A Call For The Scientific Investigation Of Exorcism

The image is of Terrance Cottrell. He was killed during his exorcism.
This article is intended as a call for the scientific investigation of exorcisms and a collection of data for a forthcoming article called "Reasonable Doubt About Sin, Biological Bases For Behavior". It shows why in all aspects of life, including faith and religion, that sound principles for evidence need to maintained. It seems there is broad agreement that the suspected demon possessed individual should be screened for psychological disorders, but when and how it gets done seems to be a problem. This is a call to "The Body Of Christ" to do the responsible thing and devote some of those tithes to a fund for the medical/scientific investigation into suspected cases of demon possession to include such things as blood tests, MRI and PET scans.

Wikipedia, Exorcism
An exorcism is a ritual to expel evil spirits from a person or place. In human possession it works by making the demon uncomfortable enough to leave the victim. In order to make the demon uncomfortable, it is usually necessary to make the victim uncomfortable. This entails methods that span the spectrum of annoying, to torturous to deadly. Exorcisms are a common practice in many places in the world. It is sanctioned by at least two protestant churches in the United States, Protestant churches in Nigeria Africa, and by the Vatican. As far as I can tell, they all caution against mistaking psychological disorders for demon possession. This, like prayer, seems to be an intersection between the natural and the supernatural that should have a significant amount of resources devoted to it.

If demon possession is real, what is it about the exorcism that is so compelling that it causes the demon to leave? The exorcist? Why wouldn't it be Christ? Is it the combination of Christ and the Exorcist? Considering that demons don't leave without the exorcist, it must be the exorcist that is the most important part.

The following are a short and incomplete list of deaths by exorcism

* On March, 8, 1995, Kyung-A Ha, 25, was beaten severely during a night-long exorcism conducted by members of the Jesus-Amen Ministries in San Francisco.
* Kyung Jae Chung was killed in a July 4, 1996 exorcism in Los Angeles.
* In 1997, a 5-year old girl in Bronx, N.Y., was forced to drink a mixture of ammonia, pepper, vinegar and olive oil because her mother and grandmother thought she was possessed. Gagged with duct tape, she died.
* Charity Miranda, a teenager from Long Island, N.Y., was suffocated in a plastic bag by her mother and sister during a ceremony in 1998.
* Terrance Cottrell, an 8-year-old, was beaten to death during an attempted exorcism in Milwaukee last September.
The above taken from CBS News
* priest and nuns jailed for exocism death
* Janet Moses, a mother-of-two, is thought to have drowned when at least one member of her 'healing group' held her under water, while trying to drive out an evil curse.

The following are links to information about Pope sanctioned exorcism
Pope John Paul II performs exorcism
Pope Benedict XVI promotes exorcisms

And the following are a list of where to go to get an exorcism done.
Logos Christian Fellowship
Erica Shepherd, Lady Exorcist
Integrated Healing Prayer Ministry, maybe Erica again
Adversaries Walk Among Us
Vatican School for Exorcism
Witch Children of Nigeria

With greater scrutiny maybe the practice will fall into disrepute and the victims will get the help they need instead of abuse.

49 comments:

Brian said...

Definitely the wrong post for this comment, but I didn't know where else to put it... Can someone on DC post a rebuttal for this little article? I looked for a post on logic / reasoning, but couldn't find one...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/atheism-irrational

Thanks,
Brian

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Brian,
if you send me an email at debunkingchristianity@gmail.com with Lee: in the subject, maybe we could write one together.

zilch said...

Lee- what can one say about exorcism? What do "responsible" Christians say?

Brian- what can one say about such stuff? This is an article whose central message is:

Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God.

This is baldly asserted, with no support. What can "responsible" Christians say?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Zilch,
I was actually hoping that I could start something and that an organization like "The Reason Project" or CFI would pick up on it and instead of saying that "religion is dangerous and stupid" they could start using their resources to try to get the Vatican to put their money where their mouth is with regards to their policy of ensuring its not a disorder and/or get the megachurhes to take a stand against the practice and make a big show of it.

If nothing else, maybe we can make the practice disreputable.

QUALITY CONTROL FOR EXORCISMS I SAY! REGULATE IT LIKE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE!

Then, hopefully, the victims will get the help they need instead of abuse.

I'm going to add that last line to the article to make it more coherent.

bpr said...

So is this blog meant do debunk "evangelical Christianity" as the title suggests? Or is it also meant to debunk Catholicism? Just thought I would point out the discrepancy so that you can update your blog description.

Joe E. Holman said...

bpr said...

So is this blog meant do debunk "evangelical Christianity" as the title suggests? Or is it also meant to debunk Catholicism? Just thought I would point out the discrepancy so that you can update your blog description.


My reply...

This blog was meant to debunk all hodgepodge identifying itself as being under the banner of Christianity.

The reference to "evangelical" identifies our role in attacking the believer whom we feel has become too militant in their beliefs. Hence, we address them as "evangelical" Christians.

(JH)

Lee Randolph said...

Hi bpr,
I don't know, let me discuss it with terrance.

ooops! I can't because he was murdered in his youth by some well meaning christian protestants out of ignorance and faith.

I guess the answer is, 'don't be so petty'
why don't you say something like,
"gee lee, I agree, this kind of thing is awful and we really need to get a grip on it".

If you are a christian, you should accept the responsibility of policing yourselves and maybe put it on your blog next to the Ron Paul link.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Tell ya what - let's investigate the abuses of both science and religion - how about those people with lobotomies eh??.

bpr said...

If you read previous posts on my blog you'll note that I do comment on Christians thinking that for some reason homosexuality and abortion are the only issues, and outside of that it doesn't matter. There are crazies no matter where you go. Christians have them, Muslims have them, Atheists have them...
my blog is political, not religious, which is why I don't delve into the implications of a lot of what you talk about on here.

I was just trying to give you a heads up about the blog description before someone comes in here saying "well they're catholics, not christians, so that doesn't apply to me."

Lee Randolph said...

Hi mmm,
why don't you take the high road? Don't you think you are on the high road?

What good does it do to point out the frailties of pitiful human humanists when awful things are what you'd expect from them?

where is your righteous indignation? Where is your moral outrage at these charlatans that are making a mockery of your beloved christianity?

And for your information, we awful humanists make mistakes, but we learn from them and correct them, we change our mind from time to time when better things occur to us. Since the development of antipsychotic drugs as Thorazine in the 1950s, lobotomies and other forms of psychosurgery have become generally obsolete.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi bpr,
if I misread your intention, my apologies, and thanks for the heads up.

The Dude said...

Thanks for the post, Lee.

Was recently in a small debate with a friend that is a devout evangelical Christian, and one Monday he opened his email correspondence with this:

"Greetings! Hope you all had a blessed weekend! I had a beautiful weekend with Christ, and even got to witness my daughter perform a successful exorcism of a demonic-possessed friend of hers - it was beautiful!"

Up to this point, our debate had been a comfortable one with no confrontation or "weirdness" beyond the standard atheist head-shaking of the theist's reliance on the biblical text as "evidence". However, the way this guy so nonchalantly and pleasantly talked about an "exorcism" indeed peaked our "weird" meters for the day!

With a little more inquiry, this guy seriously thinks that he witnessed a demonic-possessed person that was "cured" by his daughter. His description of the event showed us nothing more than what appeared to be a fraud - an over-acted emotional/dramatic "show", yet these people seriously believed that this behavior was of a supernatural cause! I asked the guy if the possibility exists (in his mind) that this person was acting, and he immediately said "of course not! I do know how to identify the difference between acting for attention and a true demonic possession!".

Of course, I asked further - "how do you know?" To which he answered "well, you have to be there and have experience in these types of beautiful events to understand the "signs"".

To me, the debate was just fine without the addition of this troubling act - and the idea that even the media makes exorcisms out to be "weird" should tell these people (evangelical or Catholic) that their behaviors are not justified simply by thumping a bible around claiming supernatural influences!

TOR Hershman said...

Moi's lill' YouTube film
"The Origin of Jesus Christ."

[SPOILER ALERT: Ovid did it - but 'tis still a heck of a film]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

John W. Loftus said...

TOR Hershman, why did I waste my time watching that video? I won't be watching anything else you recommend since I figure I'll just be wasting more time.

Cheers.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Lee! Thanks for the response - I am definitely on a road, but I wouldn't necessarily label it "high" - I think of it as a road to healing and deliverance (salvation) which may be different than what you seem to be describing.

