The Life of Julia is certainly one of the strangest and creepiest campaign gimmicks as you go through the life of a fictional person as they enjoy all the fabled promises of President Obama. It is quite ripe for parodying as evident via many parodies of it. So I will just pile on.
44 comments
Abortion is really quite the obsession with you isn’t it?
If only all life got the attention that you give abortion but then again Pro-life rarely seems interested in the stuff beyond the birth canal.
At any rate I love how the GOP talks about abortion yet whenever they’re in power they do nothing about it. What was Bush’s biggest move against abortion? Preventing doctors outside of America from talking about it with patients?
At least Obama states his position honestly and openly, I guess that must confuse and anger you.
Bush’s child tax credits did more to help the average American family than any other programs that have been thought up lately.
What are these Bush’s child tax credits you’re speaking of?
54 million unborn murdered since Roe v Wade > 6 million Jews murdered under the 3rd Reich.
Yes. It is an obsession. You’re alive, Salvage, simply because your mother did not abort you.
Parents get a $1000.00 tax credit for every child 16 and under…. It’s largely for the middle class as it caps out at higher income levels. For those with lower incomes, it has the possibility of wiping out any tax debt.
Oh that, Bush bumped it up but it wasn’t his, I think it predated his administration by a decade?
I think Obama might have done some middle class tax cutting himself.
At any rate I’m not sure what that has to do with the GOP talking about abortion and never doing anything about it whereas at least.
Yes, you’re right Bush doubled it, Clinton put it in effect in 1997 – 4 years earlier. This is clearly helpful to the people who choose to give life to their children. To be honest, I don’t know if taxes are lower under Obama, since our income has drastically decreased since he came into office :-/
What does it have to do with abortion? Didn’t you, Salvage, bring up what does the GOP ever do for the living?
One must agree that the GOP has issued way more words than facts in protection of the unborn. But then again, the GOP is a party, interested in gaining power, while the Catholic Church is not and is free to go against popular opinion.
according to data and as opined by Nicholas Kristoff, quote included below, (Salvage, you really should know who he is) Conservatives are far more chairtable then Liberals. So, yes, Conservative pro-lifers can say, with facts backing us up, that we put our money where our mouths are. “Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.”
salvage: Bush’s largest pro-life move was probably the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, followed by putting Roberts and Alito on the bench so future pro-life laws could actually be upheld.
If you do not know what a Partial Birth Abortion is, have a look on google images.
If you do not wish to do that, I can paraphrase from wikipedia as well: The fetus is turned to a breech position, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The rest of the fetus is extracted, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. This method was used on term gestational age fetuses, formerly known as “babies.”
Barbaric.
>To be honest, I don’t know if taxes are lower under Obama, since our income has drastically decreased since he came into office :-/
They have for the lower and middle classes. I’m pretty sure if you go to the Obama site it mentions it someplace….
>Bush’s largest pro-life move was probably the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,
I do know what that is and it shows that when it comes to abortion those who are most against it don’t give it much thought.
That procedure is not a typical abortion, it’s not like the woman is going to wait 9 months, then her water breaks and she goes “Oh. Right! Dang, I was supposed to take care of that, well off to the clinic!”
It’s when things have gone horrifically wrong in the delivery to save the life of the mother they have to kill the fetus
That legislation didn’t stop a single one of those operations because if the woman’s life is in danger no doctor is going to put the fetus first, maybe the mother would but that would be HER CHOICE.
But it sounded good and it was a nice chunk of red meat to throw at the anti-abortion base as long as they didn’t look at the facts.
Which, of course, they never do.
As for Alito, so he outlawed abortion did he?
Look salvage, here’s the issue:
If it’s a person, it’s murder… If you deny personhood, then you are standing with a pretty seedy crowd politically, philosophically, and ethically, and there’s not much argument that is possible.
Abortion is nothing less than an unbridled presumption of the power to deny ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ to another American without due process of law. In its place, the pro-abortion crowd substitutes some non-descript, subjective, conflict-of-interest-infested ‘deliberation of conscience’, if I can give a term for your argument correctly.
The “anti-abortion” crowd can no more be silent about this American Holocaust than if there were SS carrying citizens off to concentration camps, so we’re going to be here until this fight is over, proclaiming the dignity and sanctity of life and engaging trolls as long as it takes.
This also isn’t about the exceptional cases as you suggest above.
Unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the enemy is not as simple as the Republican party. Our blog master points out that it is unclear as to whether they will come through or simply pay lip service. The guarantee is that Obama and his crowd will keep on supporting Big Abortion, pandering for votes and seizing other people’s money to do objectively evil things. I will hold my nose and vote for Mitt this time on the chance he can do something with a pro-life Congress.
Pro-Lifers hardly cling to the Replublican party, so they are much broader a target than I think you can see beyond a petty political attack. If you want to move the argument out of the stupidity of two-party politics, show us some positive arguments from law or philosophy or whatever that abortion can ever be a good idea…. now that takes some real smarts and some rhetorical skill.
Salvage, I’m going to have to question the ” GOP talks about abortion yet whenever they’re in power they do nothing about it” line. Although I will admit these are at a state level.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/arizona-law-cuts-planned-parenthood-funding-article-1.1073018
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/utah-abortion-law-waiting-period-gary-herbert_n_1369283.html
or
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/south-dakota-abortion-bil_n_839063.html
(((It’s when things have gone horrifically wrong in the delivery to save the life of the mother they have to kill the fetus)))
That a tell “IT” the way “IT” really is Jack, “I” mean Dick! No! NO! “IT” is salvage. Whatever! Anyway, don’t let these so called holier-than-thow fool ya cause they no more care about these feed us than they care about salvage. They’re just playing a numbers game http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/14751/Whats-Your-Number-Trailer-HD cause like you clearly stated: (((That procedure is not a typical abortion, it’s not like the woman is going to wait 9 months, then her water breaks and she goes “Oh. Right! Dang, I was supposed to take care of that, well off to the clinic!”))) You are so right, woman are not stupid and/or have no heart like these so called bleeding hearts would want U>S (usual sinners) to believe. OK! sinner vic will con seed that there might be a few silly succubus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus and/or a few con-cu-bine, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubines
out there who might care to harm these almost babies but between you, me and myself if they heard their silent scream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream … , that number would be even less than they claim “IT” to be. Again, Jack, Dick, “I” mean salvage what they can but between souls and spirits, these screams really fall on Death’s here if you know what “I” mean?
Don’t give UP the ship, salvage, because we must continue to avenge these poor woman and some of sinner vic’s cells have a few angels to help and they’re preparing a team called “The Avengers” as we write… http://www.cinemaclock.com/trailers/ont/NorthBay/193032/The_Avengers.html .
Ah yes just like in the days of old, when so called kings were mean and long story short, Victor’s G.O.D. but between you, me and any other bodies who care to listen, “IT” was really U>S god’s of angel who killed about 180,000. of that kings army in one night when he wanted John The Baptist’s soul and spirit to worship his A.S.S.. Long story short, this angel got UP SET with John’s Father cause he wouldn’t believe “IT”.
“I” better stop NOW cause Victor is waking UP from his beauty nap if ya know what “I” mean? 🙂
HI Victor! 🙂
“It’s when things have gone horrifically wrong in the delivery to save the life of the mother they have to kill the fetus.”
This is completely, stunningly wrong, salvage. Did you read various court transcripts regarding intact D&X? I did and you again have no clue what you are talking about.
“No empirical data supports the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that D&X is safer than any other abortion method.
At the time they testified, Respondents’ witnesses
admitted that there were no published, randomized, peerreviewed studies, prospective or retrospective, analyzing or comparing the safety of D&X to other methods of
abortion, including D&E. SF TR 88-89, 101-02, 252, 438,
443, 593-94, 611-13 (Paul, Sheehan, Doe, Broekhuizen). In
the absence of such studies, the Circuit could not have
made its conclusion that D&X is safer than any other
abortion method. 11 Indeed, as Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian
testified, because D&X had never been studied in a systematic way, there was no sound basis to say it is safer
than other methods. 12 Id. at 1221, 1232 (Shadigian).”
An article which discusses the use of the intact D&X procedure. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html
salvage, you might be thinking we live in Great Britain, whose Majesty’s Government replied to the question of the use of intact D&X in Britain with, “We are not aware of the procedure referred to as “partial-birth abortion” being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist’s (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity.”
>If it’s a person, it’s murder
Sure but a fetus is not a person so that’s not the case here.
>If you deny personhood, then you are standing with a pretty seedy crowd politically, philosophically, and ethically, and there’s not much argument that is possible.
Ha! Ha! Yes! And anyone who agrees with you is the exact opposite! What a simple world you live in, sounds nice.
