or consent."
So I should have used the word 'despite' rather than 'with' knowing how you would twist my words.

That's not the intention of the sentence and any idiot, in or out of the discussion, would know that.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#185 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you point out where they are wrong?
You made the post, obviously from a mock religious group supporting choice (murder), so why don't you point out where they're right.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#186 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not possible to procreate without being fertile.
However, NOT procreating can be the result of many things.
Go back to my post #136. I already made that point.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#187 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The site has a point of view.
You disagree. That's fine. But the way to further discussion is to point out where you disagree.
For instance, you might cite from Old Testament scripture passages that lead you to believe that abortion was considered sinful or forbidden.
Tip already has. If the first Commandment is not enough for you.

Look, Reader, killing the most defenseless among us cannot be justified.

Now apparently you've found a 'pastor' who will agree with you, and even a group calling itself "Religious Coalition for Reproductive" whatever, who probably is a 501c3 corp and gets charitable contributions.

None of that changes anyone's mind but yours.
You cannot call yourself a Christian with one hand and pro-abortion with the other, and both be true.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#188 Feb 10, 2013
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
As a non religious poster but the son of a Baptist minister,
I have only on question for you skimmer.......
If you could sit down on the shore of Galilee and have a conversation with the historical Jesus,(that I believe existed) what do you think he would have to say about your positions and your Christian light religion?
Do you think Jesus would be pro abortion really?
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But Yeshua said to them,“Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.”
Here is what my father would tell you about Jesus light.....
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
I prefer honest folks as well..........
I love the content of that post, bb. And I'd love to have a conversation with Jesus.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#189 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, for starters, post #84, you said this:
"The number of 'unwanted' pregnancies climbed and continues to climb with the addition al of sex ed in the school, birth control and even the morning after pill, being given to young people without parental notification or consent."
Of course, you'd never consider the possibility that students might want to check out this sex thing the school is making a big deal about, earlier than they otherwise would have, because the government can do no wrong, right?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#190 Feb 11, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you start with the testing? Let me hear the plan.
woof
DNA....it is a new discovery. Maybe you have heard about it.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#191 Feb 11, 2013
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
As a non religious poster but the son of a Baptist minister,
I have only on question for you skimmer.......
If you could sit down on the shore of Galilee and have a conversation with the historical Jesus,(that I believe existed) what do you think he would have to say about your positions and your Christian light religion?
Do you think Jesus would be pro abortion really?
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But Yeshua said to them,“Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.”
Here is what my father would tell you about Jesus light.....
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
I prefer honest folks as well..........
I resent my serious beliefs being categorized as "Christian light." Particularly by people who pooh-pooh some of the things that I take very seriously in terms of our human obligations and responsibilities to one another.

If I believed that Jesus wanted me to back personhood amendments to the Constitution, or ensure that the world is otherwise ruled by simplistic interpretations, then that is what I would be doing. I see far more Biblically, and particularly from the New Testament, to indicate that we are to seek greater avenues of loving one another and caring for those unable to care for themselves. I see much to indicate that our separations from one another are false and not what Jesus sought to teach us.

These things are not, any of them, taken lightly.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#192 Feb 11, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the post, obviously from a mock religious group supporting choice (murder), so why don't you point out where they're right.
That "mock religious group" includes representatives from a number of mainline protestent denominations.

I am not personally in favor of dividing Christianity up into "real" believers (those who agree with me) and "mock" believers (those who do not).

Personally, I find it much more Christian to acknowledge that while we may disagree about a number of things, we share a belief in the same God and the redemption of the same Christ.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#193 Feb 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you'd never consider the possibility that students might want to check out this sex thing the school is making a big deal about, earlier than they otherwise would have, because the government can do no wrong, right?
Ahhhh, you belong to the club of "If we don't explain it to them maybe they won't notice."

No. Not only am I not inclined to foster ignorance out of such a belief, but the research shows otherwise.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#194 Feb 11, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I resent my serious beliefs being categorized as "Christian light." Particularly by people who pooh-pooh some of the things that I take very seriously in terms of our human obligations and responsibilities to one another.
If I believed that Jesus wanted me to back personhood amendments to the Constitution, or ensure that the world is otherwise ruled by simplistic interpretations, then that is what I would be doing. I see far more Biblically, and particularly from the New Testament, to indicate that we are to seek greater avenues of loving one another and caring for those unable to care for themselves. I see much to indicate that our separations from one another are false and not what Jesus sought to teach us.
These things are not, any of them, taken lightly.
Where do you find a "human obligation" to kill one's offspring?
And how is that act related to "loving one another" and "caring for those unable to care for themselves"?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#195 Feb 11, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh, you belong to the club of "If we don't explain it to them maybe they won't notice."
No, but there is such a thing as too soon. Instructing fifth graders how to put a condom on a banana is probably too soon for most kids.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#196 Feb 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but there is such a thing as too soon. Instructing fifth graders how to put a condom on a banana is probably too soon for most kids.
And you of course know of a school that includes this lesson?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#197 Feb 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but there is such a thing as too soon. Instructing fifth graders how to put a condom on a banana is probably too soon for most kids.
Maybe I am too old fashioned, but if I were a parent, I'd prefer the school stay out of my job of educating my child about sex with little, if any, emphasis on morals.

Sex should not be a 'how to' subject, but a 'why we don't'.

My mother and older sisters told me things as I asked. What's wrong with that?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#198 Feb 11, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you find a "human obligation" to kill one's offspring?
And how is that act related to "loving one another" and "caring for those unable to care for themselves"?
tip--those are ridiculous questions. But, perhaps you will find the answer you seek in this:

The Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, former chair of the Coalition board, told the 1 million-plus pro-choice marchers at the March for Women's Lives that clergy stand with them- "not in spite of our faith but because of it." These are her remarks:

We're pro-choice because we know that the Bible and any faith worthy of the name do not give simple and easy answers to complex and difficult questions. They don't promise to spare us from making tough decisions. They just promise that we won't have to face those choices alone.

We're pro-choice because we know that our faith cannot answer the question of when a fetus becomes a person. We also know that the whole question of fetal personhood is a disingenuous, and often malicious, attempt to distract us from the real issue-which is that the woman is a person. She is a person endowed by God, the U.S. Constitution, and common sense and decency with rights and responsibilities that she must exercise to the best of her ability, using her own best judgment.

And while our various religious traditions may teach various things about when, if, and how we should sacrifice ourselves for others, no one-not partner, priest, or politician-no one gets to decide what is, or is not, an appropriate sacrifice for someone else to make.

We're pro-choice because we have a vision.

We have plenty to march against-plenty to be outraged by:
violence at our clinics, onerous burdens placed on the poorest, youngest, and sickest among us, the atrocity of outlawing medical procedures and so threatening the lives of women who are already contending with shattered dreams.

No one with a heart and a conscience can fail to be outraged. But outrage burns fast. It is a powerful force but a finite one. To sustain us we need a vision -a vision that reminds of us the values and dreams that make us who we are and that brought us here in the first place.

I dream of a world where every person has full access to all the health care they require -- provided conveniently and compassionately.

I dream of a world where people don't grasp at the ridiculous and faithless notion that there is, or can be, a rule for every occasion and that knowing and enforcing enough rules will save us from the difficult work of making complex ethical decisions.

I dream of a world that values cooperation over competition, compassion over punishment, respect over control, and the dazzling diversity of creation over conformity.

I dream of a world that not only protects a woman's right to choose-but celebrates it.

http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/sermons/visi...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#199 Feb 11, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
tip--those are ridiculous questions. But, perhaps you will find the answer you seek in this:
The Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, former chair of the Coalition board, told the 1 million-plus pro-choice marchers at the March for Women's Lives that clergy stand with them- "not in spite of our faith but because of it." These are her remarks:
We're pro-choice because we know that the Bible and any faith worthy of the name do not give simple and easy answers to complex and difficult questions. They don't promise to spare us from making tough decisions. They just promise that we won't have to face those choices alone.
We're pro-choice because we know that our faith cannot answer the question of when a fetus becomes a person. We also know that the whole question of fetal personhood is a disingenuous, and often malicious, attempt to distract us from the real issue-which is that the woman is a person. She is a person endowed by God, the U.S. Constitution, and common sense and decency with rights and responsibilities that she must exercise to the best of her ability, using her own best judgment.
And while our various religious traditions may teach various things about when, if, and how we should sacrifice ourselves for others, no one-not partner, priest, or politician-no one gets to decide what is, or is not, an appropriate sacrifice for someone else to make.
We're pro-choice because we have a vision.
We have plenty to march against-plenty to be outraged by:
violence at our clinics, onerous burdens placed on the poorest, youngest, and sickest among us, the atrocity of outlawing medical procedures and so threatening the lives of women who are already contending with shattered dreams.
No one with a heart and a conscience can fail to be outraged. But outrage burns fast. It is a powerful force but a finite one. To sustain us we need a vision -a vision that reminds of us the values and dreams that make us who we are and that brought us here in the first place.
I dream of a world where every person has full access to all the health care they require -- provided conveniently and compassionately.
I dream of a world where people don't grasp at the ridiculous and faithless notion that there is, or can be, a rule for every occasion and that knowing and enforcing enough rules will save us from the difficult work of making complex ethical decisions.
I dream of a world that values cooperation over competition, compassion over punishment, respect over control, and the dazzling diversity of creation over conformity.
I dream of a world that not only protects a woman's right to choose-but celebrates it.
http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/sermons/visi...
Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.

-- G.K. Chesterton

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#200 Feb 11, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I am too old fashioned, but if I were a parent, I'd prefer the school stay out of my job of educating my child about sex with little, if any, emphasis on morals.
Sex should not be a 'how to' subject, but a 'why we don't'.
My mother and older sisters told me things as I asked. What's wrong with that?
Well, SL, attempting to teach, as we do, in schools about the basics of biology and social organization and governance and pretend that human beings do not also reproduce and organize themselves into families, communities and such for the protection of the young and the ongoing life of the species ends up with a fairly stilted curriculum.

Going back so far as Friedrich Froebel--who introduced the notion of kindergarten and Maria Montessori who contributed a good deal to the understanding of early learning and development--learning about the family as a key building block of social structure has been virtually unquestioned. The problem today is the conflict who want a prescriptive curriculum--mandating that there is an appropriate structure and that structure includes only a married mommy and daddy and a coterie of biological children; and those who want a more descriptive curriculum, which affirms the reality that within any school community there are a variety of family structures.

We have also long relied on schools as places in which to disseminate public health information (basic hygiene, hand-washing, coughing into the sleeve, teeth brushing), provide a handy spot for routine screenings (nurses eye-checks, for instance) and to insure that immunizations are carried out on schedule. As thinks like teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs have been recognized as public health problems, it seems natural to continue along the same road and provide information that is helpful in terms of prevention.

Some folks, like Tony, however find this embarrassing and/or threatening.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#201 Feb 11, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, SL, attempting to teach, as we do, in schools about the basics of biology and social organization and governance and pretend that human beings do not also reproduce and organize themselves into families, communities and such for the protection of the young and the ongoing life of the species ends up with a fairly stilted curriculum.
Going back so far as Friedrich Froebel--who introduced the notion of kindergarten and Maria Montessori who contributed a good deal to the understanding of early learning and development--learning about the family as a key building block of social structure has been virtually unquestioned. The problem today is the conflict who want a prescriptive curriculum--mandating that there is an appropriate structure and that structure includes only a married mommy and daddy and a coterie of biological children; and those who want a more descriptive curriculum, which affirms the reality that within any school community there are a variety of family structures.
We have also long relied on schools as places in which to disseminate public health information (basic hygiene, hand-washing, coughing into the sleeve, teeth brushing), provide a handy spot for routine screenings (nurses eye-checks, for instance) and to insure that immunizations are carried out on schedule. As thinks like teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs have been recognized as public health problems, it seems natural to continue along the same road and provide information that is helpful in terms of prevention.
Some folks, like Tony, however find this embarrassing and/or threatening.
That mindset explains why today's children -- some still in the single digits in age -- view "hook-ups" as casually as "hand-washing."

Sexual relationships are a private and sacred matter.
So much for the innocence of youth.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#202 Feb 11, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
tip--those are ridiculous questions. But, perhaps you will find the answer you seek in this:
The Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, former chair of the Coalition board, told the 1 million-plus pro-choice marchers at the March for Women's Lives that clergy stand with them- "not in spite of our faith but because of it." These are her remarks:
We're pro-choice because we know that the Bible and any faith worthy of the name do not give simple and easy answers to complex and difficult questions. They don't promise to spare us from making tough decisions. They just promise that we won't have to face those choices alone.
We're pro-choice because we know that our faith cannot answer the question of when a fetus becomes a person. We also know that the whole question of fetal personhood is a disingenuous, and often malicious, attempt to distract us from the real issue-which is that the woman is a person. She is a person endowed by God, the U.S. Constitution, and common sense and decency with rights and responsibilities that she must exercise to the best of her ability, using her own best judgment.
And while our various religious traditions may teach various things about when, if, and how we should sacrifice ourselves for others, no one-not partner, priest, or politician-no one gets to decide what is, or is not, an appropriate sacrifice for someone else to make.
We're pro-choice because we have a vision.
We have plenty to march against-plenty to be outraged by:
violence at our clinics, onerous burdens placed on the poorest, youngest, and sickest among us, the atrocity of outlawing medical procedures and so threatening the lives of women who are already contending with shattered dreams.
No one with a heart and a conscience can fail to be outraged. But outrage burns fast. It is a powerful force but a finite one. To sustain us we need a vision -a vision that reminds of us the values and dreams that make us who we are and that brought us here in the first place.
I dream of a world where every person has full access to all the health care they require -- provided conveniently and compassionately.
I dream of a world where people don't grasp at the ridiculous and faithless notion that there is, or can be, a rule for every occasion and that knowing and enforcing enough rules will save us from the difficult work of making complex ethical decisions.
I dream of a world that values cooperation over competition, compassion over punishment, respect over control, and the dazzling diversity of creation over conformity.
I dream of a world that not only protects a woman's right to choose-but celebrates it.
http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/sermons/visi...
Katherine Hancodk Ragsdale is a false prophet, but you keep following her word if you find it too difficult to face, and practice and encourage, the truth as set forth by God.
You go to your church, I'll go to mine.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Abortion clinic vows to keep serving 6 min Ms_Julie 13
welfare nation 11 min Zoe Regen 3
RIP Joan Rivers 26 min E-Bob 10
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 33 min scirocco 3,211
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 2 hr xxxrayted 30,475
Where to buy Herbal Incense? (Aug '12) 3 hr The K2 Guy 111
Feds say Pakistan unlikely to return fugitive O... 8 hr They cannot kill ... 3
Where are all the original legacy posters? 11 hr Duke for Mayor 101
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••