Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


The Contraception Divide Within the Pro-Life Movement

posted by swaldman

“The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It’s within the pro-life community. The question now is: ‘are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people’s lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.’”
–Rep. Tim Ryan, a pro-life Democrat and author of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, which attempts to reduce the number of abortions in part through expanded use of contraception.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(46)
post a comment
Suzanne

posted July 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm


The failure rate of contraception is what leads to abortion. Because more contraception leads to more sexual acts, more risk-taking and a generally more sexualized culture, abortion is seen as a needed back-up. It’s a vicious circle.



report abuse
 

Emily

posted July 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm


Abortion statistics from my state show that about 45% of women getting abortions were not using contraception at the time of conception. So that shows that many abortions could be prevented by increased contraception use. Many women who obtain abortions due to contraception failure were using the least effective forms of birth control (ie, barrier methods). By providing funding for these women to receive medical care and highly effective forms of hormonal birth control, many more pregnancies could be prevented.
After having two children, I decided that I did want to become pregnant (at least for a good long while). And since I don’t believe in abortion, I knew that I needed a reliable method. I chose Implanon, which has a lower failure rate than tubal ligation (sterilization), is immediately reversible, and works by preventing ovulation (hence, conception).
This method cost me about $800 (about the same as paying for the pill for the three year time period I will have the device). This is a significant barrier to many low income women.
I hope that the previous commenter (Suzanne) would not condemn the “more sexual acts” that my husband and I can share due to our highly dependable contraception.
My point is that contraception needs to be a central part of the battle against abortion.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted July 28, 2009 at 6:06 pm


One of the strictest injunctions we, as Christians, are to follow is that against bearing false witness.
All the conservative Christians like Suzanne who purposefully tell these lies that contraceptives are highly unreliable are committing a very grave sin.
If they want to wage the absurd argument that all sex which is not directly meant to result in pregnancy is wrong, fine, they should. These lies are, however, are nothing but damaging to us as Christians. How can people take us seriously when they know that we are telling lies?
Honestly, I have long since abandoned any hope of reaching any sort of compromise with the christianists. Let’s just push through human rights for gays and transgendered, free contraception for everyone and the right to chose for each and every woman.
Everything else is just playing into the hands of these hateful, spiteful people.
See the link for the real failure/success rates for contraceptives when used correctly. It is worth noting that such devices as the male condom are about the only really reliable protection against STD and are still 98% effective when used in America, a country noted for the poor/non-existent education of her youth in contraceptive use.
Truly, you conservative Christians are lying through your teeth. Why?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 28, 2009 at 6:15 pm


Suzanne: Let’s say there are x unwanted pregnancies per year. Each one resulted from an act of sex, obviously, so we’ve got x sex acts. Now, the failure rate of various means of contraception varies. Rates, e.g., for condoms, if used properly, run between ten and thirty percent, depending on whom you believe. Let’s split the difference and say 25%. That is, 25% of the sex acts where a condom is properly used will result in pregnancy (the real rate would be less, since not every act of unprotected sex results in pregnancy, obviously, so not every condom failure would result in pregnancy, but let’s keep it simple).
This means that if there are x sex acts that would have resulted in unwanted pregnancies, and if every couple involved used condoms properly, only a quarter of them, 0.25x, would result in pregnancies. This means that for the number of pregnancies to increase as a result of increased sexual activity, the number of sex acts would have to more than quadruple (because 4 * 0.25x=x). Thus, any increase in sex as a result of contraception with a condom that was short of fourfold would still result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus (everything else being equal) fewer abortions.
The Pill is usually estimated to have a failure rate of less than ten percent, which means that for an equivalent number of unwanted pregnancies resulting from Pill-protected sex, the number of sex acts would have to increase to over ten times as many as previously for the number of unwanted pregnancies, and hence presumably abortions, to increase.
It seems to me that such extremely large increases are unlikely, so the great probability is that the number of abortions would still decline, more sex or not. It would be instructive in this regard to see if there has actually been any research done as to whether and to what extent rates of intercourse rise with use of various contraceptives.
Of course, the kicker is this: Suppose that a method of contraception is devised which is 100% effective, or alternately, that research demonstrates conclusively that increased dissemination of contraception reduces the abortion rate. Would you support such dissemination then? If the answer is “no”, that is one’s legitimate right to a view. However, such an answer indicates two things: one, that such an answer is not derived from empirical considerations, and two, that in effect one who holds such a view considers reducing the amount of presumed illicit sex as more important than reducing the number of abortions.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted July 28, 2009 at 6:54 pm


Good point, Turmarion.
The sad truth of the matter is, christianists would rather see women and children suffer and die than to prevent abortions.
Their twisted, perverted, hateful world view is truly that it is better for children and mothers to suffer the consequences of having sex than to prevent abortions.
Such terrible, hard-hearted people. No wonder they support torture, raping and beating transgendered and denying gays human status.
If they were really ‘pro-life’, their concern would extend beyond the first nine months. That fact that these mean-spirited people seek to cut the already marginal health care system for children and mothers back is proof enough of their hatred.



