Tuesday, July 08, 2008

On "canceling a soul"

I've recently encountered the online work of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor who also blogs about issues of faith, family, and culture. After reading an article of his addressing legal and moral aspects of abortion, I submitted a response that was (I know, not surprisingly) rather involved. At Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion, I am re-posting my response here for discussion, and as a way to recommend his site to you. Quoting thusly, and like so:



It is interesting to read the scattered, specious, insubstantial opinions of people who haven’t taken the time to consider the consequences of indulging abortion-on-demand. Before addressing the behavior of Mr. Harrison’s (not “Dr. Harrison,” since he forfeited the use of that title after killing his first child), let’s review some of the boilerplate previously advanced, shall we?

1) Okay, I just find this law a little creepy. It isn’t as though women who choose to have an abortion don’t know why they there are there. It seems like a way to shame or scare people off from having abortions - rather than just giving them medical advice. And in what sense is a fetus whole or separate anyway.


I didn’t realize someone had to be “whole or separate” to be human; apparently, conjoined twins don’t make the grade. Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern, a separate heartbeat, and can even have a separate blood type from his or her mother?

And some of the best medical advice one can give a pregnant woman is “Don’t kill your child.”

2) Of course most people know that the images associated with abortion aren’t pretty.

Neither are images associated with lots of medical procedures.


Let’s just park there for a moment.

Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve? Unless you’re of a mind to define pregnancy as an illness or other deleterious medical condition, the only available answer is “Why, none, Mike.”

I think most people would freak if they actually saw the images associated with open heart surgery - but we don’t expose people to that. In short there is no reason to be blatant with the imagery *unless* someone wants to push an anti-abortion agenda.


Abortionists lie to the women whose children they kill. Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain. To use your example, would you tolerate it if a heart surgeon working on a family member–or on you–lied about the goal of a surgical procedure?

Somehow, I doubt it.

3) What percentage of abortions does this procedure represent?


A remarkably small percentage, thanks for asking. But partial-birth abortion is but one tool in the abortionist’s kit. Are you familiar with the standard procedures used in the vast majority of abortions, or do you need details?

And given that the original Roe v. Wade decision does give States authority to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, wouldn’t that indicate there was some sort of necessity for this procedure?


Most state legislatures have been flummoxed by Roe v Wade and every other pro-abortion ruling since. But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?

As for the law in question, I think it is just as bad as a law that said doctors have to tell their patients that “God thinks abortion is bad” or “If you vote for a Democrat, innocent children will die.” All of these statements (including the one in question) are based on philosophical or political beliefs not medicine. Medical science does NOT define when life begins (nor do I believe it should). It does define when life ends, but that is more of a legal definition (i.e. when can a doctor legally stop trying to revive or treat a patient).


It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.

Would you say that a developing child eight months past conception is a living human being? Most folks would say “yes.”

How about seven months? Six? Five? From what I’ve heard and read, children only 22 weeks post-conception have survived premature delivery, which pushes things back to the five-month area.

So how about four months? Are you interested in saying that a child who’s a human being at five months’ gestation wasn’t a human being at four? Or at three? If we keep dialing back, developing children have a discernable heartbeat at roughly three weeks’ gestation, and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks.

Even before this time, from the moment of conception, the developing human being is just that–developing, and with unique, and uniquely human, genetic information. Common sense will tell you that life begins at conception, if you’ll just employ it.

4) Perhaps we should get into a discussion about what abortion was like BEFORE it was legalized - would images of coathangers and the loss of the life of not only the child but the mother be better?


Ah, one of the best red herrings of them all. But read your own words: You define abortion as “the loss of the life of… the child”. Please ask yourself why you’re limiting your own argument to the choice between one death or two, when you could be considering scenarios where no one dies!

I see abortion as one of those necessary evils.


What other “evils” are “necessary”? I’ve never encountered even one, so I’d appreciate hearing why any sort of out-and-out evil is ever necessary.

I don’t agree with it, I stand opposed to it, but I will not force my particular belief onto someone else by voting for legislation that tries to make it illegal.


Then you are actively engaged in cognitive dissonance. If you say you believe a thing to be wrong, but you refuse to enter the arena of ideas and contend for the advancement of what you say you believe, you do not have a belief, but rather a lukewarm opinion that brings you comfort.

I think there needs to be limits to its use and that we should use eduction (sic) as one of our best weapons to lessen its occurrence. I do not, however agree that the world would be “better” if it weren’t legalized.


