What's Going On At Shady Grove? Part Two
In 2006, 270 doctors at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital signed a petition supporting the anti-gay Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum's (CRC) position on condoms and anal sex. As the CRC reported on their web site, "CRC’s representative on the committee, infectious disease specialist Dr. Ruth Jacobs, submitted a petition signed by 270 doctors asking Montgomery County to warn children of the health risks associated with homosexual sex." We listed the names of those who signed, as well as we could transcribe them, HERE.
If you are not familiar with CRC's President, Shady Grove physician Ruth Jacobs, you can watch her in fine form HERE, as she makes her most lucid case against same-sex marriage in Washington, DC. (BTW, the most accurate and best line in that video comes at 4:56. I won't spoil it for you.)
This week someone, broke federal laws by leaking the personal medical records of a woman who died at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital following a late-term abortion at a Germantown clinic.
A Friday Washington Post article by Petula Dvorak about the records leak has, so far, nearly 2,500 comments on it.
And then somebody with access to private medical records abused their privileges to make the family's grief so much worse, turning their private tragedy into a public spectacle.
We know that Shady Grove is loaded with physicians who opposed the Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum and supported the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. What is the chance the hospital administration would be honest and transparent if someone on their staff turns out to be responsible for this federal violation?
USA Today says, "The Operation Rescue officials said their information is based on sources at the hospital and activists who were protesting at the clinic when Carhart allegedly left Wednesday afternoon with a suitcase." So -- some witnesses standing outside the clinic reported the doctor left work with a suitcase, and somebody at the hospital produced the medical information. Authorities need to identify that source in the hospital and prosecute.
Medical records are kept in databases these days. Databases have logs of every transaction, every query, every report, and who requested it. You need a user account and a password, you don't just find this stuff lying around. Somebody has violated the most fundamental principles of human decency, to publicize the details of a family's sorrow and shame them in their worst moment, and the database administrator at Shady Grove can tell you who did it. I hope charges are filed swiftly.
From USA Today:
If you are not familiar with CRC's President, Shady Grove physician Ruth Jacobs, you can watch her in fine form HERE, as she makes her most lucid case against same-sex marriage in Washington, DC. (BTW, the most accurate and best line in that video comes at 4:56. I won't spoil it for you.)
This week someone, broke federal laws by leaking the personal medical records of a woman who died at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital following a late-term abortion at a Germantown clinic.
A Friday Washington Post article by Petula Dvorak about the records leak has, so far, nearly 2,500 comments on it.
Lots of people are opposed to the kind of late-term abortion that preceded the death of a woman in Maryland last week. I understand that.There is a lot of tragedy in this situation, and Ms. Dvorak tells the story fairly, calmly, and well. A family had to make a terrible decision, and the outcome of the decision was worse than anyone ever imagined.
But everyone should be opposed to the blatantly illegal violation of her privacy and the exploitation of her death by protesters using it to make their point.
Her name and photo have appeared on protest signs, in blogs and in newspapers.
The intimate details of her medical records — probably leaked by someone with access to that information at the Germantown clinic where she got the abortion or the Rockville hospital where she died — should never have seen the light of day, let alone be broadcast at a rally the day after her death.
That pesky HIPAA privacy law, the one that forces you to fill out a bazillion forms whenever you go to the doctor, did absolutely nothing to stop this. Woman loses her life and then her privacy after an abortion
And then somebody with access to private medical records abused their privileges to make the family's grief so much worse, turning their private tragedy into a public spectacle.
We know that Shady Grove is loaded with physicians who opposed the Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum and supported the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. What is the chance the hospital administration would be honest and transparent if someone on their staff turns out to be responsible for this federal violation?
USA Today says, "The Operation Rescue officials said their information is based on sources at the hospital and activists who were protesting at the clinic when Carhart allegedly left Wednesday afternoon with a suitcase." So -- some witnesses standing outside the clinic reported the doctor left work with a suitcase, and somebody at the hospital produced the medical information. Authorities need to identify that source in the hospital and prosecute.
Medical records are kept in databases these days. Databases have logs of every transaction, every query, every report, and who requested it. You need a user account and a password, you don't just find this stuff lying around. Somebody has violated the most fundamental principles of human decency, to publicize the details of a family's sorrow and shame them in their worst moment, and the database administrator at Shady Grove can tell you who did it. I hope charges are filed swiftly.
From USA Today:
Kathy Morbelli, the dead woman's mother-in-law, told The Journal News that she is extremely upset with the rhetoric coming from abortion opponents, saying this was a "wanted baby."It's too late. They won't get it, somebody at Shady Grove has spilled the pearls of the family's most private suffering before the swine of the anti-abortion right. The city, the county, the state, and the federal government need to investigate and prosecute fast, before the slimeballs who did this cover their tracks with a technological and bureaucratic smokescreen.