report abuse
 

Lucille

posted July 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm


I am not aware of hormonal or mechanical contraceptives being against the law. If abortion is considered to be a matter of privacy, then certainly so should be contraceptives, and should be obtained within the norms and responsibilities of procurement of private things (i.e., by the adult person him/herself, or by parents).
Since society has an interest in family health and stability, as well as the respect and protection of her citizens, perhaps effort would be better spent encouraging citizens to engage in relationships appropriate to their level of self-ascribed responsibility. This places responsibility and control with each individual and avoids advocacies that have vested interests in controlling human behavior for either their own benefit or pet ideology.
While abortion is clearly the taking of a human life, so too, certain types of contraceptives interrupt the newly-developing life. These devices should certainly be illegal, in the interesting of protecting the life of a helpless, voiceless citizen.
In a different time, the injury of “artificial” contraception was widely-accepted, even if not well-understood. The situation today is that such contraception is so widely promoted to the exclusion of other modern alternatives that a legal ban in our democracy is inconceivable. However, as a matter of logic, if you can’t address the consequences of sexual activity, you should not be engaging in it, and you certainly shouldn’t expect your fellow citizens to enable your highly ill-considered actions, especially since some of them may consider your activity to constitute grave perversion.
If you want to try to understand why contraception matters, so to speak, follow the link, and proceed to page 22. http://publications.ingagepublication.com/COLUMBIAAPR09EN/DigitalPublication.php?width=1008&height=650



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:08 am


“Honestly, I have long since abandoned any hope of reaching any sort of compromise with the christianists. Let’s just push through human rights for gays and transgendered, free contraception for everyone and the right to chose for each and every woman.”
Did you ever think you do not stand on the truth? Its about the rights God gives us is what is important. God says marriage is between one woman and one man. God said sex is wrong outside the bounds of marriage. There is no case for same sex unions in the Bible.
The right to choose to kill you mean right? Because abortion is killing a living human person. A person that God knitted together. So you believe in murder. How can that be a godly stance?
The thing is you hate those who do not fall hook, line and sinker for YOUR views. You are the one that shows hate towards those who simply do not see scripture the way you do. I have asked you over and over to produce, to make your case on both of these issues and you cant.
Take your post here……..”The sad truth of the matter is, christianists would rather see women and children suffer and die than to prevent abortions.”
That is bologna and you know it. Your hatred is showing. I am against same sex unions and premarital sex even between opposite sexes. I do not want to see anyone suffer. Your stance is the one that is pro-violence because you are pro-abortion. You condone the murder of innocent humans, God knitted humans in the womb. If this is not a barbaric practice I don’t know what is and you condone it. Your position is pro-death for the unborn. I am pro-life I don’t think two wrongs make a right, you do.
“Their twisted, perverted, hateful world view is truly that it is better for children and mothers to suffer the consequences of having sex than to prevent abortions.”
I have never ever ever said a mean thing to you. You love to play the victim card, woe is me. Because I do not agree with your lifestyle you have attacked me in the worst way. Your view on abortion is perverted and hateful and you claim to be a Christian and love God. Wow………
“Such terrible, hard-hearted people. No wonder they support torture, raping and beating transgendered and denying gays human status.”
I am not hard hearted you are. You want me to tolerate a lifestyle that I see no godly evidence for in the Bible. If anyone is not tolerant you aren’t.
“If they were really ‘pro-life’, their concern would extend beyond the first nine months. That fact that these mean-spirited people seek to cut the already marginal health care system for children and mothers back is proof enough of their hatred.”
You cant speak for everyone and your statement is absurd. I work in this field as you well know. I work with my states Right To Life. I work with a group called Silent No More and I worked at a Pregnancy Center. So don’t give me that crap. You have no clue because you don’t work in this area.

Lucillle you are right when you said this. “While abortion is clearly the taking of a human life, so too, certain types of contraceptives interrupt the newly-developing life. These devices should certainly be illegal, in the interesting of protecting the life of a helpless, voiceless citizen.”
It is taking a human life and certain contraceptives can interrupt by killing the newly formed life. This is fact.
Bravo………for this post.
“If you can’t address the consequences of sexual activity, you should not be engaging in it, and you certainly shouldn’t expect your fellow citizens to enable your highly ill-considered actions, especially since some of them may consider your activity to constitute grave perversion.”



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted July 29, 2009 at 9:00 am


churchmouse,
You have yet to explain what aspect of my 24 going on 25 (yay!) committed, faithful, true and monogamous partnership with a wonderful man is a sinful lifestyle.
He takes care of my parents when I am out of the US. I take care of his when they need my help in Ireland.
We support each other with love, friendship and compassion.
Jesus never said word one about our love, our romance, our sex lives. Now, I can understand your belief that the ‘gay lifestyle’ is something specific and distasteful – you conservative Christians are very good at taking the actions of one subgroup and making them representative for all people.
Just yesterday, another Bible-thumping, gay-bashing Republican State Senator, this time from Tennessee, got caught and resigned for cheating on his wife, bless his heart. Were I to take the way Republican politicians treat their marriage vows as an example, it would seem to me that the conservative Christian ‘lifestyle’ is something I surely would not want any child I cared about to emulate!
So give it a rest. Paul, not Jesus is the entire basis for your making life hell for gays and transgender. Paul would have been just as nasty about the conservative Christian version of marriage we see Republicans practice as about those men of the first century AD who took their paycheck and spent it down at the local temple on hunky sex-kittens instead of bringing it home to their wives.
Abortion is a thorny problem. I wish we could avoid abortions entirely. We can’t, we never shall. Since the only person who is competent to make a decision on the matter is the woman affected, I fail to see any rational for me, a man who can’t get pregnant nor shall ever make a woman pregnant to tell any woman what to do with her body.
Contraceptives are not per se abortifactants. Until successful implantation (and not ectopic, either), we can’t truthfully speak of a viable separate life-form. Were we so to do, then the incidence of spontaneous abortion needs must be considered to rise to nearly 90% of all ‘pregnancies’.
Can it be that you are actually arguing that each and every spermatazoa is a living being?
Explain to me, please, how you otherwise can come to the conclusion that a pair of 16 year old using a condom when having sex is not preferable to those same kids having to go to an abortion clinic a few weeks later?
It just doesn’t add up. Neither of us is particularly crazy about these kids having sex at that age, but equating pre-marital sex, contraceptives and abortion as being all and the same is to practice reductio ad absurdum. One might as well judge a man an adulterer for admiring a Michael Phelps from behind or Dolly Parton from the front!