Millions of children have been murdered by people pretending to be doctors. It has been facilitated by politicians and judges with no substantive morality, and pursued by women (and the men who aid them) who range from the brainwashed to the hedonist. How is the world a better place by indulging the slaughter of fifty million children in the United States alone?

Bill Clinton, for all his faults, had a great quote that I use often: “Abortion ought to be safe, legal and RARE”.


“Faults”? Bill Clinton is a diabolical individual; you would do well to never consider anything he says to be “great.” But what inspires you to think his quote is even something he believed? What did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ever do to make abortion-on-demand more rare? Anything?

Here’s an even better quote for your mantelpiece: “We must champion the innocent and the defenseless; there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable, than the child yet to be born.”

Now as for Mr. Harrison (and I use the “Mr.” loosely), it is evident from his statements that the psychological strain of killing approximately 20,000 children has taken its toll. If he frequents a church that at all preaches the Christian Gospel, he cannot help but be aware of (even if he will not admit it) the ramifications of willfully, freely violating God’s own standards by murdering child after child over the years, much less the ramifications of rejecting the call of God to repentance and faith in Christ.

While those of us who are Christians should pray for his salvation, we must not allow ourselves to be surprised when a man who indiscriminately takes life makes statements that are non sequiturs.

Dr. Throckmorton, you are being generous in your statements considering what Harrison has said. He will not entertain the notion that one of the 20,000 he has killed could have been anything other than an anguished, tortured human being with no chance of redemption; were he to do so, he would face being personally convicted of the crimes against God and humanity he has enthusiastically committed.

–Mike

232 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 232 of 232
John Mark said...

WHS said...
does that get us back on thread ever so slightly?


Actually not at all, since the original topic was 'cancelling a soul'. The Obama threads are further down.

Everyone who posts has already commented on abortion, so I don't think any further discussion is forthcoming. To sum it up, everyone is opposed to it, and cakes thinks we're a bunch of sanctimonious so-and-sos for trying to push our beliefs onto others.

Benoni Hayes said...

Sorry Charlie...

I am a real person, not a plant. No diversionary schemes, just a comment.

And though opinions on abortion have been stated, I was making a general comment about desiring to discuss issues and not fall off into the latest odd word from another blog.

Respectfully,
Benoni Hayes

Mike Bratton said...

I've read TBR for a while but have never posted. I really enjoy the content of the original threads, but it seems that all roads lead to NBBCOF. Of course, people are free to comment on any thing they desire, but I for one would like to see discussion stay clear of 'the latest comment' on another blog and in some way have it relate to the original subject.

I know that I would post comments if it did.

With the election approaching soon, it would be great to discuss the candidates and issues...like the one that could have been discussed on this thread.

Mr. Bratton, could we expect more issue oriented commentary in the future such as taxation, the economy, energy and so forth?

Respectfully,
Benoni Hayes


Interesting name, Benoni, and thank you for your presence and input. I'm working on a new article now, and yes, it does focus on the upcoming Presidential election.

--Mike

oc said...

Doctor, please take note of your 11:09, Aug 01 post. And realize that your diagnosis of "Hope", whether it's accurate or not, may also be applied to others for whom you have no affinity. Realize that pain knows no boundaries.

So when doing as you have; affording grace according to the measure of pain suffered by those you do agree with, why not do so likewise for those who may be in just as much pain; even though you may be ignorant of their degree of pain, and whether or not realizing that degree; give grace to those whom you just flat don't like nor understand. That would be real grace.
Just a thought.

PS. And yes, you can love someone without liking them.

John Mark said...

Actually OC, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone I don't like or understand. And seeing as how Hope went back and removed her comments, I'm afraid I might have hit a little too close to home. Cyber friends are better than no friends, HP.

When someone always lets their pain influence their relationships, then that pain has become a part of who they are and doesn't merit any special sensitivity. Like Mike said about the IDC guy, only out-of-the-ordinary pain is noteworthy.

Which brings up a question I've seriously been pondering for a while. It's not really related to 'canceling a soul' but I think it's not out of line to ask it.

Abortion is murder, which is a most extreme method of controlling the life of another human being. We all (for the most part) agree that it's wrong.

But at what point is it acceptable to exercise control over another person? Is it up to the point of killing them? Or trying to influence the way they think? Or act?

Is trying to cheer someone up or encourage them always the right thing to do? If people grow through suffering, is it always a good thing to try and alleviate it?
What gives us the right to step in and tell another person they need to change?

I got so messed up because everybody kept telling me "Romans 8:28! Romans 8:28! Everything happens for good!"

Nothing that happened to me was good, and time has borne that fact out. Why shouldn't I have felt despair, and what right did anyone have to tell me not to?

Maybe all these unhappy people SHOULD be unhappy, and maybe it's a mistake to try to convince them otherwise. Maybe instead of trying vainly to convince them to stop mourning, we should just mourn with them even if we don't understand why. Maybe that's the really Christian thing to do.

I have no idea why our lives have intersected at this particular point, but I can't but wonder if we haven't been treating certain people the way Job was treated.

Where does the Bible say we'll be happy, anyway?

oc said...

I'm sorry JM.

Pain IS a part of who we are.
It's certainly at least a part of who He is. It's at least part of what He died for.

And the Bible doesn't say we should be happy. It says that we rejoice in Him.


You say this:
"When someone always lets their pain influence their relationships, then that pain has become a part of who they are and doesn't merit any special sensitivity. Like Mike said about the IDC guy, only out-of-the-ordinary pain is noteworthy."


Please explain this, before I comment on the idiocy of what you attribute Mike to proclaim.
How much pain is noteworthy?
Are you the judge of that, or does Mike do that?

Jford said...

Life is what you make of it. How many times do we hear that? I have never agreed or believed that. To me, life is more of how you react to it. Things are going to happen. I know I will have pain, hurt, embrassment, and other emotions in my life. But I choose not to dwell on things that have happened in my past. Granted, some things take longer than others to overcome, but I also choose to not hold on to the past.

Now everyone is different, and I have to disagree with you JM and say that unhappy people should not be happy. Being unhappy is no way to live. But I do not know how to make "unhappy people" happy until they want to be.

oc said...

" Like Mike said about the IDC guy, only out-of-the-ordinary pain is noteworthy"


And what does that mean?
And whose interpretation?

oc said...

Wow. I have my friends gathered to hear the proclamation of who's pain deserves noteworthiness.

Let it rip.

John Mark said...

Please explain this, before I comment on the idiocy of what you attribute Mike to proclaim.
How much pain is noteworthy?
Are you the judge of that, or does Mike do that?


No further comment is necessary, OC. Since you feel it's 'idiocy' to feel disinclined to give special attention to something that is constant every moment of every day, I doubt that you are getting the point of what I was saying.

If perhaps you can understand that if someone suddenly becomes combative and uncharacteristic as they relate to others that it might signal a crisis situation, then your input might mean something. Otherwise it's the same worthless tripe. Please bow out of the discussion if you can't offer something of substance.

Memphis,
True, unhappy people won't be happy until they want to be (they CAN'T be). But what right do we have to tell them otherwise?

Jford said...

JM,

the pursuit of life liberty and happiness??

I have never understood why some people choose to be unhappy. I suppose there are some in this world that aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

I have to think it is not my job to make anyone happy, I just try not to do the opposite. Just like it is not our job to make them accept Jesus as their Savior, only to present it to them and let God do the rest.

larry said...

John Mark,

That's a very deep meditation. It's something that I've contemplated as well, but the answer is obvious. It's the Bible that gives us the authority to speak to the attitudes of others. Agreed, mourning is a part of life. But Christians are not to mourn as those who have no hope, we are to momentarily suffer as those who are waiting for our future deliverance.

We are not promised happiness on earth, but we're promised joy which is a fruit of the spirit. Mourning has its place, but not apart from the joy which has been promised to us.

oc said...

Still waiting to hear who's pain deserves God's attention. Tell us
who deserves it.

Not one of us, John Mark.


Now explain what you are saying.

John Mark said...

I have to think it is not my job to make anyone happy, I just try not to do the opposite.

Memphis, I think you're onto something. Let me get back to you...

John Mark said...

OC,

You're off on one of your bizarre tangents again. No one is speaking for God.

Kindly refrain from posting again until you understand what is being discussed.

oc said...

Sin?

Everyone of us, JohnMark.

Let me get back to you...

John Mark said...

I think OC has turned into a troll. Or should I call him ACErtain blogger?

We're trying to have a serious discussion here, OC.

Please quit interrupting.

oc said...

That's ok, JohnMark.

The question still remains which you try to allude.

Who's pain deserves attention, JM?

oc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
oc said...

And that's what I thought.
It's your pain who deserves God's attention.

John Mark said...

Looks like the Bible was right.

A pig returns to its slop, and a dog to its vomit.

Ask an honest question, get accusations in return.