She pleaded for privacy as the family mourns the death of her daughter-in-law.
posted by JimK at 11:40 AM
46 Comments:
Thanks for the reminder Jim.
Ruth very clearly said "I am an infectious disease in Rockville Maryland, but I do have patients who come from the District."
I suppose we should defer to the good doctor's self-diagnosis.
God willing, whoever leaked the information from the hospital will get the book thrown at them and their hospital privileges revoked.
Like when Fox News commented on Sarah Palin's self-defecating sense of humor.
From Alternet:
Anti-choice activists held an anti-funeral Monday [3] outside the clinic where a 29-year-old woman died from abortion complications last week in Germantown, Maryland.
Hiding behind the façade of a “memorial service,” more than 150 anti-abortion crusaders exploited the death of a young woman to advance their hateful agenda. The anti-vigil draws comparison to the Westboro Baptist Church’s notorious funeral picketing. But, whereas the WBC overtly spreads their repulsive message, these anti-choice activists use far more insidious tactics.
“We understand how horrible this situation is,” said Michael Martelli, executive director of the Maryland Coalition for Life. “And really, we can’t imagine what the family is going through. The family is in no way any type of target.”
Yet, the protesters had no problem plastering the deceased woman’s face on signs brandished with the message: “Pregnant? Scared? We can help!” Apparently, the activists’ respect for family doesn’t go so far as not using a dead loved one as a political prop.
“We will not rest until this clinic is shut down and the license of [clinic leader] LeRoy Carhart is revoked. God let it be so,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.
Mahoney’s invocation of the Almighty in a protest disguised as memorial represents the height of hypocrisy. Psalm 52:2 best describes the reverend’s words: “Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.”
Petula Dvorak, a columnist for the Washington Postnotes that the protesters—by discussing intimate details of the woman’s medical records—could be violating federal privacy laws. Dvoark asks:
So how on earth did protesters get all of her medical records? How did they get enough detail to make huge posters of her face, give details about her marriage and employment, and make claims about what went on inside her body?
If Dvorak is right, then not only will these anti-choicers dishonor a dead woman for seeking an abortion, but they will break the law to do so. And this wouldn’t be the first time. Dvorak reports that groups associated with the protest, “have also bombarded the neighborhood of the landlord who leases space to the clinic, Todd Stave [3], with gory, Nazi-themed fliers. And they tracked down the school that Stave’s children attend and picketed the back-to-school nights.”
Fake funerals. Privacy violations. Harrassing children. Have these people no shame?
do you not, Jim?
"anti-choicers dishonor a dead woman for seeking an abortion,"
what happened is someone tried to kill their child, who was clearly viable outside the womb, as this was a late-term abortion, and wound up killing themself
sounds like the moral arc of the universe bending toward justice
"but they will break the law to do so"
ah yes, the sacred law
how ironic that you try to imply your opponents are similar to Nazis
when the law protects those who kill, it's fair game
remember, in Sound of Music, when the nuns hid the Von Trapps?
they were breaking the law
remember when Harriet Tubman took slaves on the underground railroad?
she was breaking the law
remember when the American colonies refused to pay King George's taxes?
they were breaking the law
I'll assume TTFers oppose the Von Trapps, Harriet Tubman, and American independence
Wow, after almost a month away Bad anonymous is back I thought (hoped) you had either died or come out of the closet.
Bad anonymous, sometimes there is a good moral justification for breaking the law. There is no moral justification for breaking federal laws by leaking the personal medical records of a private person.
What happened is that a procedure to save a woman's life from a pregnancy gone terribly wrong failed so she died even though her doctors tried to save her.
Yet you judge her and call her death "justice."
You probably call yourself a "Christian" too, even though your heart overflows with hatred for women who do not share your views.
God took this mother and child to join Him, but He left you down here with your judgments and hate.
Perhaps there's a message for you in all this to find some compassion for your brothers and sisters.
was the procedure done to save the mother's life?
if so, I apologize
I think TTFers here defend selective late-term abortion as a human right though
that's evil
one of them yesterday said they wished me dead so it's obvious life has little value to them
was the procedure done to save the mother's life?
if so, I apologize
What part of "Kathy Morbelli, the dead woman's mother-in-law, told The Journal News that she is extremely upset with the rhetoric coming from abortion opponents, saying this was a "wanted baby."" do you not comprehend?
If the baby was a "wanted baby," this was not a "selective late-term abortion," but was a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother.
"one of them yesterday said they wished me dead so it's obvious life has little value to them".
I place the highest value on the lives of morally neutral and good people. I place little value on the lives of evil people that seek to harm others.
I place value on the lives of even evil people (except maybe Hitler's).
Isn't salvation of the unsaveable the central theme of Christianity?
“was the procedure done to save the mother's life?
if so, I apologize”
Wow, and I mean WOW. Mark the date, time, and link, folks.
--
“I think TTFers here defend selective late-term abortion as a human right though[,] that's evil”
I can accept your feelings on that. My personal feeling is that once a fetus can survive on it’s own, it could THEN be considered a “person.” But as I’ve relayed before, up to half of all fertilized eggs -- so called pregnancies and therefore persons, as the extremist right would have us believe, spontaneously abort on their own, eviscerating the “pro-life” motive of the anti-abortion movement -- otherwise, much if not most of their money would be poured into research to ensure that the “souls” of zygotes had the best chance of coming to term.
MSNBC did a story on Dr. “late term abortion” Tiller, interviewing some of the women he helped and I was quite enlightened as to the non-selective nature of their late term abortions. The following are similar to what I heard:
Under the heading: A huge gap in the narrative.
There is a vast gap between the descriptions of Dr. Tiller by members of the extremist right … This gap speaks to the fact that very few–not least the mainstream media–understand what he was doing and, and more to the point, why we are asking the wrong people to comment.
For these women and their partners, Tiller was not "an abortionist" but a life-saver. He was a man who put himself in jeopardy to ensure that a woman would not have to lose her life to infection or complications in an already-doomed pregnancy. He was a doctor who ensured that women carrying a fetus with fatal or catastrophic abnormalities could make the decision–if they so chose–to spare themselves and their families the agony of watching a newborn that could not live endure countless operations and medical procedures in futile attempts to keep it "alive."
Continues…
continuing...
--
A 2006 amicus brief [PDF] prepared for Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a case focused on the availability of second trimester abortions, contains a number of stories of women who had to seek out later-term abortions, such as that of Carrie, a 40-year-old woman from the Southwest who was happily married for nine years when she became pregnant.
She described the timing of her genetic testing and decision to end her pregnancy:
"On November 11, 2005, I elected to have [a] CVS test ... Then, the test results came in ... We knew chromosome 14 was incompatible with life, and chromosome 22 could mean Cat Eye Syndrome. Both my husband and I wanted the baby very much, and neither one of us was willing to terminate the pregnancy on a “maybe.”...
I had the amnio on 12/26/05, and the results came in on Jan. 13,2006. It confirmed without doubt – she had Cat Eye Syndrome tetrasomy in every cell of her body. The last 3 sonograms showed ... our baby’s kidneys were beginning to malfunction ... We made this decision because we loved our daughter so much. We didn’t want her to suffer the definite and the untold problems she was sure to endure, if she even made it. We made the best decision we could with the information we had. We fought for her. We wanted her. But we didn’t want to condem[n] her to [a] life of agony."
Or that of Cara, a married Catholic woman with an almost-three-year-old son, who had “always dreamed of having a big family.” She described the time it took to obtain information needed about her pregnancy:
"I was about 17 weeks pregnant at the time ... [T]hey scheduled us for our Level II ultrasound a few weeks early so they could look in more detail at the baby. . . . A few days [after the ultrasound], we received the news that would change our lives forever. Our son was infected with CMV (cytomegalovirus). This was the worst possible scenario (of the possibilities we were given) ... Although I have always been pro-choice, I had winced at the thought of late-term abortions or "partial birth” abortions, thinking that it was just inhumane or irresponsible. Now I know differently. In my case, we were not able to confirm our diagnosis until 19 or 20 weeks gestation. I terminated at 22 weeks ... I was completely heartbroken..."
--
Numerous other such stories are contained in this brief.
I'm no christian Robert. And a god that says "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is no different than a wife-beater or a mafia guy selling "protection" - the Jesus of christianity is really a monster.
“I'm no christian Robert. And a god that says "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is no different than a wife-beater or a mafia guy selling "protection" - the Jesus of christianity is really a monster.”
Priya, anyone who knows God knows there is no sin. “Original sin” is the choice to believe in sin. Consequences in the karmic sense, yes, but Love is incapable of condemnation.
If God is Love and Love is Heaven, then the only reason It would create even so much as the idea of suffering, let alone the perception of it would be to create (discover?) more of Itself. But, alas, the demands of physical reality make it virtually impossible to grasp this notion (can you tell I’m a philosopher, lol).
The one good thing that’s come from the pain of a life of doldrum is that I’ve had time to sort this all through. Whether you believe in a creator or an afterlife is of no consequence, the only “rule” that measures a person’s character is the Golden one.
