WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
Whirled Views 1.7
Happy Wednesday!
Today’s quote is from an American singer:
“You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won’t back down.”
Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
CURRENT ISSUE
Battle within
The fight for the future of the Islamic republic resides with its own
FULL STORY
feedWORLD on Twitter
Follow Us On Twitter >>
Stop asking: President Obama confirms his commitment to ending "don't ask, don't tell"
http://tinyurl.com/lvqv4d
About 1 day ago
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
back to top22 Comments to “Whirled Views 1.7”
Tom Petty. Love that song.
Report comment to moderator
ohmygoodness but the Johnny Cash cover is somehow even more amazing.
Report comment to moderator
I saw a good video with this song sang by someone else. It was some sort of recruitment pitch for the armed forces (army I think)
Report comment to moderator
I always have to pick Johnny Cash.
Report comment to moderator
In the gym the other day I saw a TV news banner along the bottom of the screen. It saddened me. A couple somewhere adopted a child. That child vanished 10 years ago. They “assumed the child had run away” and evidently go to the police. The child’s remains have been located. In light of the Caylee killing this story sickened me. How was it the “aunts and uncles” of the dead adopted child never reacted to the disappearance. It brought to mind the Fla woman who said her child was taken away by Family Protective Services or some such state agcy.
To take most folks children away you’d better have a sheriff detachment with a notarized court order signed with golden ink.
Report comment to moderator
I thought the same thing about this kid, Sawgunner. Their lawyer was saying that the kid used to run away and they either found him or he came back in a few days. So, when that didn’t happen, wouldn’t a normal couple go the police? I mean, I would have right away, but even if you make an allowance for the kid’s tendencies, why would you never report it? Very strange case.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, I’d be interested in your take on the Paradox of Thrift thread regarding CPSIA…
Report comment to moderator
As the parents of three adult children, adopted at 12, 10, and 12, there were may times we wished one or the other to run away.
OK, we would have turned them in as runaways to the police, but Ya, it would have been a blessin… a troubling experience.
Report comment to moderator
If this is the case of Adam Herrman that I’ve been reading about, his remains have not been located. His 1999 disappearance was not reported until recently, and he is being sought as a missing person.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6588020&page=1
I agree that it’s very strange his parents never reported him missing. If he does turn up I suppose he’ll have an interesting story.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I hadn’t read it that carefully myself. They are running it as a death investigation, but haven’t ruled out the possibility that he’s alive.
Report comment to moderator
Momof5, I posted as you suggested.
Report comment to moderator
Just thought I would let you know I posted my thoughts on the economy on the Thrift Thread.
Report comment to moderator
I read Kim’s post. Good one.
Taking a very extreme occurence and focusing on it (like a child not reported missing) is sort of a National Enguirer approach. I guess it’s the World equivalent.
When our daughter was about six, my wife and I took a woodworking class. There were about four class sessions. Another young couple attended session one and none of the others. There young child had disappeared and was featured in a new story. A couple of weeks later the body was found.
Our child once disappeared on a preschool trip. My wife and I didn’t know about this until she was found (sitting under a table watching feet go by). It is a miracle that any child survives to grow up and a tragedy that some don’t.
Report comment to moderator
1/6
I number these so you can easily skip over my posts. Or you can read every one and then complain.
First, I am in the last month of my work before I retire. I need to finish some tasks.
Second I am also entering one of those periodic periods where reading worldmagblog irritates me quite a bit.
Third, I should I should take a break from my wmb addiction.
Fourth, from time to time I have been called a troll. I prefer to call myself a pest, but troll is fine. Whatever.
I have a few irritating things to say as a pest. I will post them all, thus entertaining people who like to complain about my length. Tom Jefferson thought the Bible was too long, so he wrote his own condensed version. Go figure.
Report comment to moderator
2/6
I tend to be sarcastic and satirical in my comments. In doing so, I sometimes hurt someone’s feelings and sometimes obscure a point I am trying to make. If someone “attacks” me (a fairly silly activity when it comes to on line messages), I will probably become more sarcastic. If someone says to me they want to discuss something serious in a serious manner, and is reasonably polite, I will attempt to respond in the same way. People I have had such polite exchanges with include Adios, Cameron, tj, Klasko, Karen O (most recently), Lynn Vincent, Pauline, and quite a few other people. Possibly “Yeah” and I will have a serious discussion.
If someone points out an error I make (in terms of facts or logic) in a way that is convincing to me, I will acknowledge or apologize as seems appropriate. If someone just makes a declaration or demand, I will probably laugh.
For example, Peter Leavitt said, “Go away,” to me. Pauline (a reasonable person) said she doubted he said that). He did. It was a clear violation of the stated policies of World magazine and its blog/discussion area. In the past, Peter has said that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that evolutionary thinking led to Hitler’s campaign to exterminate the Jews. I took exception to those statements and while most conservative Christians here don’t seem to say things such as that, they don’t really object to them either. I am surprised that anyone at wmb took Peter seriously for five minutes, but your mileage obviously varies quite a bit.
Report comment to moderator
3/6
I don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I doubt there is a God. I don’t know how the universe began, thus I call myself an agnostic. A person who used the screen name “Ed” (and other names) gave me crap for calling myself an agnostic instead of an atheist. I responded sarcastically by calling myself a “Radical Agnostic.” Now I like the term so I use it frequently.
Is Bobxxxx Ed back again? I don’t know. The writing seems a little better.
Report comment to moderator
4/6
I think conservative Christians are incorrect about:
Evolution. The Garden of Eden story is a myth.
<b<Homosexuality.For now, I will limit myself to: I am not particularly in favor of “gay marriage” but I could live with it, but I think our society should come to terms with it in some fashion such as allowing legal relationships such as “civil unions” and not trying to force homosexuals to stay in the closet.
Sin. I will say again I interpret the word “sin” to mean something I don’t like but I think is more impressive if say “God” doesn’t like it. The messages to me from “Yeah” to me so far aren’t making much sense to me, but if he writes to me I will listen.
Separation of Church and State. I won’t say that conservative Christians are “against” it, but my understanding of its proper role and definition is quite different from theirs.
Human rights. I think human rights should be available to all people in the world whether or not they are American citizens or not. Again, we get down to matters of definition and detail.
Torture. I am against torture. I think most conservative Christians will say that they are against torture, but the Bush administration has cut themselves slack to get as close to torture as they can without doing something clearly obvious to all as torture (such as hot needles under fingernails or tightening rope on genitals) as they can get away with. I have seen arguments here that waterboarding is not torture. That’s an example of what I mean by getting as close as they can without crossing a line that is obvious to everyone.
Courtesy and use of language. Most people here consider themselves “conservatives.” I think words such as “liberal” and “conservative” do have some meaning and can lead to useful discussions.
However, much of the time, they are used as insults and labels by people who are denying that they are doing so, such as llama and New Jersey Lawyer, who like to use terms such as “lefty” and “socialists” and then deny these are meant as insults. I consider such discourse as lazy and self-indulgent and not an attempt at serious communication. Going back to Peter Leavitt (perhaps the most unpleasant online persona I have met at wmb), I think his comments to me about being anti-Christian and that I should go away means that he feels he should be able to post obnoxious discourse about non Christians and homosexuals and people who are not as conservative as he is and get nothing but applause and approval. Several people have made a distinction between Lynn Vincent (whom they regard as a “good cop”) and people like Peter (and those who silently or quietly acquiesce) to such behavior. I am dubious about such “good cop” and “bad cop” characterizations. To mix my metaphors, I suspect Lynn Vincent and other members of the World editorial staff want to have their cake (pretence at “polite” and “civil” discourse) and eat their cake (letting people toss insults at homosexuals and liberals and atheists).