report abuse
 

karbie

posted July 29, 2009 at 9:25 am


Since we are continuing to find Gospels that were deliberately omitted from the Bible–and the rift between factions was drastic enough to split the early Church into the Roman Catholic Church and The Byzantine Orthodox Church, I wouldn’t automatically assume we have all the information that was intended to be available to all. However, one thing that comes through loud and clear is that the only one who can judge another person’s spiritual sins IS God. “Judge not lest ye be likewise judged”–does that ring a bell with any of these so-called Christians? Being “Saved” does not mean that you will become perfect and that you are automatically right. Reread some of your comments and picture Jesus standing behind you listening and see if you feel comfortable or uncomfortable.
Contraceptives used to be difficult to get and behind the prescription counters. “Hormonal” one require a prescription, which some “Christian” pharmacists have refused to fill because it is against their own moral beliefs–great way to reduce abortions, there.
If a fertilized egg does not implant into the uterine lining, it will never become anything. This happens more often than we are aware of, and miscarriages are also all too common within the first trimester when I lost mine. So not ALL pregnancies are going to make it all the way to delivery. It certainly made me appreciate the child I finally had.
In case of rape, I do believe the Morning After pill should be offered to the victim. The choice to accept or not is still up to the woman–or young girl. We protect our children when we teach them how to avoid unplanned pregnancies; I’d much rather someone prevented a pregnancy than terminate it. I can’t force my views on another woman’s life.I think that a Supreme Being capable of creating the Universe and all that is in it is also capable of knowing which pregnancies will result in a live birth and assigns souls accordingly. We all have our lessons to learn while we are here and we are supposed to be helping each other instead of trying to control and judge others who don’t see things the same way.
cuq4bp



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted July 29, 2009 at 9:39 am


karbie,
I am sorry you suffered a miscarriage. Your points are cogent and well stated.
Truly, part of the problem we face in trying to find solutions is the intractable position of the conservative Christians – everyone is to be forced to conform to their personal opinion of God’s will, no exceptions.
I used to be more tolerant of them. Living in Europe, where our SSM is recognized and legal, it was easy to dismiss them for the hateful, spiteful, nasty wingnuts they are.
Now that I am here in the Deep South, O!, my. I can’t count the number of times I have been told that my marriage should be dissolved and I should leave my husband of many years (and partner for nearly a quarter of a century) for no other reason than that these hate filled horrible people want it so.
Their treatment of women is even nastier



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted July 29, 2009 at 9:57 am


In the Bible, God has said a lot of things are wrong, but our government and laws are based on the US Constitution and not the Bible. If the use of contraception is perfectly legal then the fact that your version of God, and perhaps even mine, says not so fast doesn’t mean the government should dictated such over all the people.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:22 am


“more contraception leads to more sexual acts”
Of course, conservatives don’t want people to have more sex – not even married couples. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Sheeesh, already. The anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-health care, anti-EVERYTHING crowd have had way too much power for way too long over way too many people.
You don’t want sex, don’t have it. Leave the rest of us alone. Please.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:33 am


Lucille,
“While abortion is clearly the taking of a human life”
That is your opinion (which, of course, you are entitled to). Many others of us believe differently.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:35 am


“if you can’t address the consequences of sexual activity, you should not be engaging in it”
Does that include the Palin women?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:39 am


” especially since some of them may consider your activity to constitute grave perversion”
Understand this, Lucille. We really don’t give a rat’s patootie WHAT you ‘consider’ our personal, private activity to be. Frankly, we consider some of the actions of many conservatives to be a perversion (the list is long indeed!), so I guess that makes us kind of equal. Except fro we don’t want to make your personal, private lives and activities illegal.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:58 am


Not anymore than you (or any of the other Christianists who post here) do, cm.
” Its about the rights God gives us is what is important.”
If you are referring to those inalienable rights endowed by ‘the Creator’, then you (as usual) forget the right to the pursuit of happiness. Oh, and also the right to liberty (i.e. freedom – specifically from your ‘religious’ views).
“There is no case for same sex unions in the Bible. “
So what? America isn’t a theocracy, despite your fervent wishes it were so.
“The thing is you hate those who do not fall hook, line and sinker for YOUR views.”
Ditto, right back at you. Need a mirror?
“those who simply do not see scripture the way you do”
Well, your version of Scripture, anyway. But again, since America ain’t a theocracy, what’s Scripture got to do with whether or not citizens can and should use contraception? (Hint: it ain’t “killing” or “murder” if conception is prevented – there’s no “baby” to “kill”!)
“I have asked you over and over to produce, to make your case on both of these issues and you cant.”
It isn’t that we “can’t”; it’s that we won’t because America is not Bibleland.
“I am against same sex unions”
Yeah, we knew that already, but it ain’t the topic of this thread.
“I do not want to see anyone suffer.”
Except your being “against” equal marriage does cause suffering – for GLBT American citizens.
“Your stance is the one that is pro-violence because you are pro-abortion.”
Except contraception (you remember, the, er, topic of this thread) prevents pregnancies – hence eliminates the need for abortions. What part of that don’t you understand?
“I have never ever ever said a mean thing to you.”
Your very stand against equal marriage is a “mean thing”, and you “say” it all the time.
“You want me to tolerate a lifestyle that I see no godly evidence for in the Bible.”
Gay people have lives, not a ‘lifestyle’. And again, it doesn’t matter what is or isn’t in the Bible in a nation that is not a theocracy. (Not that you follow all the Bible has to say – and thank God for that, because the Bible sez gays shall surely be put to death. Please, please tell us you don’t ‘believe’ that too. If you do believe it, it proves you are hard-hearted. If you don’t believe it, then you don’t believe all the Bible sez, so stop quoting it selectively.)