At any rate, you wrote, "What good does it do to point out the frailties of pitiful human humanists when awful things are what you'd expect from them?" Where on earth did you get that presumption? As a believer, I acknowledge that humanity is susceptible to getting infected with variations of what it means to be human and to interact with one another. I am not in a contest of superiority/inferiority/power struggle with others. Nor do I promote double standards in approaching people with varying levels of fallibility.

Then you wrote, "where is your righteous indignation? Where is your moral outrage at these charlatans that are making a mockery of your beloved christianity?" I prefer faith and compassion over moral outrage. People who are involved in mistreatment of one another (whether it is religious or scientific) do not understand that there is a different Way available. I don't think God is mocked or threatened but I do believe He offers salvation and equips us with information and a spirit that, increasingly, enables me to respond with faith to distressful situations. If someone is practicing double standards (glorfiying one man's fallibility over another) then I do try and intervene on that process because it stigmatizes what ought to be brought into light for healing and deliverance.



Then you said, "And for your information, we awful humanists make mistakes, but we learn from them and correct them, we change our mind from time to time when better things occur to us. Since the development of antipsychotic drugs as Thorazine in the 1950s, lobotomies and other forms of psychosurgery have become generally obsolete." Again, I don't know where you are arriving at the presumption that I believe humanists are awful. I have been a nonbeliever before and I was moral and kind but inwardly I was perishing. And yes, we all make mistakes, but are we given grace and mercy when we do?? Do we have a foundation of knowing and believing we are loved inspite of fallibilities? Sometimes, with people there is grace, but even the most benevolent person can grow weary, impatient and rejecting after awhile. People have limitations and often are not open to taking ownership of them so become involved in offense/defensive living. I've found it edifying to know that God is powerful in loving me when others do not.

Take care, Lee!

Shygetz said...

Shorter mmm:

Christianity makes me feel good.

Lee Randolph said...

skeptical skeptic,
I deleted your comment on the grounds that it was racist and added no value for or against christianity.

Joe E. Holman said...

Shygetz said...

"Shorter mmm:

Christianity makes me feel good."


My reply...

LOL! Yep, you said it!

Damn, I love brevity!

(JH)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Are you biased against feeling good? (which, BTW, I didn't say - that's your interpretation). Although, I confess, a fully actualized person does have times of feeling good - that is part of a full life experience. I suppose a person does have a right to by cynical towards happiness and stigmatize such.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi MMM,
Are you biased against feeling good?
on the contrary, it is my contention that feeling good is the primary motivator in every living thing.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

There is NO DEFENSE for doing GARBAGE like what happend to Terrance or any of those refrenced in your article.

That is MENTAL ILLNESS and a complete spiritual breakdown if not posession by those who claimed to be doing exorcisms.

I am a Christian and glad to be one. God didn't ask me to check my brain at the door especially in matters of civility and humanity. In fact, I believe that my relationship with HIM only enhanced those areas.

These acts are deplorable and deserve the full weight of civil prosecution and law and justice.

Thank you.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,
These acts are deplorable and deserve the full weight of civil prosecution and law and justice.
I hope you are genuine, and if you are I hope you will use your position to expose this fraud.

Maybe this can be an area where christians and atheists can work together to make the world a better place.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,

I am genuine and mean 100% of what I've said. Crimes against children seem to be at epidemic proportions. We as a church (every church) need to get rid of these abusers and make a stand for right.

The spiritual abuse you recanted here is from people devoid of ANY Biblical understanding but who misuse the Bible and are serious in that misuse.

One thing I know, people like me aren't popular and I don't have crowds lined up around the corner to come hear me preach because or 50 million churches calling me to speak at their conferences, because I constantly preach on and expose subjects like you've presented.

We can talk about the "athiest thing" in another post (LOL) but as for me I'm willing to work with anyone to help stop the mess that you've exposed here.

Thanks again.

Robert Freilich said...

What has made crimes against children endemic, is the contempt the society really has for children

After all, 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade.

50 MILLION!

If you think that can not have a debilitating effect on the people who participated, and on the society, then you are the equivalent of a holocaust denier.

Whether constitutinal or not, to do such a thing screws up a lot of people for life, and comes out in frustrations in other areas of their lifes.

Brother Crow said...

I agree that most of the activity Lee talks about is performed by people who are mentally unbalanced. The problem is...christianity gives shelter to those type of people, because it rewards aberrational thinking and behavior as signs of spiritual elitism. Think Benny Hinn, or Oral Roberts. Those men - who are as crazy as march hares - command the respect, adoration, faith and dollars of MILLIONS of Christians. Why? Because they do crazy things and people accept that as a sign that the "touch" or "anointing" of God is upon them.

That kind of thinking is what shelters the insanity that ultimately ends up killing a child in "exorcism." DSHarvey talks about the wickedness of child abuse...and it is covered up in church. My wife is CFO of one of the most respected child advocacy centers in the country...and the one group that will not partner with them to protect children of abuse...FUCKING CHURCHES!!!

I know one church in our area where a child abuser was sheltered for over five years, during that time molested over fifty children. This was a Baptist church.

Christian faith does not know how to confront true evil...so it makes up a devil, and a ritual of exorcism, and gives it to the people, who use it and yes abuse it, and children die...and others as well.

Atheists, at least, look at it all with a cold eye, and choose to trust a logic that will bring clarity to the air. Like a high pressure front. We need it.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

To Robert Freilich~ You're absolutely right about that. I did some research of the effect of Roe V.Wade on the African American Community on my site. Since 1973 13 Million African-American children alone murdered through abortion.

There is no way we can't see the harmful effects of a societal change. Absolutely right.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Brother Crowe ~ You said this:
"Christian faith does not know how to confront true evil...so it makes up a devil, and a ritual of exorcism, and gives it to the people, who use it and yes abuse it, and children die...and others as well."

Since I believe in the reality of the devil, I reject the thought that he's been made up by us in any way, however I believe that we are more responsible for our actions that what we really wish to believe. In my opinion, the problem begins within us and it doesn't take much "tempting" to get many of us to sometimes follow what we are predisposed to. I know that's sounds like a lot of "Christian speak" but I think you make a very valid greater point:

THE CHURCH IS UNRESPONSIVE TO CHILD CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE AND HAS FAR TOO MANY ABUSERS COMFORTABLE WITHIN IT'S RANKS.

This must change. I personally believe that the judgement of God against the American or Western church will be beyond remarkability (if that's a word) we've got much to pay for our neglect and absenteeism on too many of the most important issues. Most of those issues effect the welfare of humanity and betterment of mankind in general and the welfare of our children. It's a travesty.

Thanks.

Brother Crow said...

Judgement has already begun, DS (as in district superintendent as in Methodist church? I am a former methodist pastor. I used to be so afraid of you guys if you are a DS). The church is one of the most despised institutions in this country. Why? Hollywood of course. No...actually, you did it to yourself. The despite is well-earned. The church has no moral voice anymore because it has so truly shown itself to be hypocrites who do not really believe what your god-man chooses.
So, if there is a judgement, it is here...consequences of promoting a religion that has no basis in reality and therefore cannot sustain much of long-term adequate impact. Churches will never, never turn the tide of child abuse, because they harbor abusers through stupidity. And they welcome exorcisms. One casting a demon out of another!! Sons of Sceva!!

You may personally believe in a devil, but that is just a projection of your (not you personally - or maybe so) own ego, libido, and profoundly terrifying tendency to do the thing you hate. And its just another way of shrugging shoulders like Adam - you know, "this woman you gave me made me do it."

Cole said...

on the contrary, it is my contention that feeling good is the primary motivator in every living thing.

Finally I have found something that we can agree upon Lee. Good job! You are an intelligent human being!

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,
two things,
It sounds like you would agree that the christian community should police itself, rather than US Senators.
Whether or not christianity is true, it will lose credibility expecially in the light of the renewed threat of atheism rearing its ugly head in the age of information.

As I see it, it is a matter of survival for the christian community to get a grip on the fraud that is being perpetrated in its 'strong tower'.

Another thing, how do you justify saying that a blastocyst is a human qualifying its destruction as murder? I will not debate abortion in this thread, but I would like your opinion.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi cole,
we agree on more than this, you just haven't thought it through. If you are the Houx that used to cut and paste YEC info into this blog, at least neither one of us are YEC's anymore.

Cole said...

Lee,

I've never been a YEC. I did post some Old Earth Creationist material. So, yeah we do agree on more than that.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,

Hey, thanks for the dialogue. I'll speak to a few of the points you raise and do it as objectively as possible.