As I have said, much of the discourse and rhetoric on wmb is similar to racist discourse and people refer to atheists and liberals and homosexuals in ways that carry connotations to the use of the word “ni**er” when used in regard to black people. Someone took great exception when I made this point once. I stand by it and I think people here should examine their discourse and communication with much more honesty about their intent and effect than they are willing to do at present. Christians often feel aggrieved and offended about not being respected or deferred to, yet lack the imagination or empathy to see how their disrespect and name calling affects others.
I support letting people toss insults because I worked with teenagers for ten years and they toughened my feelings up, and because I consider Roger Williams to be both a devout Christian and the patron saint of radical agnostics.
Roger would be turning over in his grave if he had a soul which he doesn’t because there is no life after death. Also Roger engaged in snailmail flame wars with other Puritans of his time. He was a peaceful man but not a pacifist. Roger could take it and dish it out.
Report comment to moderator
5/6
I’ve been meaning to talk about this for a while. I’m not sure I’ve written it to my satisfaction, but I will post it as a separate item. I am making two parts of this.
Abortion. I think this is a genuinely difficult issue. As far as I can make sense of it, the general point of view at World is that there are no arguments for the anti-”prolife” side, and all good people are wholeheartedly and without qualification against abortion.
However, I believe there are problems for both sides. First of all, as Musing has pointed out well, identifying the inception of life is problematical.
Secondly, if people have souls, what happens to the soul of an infant? If it is innocent, then does it exist as a happy fetus for eternity? [This is only one of about a thousand reasons the idea of life after death is incoherent, but I won’t go there any more for now, and I won’t go there after I die, either.]
If killing a fetus is a crime, why doesn’t it exist as a happy fetus for eternity?
Many pregnancies end in miscarriages. I will list three examples from my personal experiences and observations.
Miscarriage personal experience/observation #1
After having five children, my mother had a miscarriage. (My parents should not have married and once married, and probably should not have had five children. Apparently they did not understand birth control. For that matter, it just occurred to me a year or two again to wonder if my parents “had to get married”?
Miscarriage personal experience/observation #2
A lovely young recently-married happily pregnant woman I worked with once had a miscarriage that began as she was at work. She was devastated. I think it is reasonable to say that everyone who worked with her shared the pain.
Miscarriage personal experience/observation #3
My daughter’s partner, pregnant (by artificial insemination from sperm from a school friend) had a miscarriage.
She tried again. In her second pregnancy, the fetus died by itself at four months creating a medical emergency.
Doctors discovered her fetuses were allergic to her.
Intense desire to have a child and intense medical intervention allowed the third child produced by artificial insemination to result in a successful birth.
My granddaughter will visit us Saturday and will turn five in February. We are still trying to get her to stop having tantrums. [Although her tantrums are probably standard for a four-year-old, we all suspect she has great promise as a “drama queen.”]
An abortion is a crime, but a miscarriage is an “Act of God?” I guess this makes sense to many people here, but to me it does not make much sense to me.
On the other hand, I think people who oppose abortion have a legitimate point of view. I don’t like the term “slippery slope,” but I think it has some relevance and validity in this discussion.
If as Musing argues well, conception is not clearly the beginning of a human being, it is also not clear that killing a just-born baby is murder but killing a pre-born baby is not murder.
The battle between “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” has become one of complete stonewall. I won’t solve that and my thoughts are not original, but we all blither here (it’s free), so I will offer my thoughts with three examples of people not having abortions.
Not having an abortion example #1
Although my wife and I used birth control on our honeymoon, and did not intend to have children, my wife became pregnant.
In ideology, my wife was (at the time we married 43 years ago) and is today, a strong “pro-choice” supporter.
In practice, she chose to keep the child and we love our daughter, now 42 years old.
Not having an abortion example #2
After raising two daughters to be young adults, my brother and his wife had what they described to me as an “oopsie,” and she became pregnant. As she is a midwife of many years experience who also eventually became a full-fledged nurse and head nurse of the obstetrics wing of large East Coast public hospital, my sister-in-law is familiar with both birth control and how to use it and also with abortions and probably has been involved with some.
In her own life, she chose not to abort and their third child (the only boy in my extended family) is now a teenager.
Not having an abortion example #3
One of my sisters (the one who is not a fundamentalist religious nut) became pregnant through a particularly egregious case of statutory rape. She gave birth to her child, my niece, who lives in Vermont and is a wonderful woman with two fine children, married to a wonderful man.
So there are three cases in my family where people could have chosen to have abortions for common reasons people give for choosing to have abortions.
My approach to abortion is: encourage people not to have abortions. Do not go back to making abortion illegal.
I am a pragmatist. People have abortions. Many in America. Many all over the world, especially in countries such as Japan and China where it is regarded as a form of “birth control.”
Christians want to convert every non-believer Do you REALLY believe every atheist and every Muslim and every Hindu and every Buddhist and so on is going to become a Christian? Of course not.
Evangelical Christians want to prevent every abortion. Do you REALLY believe that will happen? Of course not. Is it worth while to reduce the number of abortions? Although our views on religion are completely different, that is something we can probably agree on.
If abortion is made illegal, there will be a trade off, well documented (though denied around here). Many young women will die and suffer in botched back-alley abortions and self-induced abortions.
Doctors have already been murdered for performing abortions. Most people in the “right-to-life movement” say and sincerely believe they have nothing to do with such murders, but they are not completely innocent of this problem and their rhetoric and sometimes fanaticism contributes to it.
If abortions are made illegal, people with money will go abroad and get them; poor people will suffer.
Our society has moved in a direction where it does not accept making abortion illegal. As much as you hate this, it is the fact.
Conservative political leaders such as Reagan and Bush paid lip service to the pro-life movement, but in practice they use it as a political sop. From conversations I have had here, I believe many of you are really squeamish about trying to make abortion illegal though you will loudly deny it.
As I sometimes do, I will ask religious believers at wmb also experience personal anguish about the issues I raise here to email me at eman_modnar@yahoo.com. As I have said before, and have always followed: I will quote what you say but I will not identify your name or screen name.
To the extent that the “religious right” (which most of you consider yourself to be) clings to this ideology, you will contribute to making yourself less and less relevant to America as a whole. You have already marginalized yourself by foolishly supporting George Bush as he dragged himself into mismanaged and ill-conceived [so to speak] initiatives and mismanaged a questionable war and tolerated financial mismanagement. Go ahead; make the liberals’ day some more by fighting to the last hill to make abortion illegal.
Opposing birth control pills and “day after pills” because you think they cause abortions is an example of religious fanaticism and foolishness in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
I heard our Pres Elect concerning the economy say that we need to something now. Oh, that we would get out of the do-something-now-anything-at-all mentality. That is what got us into Iraq and the current economic demise. I am glad that it seems the Congress is now saying they need to have discussion, so the bill will not be waiting for the inauguration.
Report comment to moderator
6/6
A sensible approach (though much less glamorous, and dare I say it, less politically “sexy” than trying to overthrow “Rowe vs. Wade” ) would be to work on developing and promoting an ideology supporting carrying to term, adoption, and general reproductive health in a constructive fashion. As I have stated, I have no particular brief for the Planned Parenthood organization. (To which I once was a member.) The proper approach would be to support alternative organizations to it that serve similar goals (the ones you can tolerate) without promoting abortion. If there are such organizations, that are where you should put your energy and enthusiasm, not “Right to Life” slogans and campaigns which again is glamorous to overwrought Christians but does much less good in the number of abortions prevented.
Some people here have told me that there are such organizations. People here have told me told me of their efforts in this direction. I do not deny this or criticize you, but in reading wmb for several years I see posts ranting about abortion as one of the regular features of wmb I find foolish and counterproductive along with the homosexuality posts and the evolution posts and the liberal-bashing posts. Silly is the kindest word I can come up with.
Finally, the population of the world is way too high. Killing people by suicide bombing is not a good solution. Wars (which are never in short supply) are not a good solution. Rapidly dropping population growth (as in countries such as Japan) with an over abundance of aging people not a good solution.
As Musing and I agreed, humans are not rational. This is true of religionists and atheists. Rational people (not expecting to encounter many soon, not even when I look in the mirror) would work to stabilize population growth to a minimal level. This would mean that high growth areas such as Kenya and Africa would slow down. This would mean that highly controlled countries such as China would continue to keep the population lid on. (I have no idea how to get China to reduce its dependence on abortion and forced abortion. China is not much interested in our opinion of what they do. Although capitalism has not done much to unsettle China’s authoritarianism, consumerism–especially parents unhappy at seeing their children poisoned with melamine, and unemployment caused by the Greater Depression–is causing a few waves of unrest.)
This would mean that areas with dropping population growth such as Japan and Russia and Western Europe would find a way to keep more stable population rates.
In our culture, carrying to term and adoption would be much more equipped as social values and much more glamorous. Television reality shows would highlight happy adoptions.
How any of this could be actually implemented I have no idea. I will conclude with two final thoughts on the topic:
I am genuinely crazy.
My comment on abortion is very sensible and should gain much agreement and applause. In reality it will either be ignored almost entirely or generate a great deal of criticism and abuse. To build moral stamina and work on my addiction, I will read any comments but will post no comments or replies for the rest of January.
However, my email does work if you unwisely want to communicate with me or hear from me: eman_modnar@yahoo.com.
Report comment to moderator
“Taking a very extreme occurence and focusing on it (like a child not reported missing) is sort of a National Enguirer approach. I guess it’s the World equivalent.”
As far as I can see, this was from a comment, not a WMB post. But it is interesting, don’t you think? I think you’re just being contrary, Random!
“Second I am also entering one of those periodic periods where reading worldmagblog irritates me quite a bit.”
And it certainly has been showing! Maybe your comments exhibiting your irritation are irritating to some of us, too.
(I say this with love, & you know that.)
Your contrariness (& orneriness, at times) reminds me of when my dear hubby is in a particularly grouchy mood. If I say “stop”, he says “go”; if I say “go”, he says “stop”. Remember that old commercial for Life cereal? “Mikey won’t eat it. He hates everything!”
Okay, so let’s say you don’t agree with anything we Christians say or stand for. (I know that’s not completely true, I’m exaggerating to make a point.) How does our expressing our opinions, on a “Christian” blog nonetheless, hurt you or anyone else?
And please remember that this is the kind of forum where many people will express an opinion in a stronger way than they ever would in person. I could, if I wanted to, rant & rail about abortion here, but would not do so in front of my very pro-abortion relatives. (Though if the topic came up, I would politely & gently state my case.) I believe many, if not most, of my fellow Christians here would do the same.
Here’s my advice to you, dear Random - Chill out, Dude!
Report comment to moderator
Random, there is no discrepancy at all in saying that God may take life (miscarriage) and we may not (abortion). Every human death is an “act of God,” but that doesn’t make murder OK. (Wow, that was an easy one!)
Re the “back alley abortions result in death of women,” first of all, every abortion results in at least one death, so quadrupling the number of fetal deaths and decreasing the number of maternal deaths by, say, 10 percent is hardly a victory. Second, I’ve seen it noted that the number of maternal deaths under legal abortion is actually higher. Possibly that is at least partly because the total number of abortions is higher, but it’s also because legal abortion is still an unsafe procedure, and increasing the number of abortions, legal or otherwise, necessarily increases the number of maternal deaths. And again, it greatly increases the number of fetal deaths, and that simply cannot be ignored.
I only skimmed your posts; you may have had more than this to be “answered,” and if so I’m not ignoring them as unanswerable, but simply skimming your posts so that I can get back to work after my “sick time” this week.
Report comment to moderator