>Abortion is nothing less than an unbridled presumption of the power to deny ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ to another American without due process of law.
No, it’s a woman having complete control of her own body.
>The “anti-abortion” crowd can no more be silent about this American Holocaust than if there were SS carrying citizens off to concentration camps,
ha! ha! Yes! It’s just like Nazi Germany!
You’re an idiot and I’m done with you.
> Although I will admit these are at a state level.
And I didn’t say otherwise. The State level stuff is even better political theater, they can pass all kinds of crazy crap and wait for the courts to strike it down, as they know they will. They know the stuff will fail but can still milk it for votes.
It’s pretty clever.
again with the fetus, please get a grip on the English language! A human fetus is a human little one by definition. Ever heard of synonyms or definitions?
>“No empirical data supports the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that D&X is safer than any other abortion method.
Um, we’re not talking about safety, every operation has risks, when I was a teenager a buddy of mine died getting his wisdom teeth pulled, has an asthma attack for the first and tragically last time in his life.
The “partial birth” abortion is used to save the woman’s life when things go wrong that’s why the law passed made an exception in the case of the mother’s safety.
Which is the only time a procedure like that is used so once again, a meaningless law passed by a cynical GOP.
Or do you really think that women wait until the baby is breaching to have the abortion? You think the doctors are all “Yay! We get to deliver a corpse!”?
Furthermore making abortion illegal is going to end abortion? It will as much as the war on drugs has ended drug abuse.
You can’t legislate people’s bodies, it’s legally wrong and practically impossible. It’s funny how much right wingers scream about keeping the government small and out of their lives they demand that it be inserted into a woman’s womb.
I guess they only care when it’s about taxes.
>human fetus is a human little one by definition.
Nope, a human fetus is a human fetus by definition.
>Ever heard of synonyms or definitions?
Sure have, in this case “child” could be a synonym for fetus but only in the cultural context. In the hard biology it’s a fetus and it remains one until it leaves the womb.
And any time would you call a born child a fetus? Like you’re in the McDonald’s play-land and you turn to a mother there and say “What a lovely well behaved fetus you have there.”
I suspect the mother would give you a rather odd and uncomfortable look before taking her child as far away from you as possible.
Different things are different.
And even if I agreed that a fetus is something else? It doesn’t change the fact that the mother will ALWAYS have more rights than whatever is it.
Hard biology? As in factually acurate biology? The biology which yo have no grasp of? There is no medical textbook that would argue a human fetus is not a human being. A human person as defined by the state is another matter.
You, salvage, contend the temporary hardship of a pregnant mother trumps another’s right to life. I contend you are the very epitome of why the pro-abortion argument quite logically supports the so-called “after birth abortion” philosophy.
And you are completely nonfactual in your ascertainment on the D&X procedure and why it is used. You might try reading court documents and the NY Times article I provided for you.
salvage, is human development complete at birth?
>There is no medical textbook that would argue a human fetus is not a human being.
Really?
fe•tus (f t s)
n. pl. fe•tus•es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>A human person as defined by the state is another matter.
Nope, same matter.
>You, salvage, contend the temporary hardship of a pregnant mother trumps another’s right to life.
I contend nothing of the sort. I content that a fetus is not a person and that a woman has absolute right over her own body in all matters.
If you think there is a “right to life” than a rapist could argue he was giving it to the egg and his sperm that the woman has no say in the matter.
>I contend you are the very epitome of why the pro-abortion argument quite logically supports the so-called “after birth abortion” philosophy.
And I contend that your worship a god who has murdered more born babies than any clinic has ever aborted so I’m not sure why you think it’s only bad when people do it. If clinics could promise you an afterlife of paradise would you be okay with their “baby killing”?
>And you are completely nonfactual in your ascertainment on the D&X procedure and why it is used. You might try reading court documents and the NY Times article I provided for you.
Yes, one guy from 1997 makes a claim and that makes it so.
At any rate I don’t care if it’s aborted five minutes or five months after conception and I don’t care how the operation is performed because it’s none of my business, it’s the woman’s body and her choice. Our opinions are not a factor.
It’s weird that you think you have any right to a say over another person’s reproductive organs.
>salvage, is human development complete at birth?
Oh gosh no, our brains continue to develop right into our 20s and in some ways it never stops.