First, Christianity and the church in general should police itself like every other institution should. I mean we have sexual harassment policies at most places of employment, anti-discrimination policies etc. The church shouldn't be any different. Religious practice is free and should remain free, however when there is criminal activity involved it's no longer a religion, no matter how one deems such practice. Exa. the murder or pedest could claim that they are "religiously" bound to murder and be a pedephile. However their acts are a clear violation of the biblical message, morality, established law and generally accepted practices in civilized society. The early Christian church was known by its ability to follow established laws and NOT be disruptive within the community. That should be our standard today with the exception of righteous dissent for causes such as civil rights etc.

So I don't see Senate investigations due to a rise in any religious or non-religious dogmas (if there can be such a thing as a non-religious dogma) as being a motivational factor for the church "cleaing up our act". I believe it's really a natural part of the church maturing in the concepts of "occupying" or doing business as the scriptures have commanded the church to do.

So far as atheism is concerned, you already know that to be a true atheist you need more faith than it takes for me to be a Christian. I have evidences that shape my faith, you have NONE that shapes your belief system except your own subjective presuppostion. Therefore your belief is based SOLELY on FAITH without any imperical support or objective evidences. So I consider you and all others who claim to be atheists persons of extreme faith, and because of this I sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

Finally, personhood is NOT based on an individuals cognitive ability or awareness, but most and foremost humans are created in the image of God seperate and apart from ANY OTHER creature or creation on Earth. Every Blastocyte (as you call it)enjoys a unique categorization as human based on the declaration of God through humanity. Flesh of flesh, bone of bone, spirit of spirit. At the moment of conception, regardless of significance and concious awareness, the HUMAN enjoins HUMANITY as an essential element of humanity on to his/her maturity.

Part of a basis for this is found when God established relationship with Jeremiah before he was formed. Jer. 1:5 "formed"~ [yatsar { yaw-tsar’}]---Shaped, framed or given human activity--- in his mother's belly or womb. This concept not only covers the foreknowledge of God, but the foreknowledge of one's self. In this case the foreknowledge of Jeremiah himself. Before he was aware of his personhood, he was a person.

Therefore it becomes EASY for me to assign the personhood of humanity to a sucessfully fertilized egg and dividing, living and active cells that you term as a Blastocyte.

Since, life is in HIM, and HE is the life and light of men (Jn.1:4) and the substance of life (Jn.6:34 & 48)and the WORD of life (Jn.6:63)and the creator of ALL life (Is.40:28) then how could I have concious in eliminating that life under this age and dispensation of Grace and Truth?

Therefore, all life should be respected but more specifically that of humans.

The problem of absolutism exists. This is the obsticle in my opinion.

Do you believe in absolute truth, and what is your basis for that belief?

Thanks.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi harvey,
I really wish you would stick around for a while. Unfortunately I have one last article to publish before i have to concentrate on a class, so I can't dialog with you as much as I'd like to.

I'd love to discuss the justification of calling the destruction of cells with no nervous system "murder", the justification of counter-intuitively asserting that it takes more faith to be an atheist, and absolute truth with you, but I really need to get this article out and take this class.

so I'm afraid that I'll quickly answer your question about absolute truth and invite you to stick around for a while.

I don't like to use the word 'belief' regarding myself. I try to avoid 'belief' in favor of knowledge. In the case where I don't have enough information to have 'knowledge' I'll just have to pick a direction and go with it, and learn as I go. I believe I've been burned by 'belief' in more than just christianity.

No I don't think there are any absolute truths. (And on this point I am waiting for the less mature commenter to tell me I've made a fallacy) I think there are only principles of behavior that are agreed upon in a culture whether formally or implicitly. The reason why is that I know there are foundational evolutionary algorithms for 'morals' that organism exhibit across categories some of which can be predicted by economic models of behavior or 'game theory', I know that in almost every situation I can think of an act can be either judged 'moral' or not depending on the context. I think a better foundation for morals is to prevent the greater harm, but deciding between the dilemma of two harms requires some insight and careful consideration but is bound to facilitate an error every now and again. Errors are natural and are part of the process of learning.

So on this point I'll have to excuse myself, invite you to participate in my next article before I take a break, and stick around to comment on the articles from the other contributors. However, sometimes you need thick skin!

It stays pretty deep whether you want to call it thought or something else.
;-)

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,

Thanks, I will stay around and just so that you'll know my efforts are to learn as much as teach and I think there are some perspectives here that allow honest learning.

So I appreciate it and look forward to commenting on other articles.

So far as the babies or blastocytes (as you call them) are concerned, the functions such as lungs, heart, systems etc. DO NOT by themselves, make one human. A human consists of those things but humanity is affirmed before those things exist. So functionality or non-functionality of limbs or systems are not the indicator of humanity, otherwise any individual born without the use of certain functions, whatever they might be, would be considered unhuman and not a person. I believe that the Christian worldview is beyond that, is more pratical in it's application and cognizant of the fact that humanity and personhood are established regardless of advantages or disadvantages of the physical person.

That's a snapshot of the argument, but I'll be looking to hear from you in other posts and in greater detail on the "Truth" issue.

Thanks Again.

Scott said...

Exorcist schedule is full at the Vatican.

CNN Video

The head of the exorcist division at the Vatican says many possessed people are "misdiagnosed" and sent to phycologists instead of receiving "proper" treatment. He also claimed he could tell if someone was possessed by "the way they moved their eyes."

Harry McCall said...

Robert freilic stated: “What has made crimes against children endemic, is the contempt the society really has for children

After all, 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade.

50 MILLION!”

And for D.S. Harvey Burnet too:

If you want to really do something to save them, then help get the United States congress to pass a law REQUIRING ALL pro-life churches to take ALL unwanted babies and force these pro-life churches to raise these children (with total health and educational care) until the child is 18, or better yet, though college. Just think of all the new members the pro-life churches would have, plus all the now fully Christianized souls you have kept from eternal torture in The Lake of Fire.

It’s ONLY WHEN these pro-life churches put their “money where their mouth is” that abortions will even begin to stop!

But when “a good ole Christian like George W. Bush” (who sated that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher) is pro-life only to cut off most government welfare when these unwanted babies are born is a blatant contradiction of the so-called “pro-life”…force the pregnancy / baby to term then cut off most all welfare and let it suffer and die from lack of medical care.

With the United States having one of the highest infant mortalities in the western world, both the pro-life churches and the fiscally conservative Republicans are guiltier than the doctors in the abortion clients.

What is truly ironic is that as long as the unborn doesn’t cost much, they are soooo pro-life. Let the baby be born, and these same pro-lifers are opposed to any national Democratic health care that would stop most infant and childhood suffering and mortality.

Give me a break!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

To Harry,

Thanks for your comments partially in response to mine. You said this:

"If you want to really do something to save them, then help get the United States congress to pass a law REQUIRING ALL pro-life churches to take ALL unwanted babies and force these pro-life churches to raise these children (with total health and educational care) until the child is 18, or better yet, though college."

Now first of all, when is it my (or the churches) duty to pay your bills and raise your children??? Isn't that called socialism? This statement displays a lack of knowledge of the real issues. A remedy to the problem can't be to fix the problem AFTER the problem has occurred. The emphasis should be placed on prevention such as teaching abstinence, sexual purity and better values, but one has to believe in truth and values in order to teach them.

Then you also said this:
"Just think of all the new members the pro-life churches would have, plus all the now fully Christianized souls you have kept from eternal torture in The Lake of Fire."

Again another part of your argument that adds no value to any part of the conversation. Helping someone doesn't mean lifetime allegiance. Feeding the hungry doesn't make a one to one that the hungry will follow Christ...The Christian motivation is to do good because God is good and our hearts have been changed, not to morally or otherwise obligate someone. So obviously your understanding of Christian ethics and polemics are skewed.

You also assume that the wage and tax base would remain the same as it is now if 50 million people would have been added to society since 1973. Let's make a few assumptions only because I haven't actually done the research although it is available:

I'll begin with facts: It's been 35 years since Roe V. Wade. 50 Million People (babies)have been executed since then. This is an average of 1.429 Million people per year. Lets assume that the average person would have started to work at age 20 and makes an average income of 35,000.

Now making a hypothetical that there would have been no deaths over the same period of time (which CAN'T be true- but for the sake of numbers we'll allow at least a 20% out of workplace and another 10% are dead...In fact why don't we just kill HALF of those people that are eligible to have been at work.) Hypothetical: HALF of that eligible to work do not work and all other parameters remain the same. There would still be an additional potential 11.857 Million eligible American Workers in the system generating roughly an extra 300 Trillion dollars in tax revenue over the same period of time. That's roughly 18 Trillion dollars in REVENUE per year.

Please don't hold me to accuracy, I'm certainly not a mathematician. Additionally, I don't even have the calculator to really calculate the numbers but even if we assume half of the people would NOT have paid into the system at all, the revenues are yet ASTRONOMICAL. By the way the gov't PS 52 tables would offer a MUCH lower rate of death than anything I said here. MY FIGURES ARE RIDICULOUSLY high in favor of death and low in favor of income but yet makes the point easily.

SINCE you relate everything to numbers, finances and governmental assistance etc...I think even a cursory non-detailed illustration shows that there would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH resources to handle any supposed "burden" on society that would have been created by a larger populous. What you use is a “strawman” and has NO BEARING on truth.

In short LESS EMOTION, MORE FACT...

I know that this is an emotional issue but throwing unfounded assertions around do not help shed the true light on the real situation.

Finally, parents raise their OWN children. Parents teach their children about sexual promiscuity and the woes of unwed sexual relationships. Parents teach their children how to value healthy relationships...

These are not conservative values, they are Biblical values. They are AMERICAN values. Don't get upset because the Bible TEACHES VALUES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH morally and physically healthy SOCIETIES.

In short, I appreciate the emotion, but I sincerely appreciate less “knee-jerk” and more thoughtfulness when setting forth reasons or justifications for murdering babies and human beings whether invitro or otherwise.

Maybe you need an exorcism for this???

Thank you.

Jim Jordan said...

Harry McCall
You should know better. Before abortion was legal, we had no insurmountable problems as you insist we would have if it was illegal again. End legal abortion and society will take care of the consequences...period. Your thinking is very shallow.

Lee, Yesterdays blastocysts are today's blatherskites ( and some on athiest websites). Show me a blastocyst that became a football and I'll deny all of them any rights.

Harry McCall said...

DS Harvey Burnett stated: “In short LESS EMOTION, MORE FACT...

I know that this is an emotional issue but throwing unfounded assertions around do not help shed the true light on the real situation.

Finally, parents raise their OWN children. Parents teach their children about sexual promiscuity and the woes of unwed sexual relationships. Parents teach their children how to value healthy relationships...”

Rev. Burnett, we have a society heavily in credit card debt, with many of these being Christians. Do you really think that teaching children about sex as in “unwed sexual relationships” and “Parents teach their children how to value healthy relationships...” will actually work? Yes, they will work about the same time Jesus comes back!

The biggest pro-life organization – the Catholic Church –condemns birth control unless it’s the “Rhythm method” and unmarried priest try to tell married couples how to run their sex lives…please!

Legal or illegal, abortion is a fact of life and my argument still stands…get them born and let them die and, as you say Rev. Burnett, you are not your brother’s keeper unless it’s unborn and safely not your tax problem or does not involve money from your pro-life church. Hey, you and your church are already tax free, how much greedier can you Christians get?

You want “LESS EMOTION, MORE FACT…” well here it is!

Rev. Burnett, have you ever been in the waiting room of an abortion clinic? I have! I sat with as my wife waited to get an abortion. You and your pro-lifers don’t know me nor anything about what caused my wife and I to be there. Your argument is definitely skewed in my case. I’m not a child who was involved in “sexual promiscuity and the woes of unwed sexual relationships”. I was a married member of a Southern Baptist Church at the time with no church support, no church help and prayers to Jesus…totally useless.

Did I see and hear anyone taking their abortion lightly? NO! What I did see were women and girls crying (my wife among them) and wanting the help and care that was not there. Females forced into a situation because of circumstances they could not completely control.

So where were these pro-life church members: Yelling outside with their wallets safely in their pants or pocketbooks. And where was your Jesus? Just sitting back in the Bible…again, totally useless!

I consider both you and Jim Jordan to be part of the problem and not a solution to fix it. You both sit back as pro-lifers do with your wallets safely tucked away and say:

“Again another part of your argument that adds no value to any part of the conversation. Helping someone doesn't mean lifetime allegiance. Feeding the hungry doesn't make a one to one that the hungry will follow Christ...The Christian motivation is to do good because God is good and our hearts have been changed, not to morally or otherwise obligate someone. So obviously your understanding of Christian ethics and polemics are skewed.” “lifetime allegiance”, hell, I did not get one week of allegiance!

Let me reverse that: If “God is good” then “obviously your understanding of Christian ethics and polemics are skewed.” I gave your God and the Bible my best shot; check out my blog profile.

If “Helping someone doesn't mean lifetime allegiance” so if that’s true, then its time to discontinue Sunday morning church services.

Again, theology states as fact that if the fetus is aborted, they go straight to be with your Jesus in heaven. If they are live and grow into childhood and past some “age of accountability” and, according to Jesus’ own teachings: “broad is the road that leads to destruction” with few finding the narrow road that leads to “life”. So logically (and of course since I don’t believe in either God or the Bible, so I don’t believe this, but just for argument sake), the more aborted babies; the more souls in heaven and the less burning for eternity in The Lake of Fire. Now that’s the Gospel truth!

As stated above, your own Bible can be a major theological problem for pro-lifers on abortions! Even the Catholic Church finally dropped “Limbo” as an after life place for dead babies. Now they go straight to the waiting arms of Jesus.

In light of all I know about you Christian pro-lifers and just what little value you pro-lifers offer for the person going into the abortion clinic, would I do it again? You bet I would!

ZAROVE said...

Harry, I'm sorry to say this but, your argument seems entirely rooted in your personal choices, and experinces.

It is an Emotional argument.

I do not know why your wife had an Abortion, but this doens't automaticlaly make it right. Nor does your critisim of Pro-lifers make them wrong.

You mention pocketbooks and walets a lot, though, so I asusme the reason for her Abortion had to do with Financial stress.


And, Perhaps your SOuthern Baptist Churhc didn't help, but isn'tthat the Fault of where you attended, and not actually the fault of the beleifs they held to as a Corporate body?

That said, Abortion is opposed because it is Murder. THis is how Pro-Life groups see Abortion. If you do not want ot admit this, fine, but the fact remains, the reaosn epoepl are pro-life is because they do not want ot see the death of a CHild.

Incedentlaly, your theology is wrong. The Catholic Churhc has not officially Droppe dLimbo. In addition to it not havign been a formal doctirne ot begin with, no official pronouncement has actually declared it nonexistant.

That also said, not all CHurhces teach that Aborted Babies go straigh tot Heaven, either.

And, worse of all, even if they do, your whole line of htinkign itsself is skewed. You think that Aboriton si OK because babies who are Aborted go straight to Heaven. You oerlook the sin of Murder on the part of the parents.

Now, rather or not you agree with any of this doens't matter, but int he end, you wife had an Abortion, andyour angry at the CHurch, and money wa sinvovle dint he decision. Noen of this is really evidence of a Pro-Abortion stance being moral or logical, but all of it proves your thinkign with your emotions.

Again, I am sorry to come down on you for an issue thta is sensative, but you cannot use your expernces liek this to silence others, either.

Harry McCall said...

Zarove thanks for the criticisms, but as an atheist, I call the shots in my life as long as it is not in violations of any county, state or federal law. This is freedom OF and FROM religion.

You and the pro-lifers can call me and my wife murderers, but a pious Hindu is a pro-lifer when it comes to the sacred cows of India or “Cattle” here in the U.S. which most Christian pro-lifers approve of their slaughter and eat their meat. To a pious Hindu, Christians are murderers who would be jail should you kill a scared cow in India.

As I stated above, if abortions are outlawed, then the Catholic Church should be forced to take all unwanted babies and raise them to adulthood. That’s fair!

D.S. Harvey Burnett’s commits about increased revenue from taxes drawn by more babies being allowed to live to working adulthood applies equally to offerings given to, no only the Catholic Church, but to all other churches as well if they to were force to take in and raise all unwanted babies to productive working adults.

Again, you pro-lifers want to have your cake and eat it too. That’s one sided and not reality!

Harry

ZAROVE said...

Harry, your statements still don't truly address the issue, and your emotional outbursts still do not prove anythign of viable substance.

Looking over your post, we se eno hint of anythign that woudl address any concern. You irts make a shame-faced appeal to emotion in regards to your personal expeurnce alogn wiht yoru wife, and now yiu defend this by again appealign to emotion or occurance, not logicl or reason.


Does it matter what the Hindu beleives about Cows? Would it help if I told you I was a Vegitarian myself?

