River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch Perhaps We Are BOTH Teachable... wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:21 PM:

" I am again glad we can agree (to a degree) on some things 'Jeff'; perhaps we can also learn that BOTH of us haven't 'horns' eh... "

To BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Of course they are human. That is a scientific fact. Go to any ob-gyn department in any hospital and get one of those pamphlets that chart a babies development. They have their own human DNA and their own heartbeat-indicating a live human. We all control everyones life with all of our laws that dont allow us to harm others. If you call that creepy, well, thats the world we live in.
I am not saying a woman who has an abortion should be stoned or anything of the sort. Get a grip. I am just saying abortion is a barbaric, brutal act that needs to be stopped. "

Misunderstood wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Brian, I don't get you. I agree with most of your points, but not the manner in which you present them. You lash out at posters, and it shows in your writing. You obviously feel passionate about your views, and while that's healthy, your approach to debate is not. Is this the arena in which you hope to settle the score with some external conflict? I'm not trying to cut you down, but point out how unprovoked your belittling of others is. "

Bowers wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Oh, yes, I do believe in the supernatural... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:11 AM:

" 'Thou shalt not kill' includes war and the death penalty......refusing AIDs medicines to poor nations.....not feeding the starving masses....

Zygotes and fetuses are not humans......especially when they are in the early gestation period...the resemble amphibians. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:08 AM:

" Jesus most certainly did not speak against homosexuality or abortion even though both practices were quite prevalent. Sorry. But you anger and creepy desire to control other people's lives has blinded you.

Jesus, speaking to cretin mobs and you said 'Let those without sin cas the first stone'.....and this was in order to prevent a whore..a violator of OT law, to be 'justifiably' stoned according to 'scripture'.

Jesus broke from scripture....you just haven't the progressive intellect ot follow. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:52 PM:

" Yes, the Bible does prohibit abortion. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". This may not jive with your personal sense of morality, but the Bible does certainly address it in very strong terms. Its one of the "top ten". "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:10 PM:

" To "the science of divining"- you're hilarious! I'm not sure where to start with your post. "the earth's magnetic currents travel in more concentrated paths where there is water." Really? Please tell me which scientific data you are using to support this claim, which sounds highly dubious. "some people just can sense that field better than others." REALLY? What evidence exists anywhere that shows ANYONE can detect ANY magnetic field? Every douser that has attempted James Randi's million dollar challenge has failed. Be more skeptical! "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:46 PM:

" To 2:37 poster-

The bible does not prohibit abortion- Read Exodus 21:22. This verse clearly shows that the life of a fetus is not as valuable as that of an adult. I understand this may not jive with your own internal sense of morality, however if you want to base your morality on the bible, then perhaps you should actually go by what it says. One could also use your same arguement "It says Thous Shall Not Kill" to condemn all wars as immoral, the death penalty as immoral, etc. These are all issues where the christian community is divided, so clearly the bible is not very illuminating on this issue. "

the science of divining wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:19 PM:

" the earth's magnetic currents travel in more concentrated paths where there is water. some people just can sense that field better than others. unfortunately, not enough research has been done on this subject. the thing is that 'witching wells' has nothing to do with satan or witches. "

to brian smith wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:16 PM:

" what did Jesus say about marriage? he said it should be like 'in the beginning' when G_d joined one man and one woman. your homosexual friends like to ignore that specific condemnation on any other 'form' of marriage. "

Dear Brian G Smith wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Candy Colored Clown was not hyperventilating. You did make that argument on your 640am post. Also, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means just that. Jesus spoke against abortion when he instructed people to obey Gods Commands(of which "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is one). "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I think you answered my question. Although I dont necessarily agree with you, I think I can see where you stand. If I understand you correctly, you have no issue with the supernatural aspects of the Bible per se, you simply struggle with what you perceive as contradictions. Correct? "

To 627 PM Post wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:15 PM:

" That "Current" is much like the sensation I feel while reading BrianGSmith's posts. There just that inspiring and like so super cool. Maybe that could be his new moniker The "Current" Complainer. But he'd probably just complain about his own anonymous postings, which would open up a black hole between Denial and Self-Righteous Proclamations. "

Jeff wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:37 PM:

" Eventhough I wasn't making exactly that point I totally agree with what you say in your 11:39 post, Welch. You make a good point about the genius of the Bible. "

Dear Candy colored clown wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Having read the Bible three times I can tell you Jesus was never attributed with any comments on abortion and homosexuality.