Oh, well. What did I really expect? "Don't cast your pearls before swine."

It's reassuring, in a strange way.

oc said...

Here's your answer, which you call 'vomit'.

God cares about your pain.

God loves you.

Mike Bratton said...

Folks:

Scripture, and Biblical insights in general, are not trump cards to be played in a game.

Please, let's not use them as such. That would specifically mean you, OC, and you, John Mark.

Quoting myself thusly and like so: However, walking the same ground over and again only does two things. First, it tramples the grass; secondly, it wears out your shoes.

What's really blog-worthy, however, is something out of the ordinary--like IDC's domain name being snatched up by some mysterious individual.


Pain, whether out-of-the-ordinary or part of daily life, is a sign there's a problem. And a sign of life. What precipitates attention is, I think, the source of the pain.

Here's an example. I'm 45. I have two horrible knees, damaged back muscles, and various other dings and nicks. I can still do stunts, run, play ball, and do everything I enjoy doing--but, from time to time, I hurt. Is it noteworthy? Not in the least (except to make this point), because they're part of my making it to 45. If those dings and nicks stop hurting due to treatment, that's great; if they stop hurting on their own (apart from God's intervention), that's a cause for concern, because it may mean the condition's gotten worse.

Now, if I'm dealing with a gaping emotional wound from a traumatic event in my life, that's a different situation altogether. That's when it's time to share, time for brothers and sisters in Christ to sidle up and give aid, time to answer the bell.

As has been rightly observed, though, help cannot be forced upon someone--anyone--who is hurting. That can do more harm than good. Borrowing a line from Hippocrates, those of us who are Christians must first do no harm.

--Mike

John Mark said...

Scripture, and Biblical insights in general, are not trump cards to be played in a game.

I feel quite strongly that my usage was approprite. I asked a sincere and honest question, which was promptly turned into an accusation against me and a judgement of my motivations. If that's not an example of casting pearls and then being trampled, I don't know what is.

I have two horrible knees, damaged back muscles, and various other dings and nicks. I can still do stunts, run, play ball, and do everything I enjoy doing--but, from time to time, I hurt. Is it noteworthy? Not in the least (except to make this point), because they're part of my making it to 45.

Let me refine what I was trying to say. If a person has bad knees, they'll hurt. I'd expect any activity that involved usage of the knees to be affected.

However, if a person with bad knees was seen hobbling, it wouldn't be a cause for concern. Maybe they should take some aspirin, but not a trip to the hospital. However, if a person with healthy knees was observed limping or favoring their legs it could be a sign that attention is needed. Or as I tried to put it, "noteworthy".

Certain bloggers are characterized by their victim status and without it would have no identity at all. Others are not. When one of the basket cases goes on a rampage, I don't really notice. But when someone who is not a basket case starts to act like one, I notice.

My original question was simply, what to do when that happens? And it's not a trick question, either.

larry said...

john mark:

I feel quite strongly that my usage was approprite. I asked a sincere and honest question, which was promptly turned into an accusation against me and a judgement of my motivations. If that's not an example of casting pearls and then being trampled, I don't know what is.


John,

Your application of the verse was horrible. I'll comment on your statement out in the open because it's important for everyone (including me) to understand the inappropriate usage of scripture. This has happened over and over again, and of course people will get upset about it. They should.

On the mount, Jesus was talking to disciples. Nowhere in the Bible are God's sheep referred to as 'swine'.

You feel that you've been 'dissed' because you asked something that's been on your mind, but your point wasn't taken. It's a long stretch to equate your frustration with casting the holy things of God before pagans who cannot and will not accept them and react with hostility. Perhaps if you'd have been clearer about what you meant in the first place there wouldn't have been any misunderstanding.

In effect, when you misused that verse you called someone a pagan. I hope that wasn't your intent. Perhaps you should mull it over for a while and get back to us.

Many of the 'put down' verses in scripture refer to God's enemies. Others refer to God's people who have sinned and are being disciplined. If you want to claim one of those verses, I'd suggest you become intimately familiar with what it means in context and really want to apply it in all its harshness.

Whether it's you proclaiming someone to be like a swine, Steve Gaines stating that someone is like Sanballet, or even a blogging pastor declaring himself to be like Martin Luther, the implications about those who disagree can be extreme.

Even those who casually said they were 'shaking the dust off their feet' at the doors of Bellevue were in reality declaring everyone in the building to be unsaved. Insulting, at the very least.

If that's what people mean to say, then that's their right. I really don't think it was, though, and that they'd apologize to their friends who took it in the strict biblical sense.

Mike is spot on, scripture is not something to be used as a trump. It's like using atomic bombs to kill mosquitos. Let's not do it any more, okay?

John Mark said...

You know perfectly well that's not what I meant. I asked a serious question, and all I got was accused that I only cared about myself.

Maybe you should talk to OC about his fault finding spirit before addressing me again. Before he even understands what was said he declares it 'idiocy' and tries to distort what was said as to assume a spiritual high ground.

My question is still unanswered. I met someone on the road who seemed to need help. I tried to help, but only made things worse. What was the right thing to do? All I'm hearing is static.

ezekiel said...

john mark,

Interesting observations and opinion. Mind if I comment?

But at what point is it acceptable to exercise control over another person? Is it up to the point of killing them? Or trying to influence the way they think? Or act?

I have been looking at this for a long time. The direct answer is that exercising control over another person is simply a reaction to our own fear and never a good thing unless we are talking about our kids and even then, good only when used carefully. The way I have seen it played out over and over is...."you can't (whatever)". What we don't really say after that is " because I am afraid of what could happen and how it could affect me". So it is my fear that starts the control. We are told that we are not to fear if we are christians (Romans 8:15, 2 Tim 1:7) so if we have a controlling spirit then we solve that by looking at our own fear. Not by controlling another person.

Is trying to cheer someone up or encourage them always the right thing to do?

Yes.(1 Thes 5:11-18)

If people grow through suffering, is it always a good thing to try and alleviate it?
What gives us the right to step in and tell another person they need to change?

1 Cor 12 especially vs 26 tells us that we have all been baptized into the same body. If one suffers, we all suffer. It is only natural for soft hearted people( and all christians should be) to want to try to help a brother or sister that we see stumbling or needing help. (Gal 6:2) The real question we need to ask is "does that person need to change for their good and the good of the body or do they need to change to conform to what I want, or to alleviate my fear"?

I got so messed up because everybody kept telling me "Romans 8:28! Romans 8:28! Everything happens for good!"

It does. I have been trying to get my brain wrapped around this idea for months or longer.

Spurgeon says it best
Here

Nothing that happened to me was good, and time has borne that fact out. Why shouldn't I have felt despair, and what right did anyone have to tell me not to?

Look at Job. He certainly felt despair and at the time couldn't see anything good coming out of his trial. Maybe the best way to handle stuff like this is to take a seat next to him, grab a little of his ashes and dust ourselves, sit quietly so that he just knows he is not alone. I think that sounds a lot like what you said here. Otherwise we wind up committing the sin that Job's friends did.

ezekiel said...

Well, the link I posted apparently updates daily. So it takes you to the August 6th reading today.

This is long, but here is the daily reading for August the 5th that I was referencing. I have added the morning reading as well, it seems particularly applicable to the discussion. I don't think the date and the topic was an accident....

Morning:
"We know that all things work together for good to them that love God." --Romans 8:28 Upon some points a believer is absolutely sure. He knows, for instance, that God sits in the stern-sheets of the vessel when it rocks most. He believes that an invisible hand is always on the world's tiller, and that wherever providence may drift, Jehovah steers it. That re-assuring knowledge prepares him for everything. He looks over the raging waters and sees the spirit of Jesus treading the billows, and he hears a voice saying, "It is I, be not afraid." He knows too that God is always wise, and, knowing this, he is confident that there can be no accidents, no mistakes; that nothing can occur which ought not to arise. He can say, "If I should lose all I have, it is better that I should lose than have, if God so wills: the worst calamity is the wisest and the kindest thing that could befall to me if God ordains it." "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God." The Christian does not merely hold this as a theory, but _he knows it_ as a matter of fact. Everything _has_ worked for good as yet; the poisonous drugs mixed in fit proportions have worked the cure; the sharp cuts of the lancet have cleansed out the proud flesh and facilitated the healing. Every event as yet has worked out the most divinely blessed results; and so, believing that God rules all, that He governs wisely, that He brings good out of evil, the believer's heart is assured, and he is enabled calmly to meet each trial as it comes. The believer can in the spirit of true resignation pray, "Send me what thou wilt, my God, so long as it comes from Thee; never came there an ill portion from Thy table to any of Thy children." "Say not my soul, 'From whence can God relieve my care? Remember that Omnipotence has servants everywhere. His method is sublime, His heart profoundly kind, God never is before His time, and never is behind.'"