The point is, you cannot argue that ABortion si OK because you and yoru wife had decided to have one. Nor can you argue agaisnt Christendom because you did and the SOuthern Baptist Churhc you attended did not support you.


It is also tellign that you repeatedly mentiont he Catholic CHurch. You where a Southern Baprtist, why are they even beign refered to?

Your tangents are remarkabkey irrational at their core.

That said, your arument abotu the Catholic Churhc taking in Babies isn't even one thta matches reality. In our world, the Cahtolic CHarities that currently eixst are under so many restirctions thathey are foced to either shut doswn or comply to laws that violate thier teahcings. In the United STtes, this includes forcign them to either inckude COntracepton on the insurance they provide, and in sem states ABoritons, or else loose federal support, and in some cases legal option.

The whole "Seperaiton of CHurhc and STate" defenders that endleslsy try to shut them down have managed to convence enough peopelthat,dispite the American hisotyr of noninterferance in such Charities, they ar eosmehow wrong to offe public services.

At this point, they cannot offer many of the services htey once did because of th elegal roadblocks put up by peoel who ignroe hwo America was originally set up, to create a mytic past in which we deviated and htye are tyrgn to get bakc which prevents them from acting.

Afterward, they, and you, complain that the Churhces, namely the Catolic Churhc, doens't do anything. Well obviosuly, its nto allowed to.

Now you ar eproposing the Cahtolic Churhc take in those bzbies. Well, woudl you really permit the Cahtolic Chruh to run orphanages that are not Federally overseen, and actulaly do this?

I doubt it.

As to reality, your arguments seem to stem continually form Econmic woes. But shoudl your Econmic situation really be used to Legitimise your wifes Aboriton?

If I was low on money, and robbed a store, woudl my lack of funds be justificaiton enough to not send me to jail?

Is thsat ven an argument aboutthe morality of theft?

Yoru arguments still don't address anyhting but your own need to self-justify.

And critisisng me and "Pro-lifers" won't really make your arguments more sound, especially where thye contradict other arugments that have been made.

Incedentlaly, as an Ahtiest, you don't "Call your own shots", that is, if you obey any laws at all, yor still boun to cetain civil obligations.

I also doubt that all of your Athiestic arguments presented here are self-generated.

No man is an Island, it wa sonce remarked.

Harry McCall said...

“Harry, your statements still don't truly address the issue, and your emotional outbursts still do not prove anythign of viable substance.”

Zarove, since when do I need you or your Catholic Church’s permission to run my life? My only proof I need is that a group of unmarried nuns and priests are telling married people – even non Christians – what they should or should not do and that dog won’t hunt!

“Looking over your post, we se eno hint of anythign that woudl address any concern. You irts make a shame-faced appeal to emotion in regards to your personal expeurnce alogn wiht yoru wife, and now yiu defend this by again appealign to emotion or occurance, not logicl or reason.”

Zarove, religion is nothing but emotions. No proof it exist and thus, it can not be sued in a court of law. Both the Mass and Prayer are emotional outlets; period!

“Does it matter what the Hindu beleives about Cows? Would it help if I told you I was a Vegitarian myself?”
Then I would say the same: Does it matter what any pro-lifer believe as for as my personal life goes? Hell No!


“The point is, you cannot argue that ABortion si OK because you and yoru wife had decided to have one. Nor can you argue agaisnt Christendom because you did and the SOuthern Baptist Churhc you attended did not support you.”
Zarove, abortions are legal and safe if done correctly. Listen, you can not tell me what I can and can not do. Zarove can ONLY DEFEND his or her position.
Zarove, again I don’t need to justify ANYTHING to you or your Catholic Church / pro-lifers. If I’m criminally wrong, have me arrested, if civilly wrong, sue me.

“It is also tellign that you repeatedly mentiont he Catholic CHurch. You where a Southern Baprtist, why are they even beign refered to?”
It’s the richest church on earth. Sell some of that art work at the Vatican and use the money to help the poor just a Jesus said to do.

“Your tangents are remarkabkey irrational at their core.”
Again, Zarove, speak for yourself. The Democratic Party does not think so!

“That said, your arument abotu the Catholic Churhc taking in Babies isn't even one thta matches reality. In our world, the Cahtolic CHarities that currently eixst are under so many restirctions thathey are foced to either shut doswn or comply to laws that violate thier teahcings. In the United STtes, this includes forcign them to either inckude COntracepton on the insurance they provide, and in sem states ABoritons, or else loose federal support, and in some cases legal option.”
Zarove, all centers that care for children are under the federal and state requirements. Your Catholic centers either have to “put up or shut down”; that’s the law.
Reality is the Catholic Church is starting to be a failure. We have tons of illegal Mexicans in the U.S. leaving your church every day because of the religious freedoms offered in Protestant denominations.

“The whole "Seperaiton of CHurhc and STate" defenders that endleslsy try to shut them down have managed to convence enough peopelthat,dispite the American hisotyr of noninterferance in such Charities, they ar eosmehow wrong to offe public services.

At this point, they cannot offer many of the services htey once did because of th elegal roadblocks put up by peoel who ignroe hwo America was originally set up, to create a mytic past in which we deviated and htye are tyrgn to get bakc which prevents them from acting.”

Zarove, that’s what federal and state laws are for. We no longer live under the Holy Roman Empire. We have a secular government “for the people and by the people” not “For God and by God”.

“Afterward, they, and you, complain that the Churhces, namely the Catolic Churhc, doens't do anything. Well obviosuly, its nto allowed to.

Now you ar eproposing the Cahtolic Churhc take in those bzbies. Well, woudl you really permit the Cahtolic Chruh to run orphanages that are not Federally overseen, and actulaly do this?

I doubt it.”
Zarove, when the Catholic Church went unchecked, priest and nuns molested children and the Archdiocese knew about it and simply moved the priest or nuns. This is not medieval Europe, but post modern American.

“As to reality, your arguments seem to stem continually form Econmic woes. But shoudl your Econmic situation really be used to Legitimise your wifes Aboriton?” Harry, your statements still don't truly address the issue, and your emotional outbursts still do not prove anythign of viable substance.

Looking over your post, we se eno hint of anythign that woudl address any concern. You irts make a shame-faced appeal to emotion in regards to your personal expeurnce alogn wiht yoru wife, and now yiu defend this by again appealign to emotion or occurance, not logicl or reason.



“If I was low on money, and robbed a store, woudl my lack of funds be justificaiton enough to not send me to jail?”
“Is thsat ven an argument aboutthe morality of theft?”
Zarove, you are comparing apples to oranges. Abortions are LEGAL, robbery is not. Duh!

“Yoru arguments still don't address anyhting but your own need to self-justify.”
If it’s legal and I want it, then what else do I need?

“And critisisng me and "Pro-lifers" won't really make your arguments more sound, especially where thye contradict other arugments that have been made.”
Zarove, your logic is flawed. You need to think thing though before presenting your case.

“Incedentlaly, as an Ahtiest, you don't "Call your own shots", that is, if you obey any laws at all, yor still boun to cetain civil obligations.”
You and I are under civil law and not Canon Law. You choose to be under Canon Law in that you think that’s what God wants. That’s your problem.

“I also doubt that all of your Athiestic arguments presented here are self-generated.

No man is an Island, it wa sonce remarked.”

And neither is your Catholic Churches theology. Most of it is stolen form Classical pagan philosophy.

ZAROVE said...

Zarove, since when do I need you or your Catholic Church’s permission to run my life?

Harry, I am not Catholic. I am from the Church of Christ.

That said, the topic at hand is about the legitimacy of your cliams about hte Pro life movement and how CHristians behave, none of which is vendicated by your irrational critisism of Christianity as a whole.



My only proof I need is that a group of unmarried nuns and priests are telling married people – even non Christians – what they should or should not do and that dog won’t hunt!


But, you on the other hand have every right to dictate what is and is not mroal to Others.

In fact, yoru views should be th elaw, and if voters decide otherwise they are wrong and destoryign your rights. Hwo dare thye not bow to your moral superuorty.

By the way,, just because Prietss are unmarrid doens't mean they can't offer moral advice. Morality isn't restircted to sex, for one thing, and ven if you meant marital advice, obkective outside observance can, actually, prove benificial.

If this where not the case, then Psycologists hwo never suffered Depression shuld never give counsilign to those hwo suffer form it.

Yoru claim is not founde din logic, but in Pseudo-reaosnign that someone has to be marrid in order to offer mroal advice. The wya you worded it, anyway, doens't even make sence given that theft, for instance, isn't sexual at all, and unmarrid people surley understand theft as well as married ones.