You need to read the bible clown.

Also...I never made any argument that because god wiped out millions of innocent humans we should have a lawless society. You got to be careful hyperventilating when you type.

The laws Moses came out with existed in other societies without the intervention of a 'god' to tell folks so.

BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch Religious Diversity... wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:39 AM:

" By the way I'm glad 'Jeff' and I can agree about SOMETHING though his 'angle' on it is probably different from mine. I don't regard ANY 'interpretation' of the Bible as the ONLY 'correct' one but think the Bible's 'genius' is precisely that it can be interpreted differently, pragmatically and in 'modern' terms. Christianity is a 'big tent' as are ALL religions that endure -- and Judaism let me say WAS also another 'big tent' especially two millennia ago and even into the so called 'dark ages' but Christian persecution reduced Jews to a much more 'cloistered' religious life with a paranoia about proselytizing because to proselytize would = death -- literally! Yet Judaism was indeed a POPULAR religion in Euro-Asia once... "

Bowers wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:28 AM:

" The ability to discern contradictions..for example the viewpoints of Paul and James, which are in obvious conflict. "

Michael Welch Bible Is NOT CLEAR -- Obviously... wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:42 AM:

" It's odd to compare the 'holy spirit' to 'divining' -- generally that makes the pious uneasy as it implies powers not strictly relegated to God eh. But in a way it is absolutely apt as per 'Bowers' in that folks can hold seemingly contradictory notions -- about divining rods' efficacy in the right hands, about the paranormal, even about spilled salt and black cats and still feel themselves 'Christian.' Yet as I said below that penchant for exclusivity leads to uh literally hundreds of protestant denominations so clearly just READING the Bible doesn't 'clarify'; the interpretation matters which is the stance of say the Vatican. Two protestants, HUNDREDS of opinions?... "

Jeff re my 118 post wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Everyone has a slightly different take on my comment. Welch came the closest to what I meant. I didn't say Christians don't believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, just that they all (myself included) willfully ignore parts of it. "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Again, I dont see how that can be. How do they determine which parts of the Bible are reliable(life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus, for example)and which parts arent reliable? What is the standard that they use? "

Bowers wrote on Nov 20, 2008 7:32 AM:

" They believe he resurrected and died for their sins. All the standard stuff, but they also realize their are contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible,which makes it less than perfect. My point being that one can be a Christian and still find fault with the Bible. "

interesting story about divining power wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:27 PM:

" my grandpa used to get paid for 'witching wells' or using a divining rod to find the best place to dig for water. my mother used to go with him. she used to watch what he did and she tried to do it also, but to no avail. but whenever he dad got behind her, and put his hands on her hands, she could feel the 'current' or vibration going through her hands and the stick. the Bible and the Holy Spirit are much the same way. many people can pick it up and read it just like other people, but they get nothing. But when the Holy Spirit puts his hands on yours, the divining begins. If a person claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, I would say they have placed their faith in something other then Jesus, which is dangerous. "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Okay, then on what basis do they worship Jesus as their savior? What is their basis for believing He is the Son of God? Other historical writings? I'm curious. "

Bowers clairifes wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Many Christians believe Jesus the son of God and worship him as their savior, but do NOT believe the Bible divinely inspired. "

Michael Welch Free To Be You And Me And Even Joey Joey Joey... wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Yes well -- 'Christians' are no better than anyone else: MY Christianity (MY 'church') is the 'right one' and YOURS has it wrong -- or why are there literally HUNDREDS of Christian denominations eh. I mean IF it's SO 'easy' to discern God's will by just reading the Bible hmmm? They say 'two Jews, three opinions' (JEWS say by the way) but there aren't as many fissures in Judaism as in Christianity. Within any belief system some start reading others 'out' as the hasidim do reform or some Demos re: Joe Lieberman. The BEST way however is indeed the 'Lieberman compromise' -- say you're sorry Joe (about SOME things) but your freedom of conscience exceeds party loyalty or ought to... "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:32 AM:

" That is silly. The Devil believes in Jesus, but is not a Christian. "

Bowers wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Oh, come on now. Some Christians accept the Bible unconditionally as the word of God. Other Christians do not, but they're still Christians because they believe in Jesus. "

to Jeff wrote on Nov 19, 2008 5:26 AM:

" No, you have it backwards. Christians read and accept what the Bible has to say. Non-Christians, who want to live with whatever sin they like, skip over the parts they don't like. That's how you get priests or pastors who endorse things like homosexual marriage. "

The Emperor of Ice Cream wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:36 PM:

" Well Jeff, Bowers isnt a Christian, but he opposes abortion. I think the abortion issue transcends religious and political lines. "

Jeff wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:18 PM:

" I agree with Welch's 12:06 post. There is always a loophole somewhere it seems, Christians do manage to ignore or explain away whatever part of the bible speaks against their favorite sins. "

Michael Welch ALWAYS A Loophole... wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:06 PM:

" The reason that Christianity (or any other enduring religion) 'lasts' is that it adapts to changing times. The Bible has VERY SPECIFIC 'commands' true but they have ALWAYS been modified; indeed Jewish rabbis emphasize knowledge of the TALMUD (the 'commentaries' on the scriptures) PRECISELY because it is vital to Judaism to maintain a religion that is 'doable.' Christians adapt Jesus the same way -- Jesus actually seems rather uninterested in sexual sin; he says very little about it but does emphasize sins of GREED and violence. However MANY Christians then employ Paul's letters (especially his to 'the Romans,' Roman Christians that is) to mitigate Jesus. It works of course and has for a millennia and a half... "

Michael Welch WHICH Jesus Do You Want... wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:49 AM:

" Jesus in the gospels is a multiple personality; i. e., the Jesus of the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount IS indeed a 'pacifist,' a Gandhian, but the Jesus of Matthew's 'little apocalypse' is angry and blanketly unfair in his denouncing 'scribes and pharisees' as 'hypocrites'; and by the time one gets to the weird and terrible book of Revelation, Jesus 'the Lamb'(!) has swords in his mouth and returns not to bring 'peace' to the world but SPECIFICALLY 'the sword' -- his coming indicates wrack and ruin and 'best' of all, delicious revenge on his enemies! I KNOW I've used this phrase a lot but it just rings SO true: you pays yer money an' you picks yer Jesus... "

Kevin wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Smith....why are you such an angry man? Why are your posts filled with derogatory words? "

Candy Colored clown wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Brian, you dont really believe that Jesus was silent on homosexuality, do you? Or abortion? How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Yes, I realize that is Old Testament, but Jesus did say we should follow Gods laws. Does that ring a bell? Try reading the Bible before commenting on it.
Are you seriously making the argument that because God killed many people(natural disasters, etc-sign of a fallen world)that we should be a lawless nation, allowing people to kill as they see fit? That is the dumbest thing I ever read. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:40 AM:

" Smith--I beg to differ, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!" "

REAbortion wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:46 AM:

" Abortion existed in Jesus' day. Numerous procedures to end a pregnancy. Jesus didn't mention ONE WORD on the subject.

Same with the gays....gays existed in Jesus' time but he never mentioned one word against them.

SO why do pinheads who call themselves 'followers of Jesus Christ' obsess over gays and womens productive rights?

And now they try and rationalize 'war' to boot....a sad and lost group for sure.

BrianGSmith "

Dear Christain wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:40 AM:

" If babies and the unborn are indeed 'sacred' to God then why did God drown the entire world....no doubt some innocent babies and fetus' where there? Or why did God guide the Jews to slaughter so many native tribes in the 'chosen land'...like in the Book of Joshua for example? God himself...after 'hardening the Pharoah's heart' killed all of Egypt's 1st born boys.....

Sorry....your argument is empty. Same with the rationalization for war......war is so un-Jesus Christ it could rightfully be labeled anti-christian. 'Lay down your swords'..'Love your enemy'.

That's how you 'bare the cross'.

BrianGSmith "

harsch wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:15 AM:

" Jesus, of course, wouldn't like it, and would give the folk what the priests don't; but then Jesus wouldn't like the priesthood either as it is a corruption of his words. "

Christain wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:56 PM:

" The Bible doesn't endorse a party, but it does clearly endorse standing for what God calls sacred. It seems pretty obvious that the unborn are innocent and should be protected. It seems pretty obvious that punishing evil is also a sacred act. It also seems pretty obvious that taking care of the poor and sick is also a sacred act. What isn't always as obvious is the means of doing these things. God in the Old Testament, and Jesus in the New Testament, were not pacifists or advocating pasifism, so to claim Christains should be against war is not based in the Bible. Health care is a toss up, because of all the government waste. However, I can find no Biblical rationalization for killing the unborn. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Actually, if we want to be biblical, there are a lot of people who should not be allowed to approach the altar in chuch- the bible prohibits menstruating women, women who have had a child recently (because they are unclean- especially if they have a female child), the blind, the lame, the infirm, etc.