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:00 am


That last post was meant to start with the following CM quote:



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:01 am

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:02 am


“Did you ever think you do not stand on the truth?”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:09 am


“Explain to me, please, how you otherwise can come to the conclusion that a pair of 16 year old using a condom when having sex is not preferable to those same kids having to go to an abortion clinic a few weeks later?”
Exactly! Those kids are already having sex. No contraception is far more likely to result in pregnancy than using contraception.
Obviously, “their” goal is not to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (which then are likely to result in an abortion). Perhaps it is to stop those kids from having sex. As if that was gonna happen. (Didn’t work for either of the Palin women.) Meanwhile, the ‘right’ ignores or forgets about those millions of happily married couples that simply don’t want kids with each and every sex act. Sheesh, what a world.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:13 am


“I’d much rather someone prevented a pregnancy than terminate it. I can’t force my views on another woman’s life.”
Excellent points, karbie. Too bad more of the ‘religious’ ‘right’ don’t think with such clarity.



report abuse
 

LutheranChik

posted July 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm


There is no law preventing persons with religious scruples against contraception from living their own value system. Look at the Duggars. Look at the Amish families in my area. If you don’t like contraception, then don’t use it — have children until your or your wife’s uterus gives out. But, as has been noted, this is not a theocracy. You don’t get to inflict your own interpretation of Christianity on fellow citizens who don’t share your beliefs/practices. What part of that do you not understand? What part of “private life” do you not understand?
My Amish neighbors simply want to be left alone; they’re willing to put up with certain compromises with the dominant culture (paying taxes that go, in part, to services they don’t agree with, like national defense or don’t use, like public schools) in order to be otherwise left alone. Why don’t you militant Christianists understand, and learn from, that?



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm


“You have yet to explain what aspect of my 24 going on 25 (yay!) committed, faithful, true and monogamous partnership with a wonderful man is a sinful lifestyle.’
Its should be self explanatory Panthera. I don’t care how long you have been living with your partner, you are living in sin. I do not doubt your love and devotion but you are sinning according to scripture. My son is living with his girlfriend. HE IS SINNING. He is separating himself from God. He knows it but is doing it anyway. He loves her and they are going to get married next summer. That does not change the fact that THEY ARE SINNING AND SO ARE YOU according to the Word. He can no more make a case for what he is doing than you can make a case for your situation.
Jesus said that marriage was between one man and one woman. Show me differently. Sex is for those married.
You blame me for just following and loving the Word. If you have issues with the Word take it up with God, not me. I did not write it, I follow it. You want to change the Word to fit your lifestyle. The Word cant be changed. Jesus was clear, God was clear, the Holy Spirit was clear about what sin is. Homosexuality is sin, sex outside marriage is sin, lusting is sin, adultery is sin, bestiality is sin, unnatural sex is sin.
I am not making life hell for gays. You blame me for all your problems. You are not standing up and taking responsibility for YOUR ACTIONS.
You sin and bad things happen. Why would God want to bless those who are disobedient? Sin splashes not only on the people that are doing it but on others as well. The sin of an adulterer that catches AIDs , who then passes it on to the spouse…….the sin of sex between two people out of marriage could result in a child who is aborted.
Sin is bad and we should not expect God to bless us if we engage in sin.
About abortion…….
Some people do not make a connection between birth control and abortion. You probably see them as two different acts but the fact is however that some birth control are abortifacients because they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg a new human being from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation, but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And now we have the RU-486 pill that aborts a new fetus, a new baby.
http://www.epm.org/artman2/pub…Cause_Abortions.shtml
The Physicians Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. It lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can legally be prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR. Keep in mind while reading it that the term implantation, by definition always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient. This is the PDR’s product information for ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the pill.
“Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increases the difficulty of the sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrial which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”
(Physicians Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ,: Medical Economics)
So they reduce the likelihood of implantation. Syntex and Wyeth say the same thing about their pill. If you read in the tiny fine print at the bottom of your birth control instructions, you will be told that if you want more information about birth control pills ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you can read which goes into detail about what the pill really does. The lengthier explanation you can also read in the PDR.
Bottom line the Pill does have a abortive mechanism. That is fact.
But then you see nothing wrong with abortion so for you this would be a good thing, right?



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:06 pm


” I don’t care how long you have been living with your partner, you are living in sin.”
According to your religious views. Others disagree. As LutheranChick says: “You don’t get to inflict your own interpretation of Christianity on fellow citizens who don’t share your beliefs/practices. What part of that do you not understand?”
“you are sinning according to scripture.”
No, it’s according to your interpretation of Scripture (have the religious courtesy to capitalize it please).
Jesus’s view on marriage was (and you, of all people, should know this) a response to the Pharisees asking if divorce was acceptable. (Clue: it wasn’t.)
“Sex is for those married.”
Again, according to your interpretation of Scriptures. However, you ignore (as always) the fact that Panthera IS married.
“You blame me for just following and loving the Word.”
No, we blame you for doing so selectively. Or do you really believe that gays “shall surely be put to death”? Or that we should deny communion to the disabled? Or put the victims of incest to death?
“I follow it.”
Selectively.
“The Word cant be changed.”
Tell that to the interpreters who inserted the word “homosexual” into it (well, one version of it) about a half a century ago.
“Homosexuality is sin, sex outside marriage is sin, lusting is sin, adultery is sin, bestiality is sin, unnatural sex is sin.”
We disagree. But Panthera is not having sex outside marriage. We aren’t discussing lust. You admit yourself that you “do not doubt [his] love and devotion” and yet you bring up lust. Why? Nor is he committing adultery. That you would stoop to bring sex with animals into a discussion about consenting, adult, human relationships is just plain sick. (Not to mention against B’net’s ROCs.) And, of course, homosexual sex is perfectly natural – for homosexuals.
“I am not making life hell for gays.”
Sorry, cm, but you absolutely are, with each and every bearing of false witness against God’s GLBT children. LieingIS a sin – 1 of the Big Ten if I recall.
Not that Panthera’s homosexuality (nor mine) has anything to do with this topic. But if you’re going to make points that are false, don’t expect to be believed on the actual topic.
DO BETTER!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm


hootie1fan
July 29, 2009 9:57 AM
In the Bible, God has said a lot of things are wrong, but our government and laws are based on the US Constitution and not the Bible.
———————————————
Our sense of Justice is founded on the Word of God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm


Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
churchmouse,
You have yet to explain what aspect of my 24 going on 25 (yay!) committed, faithful, true and monogamous partnership with a wonderful man is a sinful lifestyle.
—————————————————-
God already told you. We already told you what God said. You simply reject it. We can’t help that.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
He takes care of my parents when I am out of the US. I take care of his when they need my help in Ireland.
——————————————————-
So?
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
We support each other with love, friendship and compassion.
——————————————————
Worldly love, friendship and compassion. Birds of a feather.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Jesus never said word one about our love, our romance, our sex lives.
—————————————————-
Jesus was God on Earth. What God said about what we now call “homosexuality” is what Jesus said and says.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Now, I can understand your belief that the ‘gay lifestyle’…
—————————————–
Yes, the choice of the homosexual, learned, alternative-lifestyle orientation option.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
…is something specific and distasteful…
————————————————-
That’s what God says.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
… – you conservative Christians are very good at taking the actions of one subgroup and making them representative for all people.
———————————————————
God is no respecter of persons. All “homosexuality” He detests.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Just yesterday, another Bible-thumping, gay-bashing Republican State Senator, this time from Tennessee, got caught and resigned for cheating on his wife, bless his heart.
————————————————
HE is at fault, not Christianity.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
So give it a rest.
————————————————-
No.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Paul, not Jesus is the entire basis for your making life hell for gays and transgender.
————————————————-
The Word of God is Christ, not Paul.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Paul would have been just as nasty about the conservative Christian version of marriage we see Republicans practice…
———————————————
So?
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
I wish we could avoid abortions entirely. We can’t, we never shall.
—————————————————-
And that is, precisely, why we won’t; we say, “We can’t.”
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Since the only person who is competent to make a decision on the matter is the woman affected…
—————————————————
Pregnancy is Hell for a woman, and, during that mind-numbing episode, she is in no position to be competent.
At the same time, if the unborn is a person, the Constitution protects that person more than the woman cuz what is thought to be an undue burden becomes a due burden.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
I fail to see any rational for me, a man who can’t get pregnant nor shall ever make a woman pregnant to tell any woman what to do with her body.
—————————————————–
Of course you can’t see it. If the unborn are person, the Constitution protects them.
Panthera
July 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Explain to me, please, how you otherwise can come to the conclusion that a pair of 16 year old using a condom when having sex is not preferable to those same kids having to go to an abortion clinic a few weeks later?
—————————————————–
“Preferable” meaning that we must accept YOUR version, one, or the other?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm


==”I am not making life hell for gays.”
Sorry, cm, but you absolutely are, with each and every bearing of false witness against God’s GLBT children.==
Those who reject God are not children of God.
== LieingIS a sin – 1 of the Big Ten if I recall.==
Lying about what? It is not a lie to say that God detests what we now call “homosexuality.”



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm


The solution to the problem is very simple. We simply declare as a society that those who object to contraception are beyond the pale of civilized discourse and have nothing of any value to say, any more than we would respect the opinions of KKK members on matters of race, that their position is too extreme to be paid any attention to. This may seem an extreme solution, but in point of fact that is how the bulk of the population will react to anyone who says that contraception should be abolished. The doors slam shut.
That closes down that part of the screaming match.
With them locked out of the issue, we can then decide if we even want to reduce the number of abortions in the first place because the feeling that I get is that no matter what people may tell pollsters, except for the pro-lifers, no one else even gives a damn one way or the other.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm


Charles Cosimano
July 29, 2009 3:52 PM
The solution to the problem is very simple. We simply declare as a society that those who object to contraception are beyond the pale of civilized discourse and have nothing of any value to say…
———————————————-
Ok. You go first.
Charles Cosimano
July 29, 2009 3:52 PM
This may seem an extreme solution, but in point of fact that is how the bulk of the population will react to anyone who says that contraception should be abolished. The doors slam shut.
————————————————–
You can start ignoring what we say right now.
Charles Cosimano
July 29, 2009 3:52 PM
That closes down that part of the screaming match.
————————————————-
Yes, and we can have unhindered paths to posting our views without screaming from pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice.
Charles Cosimano
July 29, 2009 3:52 PM
With them locked out of the issue…
————————————————
We’ll NEVER be locked out.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted July 31, 2009 at 8:53 am