Victor { 05.07.12 at 11:52 am } (((It’s when things have gone horrifically wrong in the delivery to save the life of the mother they have to kill the fetus)))
That a tell “IT” the way “IT” really is Jack, “I” mean Dick! No! NO! “IT” is salvage. Whatever! Anyway, don’t let these so called holier-than-thow fool ya cause they no more care about these feed us than they care about salvage. They’re just playing a numbers game http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/14751/Whats-Your-Number-Trailer-HD cause like you clearly stated: (((That procedure is not a typical abortion, it’s not like the woman is going to wait 9 months, then her water breaks and she goes “Oh. Right! Dang, I was supposed to take care of that, well off to the clinic!”))) You are so right, woman are not stupid and/or have no heart like these so called bleeding hearts would want U>S (usual sinners) to believe. OK! sinner vic will con seed that there might be a few silly succubus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus and/or a few con-cu-bine, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubines
out there who might care to harm these almost babies but between you, me and myself if they heard their silent scream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream … , that number would be even less than they claim “IT” to be. Again, Jack, Dick, “I” mean salvage what they can but between souls and spirits, these screams really fall on Death’s here if you know what “I” mean?
Don’t give UP the ship, salvage, because we must continue to avenge these poor woman and some of sinner vic’s cells have a few angels to help and they’re preparing a team called “The Avengers” as we write… http://www.cinemaclock.com/trailers/ont/Toronto/193032/The_Avengers.html .
Ah yes just like in the days of old, when so called kings were mean and long story short, Victor’s G.O.D. but between you, me and any other bodies who care to listen, “IT” was really U>S god’s of angel who killed about 180,000. of that kings army in one night when he wanted John The Baptist’s soul and spirit to worship his A.S.S.. Long story short, this angel got UP SET with John’s Father cause he wouldn’t believe “IT”.
“I” better stop NOW cause Victor is waking UP from his beauty nap if ya know what “I” mean?
HI Victor! 🙂
Got ya! …..
Hey! You sure did sinner vic…:(
Good “ONE” 🙂
Under Obama your combox is empty. 😉
So humans develop after they are born (finally a fact you claim and is true, salvage!), however, humans in the first stages of human DEVELOPMENT are not humans because they called human fetuses? And this idiocy really makes sense to you, salvage? So why may we not kill human infants, or human toddlers or human adolescents? Those are also humans at a stage of development? Oh! Wait, I get it! If we stop calling them “human” and just call them infants, toddlers and adolescents, then they will cease to be human and we can have true mercy on their parents and get rid of those pesky infants, toddlers and adolescents!
Yes, you logically support “after birth abortion” and that’s no surprise. “….two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).” (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)
I’m taking my friends’ advice (KYian and Beate) and throwing in the towel because it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who refuses to be honest.
>So humans develop after they are born (finally a fact you claim and is true, salvage!), however, humans in the first stages of human DEVELOPMENT are not humans because they called human fetuses?
No, they are not human because they ARE human fetuses.
>And this idiocy really makes sense to you, salvage?
Yes, I think I’ve explained that a few times here. What’s idiotic about it? What about the definitions? They’re idiotic too?
>So why may we not kill human infants, or human toddlers or human adolescents?
Because those are people. Abortion doesn’t affect human infants, toddlers or adolescents unless of course it’s the adolescent having the abortion.
>Those are also humans at a stage of development?
Not also, they are humans at various stages of development. You’ll note that they do not develop inside another person so that is why they are different.
>Oh! Wait, I get it! If we stop calling them “human” and just call them infants, toddlers and adolescents, then they will cease to be human and we can have true mercy on their parents and get rid of those pesky infants, toddlers and adolescents!
No, that is silly. You can stop calling a fetus a fetus all you like but it doesn’t change the facts of what and where it is.
>Yes, you logically support “after birth abortion” and that’s no surprise.
No, there’s no such thing, your quote notwithstanding.
>I’m taking my friends’ advice (KYian and Beate) and throwing in the towel because it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who refuses to be honest.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am lying about fetuses being fetuses and woman having complete rights to their own bodies and reproduction!
So that’s why you’re not going to acknowledge you were wrong when you said “There is no medical textbook that would argue a human fetus is not a human being.”?
Theists! It’s your denial of even the realities you create that I get such a kick out of.
And now I but hang my head and think of Ecclesiatis 4:3 –better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, and never will or need exist… No, Julia should be grateful to her mother, to Pres Obama, for making that decision for her, that she need never face life’s trials, need never fear going hungry, fear deprivation or neglect, or the stings and snipes of her social betters, no, she need never fear that…
But, Panda Rosa, think of all the glory she might have given God, all the trials she might have helped others through, all the hungry families she might have chosen to provide for, all those who suffer from deprivation or neglect whom she might have taken care of and comforted, all those who suffer from stings and snipes whom she might have stood up for.
Ecclesiastes speaks of the living, the dead and those who have not yet existed. But whether they are alive, dead or not yet living is up to God, not man. Would you murder me if I were hungry? And if you did, should I be grateful to you? Julia may well have had a very full, pleasant life. Is it better to assume the worst and therefore murder someone to keep them happy? Please, can’t you see the ill-logic here?
KYian, I have looked into the void for a very long time. The views I express are but the Culture of Merciful Death taken to their bitter extreme.
>think of all the glory she might have given God,
What does your god do with glory? How does it affect it in the slightest?
Panda Rosa – Yes, sadly the Culture of Death remains a culture of death regardless of what adjectives are used to disguise it.
Salvage – What does God do with glory? He uses it for our benefit, to bring us closer to Himself. It is right and just, fitting and good that we should praise and glorify the Almighty. In helping and guiding us in doing this, he brings us closer to our final end. Also, He accepts our action of glorifying Him as reparation for our sins, as reparation for the sins of others.
How does glory affect Him? Again, how does your intrinsic dignity affect you? Glory does not affect God as it might affect us, e.g. make us big-headed. God’s glory does not affect Him, but rather it affects us; not in the way glory given to us might, but it affects the way we know God and contemplate God, and thus the way we act, toward God, toward ourselves and toward others.
>What does God do with glory? He uses it for our benefit, to bring us closer to Himself.
Oh, so it’s like people think “Wow, that god is amazing! I’m going to go worship it!”
Hmm, doesn’t seem to be working, Catholicism isn’t even close to the number one religion. Good thing Hell’s a big place huh?
And didn’t all the gods that came before yours also demand praise? It’s weird that your god seems to need the same things that the fakes gods needed.
> He accepts our action of glorifying Him as reparation for our sins, as reparation for the sins of others.
So telling your god how great it is means you’re a better person? Not sure if I see the connection there.
>How does glory affect Him? Again, how does your intrinsic dignity affect you?
Again, I’m not an omnipotent universe creating god if I were I don’t see how mortals telling me how great I am would have an effect.
>Glory does not affect God as it might affect us, e.g. make us big-headed. God’s glory does not affect Him, but rather it affects us; not in the way glory given to us might, but it affects the way we know God and contemplate God, and thus the way we act, toward God, toward ourselves and toward others.
So by telling your god how great it is you get to know it better? Still not seeing how that makes much sense. Wouldn’t your god actually talking to you have the same if not better effect?
And this praise thing, does that work with other gods?
Salvage, you’ve said the reason you are posting is for entertainment, but it comes to making an effort to learn, you’d rather just not. Well, I’m not here to argue for the sake of passing time. Life is too short for that. If you have a reasonable question about God or Catholicism, I’ll do what I can to answer it. But don’t expect me to go any further than that.
>If you have a reasonable question about God or Catholicism,
Why did your god sacrifice itself to itself so it wouldn’t be wrathful to its own creation for behaving exactly as it designed it to / knew it would? What function did this seemingly pointless act serve?
Also why do you call a three day coma a sacrifice?
These are perfectly reasonable questions of course as they are at the heart of your religion yet Christians never answer them or even seem to acknowledge them.
The beating heart of delusion; fastidiously ignoring anything that could upset it.
Man was created good. He was not designed to do evil, but he was given free will to choose good or evil. Man did choose good, until he was externally tempted to disobey his Creator.
When man committed the first sin, his relation with God was severed. Because it was a human who sinned, a human needed to make reparation for the sin. Because God is perfect, because of His infinite justice, a perfect sacrifice was needed. But we fallen humans were not able to give this perfect sacrifice.
So, out of His great love for man, God sent His Divine Son to assume human nature and restore our relationship with Him. And the Son of Man embraced the will of God with perfect love and perfect obedience, and made the perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice, offered by Jesus who was fully human, served to restore our relationship with God.
I cannot say why someone would call a three-day coma a sacrifice. Neither can I say why someone would call Our Lord’s death and resurrection a coma. Note that the Gospel writers offered proof that He did in fact die, and that other writers attested to this as well. Note also that the Gospel writers, among others, also offered proof that He rose from the dead.
Hope this helps.
>Man did choose good, until he was externally tempted to disobey his Creator.
And that external temptation, that wasn’t created by your god?
See that’s the problem, you say your perfect god made everything perfect but the reason why it’s not perfect is that your god made other stuff that messed it up.
Which means it’s still all its fault.
>Because God is perfect, because of His infinite justice,
So because his creation ruined his creation it’s the creation’s fault that it’s not perfect… I’m not sure if that’s just on any time level.
>a perfect sacrifice was needed. But we fallen humans were not able to give this perfect sacrifice.
Once again why does your god need anything? An all powerful being should already have everything.
>So, out of His great love for man, God sent His Divine Son to assume human nature and restore our relationship with Him.
And how did that turn out? Has our relationship been restored? Because from what I understand of history it was 30 years after his “sacrifice” before Christianity was establishing then another 300 for it to become the Empire’s religion and then it was spread via war and genocide.
Then more wars, the Reformation and then even more wars.
Are you sure this plan was perfect?
>And the Son of Man embraced the will of God with perfect love and perfect obedience, and made the perfect sacrifice.
And this perfect sacrifice came in the form of Jesus being nailed to a piece of wood? What made that perfect?
> This sacrifice, offered by Jesus who was fully human, served to restore our relationship with God.
And that happened?
>I cannot say why someone would call a three-day coma a sacrifice. Neither can I say why someone would call Our Lord’s death and resurrection a coma.
Because Jesus came back right? So that means he didn’t die, death mean you don’t come back. I call it a coma because that’s when someone seems to be dead but then comes back.
So this perfect sacrifice was what? Jesus didn’t give anything up save for three days.
>Note that the Gospel writers offered proof that He did in fact die, and that other writers attested to this as well. Note also that the Gospel writers, among others, also offered proof that He rose from the dead.
Yes, the Bible says Jesus really died and came back to life so that means it’s true!
Is everything in the Bible true?
These are the questions I was able to glean from your post:
>And that external temptation, that wasn’t created by your god?
All the angels were created by God. They, like man, were created with free will. The angels had to choose between God and not God. Two-thirds of the angels chose to serve God, and one third, led by Lucifer, chose not God. God is the source of all good and this concept of “not God” we call evil. Evil was not created by God. Evil was not created at all. It is an *absence* of God. So, yes, Lucifer (the tempter) was created by God, but the evil in him (because of which he tempted) was not.
Simplified*: “a perfect sacrifice was needed.” Once again why does your god need anything?
Forgive me for not making this clear before. In partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were disobedient to God. They deliberately broke His clear commandment. They committed a sin, a violation of divine law. God, in His infinite justice, could not simply overlook this. That would not be just. Therefore, because of His perfect justice, He required mankind to make perfect atonement for his sin.
>Has our relationship been restored?
Yes, we have again the opportunity to share a deep relationship with God. Many people do not choose this, though. It is probably because of this that this question arises. We can see that many, many people reject this gift, and so we are tempted to question its existence. But, yes, those who embrace the will of God, who choose to do good, and who seek pardon and strive to make reparation when they fall can have just as deep a relationship with Him as Adam and Eve had.
>Is everything in the Bible true?
No, the Bible is free from error only in those things needed for our salvation, i.e. in matters of faith and morals. It is not necessarily free from error as regards history and science. The authors did not intend to assert historical or scientific accuracy, for this was not needed to serve the purpose of the message. God allowed errors in matters which were not necessary for salvation (for instance, the sun standing still in Joshua) in order to allow man to use his capabilities to discover and grow.
*If I distorted your question by simplifying, feel free to ask again what I didn’t answer.
Are Americans intrigued by the fact that ROE is staunchly pro-life now?
I find that increasingly interesting that even though abortion is perfectly legal and there is no chance that a woman will suffer legally from the procedure, yet a healthy percentage of the women who’ve had abortions suffer from guilt and regret their abortion later.
If pro-choicers are right and these women haven’t killed a human being, why would they feel guilty. The majority of the population being pro-choice constantly reinforces the line that she did nothing wrong, yet more and more post-abortive mothers become pro-life afterwards. Why does their consciences tell them they’ve done wrong? And the only time they feel at peace, is after they’ve been to confession, and enjoyed absolution. You can google many stories of this sort of thing occurring (look them up yourself).
If society tells you and encourages you that something is perfectly acceptable and legal, why would even one conscience regret the abortion?