If the christian god was love there'd be no hell, no suffering. The christian god is not love, the christian god is eternally torturing the vast majority of people that ever existed. The christian god is a monster. The christian god is the most despicable charager in all of fiction.
The god you describe above doesn’t represent any true christian or god who is love, you know me well enough to know I know that.
That “god” describes what/who[?] we consider to be Satan/Evil -- the epitome of, or “god” of evil. Clearly, that thing or being got ahold of the people who wrote the Bible. But that doesn’t mean tatters of truth didn’t get through. Especially the metaphor that is the book of Genesis. Correct interpretation unlocks its hidden and sometimes contradictory truth. Compared to it’s true meaning, it is indeed a fairy tale.
But the moral of the story is that Love (God) created the love of the absence of love (evil) to create an ever greater Good. An eternally inconceivable ever-increasing one in which we will share, but the temporal illusion of suffering is the price.
I know, it sounds ridiculous. It’s taken a lifetime but I’ve done the math, and it’s like one of those quantum physicist’s chalkboards full of equations, except the equations are concepts that lead to understandings, and despite the continual alteration and refinement of those understandings, it’s always the only possible conclusion.
I’m not asking you or anyone else to believe me or accept anything on faith. You really do have to see it to truly believe it.
I’m just saying that not only have I seen it, but I’ve seen that it’s provable.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices that while Priya wishes people dead who don't agree with Priya's views on sexuality and while it is fine with Priya if someone kills their child because the child represents an inconvenience to them, Priya blasphemes God for promising vengeance on the wicked.
Those who hate God are subject to powerful delusions.
Patrick, have you heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
I've never heard a christian claim the bible was corrupted by Satan before - congratualtions on telling me one I haven't heard before. However, the christian god created Satan. If satan corrupted the bible its because the christian god wanted it that way.
The christian god is allpowerful and allknowing. Thus this world full of evil is exactly as he knew it would be when he created it. He's all powerful, if he wanted the world to be different than it is, it would be. The world full of evil is exactly how the christian god wants it to be.
"You really do have to see it to truly believe it.".
Thats a meaningless tautology.
"I’m just saying that not only have I seen it, but I’ve seen that it’s provable".
Alert the media! You're going to be incredibly famous! I can't wait to see you prove it.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
I can't prove there's no god of some sort, but given a hell and the world we have allegedly created by an allpowerful and allknowing god its impossible that such a god could be loving. If there is a an allpowerful and allknowing god he is one hateful b*stard.
Bad anonymous said "I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices that while Priya wishes people dead who don't agree with Priya's views on sexuality".
Nonsense. I don't wish people dead merely for disagreeing with me on sexuality,I wish people dead who lie about sexuality in order to oppress and harm innocent people - there's a big difference but of course if you didn't lie about me you wouldn't have any argument to make.
Bad anonymous said "and while it is fine with Priya if someone kills their child because the child represents an inconvenience to them,".
Another lie. I am not fine with abortion, I prefer women to avoid abortion and getting pregnant in the first place if they don't want babies. However, no one has a right to another's body or a right to tell them what they have to do with that body, including a fetus. I believe the more developed a fetus is the less ethical an abortion is, generally speaking. I believe a critical line in deciding the morality of abortion is when the fetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain.
Bad anonymous said "Priya blasphemes God for promising vengeance on the wicked.".
If your god actually took vengence on the wicked I wouldn't be blaspheming him.
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
I blaspheme the idea of a god because that idea has been used throughout history to justify the oppression and execution of innocent people. I blaspheme the idea of a god because it is used to suppress knowledge and truth. I blaspheme the idea of a god because people use that idea as an excuse to avoid encouraging everyone's number one priority to be to create a world in which we maximize the benefit and minimize the negative for all in an equal fashion.
Part 1
--
Patrick, have you heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?”
I took that into consideration. There are Golden Rule Christians and there are get-into-heaven-free-card christians. The former worship a god who is Love, the later worship Satan/evil in the name of Love. They’re polar opposites.
“I've never heard a christian claim the bible was corrupted by Satan before - congratualtions on telling me one I haven't heard before. However, the christian god created Satan. If satan corrupted the bible its because the christian god wanted it that way.”
True, and I suspect that it’s that way to ensure that those who claim it to be their mantle of truth have to make a clear distinction between which “god” they choose to worship -- the one of infinite love who never judges (but corrects), or the a-hole who eternally punishes those who make mistakes in a what is often, if not mostly perceived to be a torturously uncertain world. Ultimately so that when Judgment Day rolls around, whether in death or in life, individually and/or en-masse, we will know for certain that we and only we are responsible for the “fruits” of the choices we’ve made. No “the devil made me do it” crap of an excuse to avoid the karmic consequences we’ll face. It works the other way too, we get what we give.
“The christian god is allpowerful and allknowing. Thus this world full of evil is exactly as he knew it would be when he created it. He's all powerful, if he wanted the world to be different than it is, it would be. The world full of evil is exactly how the christian god wants it to be.”
That’s the whole point, to overcome evil while under the influence of it. Reincarnation and karma make that challenge make more sense.
The “cross” is symbolic of the cross between spirit and matter. Matter is so powerfully sticky it sucks the spirit of love, of which we are made, right out of us, ergo, the crucifixion. Overcome the influence of the “evil” that matter has on us and we are resurrected.
It’s a universal theme, you see it in movies and TV shows all the time. The path to a goal is going great (the passion), then some insurmountable obstacle gets in the way and all hope seems to be lost (the crucifixion), then somehow, someway, the obstacle is overcome and resolution (resurrection) occurs.
In Genesis, God said we would die (aka, be crucified) if we learned the meaning of good and evil, but left out the resurrection part, Satan filled us in on that by saying we would become like gods. We are currently in the middle of that process.
“Thats a meaningless tautology.”
My mistake, I should have said you have to see it (the truth) to truly KNOW it.
Part 2
--
“Alert the media! You're going to be incredibly famous! I can't wait to see you prove it.”
Science is already meshing with the philosophy of God that I speak of, but you have to be open to, and perhaps more importantly, interested in seeing those pieces matching up and coming together. But as far as my place in it is concerned, you can start here.
All is one. We, our known universe, and the rest of the unknown are expressions of God’s unconditional Love. So, of course a god that doesn’t judge would allow It’s creations to choose to love the absence of love (evil).
Though, I’m still trying to figure out how Oneness could even come up with the concept of absence/separateness/evil, or how non-physical beings could love the pain caused by those feelings. It’s easy to be evil in this world because we have our bodies to separate ourselves from the pain we cause others, but without one, there’d be no escaping the pain caused others.
“I can't prove there's no god of some sort, but given a hell and the world we have allegedly created by an allpowerful and allknowing god its impossible that such a god could be loving. If there is a an allpowerful and allknowing god he is one hateful b*stard.”
Evil is only perceived to be a bad thing when the infinitely satisfying result of overcoming it cannot be seen.
--
PS, You do realize you’re talking with Emproph don’t you?
Priya: “…a god that says "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is no different than a wife-beater or a mafia guy selling "protection" - the Jesus of christianity is really a monster.”
A Course In Miracles, supposedly written by Jesus through self-identified atheist, Helen Schucman, and a REAL expression of a god who is love, puts it this way:
“ ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me’ does not mean that I am in any way separate or different from you … The statement is more meaningful in terms of a vertical rather than a horizontal axis.
You stand below me and I stand below God. In the process of “rising up,” I am higher because without me the distance between God and man would be too great for you to encompass. I bridge the distance as an elder brother to you…”
It was meant as a statement of fact, not a threat. Love requires no recognition of itself, it only asks that it be expressed by extending it to others. Living by the Golden Rule accomplishes this and in turn, is a recognition of this bridge whether or not it’s attributed to a person named Jesus or a being called god.
“…everyone's number one priority [should] be to create a world in which we maximize the benefit and minimize the negative for all in an equal fashion.”
That’s everything that “salvation” comes down to. Worshipping a god who would say "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is born of fear and down right immoral.
Jim posted:
“If you are not familiar with CRC's President, Shady Grove physician Ruth Jacobs, you can watch her in fine form HERE, as she makes her most lucid case against same-sex marriage in Washington, DC.” and embedded a link in “HERE.”
For those who have a taste for delicious irony, you can find our favorite MoCo church lady on her ultimately futile crusade to deny LGBT folks their marriage rights in D.C. by Googling “Ruth Jacobs anal sex video.”
It works on Bing and Yahoo too.
Sometimes karma works like magic.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
I said "Patrick, have you heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?”
Patrick replied "I took that into consideration. There are Golden Rule Christians and there are get-into-heaven-free-card christians. The former worship a god who is Love, the later worship Satan/evil in the name of Love. They’re polar opposites.".
That's still a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
I said “I've never heard a christian claim the bible was corrupted by Satan before - congratualtions on telling me one I haven't heard before. However, the christian god created Satan. If satan corrupted the bible its because the christian god wanted it that way.”
Patrick said "True, and I suspect that it’s that way to ensure that those who claim it to be their mantle of truth have to make a clear distinction between which “god” they choose to worship -- the one of infinite love who never judges (but corrects), or the a-hole who eternally punishes those who make mistakes".
You claim your god never judges, but one must judge in order to correct, so your god judges just as everyone else's does.
Patrick said "Ultimately so that when Judgment Day rolls around,".
See, you are contradicting youself again - your god judges, you believe in judgement day. How do you expect me to take you seriously when on one hand you insist your god never judges and on the other you talk about when judgment day comes?
Patrick said "whether in death or in life, individually and/or en-masse, we will know for certain that we and only we are responsible for the “fruits” of the choices we’ve made. No “the devil made me do it” crap of an excuse to avoid the karmic consequences we’ll face."
See, you earlier claimed your god doesn't judge or punish, now you admit your god judges and creates "consequences" after death. Please clarify for me whether or not you believe some people are sent to hell after death as a "consequence"(punishment).
I said “The christian god is allpowerful and allknowing. Thus this world full of evil is exactly as he knew it would be when he created it. He's all powerful, if he wanted the world to be different than it is, it would be. The world full of evil is exactly how the christian god wants it to be.”
Patrick said "That’s the whole point, to overcome evil while under the influence of it. Reincarnation and karma make that challenge make more sense.".
Not all evil is overcome, much, perhaps most, of the time evil triumphs. Even when one triumphs over evil the best one can be is the same as one was if the evil had never occurred in the first place. Triumphing over evil causes anguish, takes time and effort better spent on productive pursuits and often leaves lasting anxiety, frustration, PTSD and so on. We are never better for having evil and occaisionally triumphing over it, we are always worse off than we would be if there had never been evil in the first place. So, we are back to the begining - any all powerful and allknowing god that allows evil is in no way a loving god.
Patrick said "The “cross” is symbolic of the cross between spirit and matter. Matter is so powerfully sticky it sucks the spirit of love, of which we are made, right out of us, ergo, the crucifixion".
Wow, no offense but what a load of bull - that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Patrick said "Overcome the influence of the “evil” that matter has on us and we are resurrected.".
As I said earlier, much of the time evil triumphs through no fault of the victim. That is a rather unjust universe you envision where people who haven't triumphed over evil aren't resurrected.
Patrick said "In Genesis, God said we would die (aka, be crucified) if we learned the meaning of good and evil,".
God told adam and eve they'd die within a day if they ate from the tree of knowledge - he lied, they didn't. Adam and Eve didn't have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate the forbidden fruit, so they had no way to know it was wrong to disobey god and eat the fruit and yet god punished them anyway. Once again, your god is an evil god. If, as you say, your bible is corrupted by satan, how do you distinguish reliably between the corrupt and uncorrupted parts?
I said “Thats a meaningless tautology.”
Patrick said "My mistake, I should have said you have to see it (the truth) to truly KNOW it.".
Of course, but you have given me no reason to believe any of what you've said is the truth.
I said “Alert the media! You're going to be incredibly famous! I can't wait to see you prove [god exists].”
Patrick said "Science is already meshing with the philosophy of God that I speak of,".
What evidence do you have to support that claim? Do you know that 97% of the members of the American Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god?
Patrick said but you have to be open to, and perhaps more importantly, interested in seeing those pieces matching up and coming together. But as far as my place in it is concerned, you can start here.
Patrick said "All is one. We, our known universe, and the rest of the unknown are expressions of God’s unconditional Love.".
Unconditional you claim. So, as long as I continue to believe god and Jesus are fictitious, do I get "salvation"?
Patrick said "So, of course a god that doesn’t judge would allow It’s creations to choose to love the absence of love (evil).".
As we established earlier, your god does judge and punish, you just choose to try and hide from those terms by calling it "correction" and "consequences". There's no way an allpowerful, allknowing, and loving god would allow people to choose evil. Only a monster of a god would have the knowledge of the existence of evil, the power to stop it, and refuse to do so. With all the evil in the world, a world god knew would turn out that way when he created it, only his nonexistence could excuse him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick said "Though, I’m still trying to figure out how Oneness could even come up with the concept of absence/separateness/evil, or how non-physical beings could love the pain caused by those feelings. It’s easy to be evil in this world because we have our bodies to separate ourselves from the pain we cause others, but without one, there’d be no escaping the pain caused others.".
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I think you're struggling to justify the existence of evil and you're abstracting it to the extreme to convince yourself there's some magical indistinguishable way its justified - it isn't.
I said “I can't prove there's no god of some sort, but given a hell and the world we have allegedly created by an allpowerful and allknowing god its impossible that such a god could be loving. If there is a an allpowerful and allknowing god he is one hateful b*stard.”
Patrick said "Evil is only perceived to be a bad thing when the infinitely satisfying result of overcoming it cannot be seen.".