“Looking over your post, we se eno hint of anythign that woudl address any concern. You irts make a shame-faced appeal to emotion in regards to your personal expeurnce alogn wiht yoru wife, and now yiu defend this by again appealign to emotion or occurance, not logicl or reason.”

Zarove, religion is nothing but emotions.

No, religion is a worldview we adopt in order to help us procces sinformation. You have a Religion, Harry.

Everyoen does.

And not all religion rest son emotion, unless you wan tot think that all religious thinkers have been overly emotional and all topics have been, even in your misunderstanding of what religion is.

Religions often even cpunsil against listenign to your emotions. Yet its all emotion?

You now prove how illusory your arguments really are.


No proof it exist and thus, it can not be sued in a court of law. Both the Mass and Prayer are emotional outlets; period!


Yes, and endign the sentence in PERIOD! proces it.

Actually, yoru wrong. The Mass is not all about emotion, and is actulaly a heavily ritualised act.

The theology behind the Mass is not emotion based either.

Nor is prayer nessisarily emotional.

As for no proof, you offe rno evidence that Religion is all emotion, or that the Mass and Prayer are emotion based. You juyst decree it, an it is so.

I can prove many things stated in Variosu religions, from Spacific historical claims, to the advice and insight it gives in regards to the Human condition.

Psycological evidence exists that Religoous views have helped peopel overcome probelms in life and have borne out the wisdom gathers throughout the ages, and we can sicentificlaly measure those results.

We do have Evidence, Harry, o many of the claims, so even thi is false.



“Does it matter what the Hindu beleives about Cows? Would it help if I told you I was a Vegitarian myself?”


Then I would say the same: Does it matter what any pro-lifer believe as for as my personal life goes? Hell No!


But, Harry, your argument is still nonsensical. The reaosn the Hindu in India doens't matter is because neithe of us ar ein India.

And the Pro-life arugment is that you ar ekilling a baby. Why shouldn't soemone be allowed to voice critiissme of this?


Would you use the same "Hell no!" if the same Pro-Lifer also argued agaisnt racial discirminaiton? If we follow that "Personal life" argument o its hilt, then no one woudl be allowed to critisise any action epopel have personally chosen, including slavery, child labour, and abuse of women.

Its the same concept, ebcause in the end, the reaosn pro-lifers ar epro-life is because you are dnying soemioen else the most bsic right of all, the right to life. By killing a baby, you deny them this foundaitonal right. THats the enture central point, and it won't be gotten rid of by tactics of deflection like citing Hindus in India, nor by claimign its a personal moral chpice on your part, sicne it affects soemoen that isn't you.




“The point is, you cannot argue that ABortion si OK because you and yoru wife had decided to have one. Nor can you argue agaisnt Christendom because you did and the SOuthern Baptist Churhc you attended did not support you.”


Zarove, abortions are legal and safe if done correctly.


But, beign lgal doens't mean they are right. At oen time, Slave ownership was legal, and I doubt you'd argue now that it was moral when it wa legal.

As for beign safe, thats not true either. EVen in the best of conditions, all Aboritosn carry signifigant risks, and all Abortiosn do emence damage to a woman. A womans risk of Cervical Cancer, steility,and other unnessisary an unwanted health problems increase, uteral bleeding is a common problem, and the emotional impact is always preasent.

That said, this is just the damage tot he woman. Abortion also kills the baby. I'd think Deaht is considered Damage. But then, your entire argument for Abortion is that it s"Legal and Safe", even though the end of Aboriton always result sint eh loss of a life, and damage tot he carrier of that life.

No, Abortion is not safe, its a murderous practie.



Listen, you can not tell me what I can and can not do.


Yet you can dictate to others what they can and cannot do.

If Abortion where mad eillegal, woudl you sit there and accept it, or protest this action by the Govenrment?

And by demandign others be silent, you are dictatign tot hem both their actiosn and their morals.




Zarove can ONLY DEFEND his or her position.


And, Ithis is what I have been dping. I don't really think I have actulaly goen to your house and demanded compliance.

But, if I defend my posiiton, you seem to think Im rammign it down yor throat and takign away your right to do as you please.

Isn't that a bit interesting?



Zarove, again I don’t need to justify ANYTHING to you or your Catholic Church / pro-lifers. If I’m criminally wrong, have me arrested, if civilly wrong, sue me.


But, you said above that I can defend my posiiton.

Now you deny htis?

Worse, you don't even know much abotu me. You wher emistaken in that I was a Catholic. Im not. I just hate weak arugments. For all you know I am Pro-ABoriton.

I'm not, but nothign I said until this moment indicaed otherwise. I merley argued agaisnt your assertions, which where weak.




“It is also tellign that you repeatedly mentiont he Catholic CHurch. You where a Southern Baprtist, why are they even beign refered to?”


It’s the richest church on earth. Sell some of that art work at the Vatican and use the money to help the poor just a Jesus said to do.


You know, Harry, I've heard all of this before.

If the Vatican sold off all those art treasures they have been prservign for the benifit of Humanity, and gave the money tot he poor of the owlrd, the money oudl last wha? two months, three?

THe art treasures woudl be locked away, never to inspire anyone unless they wher ein a museum, and only if you pay for admission, unles sbought by a provat eocllector then never seen again, the world woudl be denied the inspirational power of said art, and the poor wudl still starve.

Your Logic is simple.

THe CHristaisn are evil, exspecially the Cahtolics.

Yoru critisisms are old, and borrowed form others, such as your claim that St. Paul the Apostle was a Mysogninist, or no this, and lack any valid substance, and yoru entire midnset is nothign but that of a Bigot seekign excuses and to find fault.


It is htis attitude that is oign to prevent you from seeing reaosn, sicne you have you rposition which you must defend to make yourself right, and only seek to find flaws in the thinkign an practices of thos ehwo oppose your position.



“Your tangents are remarkabkey irrational at their core.”


Again, Zarove, speak for yourself. The Democratic Party does not think so!


To my knoweldge, the Democratic Party did not use the logic to defend their positiosn that you have.

I cnanot fahtom the Democratic Party sendign Delegates to argue for Abortion based on the fact that they, persoanlly, think Pro-Lifers ae nuts, or that they had had one, ect...


Yoru argument is meanignless, because of th eLogic it employed, and it is th eundelryign Logic that I addressed, nto the spacific stands that you took.

Incedentlaly there are Pro-Life Democrats, and Cahtolic Democrats, and other assorted Christans int eh Democrat party.



“That said, your arument abotu the Catholic Churhc taking in Babies isn't even one thta matches reality. In our world, the Cahtolic CHarities that currently eixst are under so many restirctions thathey are foced to either shut doswn or comply to laws that violate thier teahcings. In the United STtes, this includes forcign them to either inckude COntracepton on the insurance they provide, and in sem states ABoritons, or else loose federal support, and in some cases legal option.”



Zarove, all centers that care for children are under the federal and state requirements.


Requiremnts yes, but the laws int he UK are rather stifling, and the United States is gettign worse in this as well. It is one thing to have a set of standards to ensure safety, it is quiet another to demand that such a facility act agaisnt its own moral concience base dupon political views held by the Govenrment.




Your Catholic centers



I have no Catholic Centres.

either have to “put up or shut down”; that’s the law.

So, if we changed the law, and made Aboriton illegal and it illegal for a Federal instettion to distribute contraceptives, woufl you pPut up or shut down?

I think you'd complain.

The poitn is, there is an unjustifid level of cotnrole that is levied agaisnt Instetutions that run along a moral Harter, and the Govenrment shoudl not intervene in matters of concience.

( No, Aboriton is not merley a matter of concience, before you try to tie this into it.)

When the Govenrment forces a body to supply contraception, it ids not doin this to ensure anyoens safety in said Isntetution.

Whet he Govenrment orders a body to adopt Chidlren to Same-sex couples, this is not ensurign anyoens afety either.

It is simply the Govenrment overriding the matters of OCncience that the Instetution has, for its own ideology to be implemented.

That is the signifigant difference beign advanced here.




Reality is the Catholic Church is starting to be a failure.


VOltaire said the same hting. Ad plenty of peoel have said htis about hte United States Of America too.

THe Socviet Union looked at the Depresion Era America and said that that was clear proof of the failutes of a Capitolistic society, and predicted that everyone woudl be a Communist within 20 years.

Your assssments have been shown to be shallow and based on emotion.

There is no logic to your arguments and your assertiosn are thus meanignless.


We have tons of illegal Mexicans in the U.S. leaving your church every day because of the religious freedoms offered in Protestant denominations.


So, there where lots of Churhces of CHurst membr sin Mexico?

And seriosuly, how does htis prove that the Catholic Chruches claism afe false?

It doesn't. It just prives that yo think peopel elaving it proves what it says isn't true.

Which is a Nonsequiter.



“The whole "Seperaiton of CHurhc and STate" defenders that endleslsy try to shut them down have managed to convence enough peopelthat,dispite the American hisotyr of noninterferance in such Charities, they ar eosmehow wrong to offe public services.

At this point, they cannot offer many of the services htey once did because of th elegal roadblocks put up by peoel who ignroe hwo America was originally set up, to create a mytic past in which we deviated and htye are tyrgn to get bakc which prevents them from acting.”



Zarove, that’s what federal and state laws are for.


No they aren't. The United States was foudne dupon Libertarian principles, which only existed to ensure the common welfare of the society and Domestic tranuility. THe United States was a Union spacificlaly esigned for the Govenments not to have tjat much power over the lives of the citesenry.

That was the hwole point of it.



We no longer live under the Holy Roman Empire. We have a secular government “for the people and by the people” not “For God and by God”.



WHich soemhow means that the dictates of concience of a gorup cna be overrideen by the Federal Govenrment, which becoems the supreme arbitor of morality?

I'm sorry, but your still making petty, and historiclaly innaccurate, arguments.

This sin't even about me demanding the Holy Roman EMprie be broguth back, and everyone be subject to God. But the US wasn't fined as a Secular Govenrment either. It was a Libertarian one, a Free Republic.

Under the original concept, Groups where free to act in accordance tot he dictates of their concience.


If the Govenrment intervenes, it shoudl only be for the reaon to settle a dispute tht woudl harm society, or else to ensure safety in a given situaiton. The Govermnet hsoudl have no right to force peopel to act agaisnt their moral concience simply because thye think it is expeirnct. The Govnerment shudl simply not have htis power.

( Before we draw back to Abortion, keep in midn the reaosn it is opposed. It is not a personal moral dcision and not a matter of individual concience, the pro life side argues that it is Murder. Thus it is in defence of soemoen elses right that is denied.)

what aort of this doens't sink in?


“Afterward, they, and you, complain that the Churhces, namely the Catolic Churhc, doens't do anything. Well obviosuly, its nto allowed to.

Now you ar eproposing the Cahtolic Churhc take in those bzbies. Well, woudl you really permit the Cahtolic Chruh to run orphanages that are not Federally overseen, and actulaly do this?

I doubt it.”


Zarove, when the Catholic Church went unchecked, priest and nuns molested children and the Archdiocese knew about it and simply moved the priest or nuns. This is not medieval Europe, but post modern American.


Now now, Harry, the same thign happened in the Secular instetutions.

You know, schools, where PRayer was removed and no oen read the bIble?

How many Schoolteachers have made the news laley for haivng had sex with underaged Students?

And often the school boards knew and kept quiet until they had to too. Not alwyas, but then, it snto always true that the Archbdiocese where aware either.

Yoru bigoted and closed midned sterotypign of Cahtolcis, which invovles revisitign the CHild molesting Priets ( and now apparnelty Nuns) just shows how ridiculosu oyu are.

Not all Bishops woudl hide such things, and not all Priets molested CHildren. Less than 2% of the clergy had anyhtign inapropriate, and only two or three Bishops where ever implicated.


So no, Harry, relative to the numebr sinvovled, the CHildren we have now are actlaly in greater danger, Statisticlaly, from Schoolteachers than form Priest.

But their secular so yor OK with them.


“As to reality, your arguments seem to stem continually form Econmic woes. But shoudl your Econmic situation really be used to Legitimise your wifes Aboriton?” Harry, your statements still don't truly address the issue, and your emotional outbursts still do not prove anythign of viable substance.


Looking over your post, we se eno hint of anythign that woudl address any concern. You irts make a shame-faced appeal to emotion in regards to your personal expeurnce alogn wiht yoru wife, and now yiu defend this by again appealign to emotion or occurance, not logicl or reason.


“If I was low on money, and robbed a store, woudl my lack of funds be justificaiton enough to not send me to jail?”
“Is thsat ven an argument aboutthe morality of theft?”


Zarove, you are comparing apples to oranges. Abortions are LEGAL, robbery is not. Duh!



But, at oen time, SLavery wqas legal, and so was Segregation. In fact, Segregation was Manditory.

Again, by hre Logic you list now, whatever is legal is moral. SO those who fought agasint slavery, and this includes CHristains, Harry, and htose who fought for Civil Rights and an end to egregation, where wrong.

The fact that Segregation was LEgal up until the 1960's meant that Segregation was moral up until the 1960's.

Thats what your saying here.

If not, then you'd have to admit that the Pro-life side see's no difference except that Aboriton si worse than theft, because you end up with a Dead baby. Thats the "Safe" aboriton, Harry, someone alway dies.

That harldy qualifies as safe, and thats not a comparrison between Apples and Oranges.

And thats what you refuse to acknowledge.



“Yoru arguments still don't address anyhting but your own need to self-justify.”


If it’s legal and I want it, then what else do I need?


Legal is not the sma ehting as morally right, Harry.

If it was legal to discriminate agaisnt oher races, as it once was, woudl this mean I was right ot do so?




“And critisisng me and "Pro-lifers" won't really make your arguments more sound, especially where thye contradict other arugments that have been made.”


Zarove, your logic is flawed. You need to think thing though before presenting your case.



I hve thoguht it though Harry.

Aboriton is not safe. In the end you have a Dead Baby. THis alone makes it not safe. Liekwise, ther eis proven medical damage tothe woman, as well as Psycological.

Aboritn is not safe for her either.

Aboriton is legal now, but this doens't mean it shoudl be Legal.

Nor does your argument present any reaosn why it shoudl be considered OK, excoe thtta it is Legal.

And you seem to want others nto to be abke to argue for their beleifs in public if they cotnradict ouyr own views or make you face soemthign you have done and challenge it.



“Incedentlaly, as an Ahtiest, you don't "Call your own shots", that is, if you obey any laws at all, yor still boun to cetain civil obligations.”


You and I are under civil law and not Canon Law. You choose to be under Canon Law in that you think that’s what God wants. That’s your problem.


The Churhc of CHrist has no Cannon law, and why wuld it be a Problem?

Do toy really think you can argue againt Cahtolic Cannon law by simply dismissing it?

Or by sayign that others who are Catholic,a s you presumed I was, have a problem because thy think they follow Gods will makes this true?

Argument form declaration, Harry, doens't work.

“I also doubt that all of your Athiestic arguments presented here are self-generated.

No man is an Island, it wa sonce remarked.”

And neither is your Catholic Churches theology. Most of it is stolen form Classical pagan philosophy.


I am not Cahtolic.
Also, the idea that the Catholic Churhc stole everythgin form Pagans is discredited Nonsence. Perhaps if you read some Actual Hisotry, and not Alexandr Hislop, you'd realise that the "Stolen Pagan Philoposophy" claim is just not true.

Harry McCall said...

Zarove and all Pro-lifers: Here is how your loving God views fetuses and babies:

Genesis 8 Flood kills pregnant women, children. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?

Psalm 137: 9 “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?

2 Kings 2: 23 – 24, God’s own prophets uses his divine power to call out two bears to kill 42 children simply because Elijah did not like to be mocked. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?

Numbers 31: 15 – 18 God, though Moses endorses murder, rape and especially pedophilia. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?

Hosea 13: 16 “Samaria will be held guilty. For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little ones (babies) will be dashed to pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.” (Murdered fetuses).

Now I understand, Zarove. Your God is the abortionist and murderer. And, I have to admit, you are right, women are killed here as your God leads in this abortion clinic.
Where is your pro-life God, Zarove? Oh, here He is! Killing children and women and their fetuses!

I could quote more of your beloved PSEUDO pro-life Bible and its God, but that is enough to prove you and your pro-lifers have a “straw dog” when it comes to any pro-life God.

Well wait, surely Jesus is pro-life! Fact is, Jesus NEVER EVEN ONCE criticized God’s murderous actions in the Hebrew Bible as being wrong, especially when it came to killing non-Jews! Where is your pro-life Jesus, Zarove?

Zarove, the Christ of Christ will have musical instruments playing in use in their church services before abortions are outlawed in the U.S. and that’s gospel!

ZAROVE said...

Zarove and all Pro-lifers: Here is how your loving God views fetuses and babies:



You are takign thing out of context again, and not htinkign them through.