Mr. Incredible,
You truly are the prototypical conservative Christian who makes life so very, very trying for the rest of us on questions of human and civil rights.
The core difference between us is this: I am trying to live my life in accord with Jesus’ requirements of me, yet am very well aware that the Biblical texts we have are very much interpretations and translations, chosen by a committee of men for their own purposes. Those interpretations, translations and committee decisions of what to leave in, what to take out and what to ‘edit’ were human, not Divine.
You, on the other hand, select, pick and choose which of the Biblical texts best suits your desire to oppress and apply them accordingly.
In dubio pro reo is a concept Jesus, as a learned Jewish Rabi, based His teachings on. You are blind to this. Equally, you are blind to His forgiveness, love and kindness to all of us.
Sadly, your views are, as I noted above, the key train of thought behind American conservative Christians and their attacks on gays, transgender, free-thinking women and anyone who dares to not submit to your hatred.



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted August 1, 2009 at 2:48 am


“Again, according to your interpretation of Scriptures. However, you ignore (as always) the fact that Panthera IS married.”
Not in Gods eyes he is not.
Make a case for same sex marriage in the Bible and use scripture to back it up.
“No, we blame you for doing so selectively. Or do you really believe that gays “shall surely be put to death”? Or that we should deny communion to the disabled? Or put the victims of incest to death?”
You are the one who is selective not me. I follow the entire Word, you try to change it to fit society. Jesus came and we follow a new law today.
I am curious…..what do you consider sin. You seem to toss out the entire concept.
Christ never used the word pedophilia either. Do you think Christ would condone that practice?
“We disagree. But Panthera is not having sex outside marriage. We aren’t discussing lust. You admit yourself that you “do not doubt [his] love and devotion” and yet you bring up lust. Why? Nor is he committing adultery. That you would stoop to bring sex with animals into a discussion about consenting, adult, human relationships is just plain sick. (Not to mention against B’net’s ROCs.) And, of course, homosexual sex is perfectly natural – for homosexuals.”
It is listed in Leviticus and it is included in the Word. It is sin like others listed there. Pantera based on the Word is living in sin. Show me scripture that backs up same sex marriage. Not one couple in the entire Bible is same sexed.
Let me quote the scripture. Does Beliefnet ban bible verses and concepts in the bible?
Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Leviticus 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Jesus came and we are not held to the old law like they were then. We must look to what Christ said while He was here on earth. He made it plainly clear that He backed up the foundation found in Genesis. One man for one woman.,,,,
As I said give me scripture where Christ condoned or in ANY WAY, implied that same sex unions were blessed.
“Sorry, cm, but you absolutely are, with each and every bearing of false witness against God’s GLBT children. LieingIS a sin – 1 of the Big Ten if I recall.”
If anyone is showing hatred here, its Panthera. He is intolerant of my views. I am supposed to accept his lifestyle as valid but he does not try to see my viewpoint. I will not cave into what I believe to be sin. I bear nothing against him. He should take this up with God, He wrote the Word I did not.
You are not living life according to what Jesus said as far as sex goes. Sex is between a wife and her husband.
Again make your case scripturally.
Not one person on here has attempted to do that. Why?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:41 am


Churchmouse, you’re my hero! GREAT job!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 5:05 am


Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
Mr. Incredible,
You truly are the prototypical conservative Christian…
——————————————————————–
Oh, now you stereotype. Beautiful.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… who makes life so very, very trying for the rest of us…
——————————————————————–
So, you give me power over you and the rest of you people? I didn’t know I had that power over people.
If I have that power over people in their minds and their emotions, lighted more people vote Republican in the last election cuz I surely try to get them to vote Republican. Why didn’t this power work then?
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… on questions of human and civil rights.
——————————————————————–
You mean, like, my posts are too taxing for the “giant intellect” out there?
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
I am trying to live my life in accord with Jesus’ requirements of me…
——————————————————————–
Jesus was God on Earth. So, He said that He detests homosexuality. How are you in accord with His requirements in this area?
The Word of God, throughout, refers to what we now call “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Where does the Word of God talk about what we now call “marriage” as the union of two men, or two women?
Where Jesus talks about divorce, He reminds the Pharisees that God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, in marriage. That excludes so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.’”
The reason the Word of God stresses “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is that it simulates the “marriage” of the Church to Christ. How does the “marriage” of two men, or two women, simulate it?
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… yet am very well aware that the Biblical texts we have are very much interpretations and translations, chosen by a committee of men for their own purposes.
——————————————————————–
The best way to try to defeat the Word of God is to try to water Him down with claims of private interpretations. It’s a roundabout way, and it relieves the accuser of having to answer the Word of God directly on these issues. However, we are here to offer the challenge.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
Those interpretations, translations and committee decisions of what to leave in, what to take out and what to ‘edit’ were human, not Divine.
——————————————————————–
How do YOU know?
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AMYou, on the other hand, select, pick and choose which of the Biblical texts best suits your desire to oppress and apply them accordingly.
——————————————————————–
No, I don’t. I apply Scripture upon Scripture interpretation, according to the Holy Spirit.
If I were guilty of doing it the way you say, I would offer one verse, or two. I, however, offer many, to indicate more accuracy.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
In dubio pro reo is a concept Jesus, as a learned Jewish Rabi, based His teachings on.
——————————————————————–
Of course, He did not. That He came here to save, indicates that God, through Him, knew that all are guilty.
As a matter of fact, the entire Word of God is a journey from guilt to Grace — that is, no longer guilty, IF you receive Christ.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… you are blind to His forgiveness…
——————————————————————–
No, I’m not. His forgiveness is not automatic. God calls all to repentance. Forgiveness is based on repentance, at the very least.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… love…
——————————————————————–
He loves all. However, like any good parent, His love doesn’t preclude His justice. He will not save the disobedient.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
… and kindness to all of us.
——————————————————————–
He is kind, too. However, His kindness saves nobody.
Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
Sadly, your views are, as I noted above, the key train of thought behind American conservative Christians and their attacks on gays, transgender, free-thinking women and anyone who dares to not submit to your hatred.
——————————————————————–
Translation: “You don’t think like us. That means you hate us.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 6:10 am


Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
In dubio pro reo is a concept Jesus, as a learned Jewish Rabi, based His teachings on.
——————————————————————–
So, you’re telling me — telling us — that He assumed they were not guilty???? He doubted the Father’s determintion of guilt???? They were innocent ’til proved guilty??? By whom?
If they were not guilty without Him, why did He come and die?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 6:12 am


Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
In dubio pro reo is a concept Jesus, as a learned Jewish Rabi, based His teachings on.
——————————————————————–
Where is this in the Word of God?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 6:13 am


Please feel free to make the scriptural case, present a line of scriptural thought that shows that Jesus based His teachings on this concept.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 1, 2009 at 11:55 am


Mr. Incredible said:
“Panthera
July 31, 2009 8:53 AM
In dubio pro reo is a concept Jesus, as a learned Jewish Rabi, based His teachings on.
——————————————————————–
Of course, He did not. That He came here to save, indicates that God, through Him, knew that all are guilty.
As a matter of fact, the entire Word of God is a journey from guilt to Grace — that is, no longer guilty, IF you receive Christ.”
One thing I do think you should continue to do, Mr. Incredible, is to encourage people to vote Republican. Given that your postings drive even other conservative Christians around here to ask you to moderate yourself, I can’t think of any single thing the Democrats could do which would be more useful.
That said, ‘in dubio pro reo’ is obviously a term you don’t understand.
After destroying the world through the flood (question for the folks who claim God only permits marriage between one man and one woman, who, again, repopulated the earth with whom?) God promised never to do that again. In dubio pro reo – unworthy as we are, he was willing to suspend punishment, to allow that there might be a spark of himself left in our race.
On to Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, except for the extremely illiterate, we all know that they were not destroyed because of homosexuality. Regardless of the reasons, what were God’s terms for suspending punishement? Oh, right – in dubio pro reo.
Sigh.
You, of course, being incapable of anything but literal interpretation are seeing “where there may be doubt, they fall the decision to the good of the accused”. The rest of us know that, as always with Roman law, the statement is very much in line with how God deals with us.
Frankly, every single time churchmouse and I have a disagreement, churchmouse and I try hard to permit others to comment. Neither of us has ever succeeded in the slightest in changing the other’s views, nor shall we ever. None-the-less, we both try very hard to show each other a degree of respect.
You, Mr. Incredible, just steamroll every thread here until all of us give up and run away screaming. Please, participate, but, please, could you give the self-righteous postings following onto postings following onto postings up? This is meant to be a discourse, not a soliloquy.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted August 2, 2009 at 3:17 pm


It is so very easy to see that even with some failure rate, birth control certainly means less need for abortions. For those who disagree…just keep reproducing….and hope that you can take care of those babies you have or better yet, be smart enough to terminate. After one termination, I expect you’d remember to use a reliable form of birth control…unless you just like surgery!



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted August 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm


Mr. Incredible thanks.
Lets treat this as a case like in a courtroom. You have to weigh all the evidence in the entire Word, and everything Jesus said and didn’t say. There can be no case for same sex marriage, no case for sex outside marriage. What Jesus said was not just for the people of His day, it was for those that came after Him as well. He talked about hell more than He did about Heaven. He talked about sin a lot and He made clear what sin was. A child can understand what sin is.
Panthera said, “Now, except for the extremely illiterate, we all know that they were not destroyed because of homosexuality. Regardless of the reasons, what were God’s terms for suspending punishment? Oh, right – in dubio pro reo.”
I am no biblical scholar but I have a pretty good understanding about what the Word says. I have to align myself with what the BIBLE says, not the other way around.
So then if Leviticus says homosexuality is ok, the entire list of sins are ok as well, right Panthera?
You can’t just pick one sin out of the list and say it’s ok but the rest are not. You are trying deparately to justify your sin.
They were destroyed because they were sinning. From the homosexual sin of Sodom in Genesis 19 we get our term for homosexual sin, “sodomy.” Throughout scripture sodomy is condemned.
Genesis 19:4-8
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
This is clear……..”Leviticus 18:22
“‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
I asked you Panthera this question and you did not answer. What did God mean by sexual impurity, shameful lusts, indecent acts, unnatural relations ?
Leviticus 20:13
“‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Gay activitists claim that Ezekiel 16:49 says the sin of Sodom was social injustice, not sexual. you imply the same thing. But Ezekiel 16:50 goes on to say they did detestable things, and Jude 7 specifies those detestable things were sexual immorality.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Jude 7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Matthew 19:4-6 says, “ And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Yes, I interpret the Bible literally. I do not add or change what God has instituted in the Word to fit my views or what I think is right. I live by what Christ said. The Word stands on its own. You have never addressed any of the questions I have asked. I asked you to give me scripture to make a case for same sex marriage and sex outside marriage, and YOU HAVE NOT.
A man leaves his father and mother. He does not leave unto two fathers, two mothers, three mothers and one father or two mothers. The man cleaves unto his ONE WIFE….not two wives or husband.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted August 4, 2009 at 10:28 am