Evil IS a bad thing! If we can't agree on that we have no common basis on which to have any discussion on morality. As I said earlier, often evil is never overcome and even when it is overcome we waste time and energy doing so better spent on productive pursuits. A mother who has her child murdered doesn't generally come out better for that evil, it haunts her for the rest of her life, causes stress, depression and anquish. We are rarely better off for having experienced evil and overcome it than we would be if we had never experienced evil in the first place. Sure sometimes people say "I learned character by being bullied in school." but for every person like that there are twenty who are tormented by that bullying for the rest of their lives and never get over it. The existence of evil is always a net loss for humanity, no loving god would ever permit it. If there is a god, he's either not allpowerful or allknowing (which seems laughable if you believe it created the universe) or he's an evil S.O.B.
I said: “…a god that says "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is no different than a wife-beater or a mafia guy selling "protection" - the Jesus of christianity is really a monster.”
Patrick said "A Course In Miracles, supposedly written by Jesus through self-identified atheist, Helen Schucman, and a REAL expression of a god who is love, puts it this way:".
Of course, another alleged atheist who "saw the truth". It may happen occaisionally but most of the time religious people are lying about having been atheists because they think it makes them more credible - it doesn't. Far, far more often religious people become atheists rather than the other way around.
Alleged atheist said “ ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me’ does not mean that I am in any way separate or different from you … The statement is more meaningful in terms of a vertical rather than a horizontal axis. You stand below me and I stand below God. In the process of “rising up,” I am higher because without me the distance between God and man would be too great for you to encompass. I bridge the distance as an elder brother to you…”.
LOL, "I'm not any different than you, I just stand above you and am higher than you.".
Patrick said "It was meant as a statement of fact, not a threat.".
Jesus threatened eternal torture throughout the new testament. Why should I believe your claim that that part was corrupted by satan and not other christians who say hell is real?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick said "Love requires no recognition of itself, it only asks that it be expressed by extending it to others. Living by the Golden Rule accomplishes this and in turn, is a recognition of this bridge whether or not it’s attributed to a person named Jesus or a being called god."
I don't get what that first sentence is supposed to mean. If the golden rule is the thing then Jesus is just so much unncecessary baggage. Why should I attribute the golden rule to either a person named Jesus or a being called god? The golden rule was around before the bible was written. The golden rule stands without any need of religion.
I said “…everyone's number one priority [should] be to create a world in which we maximize the benefit and minimize the negative for all in an equal fashion.”
Patrick said "That’s everything that “salvation” comes down to.".
What is this "salvation" of which you speak? Are you referring to a life after death in heaven, or what? If you honestly mean what I said is identical to what you call salvation then christianity is entirely extraneous - how is christianity of any use if that's what you honestly believe?
Patrick said "Worshipping a god who would say "Accept me as your lord and savior or I'll torture you eternally" is born of fear and down right immoral.".
Immoral, I don't know about that...Can we really say a person is immoral for believing what they've been taught before they were too young to think logically? I'm not so sure about that. The majority of chrisitans are taught a frightening story of an evil, vindictive, and unpredictable god who punishes people for crossing ambiguous boundaries, you surely can't blame any chrisitan who experiences fear as a result of christian teachings.
Patrick said "but you have to be open to, and perhaps more importantly, interested in seeing those pieces matching up and coming together. But as far as my place in it is concerned, you can start here.
Oh dear. I couldn't follow the "logic" of that. There's a reason why that "proof" of the existence of god isn't firmly memorized by every person on the planet who is also now a believer in god.
This did eventually occur to me though.
There is a difference between nothing as a concept and nothing as the absence of matter and energy. If no beings existed there'd be no concepts.
There is a difference between existing as in having a physical presence and existing as in being possible.
So, you have not proven it is impossible for there to be no matter and no energy in which case there'd also be no concepts. Therefore it is possible for there to be nothing.
There, have your word games back atchya.
Ok.
You can't just say Ok, I need answers to my questions.
Why, so you can find newer ways of disagreeing with me?
Priya, I’m not going to argue with you. When you’re ready to have a healthy non-combative discussion let me know.
I’ll even host.
Patrick, a debate necessarily involves disagreement. If you won't have disagreement you don't want a debate, you just want to preach to me and have me say "Yes sir.". That's not a realistic or reasonable expectation on your part.
Debate requires honest give and take, the asking and answering of questions. I've responded to your questions and points but you refuse to respond to mine because you're not interested in honest debate.
Priya,
“Patrick, a debate necessarily involves disagreement. If you won't have disagreement you don't want a debate, you just want to preach to me and have me say "Yes sir.". That's not a realistic or reasonable expectation on your part.”