Genesis 8 Flood kills pregnant women, children. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?



You do realise that the Flood was becaus of the wickedness of society, right?



That said, God is not Human, and as the AUthor and creator of all life, it is his to do with as he pleases. As you may try to turn this aroud on me, the bottom line is, God made everything, and owns everything, even the lives we lead.



It is his.




Psalm 137: 9 “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?




THe context of this Psalm is to given. God is not commanding that anyone dash babies agaisnt rocks, rather, this Psalm, written after the ISraelites where taken into Captivity, displays the sorrow felt at the conqueast, and sings of the way the Israelites miss their Homeland.



It ends with the Prophecy, that had been given earlier, that Israel shall be made free, and Babylon shall suffer the same fate it had inflicted upon others.

PResented below is the Pslam.



Psalms 137

1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
5. If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7. Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.





Taking the vers eout of context, and pretendign it is omehow a commandment of God, is Dishonest.





2 Kings 2: 23 – 24, God’s own prophets uses his divine power to call out two bears to kill 42 children simply because Elijah did not like to be mocked. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?




THose CHildren where actulaly Youths, mor elike teenagers an young adults. Also, they where not merley mocking him. It was a crowd of signigfigant sizde, taunting him, and tellignhim to "Go up", which woudl indicate Heaven. In other words, they where making a Physical threat to Elijas.



But lets ignroe facts, shall we?



And do you reallythink I've not heard these befoe, Harry?



Your just quotign the old "Evil Bible Verses" seen elsewhere.



Numbers 31: 15 – 18 God, though Moses endorses murder, rape and especially pedophilia. Where is your pro-life God, Zarove?




No, he didn't, and your Sterling ignorance of both what the text is actually saying and the history of the Ancient world doens'g actually prove anything.

No one mentisn sex wiht chilren in those verses, the "Rape" is simply to keep the Virign women alive as suitbale wives for the Israelites, and the reasoning for the killign of nonvirgin women and male Children was because of how tirbal societies worked. The male CHildfen wudl have grown up and been reuired to avenge their fathers. The women who had known a man wuld have not been faithful to the Israelites, but to their now slain husbands.



THis is like trying to say Abraham lincoln was a Racist because he wa sopposed to interracial marirages and thoguth the best soluitn to the slave problem was to deport the blakc back to Africa.



You cannot project onto an ancient text modern values, wihtitu undrstdign the cultural and societal realities at play in their age.






Hosea 13: 16 “Samaria will be held guilty. For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little ones (babies) will be dashed to pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.” (Murdered fetuses).




THis is a Prophecy of what will happen, Harry. Its not a commandment of God, somehtign he wants ot happen.




Now I understand, Zarove. Your God is the abortionist and murderer.




You "Underxstood" long before. You hae used htis list before,and its just cut and pasted form elsewhere.



And, unforunatley for you, Ive heard it al before,and have read the biblicla passages where those came from.



Yiur taking thing sout of context and distorting them, to suit your own end.



And, I have to admit, you are right, women are killed here as your God leads in this abortion clinic.
Where is your pro-life God, Zarove? Oh, here He is! Killing children and women and their fetuses!




Harry, the situations themselves displayed baove render yor words imbocilic. Hosea wasn't even what God did to the Samaritains, but a Prophecy of hwat woudl befall them later, because they had left him. ( And God didnt even do it himself, others did.)



The Pslam was also tlakign abotu what woudl happen, not what God commanded.



The ohers aren't examples of anythign either.



THe passage you cite baove fail.





I could quote more of your beloved PSEUDO pro-life Bible and its God, but that is enough to prove you and your pro-lifers have a “straw dog” when it comes to any pro-life God.


Actulaly it sonly eough to prove that you can cut and paste a list that convneiently helps you to distort ehat the bible says to create a false image.




Well wait, surely Jesus is pro-life! Fact is, Jesus NEVER EVEN ONCE criticized God’s murderous actions in the Hebrew Bible as being wrong, especially when it came to killing non-Jews! Where is your pro-life Jesus, Zarove?




Well, the hwole "Murdrous God" comment has been shown to be false, and so thee is little reaont o comment here except ti say your entur epresentaiton is base dupon lies and deception.





Zarove, the Christ of Christ will have musical instruments playing in use in their church services before abortions are outlawed in the U.S. and that’s gospel!




Boast not thyself of tomorrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring fourth.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry ~

You have written a classic example of SCRIPTURAL ABUSE AND MALPRACTICE. If you were in a professional occupation in which skill of contextual criticism were required, I’d call them and tell them to REVOKE your license and position immediately.

You have BUTCHERED major texts and moved from reasoning your position to flat out LYING about the biblical text. One can only do this if one was scripturally unlearned or INTENTIONALLY trying to deceive the masses and persuade with EVIDENT UNTRUTHS.

Now since you don’t believe in the Bible, PLEASE don’t try to use it to make your humanist and godless points. Please stick with your philosophies and philosophical stances so that at least people like me who are true Christians and bible learned individuals, can at least learn your views objectively and ponder thoughts and positions that are not normally considered in our worldview. Personally, I appreciate opportunities to learn, but misrepresentations and lies I can’t stand.

Line by line I’ll address the scriptures you quoted so that readers may know the proper context of your misrepresentations.

Genesis 7 (not 8)- God destroys all flesh that moved and every creeping thing upon the earth with the flood. The object or point WAS NOT to kill or destroy children or anyone. Noah preached ONE message for 120 years. “Come in this ark, it’s gonna rain!” People REJECTED the message of truth and were lost. Pregnant women and children were incidental to this destruction and were EQUALLY given opportunity to destroy it. The real context of the whole event is found in Genesis 6:5~ “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

A SIN CURSED world demanded the justice of God. God gave men a time to repent, but men did not do it. AGE WAS NOT A FACTOR or CONTEXT and children were not the focus.

Psalms 137:9~ this is the recital of a prayer prayed during or shortly after the Babylonian captivity. The prayer was for judgement because of the wickedness of the Babylonians upon the Earth and against God’s people. The hope for the Babylonian babies to die is an analogous expression with the hope that NO NEW OPRESSORS and godless authoritarian will arise to plague God’s people as they had done. Again, SIN caused the condition. God judged Babylon through allowing other nations to arise and destroy them. To say that this endorses the killing of children in general is a malicious LIE.

2 Kings 2:23~ These young adults at an age of accountability KNEW right from wrong and had been taught in the word of truth MOCKED (Is. 3:17 & 24) the Prophet of God and thereby blasphemed the character of God and the prophet’s mission. They were held accountable because of their unbelief and SIN and DISRESPECT for God and HIS servant. AGE WAS NOT A FACTOR or CONTEXT. Anyone engaging in the same would have been brought into the same judgement, young people did NOT adults in this case.

Numbers 31-15-18~ Is the fulfillment of the command of God’s judgement AGAINST the Midianite alliance which had one purpose at heart…the purpose of vexing God’s people through the acts of prostitution and causing the children of God to become immoral and sexually impure in lifestyle and religion. (Numbers 25:17 & Num. 31:2) these verses set the stage for what’s seen in Numbers 31:15. AGAIN AGE OR GENDER WAS NOT A FACTOR. SIN WAS. The women that were saved alive were saved because of the VIRTUE in not perpetuating the sins of their fellow kinswomen.

Hosea 13:16~ Prophesies the destruction of Ephraim which possessed Samaria. This prophetic utterance predicts that because the people REBELLED against God or continued in their SINS that they would fall and be destroyed. GOD IN NO WAY ENDORSES the actions only displays the CLEAR RESULTS OF REBELLION. To suggest otherwise is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Now as many scriptures as you can MISREPRESENT I and we can set forth the proper context and TRUTH that the scriptures display.

So I’d personally appreciate it if you NOT continue to commit SCRIPTURAL MALPRACTICE. The devil is recorded to have done the same thing…I’d hate to think you are in fellowship with him.

Thank you and as Mr. Leftus says, “Sheesh!”

Noah said...

Whether possession/exorcism is or isn't real is definitely a fun and interesting topic to discuss. However, a five year old girl being murdered by family members, who later claim they thought she was possessed, does not equal death by exorcism. You wouldn't say, for example, that if a family tried to cure this little girl from an illness she was afflicted with, then it was medical malpractice. This is true because they are not medical professionals. The family performing the "exorcism" would most likely not be considered experts either.

The reason I point this out is that it seems to me that such information does not tend to support your argument but rather pad it in such a way that is indicative of bias.