Mr. I & Churchmouse:
Fortunately this country ISN’T a Christian nation, or a Muslim, Budhist, Pagan etc. nation. It is a nation of folks who are allowed to believe or not as they choose. You’re views would work well in a nation that forces folks to follow one faith…there are many countries out there…you might want to try one and let us in the USA live as our own conscience chooses. The hell thing and sin thing just doesn’t cut it. Sin? Hell? made up things to scare some folks into supposedly believing in some invisible creature who will “get them:” if they don’t behave. THE book is just that…a book made up of printed sheets bound as some publisher feels like doing. It really is just an object….like other books. No holy qualities at all…those are applied to it by some. Mistakes aplenty in it…good sex stories, and violence for those who like to read that stuff. Looks like the folks 2000 years ago appreciated tall tales, and apparently some still do.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted August 4, 2009 at 10:37 am


churchmouse: You mentioned you took the Bible literally. Did it ever occur to you that that book was written by human being who are not infallible? They wrote it after JC was long gone, and put their own versions of things in it, pushing a certain point of view. It was copied so many times no one can count, again by humans who put their versions/interpretations into it, and it has continued even now to be put into “modern language” thus more interpretations of older language. How in heck can it or any other book be “literal?” The language JC and all those of that time wasn’t close to any spoken now. What a great guide you choose to live your life by, as well as critizing others for NOT following. Apparently those folks who raise children by that book have some kids who think for themselves…good. It is as it should be.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted August 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm


churchmouse, are you seriously suggesting that God literally meant that it is preferable to hand over your virgin daughters to be gang-banged than for two men to have a committed, loving, faithful, monogamous and true marriage?
You did say you take the Bible literally…



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted August 7, 2009 at 4:57 pm


Mr. I & Churchmouse:
“Fortunately this country ISN’T a Christian nation, or a Muslim, Budhist, Pagan etc. nation. It is a nation of folks who are allowed to believe or not as they choose. You’re views would work well in a nation that forces folks to follow one faith…there are many countries out there…you might want to try one and let us in the USA live as our own conscience chooses.”
So you would condone say practices that are taking place against women in the Middle East to happen here in America, right? Our laws are based on someone bias and morals. You are saying that all choices are valid. The thing is people differ on what they believe is moral. Tolerance is the new catch phrase today. I believe that to be truly tolerant is NOT to give every idea equal standing or to compromise the truth in the interest of keeping the peace and making everyone happy.
Which do you find morally wrong.
Rape
Adultry
Aborting female babies in China
Laws that prohibit woman from driving and going to school
Wife beating
Violations of fundamental human rights take place daily in almost every Arab country. Women are second class citizens. It’s about what has been culturally acceptable that matters. So should a Muslim be allowed to follow Islamic cultural standards in the US?
Of course not. We would never allow female honor killings here. But are they ok if the culture over there says they are? Is there no wrong or right in your book. And if there is…..who gets to determine the standard? If you say be tolerant…then you can’t exclude any practice because your views should only be relevant for you.
If you are pro-abortion which you probably are……you have to allow any woman, anytime during the 40 week pregnancy to abort. She should be allowed even if its in the 40th week. You cant take freedom away……everything goes.
Obviously you think that society as a whole can live without God. Look around the evidence says no. Even Darwin himself predicted the slippery slope of violence if the evolutionary theory were translated into a philosophy of life. Nietzsche talked of the darkness that had fallen over mankind. Read Dostoevski….he wrote of the hell that is let loose when mankind denies god, the consequences that happen when he makes himself god. The evidence has never been so obvious as it is today that what these men said is true.
“The hell thing and sin thing just doesn’t cut it. Sin? Hell? made up things to scare some folks into supposedly believing in some invisible creature who will “get them:” if they don’t behave. THE book is just that…a book made up of printed sheets bound as some publisher feels like doing. It really is just an object….like other books. No holy qualities at all…those are applied to it by some. Mistakes aplenty in it…good sex stories, and violence for those who like to read that stuff. Looks like the folks 2000 years ago appreciated tall tales, and apparently some still do. “
Can you prove that I am wrong? Can you prove without a shadow of doubt that I am completely wrong and you are 100% right?
Pagan……I believe that the Bible is God breathed without error. I believe God handpicked those that wrote the books.
The Bible says, ”Seek and you shall find.” It doesn’t say everybody will find Him, it doesn’t say nobody will find Him. SOME will find Him. Those who seek and those whose hearts are set on finding him and who follow the clues will find Him.
I am not alone…. for seeking Him out. I stand with the majority of mankind who put their trust in God.



report abuse
 

GL

posted August 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm


pagansister is correct. We are not a Christian nation, or a Muslim, Budhist, Pagan etc. nation. Even pagans behaved better than we do. One would have to go back to ancient Canaan to find a people as depraved and perverted as 21st century Americans.



report abuse
 

SantanaMargret27

posted July 16, 2010 at 11:11 pm


When you’re in not good state and have got no cash to go out from that, you will have to receive the loans. Just because that would help you definitely. I take commercial loan every year and feel myself OK because of this.



report abuse
 

a4006333

posted October 29, 2011 at 10:59 am


4006333 beers on the wall. sck was here



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.