Evening:
"Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?" --Numbers 32:6 Kindred has its obligations. The Reubenites and Gadites would have been unbrotherly if they had claimed the land which had been conquered, and had left the rest of the people to fight for their portions alone. We have received much by means of the efforts and sufferings of the saints in years gone by, and if we do not make some return to the church of Christ by giving her our best energies, we are unworthy to be enrolled in her ranks. Others are combating the errors of the age manfully, or excavating perishing ones from amid the ruins of the fall, and if we fold our hands in idleness we had need be warned, lest the curse of Meroz fall upon us. The Master of the vineyard saith, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" What is the idler's excuse? Personal service of Jesus becomes all the more the duty of all because it is cheerfully and abundantly rendered by some. The toils of devoted missionaries and fervent ministers shame us if we sit still in indolence. Shrinking from trial is the temptation of those who are at ease in Zion: they would fain escape the cross and yet wear the crown; to them the question for this evening's meditation is very applicable. If the most precious are tried in the fire, are we to escape the crucible? If the diamond must be vexed upon the wheel, are we to be made perfect without suffering? Who hath commanded the wind to cease from blowing because our bark is on the deep? Why and wherefore should we be treated better than our Lord? The firstborn felt the rod, and why not the younger brethren? It is a cowardly pride which would choose a downy pillow and a silken couch for a soldier of the cross. Wiser far is he who, being first resigned to the divine will, groweth by the energy of grace to be pleased with it, and so learns to gather lilies at the cross foot, and, like Samson, to find honey in the lion.

ezekiel said...

James 5:7 Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains. 8 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door. 10 As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. 12 But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. 13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. 17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit. 19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

John Mark said...

No apologies for this post. I post not out of anger or frustration, but solely for the person who made this comment to read.

I went wading through the muck again, and once again saw one of the broken records posting. I was actually quite surprised by what she had to say, since it seemed to make a lot of sense. It was mostly remembering the 'good old days' which weren't really so good, but then it came back around to this:

The "majority" at my church of 25 years was so desensitized to wrong and accountability that they thought it better to overlook the dishonesty ,lack of character, and the evil of sexual abuse by ministers.


It always comes back to Bellevue, I suppose. Sure, crime is bad, but BELLEVUE did such-and-such. Sure, absentee parents are bad, but BELLEVUE is so much worse! The MAJORITY were so wrong because BELLEVUE is so bad!!!

Is this how some people think? "There was a murder in Orange Mound... Let's see, how is that like Bellevue? Train wreck? Just like Bellevue! The Holocaust? BELLEVUE!"

And now instead of a single pedophile minister it's the evil, sexual abusing ministers. And obviously, if the ministers are all evil child abusers, then the congregation must be too.

Jesus asked a man at a pool if he wanted to get well. The man said yes. I wonder if some people really want to get well today. As long as you can't hold a single conversation without mentioning Bellevue, you're NOT well. As long as you hear about some great crime and equate it with Bellevue, you're NOT well.

Obsession is obsession, no matter what the object.

Until the culmination of your discussions of all that's wrong in the world today don't culminate with Bellevue, you're hopelessly delusional. Until you can walk into the Bellevue sanctuary on Sunday morning and truly worship during a sermon by Steve Gaines, you are not well.

Time to realize that the 'good old days' only exist in your mind and move on. About the time you were joining your church where you could sit fat, dumb, and happy for 25 years I was living on the streets. Those were my 'good old days'. While you were happily singing along with Dr. Lane and listening to Dr. Rogers, I was worrying where my next meal would come from and finding a place to hide so I wouldn't be robbed at night.

You might have even seen me. I used to hang out around the old Bellevue on Sundays. The traffic was so congested that handouts were guaranteed. The Bellevue congregation was always quite generous to a cripple, and I suppose that's the main reason I get so upset when they're senselessly attacked.

Time to move on, gmommy. Don't go to your grave consumed by and cursing something that doesn't matter. You're well on your way, but perhaps you haven't hardened your heart to the point that pharoah did when God wouldn't allow him to change.

Or maybe you have?

Benoni Hayes said...

Mr. Bratton,

I would very much like to know your opinions concerning the candidates regarding their interviews with Rick Warren.

As I listened, I thought of some of your previous postings related to Obama's 'christianity'...kudos for being spot on.

Respectfully
Benoni Hayes

re: my name...parents were Italian and Jewish...and neither were Romanist nor Orthodox, but were both (myself also) Particular Baptists...go figure

David Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 232 of 232   Newer› Newest»