Obviously, but “disagreeing” for the sake of it crosses the line into arguing. Leaving it at “disagree” was the politest way I could put it.
“Debate requires honest give and take, the asking and answering of questions. I've responded to your questions and points but you refuse to respond to mine because you're not interested in honest debate.”
That is what I mean, you don’t know that I’m not interested in honest debate, but you clearly feel comfortable of accusing me of it. And then there’s this:
“There, have your word games back atchya.”
That’s hurtful and epitomizes your approach to the so called debate we’ve been having.
I’m not playing “word games.” You’ve taken so much of what I’ve said out of context in what I perceive to be a very bitter, mocking, argumentative, combative, mind-made-up way, concluding that I’m contradicting myself instead of politely asking for clarification.
--
So, a few things:
Patrick said "A Course In Miracles, supposedly written by Jesus through self-identified atheist, Helen Schucman, and a REAL expression of a god who is love, puts it this way:"
Priya: LOL, "I'm not any different than you, I just stand above you and am higher than you."
The context in which that quote is mentioned in ACIM says this:
“ ‘No man cometh to the Father but by me’ does not mean that I am in any way separate or different from you except in time, and time does not really exist.”
Meaning that it is only our perception of time being real that makes Him seem “higher” than us.
Before moving on, to clarify, just as you cannot prove that a god does not exist, neither can I prove that Jesus is the actual author of this book, ACIM. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume it’s true because it speaks to the heart of what I consider this debate to be all about -- that “the christian god,” as you put it, and the things said in the Bible (especially the contradiction between God being Love, yet damning his own children to an eternal hell if they don’t measure up by the time of death) can be seen from a completely different perspective.
Whether Jesus wrote ACIM or not, I have seen it as being the truth, ACIM just describes it better than I can. And through and through He is constantly clarifying his words of “sin” and “atonement” etc.. Making sure that the reader knows that He’s only using these words because we are still so enmeshed in the illusion of time and space, and thus, making sure that we understand that from His/God’s perspective, there is no sin and therefore no need for atonement.
continuing..
It’s just like when I’ve been using the words “but God ‘corrects’, and ‘Judgment’ day.” I’m talking about karma and Newton’s Third Law; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
On a personal level, “Judgment Day” is the day you realize that EVERY day is judgment day, in that you realize the only judgment is our own against that of Love’s unchanging and infinite love for us all -- equally. But hey, if Newton’s third law day works for you better, I’ll call it that.
Same works for “forgiveness,” I may use the word so people know what I’m talking about, but really, forgiveness is no more than the recognition that you were never “judged” to begin with.
As far as karma goes, I’m speaking from the point that reincarnation is real -- Newton’s third law still applies and to rectify our wrongs (or reap our rights), we come back to even things out and learn more about how to overcome the binding influence of matter. There’s much more to that perspective, so please don’t judge what I just said on it’s own.
And further, regarding karma and reincarnation, the pain of losing a child, especially to a never solved abduction or the worst kind of murder imaginable, is the only way to justify such an event, and I’m saying YES, the “reward” is infinitely greater than the unfathomable pain of such an experience.
The same goes for my passion/crucifixion/resurrection being a universal cycle analogy. Some people never do get past the “crucifixion” part, but again, you have to remember that I’m coming from a reincarnation is true perspective. It may take lifetimes of the crucifixion part (the overwhelming pain of the “cross” between spirit and matter that we are as human beings) before overcoming it resulting in spiritual resurrection.
--
I believe I’ve said the words “virtually incomprehensible” a number of times to communicate that some of the concepts I’m putting forth take a careful and long-term internalization of them before “getting them.” So I don’t think it’s fair of you to dismiss them out of hand.
This is another thing it comes down to, even if/when you do fully understand a concept/theory or personal experience I present, I don’t expect you to simply believe it. But it’s not fair to just dismiss it, take it out of context, or nitpick over the words I used to describe it.
I won’t take offense if you call my viewpoint delusional, or that you believe my past life memories are hallucinations, or that my concepts (after careful consideration on your part) are delusional, as long as I know you’re trying to understand where I’m coming from instead of automatically assuming that they're something they’re not.
-Patrick
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh dear.
You've failed to respond to most of my key questions choosing instead to make a token response and mostly go off on another topic.
Just as I could see early on, you're not interested in an honest give and take where you respond to all my questions just as I've responded to each of yours.
You want to stack the deck and have a "discussion" where you ignore most of my questions and direct the course of the "discussion" to only the topics you want to push while ignoring the flaws in your position
and avoid giving me a chance to take your assertions to their illogical conclusions so I can show you wrong.
I'm not interested in being preached to.
“…so I can show you wrong.”
So be it.
Post a Comment
<< Home