So let's be consistent, bishops, and follow biblical law. (which does not prohibit abortion, by the way- Read Exodus 21:22) "

Allen Coage wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Kevin makes some excellent points, as does doctor9. Re post by Doctor9, I dont think it is so much "weeding people out" of the church as it is making sure people have their heads screwed on straight, so to speak, before receiving the Sacraments. "

To Starfish from Jimmy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:59 PM:

" I'm pretty sure. "

Starfish wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:18 PM:

" Hey, Jimmy: I think that "Think About It" HAS actually thought about it. Nice to hear someone talking sense about here.

As for you not being Catholic: are you sure? I know it's hard to tell from that little picture, but I gotta say you kinda LOOK Catholic. "

mark wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Killing some one may sometimes be justified, but not the most innocent, a helpless little baby in their Mother's womb. And then to take my money [taxes] at gun point or by irs intimidation is also wrong. It shouldn't just be the church that has the guts to say so. "

doctor9 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:53 PM:

" If a church demonstrates that they are more about weeding out people who voted pro-choice than they are about uniting people who share a love of God, then it is their loss. More and more empty pews will be the result. However, if this hypothetical church is associated in any way with the hypocritical religious leaders who have moved their child molesting priests to unknowing new flocks, well then I just pray that the light of truth burns them so badly that they have to sell off even more property. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:47 PM:

" The problem with Pro-Choice movement, from my perspective, is that seem to want to isolate the person deciding upon the abortion to the point of opposing what I would consider common sense. What would be wrong with mandatory 72hr waiting period, requiring counseling, notification of parents & consent if underage, discussion of alternate strategies....etc. I know there are a plethora of arguments forthcoming....so be it. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Because that question of self defense is so private, subjective and case by case dependent is why abortion became an issue of 'privacy' vs murder. Is the abortion a question of convenience or question of self-defense....that should be the measure of justification. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:13 PM:

" Being pro-choice or pro-life should not be a filter for receiving communion. It may be a reasonable filter for being Catholic or Not, could be debated. It truly is not even a measure of being a good Christian or a bad Christian. My belief is you are just a Christian working to understand God's will. Abortion is simply the killing of a human life. All other discussion is simply haggling about the definition of the word 'is'. Whether or not the killing is being done in self-defense of the woman's life, woman's family, the woman's vanity, or woman's convenience seems to be the turning point of the discussion. "

Think about it wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:23 AM:

" The article that Jimmy is referring to was a priest stating that anyone who voted for Obama should not receive communion. That is speaking directly to the voter and not the candidate. But I also find it a little hypocritical that the catholic bishops are vowing to challenge Obama on the abortion issue but they didn't once actually hold the republican party's feet to the fire while they were in office to get them to do anything to restrict abortion. I think many in the republican party would say they are pro-life but when it comes time to put pen to paper and draft legislation, no one has really done that at the state or federal level for a very long time. I respect someone much more for being pro-choice than I do someone who claims to be pro-life and does nothing about it. "

To Think About It wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:02 AM:

" You have a point. There are many moral issues people should weigh when voting. I would argue that without the basic right to life-the right to be protected from those who would choose to cause your death-what other rights or issues matter? But, your point is well taken.
The question isnt regarding individual voters, though. If it was, I would tend to agree with you, as a voter could be pro-life but vote for a pro-choice candidate because of his position on other moral issues. The question is regarding the candidate himself, who uses his influence to pass pro-choice legislation. Completely different scenario. "

Michael Welch Pity The Priest In The Middle... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Funny I misspelled 'devote' as 'devout' but to 'DEVOUT some passing words' somehow has an apt ambience to the priests' hapless situation. Remember -- MOST priests HATE being told to micromanage the eucharist; they do NOT see themselves as 'eucharistic cops' but as 'servants of God' and therefore of THE PEOPLE of their parish. They want to bring folks together and smooth the roiled waters, not excite them. They are 'good men' (MEN necessarily, for now) in my experience but as the Catholic worker movement founder Dorothy Day once said -- unfairly as per ALL bishops -- 'Bishops are sharks'... "

Michael Welch A Permanent Republican Minority... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:36 AM:

" And then the 'dirty' secret has ALWAYS been that the rich and therefore the privileged EVER have had that 'option' and would exercise it NO MATTER THEIR PUBLIC STANCE. Even Catholics (oh yes!) -- and many Catholic women, burdened with many mouths to feed, used to try to induce miscarriages and some would die doing so. The '60s revolution of 'the pill' (the church is STILL officially against contraception, as against God's will to procreate) caused MANY Catholic women to simply stop 'confessing' that they took it -- to the HUGE relief of priests who'd rather NOT hear it! And a national ban on abortions would cause a political upheaval the like of which the Republican party might indeed NEVER recover from... "

Michael Welch No Such Thing As A Little Pregnant... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Abortion is SUCH a hyper-divisive issue (no kidding Welch?! witness Jimmy's blog eh) that parish priests don't even much like to sermonize about it though of course they have to devout some passing words in a few homilies to the subject. Nuns are usually blatantly 'pro-choice'; and theologians at Catholic colleges duck their heads and look VERY serious (and worried) whenever it's mentioned. It has been nearly FORTY YEARS since Roe v Wade and I believe the public -- especially women -- EXPECT the option of abortion without having to travel say any farther than Madison to get one. That DOESN'T mean 'every' woman WANTS an abortion -- it means she wants the RIGHT to get one IF she decides she doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term for whatever reason... "

Think about it wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:20 AM:

" I think it is very inappropriate to deny communion to anyone based on their voting preference. As both a catholic and a proud Democrat I am ashamed of this priests position. I find it a little interesting that abortion seems to be the only moral standard to use when choosing elected leaders for christians. What about the death penalty? War? Health care? These are all moral issues that are mentioned in the church but there has never been an ultimatum put to its parishoners. "

Michael Welch The Universe Of The Universal Church... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:18 AM:

" I WAS a Catholic; I no longer am in large part because as per say the 'incident' of Joan of Arc the church asserts its institutional force over individual conscience -- though of course it DENIES that it does. However my experience with Catholic priests at a parish level is that they are by nature 'reconcilers' and the LAST thing they want is a bishop at their elbows telling them who is to receive the eucharist or not. Ray Burke the erstwhile bishop of the La Crosse diocese LOST his popularity with his priests precisely because he made their pastoral lives second to Vatican approval. Ironically Burke did the same in St Louis and when of all people Ratzinger the enforcer became pope he decided to 'soften' his image by pulling Burke out of administration and into a judicial court IN THE VATICAN... "

Ronnie Gossett wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:43 AM:

" I cant believe I am writing this, but Harsch and Bowers actually make good points. Yes, if you join a church, or any group, you can submit to their rules or leave. Its that simple. Bowers, I think the church pretty much does have a "dont ask, dont tell" policy. It is the politicians that thumb their nose at the church(and humanity and decency for that matter) for the purpose of gaining favor with their constituents that find themselves in trouble. "

Froto wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:41 AM:

" You are talking about an organization with man made rules and regulations for its members, forget the ones they say come directly from God cause that's pure nonsense.
As such They can deny anything they want, to its members. It is up to the member, who knows the rules, as to whether or not the member follows them. Common sense will tell you that if the member is willing to endure the rath of the elite then they should also understand the ritual of communion is in reality man made under the guise of the last supper as created by people with a mission of control over others, beacause they think they and only they know the truth and what is best for everyone. In reality whatever the truth was has been so twisted by twisted, self proclaimed all knowing men that the truth was lost eons ago. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:23 AM:

" I think it's appropriate, but an interesting question is...what are the ramifications for the Catholic Church? Would many of its adherents leave the Church? How would the Pope feel about the loss of their financial contributions? Feeling the loss of Church revenue, would the Pope then adopt a policy of "Don't Ask; Don't tell"? Jimmy, thanks for a provocative question. "

harsch wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Again, I will quote Radhakrishnan: 'In the nature of things a priesthood is always demoralizing.' However, once you've given your freedom over to a church authority you must by all rights accept your penance. "

Cagefighter wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Of course its appropriate. It is part of their job description. I am not Catholic, but I do know that one must have a "clear conscience" before receiving the Sacrament of Communion. A candidate for any public office holds a position of public trust. For them to condone such a barbaric procedure and have any influence over continued legal acceptability of this procedure is disgusting. If Communion shouldnt be witheld for something like this, what SHOULD it be witheld for? "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »