« Neuroscientist David Eagleman: the brain creates our reality | Main | Diogenes the Cynic: there's no such thing as miracles »

December 14, 2015

Comments

He says: "If it were me, I would not have the abortion, I would not do it".

Unbelievable! How lacking in compassion and understanding. Who in their right mind would think a woman who had been raped could successfully bring up the child. Would be too much to ask of her. This is just so wrong. And the satsangis sitting there being in agreement with him. Idiots. Makes me feel quite sick. And very angry and emotional.

If you are asking this question, you already know that God views abortion as a sin--as murder in fact. So the question is, what is God's criteria for forgiveness of a sin? Or more simply: What do I need to do to be forgiven?

In a word, Repent. To repent is to change your mind about your actions so completely that you change your actions. Part of that is being sorry for what you've done. Not just sorry for the circumstances that you feel forced you into doing it, but sorry that you did it, regardless of the circumstances.

Some people will think about a sin (abortion or something else), decide that they will repent the next day, and go ahead and do it. Perhaps the next day they tell God, "I shouldn't have done that. Please forgive me." And they think every time they want to commit that sin they can do it, and then just smooth things over with God. That isn't repentance. And God does not forgive someone who hasn't truly repented.

So if you are thinking about having an abortion, you will either come to deeply regret it, or you will never be forgiven. That mixture of relief and guilt you may feel is not repentance. You have not repented until you come to the place where, if you were in the same situation, you would not commit the sin that you did.

If you already had an abortion and you are sorry that you ever did it, and you wish you could undo it, and you have committed that you will never do it again--in other words, if you have repented of the sin--you are ready to find God's forgiveness and healing.

But let me warn you. God doesn't want to forgive just one sin and still have to punish you for all of the others. He wants to forgive you for all of them. And for that, you have to be willing to give up all of your sins. You don't come to the bargaining table with God. You have to surrender everything.

Imagine God as a king with subjects. Someone has led an insurrection against him, and he is going to punish the rebels. If a rebel comes to him and says, "I'm sorry about one crime I committed, but I'm not sorry about all of the rest," the king won't have much mercy on him. But perhaps the rebel comes to him and says, "I'm ashamed of everything I did. I can't make it up to you. I have nothing to give you to repay the damages. But I submit to you now, and I'll do anything you tell me now." Then the king forgives him, and adopts him as his own child, and gives him an inheritance in his kingdom.

God wants complete repentance and a complete submission to Him. In return, He forgives completely. He never brings your rebellion up to you again. He chooses to forget it, and treats you as if you had never rebelled. He gives you peace instead of guilt. He heals your broken heart. He assures you of His love for you. He gives you help to do what you ought to do when you feel like giving up. He promises that He will never leave you. He adopts you as His child and gives you a supportive family of His other children. He guarantees that no power or circumstance, including death itself, can ever rob you of your relationship as His child.

Some people try to prove their repentance by punishing themselves. They think that if they cause enough pain to themselves, God will be more likely to forgive them. That's the wrong approach. That's trying to pay for our own sin and satisfy God on our terms. Rather than submitting to God and accepting His free forgiveness, that's telling God you don't need Him. It's a sign of continued rebellion.

Whatever your situation, just submit to God and obey Him. Enjoy His forgiveness, and allow Him to heal you.

Wow. Your Blog entry opens with the word "Horrible", and this is indeed the most horrible & abhorrent post I've ever read on this blog - in fact, probably the only one I would describe in those words.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a single word Gurinder said.

Brian - you should take a moment and reevaluate your post. There are some sujects which it is tasteless & heartless to use (yes, USE) to promote your a priori agendas.

I mean Jesus Christ, Gurinder says "if it were me, I would not have an abortion" - so in effect says he himself would not kill an unborn child (the horror, the horror!), and in absolutely no ways prescribes anything dogmatically to this poor lady - and you make him out to be the "horrible" and abhorrent one?

For real? Can you get your head out of your a@# just for one moment?

I feel for this poor lady, I really do. But it is clear either she or the person who sent you this email, is seeking vindication from an outside source for the decisions they made. And it appears they got upset when Gurinder, apparently their chosen source for confirmation, did not enthusiastically proscribe the killing of an unborn child. I mean, how dare he ask "did the child do anything wrong", "I myself wouldn't" The evil, the evil!! A true saint would have demanded murder!!

Did he, even remotely, actually forbid her from doing whatever she wished to do? So you find it horrible that he has an opinion, and that opinion is not to kill? And you don't think he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't here?

What planet are we on here?

Just so we're clear (I notice you have a habit of wildly inaccurately pidgeon-holing people,, such as when you've called me a "true believer" on several occasions - a hilarious claim, which anybody who even knows me even a little would chuckle at) - I'm PERSONALLY pro-choice, and have argued for it on the Radhasoamistudies forum. Ultimately I believe the only authority on such a decision is the mother herself (though infanticide, which I've also seen "promoted" by a noted pro-abortionist in the UK I do feel is wrong, once the baby's left the mother's body, I believe it should have the same rights as all other humans. But again, that is just my opinion....I am nowehere near foolish enough to think I am the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, like yourself).

I can see how and why the lady who sent you this was upset (and confused). It's very understandable.

I think it abhorrent and horrible that you have used this emotional confusion and hurt to further your own agenda here.

Perhaps take a moment, reread everything written here, and see if you can see why you've acted far more abhorrently than anything Gurinder said (which can be summarised by him saying he personally wouldn't kill an unborn baby, and him asking the question if it is the baby's "fault".) Perfectly reasonable, if you ask me (and, actually, sorry to be blunt, the more compassionate stance), and your anger at him for not dropping his own values just to vindicate the decisions made by these poor women I think reveals more about yourself, then Gurinder.

Shameful & embarrassing.

PS - Re Jen's comment. I don't read many comments on this site, so I'm not sure if I read the post correctly - I hope I did, or I really do worry for humanity - I assume it was a satirical/sarcastic post?

If I did read it correctly, I fully agree with the sentiment behind it.

If I read it incorrectly, and it's meaning is meant to be literal - then god help us all!

Yes, he said, "If it were ME, I would not have the abortion, I would not do it."

I see this as a personal decision if he were in that circumstance. Of course, being a man, he can never know what's it's like to be raped as a woman and all the terrible feelings and emotions that go along with it.

Nonetheless, I just don't get, from the quotes given, that he is telling the woman to get or not to get an abortion. He's just giving his opinion if it were him.

BTW, abortions were performed at the Dera hospital in the late 80s. I don't know the specifics. I wrote Charan Singh about this and he felt that abortions were justifiable in the case of rape - that the woman should have the choice to have the child or not under that circumstance.

Hi Bob - ahh, yes, indeed - the abortions carried out at the RSSB owned hospital(s?) in India. Kind of gives a whole different slant to this particular blog post doesn't it? Poor Indian women who otherwise would not even have the chance for a hospital performed abortion who are given the choice.

I recall, over at the RSS forum an RSSB initiate talking about how disconcerted he was by the whole affair, and how he had also questioned I think Charan about it (I believe you know the person I'm talking about personally? :) We got into a mild but polite debate about abortion - personally I think whilst a baby/fetus is a part of the mother's body-organism, then she is the ONLY person with the right to decide, and that there is, imo, nothing inherently wrong with it - does a fetus have a sense of self, awareness etc? Far too complicated an area for anyone to really think they have the "right" answer - so I say we must defer to the woman's choice completely.

Incidentally, my parents tried to have me aborted 3 times but failed each time (obviously :) - and I still have a really hard time with thinking there is anything at all wrong with a woman having an abortion if it is her choice. And if it is a victim of rape...well, I think it shameful for anyone to tell her what is "right" or "wrong", let alone idiotic and downright unintelligible concepts about "sin", "souls" or "god". If she feels she would be biologically and mentally traumatised by having that child, the only response can surely only be deep compassion and understanding without even the slightest hint of arrogant judgement. But please, let's not suggest that SOME women are not capable of still having that child, and loving that child immensely, that's equally abhorrent imo.....but that's all just my opinion, I'll be f@#ked if I know what's right or wrong, about anything really....That's why I come to this blog to learn right and wrong, I get confused when left to my own devices....


Dear Gossip - that is an interesting fairytale you have there. Though I suspect even a fairly bright child could easily pick apart the huge gaping holes you have there in your metaphysical reality!

I mean really, "sin", "God", "repent", "forgiveness" etc?

Let's be honest with ourselves, you really haven't got a clue about the "reality" of any of these things, and are just repeating stories you have heard that make sense to you on some level! To say some poor "soul" who was raped, and clearly suffered immense trauma, and goes on to abort a child "will never be forgiven" is demented and pathetic.

Your God sounds like a small-minded despotic scumbag. Perhaps you are right to compare him to a "king", historically they have tended to be like that....

Let's try another analogy. Let's look at (your) God as a demented maniac who creates a world built on suffering, where ALL life subsists on other life (even the vegetables we veggies eat were ALIVE once...we are cruel bastards aren't we?), where nature is red in tooth and claw, where unimaginable suffering leads people to create further suffering in an endless cycle of misery. Where this God, who has created this hell hole, then demands our constant "repentance" and prayers and unwavering devotion so that, if he deems fit, he may, if he feels like it, bestow forgiveness and mercy on us.

What a complete arsehole.

S/He should seek OUR forgiveness.

Perhaps s/he does.

I really never met bigger gossip girl than Brian.
You became so dry Brian in your posts. .or you maybe just became dry. You need Gurinder to even write something on this blog. Ey ey...Brian your blog became a yellow print gossip reader and yes after reading you all this years you really are dogmatic.
P.s. Please write other time about Rihannas legs so we would at least have something interesting to read.

Thank you Bob for this info: "I wrote Charan Singh about this and he felt that abortions were justifiable in the case of rape - that the woman should have the choice to have the child or not under that circumstance."

Manjit, no my post is not satirical or sarcastic. There is no hope for humanity if a victim of rape is being blamed and told to do her duty to mankind and raise a child who will be a constant reminder of the abuse she suffered at the hands of a rapist. Rape is a violent act and probably a woman will endure the aftermath of suffering from this act for the rest of her life.

Where is your empathy Manjit? All I see in your comment is an opportunity to attack Brian.

Gurinder has shown his true colours with his comment and confirmed, for me, the fact that he is just a figurehead for a dying spiritual path called Sant Mat which is now becoming a religion. Its no wonder he does not allow any recordings of what he says, because basically he seems to be lacking in wisdom.

Jen nobody ask and judge this poor lady anything. You are just the one who is twisting everything to your own chance to attack and blame. Youmade yourself a story so you can express your negative thoughts which you carry them by yourself.you are just trying to find external subject to which you can point you negative thoughts.

Wow Jen, that has honestly amazed me! I've had to re-read your post a half dozen times to make sense if it - and it only does so in the context of someone who will use any opportunity to pursue their a priori agenda of defending their dogmatic ideas. Just like you have accused me of using this as an opportunity to attack Brian - I wonder, even though I got easily dismantle the numerous errors in almost every single post he writes here without barely flexing an intellectual muscle, I have commented here what, 3 times over the past year? How many times have you commented here over the past year criticising RS or gurus or spirituality or whatever? Please bare in mind, I actually have no idea whatsoever, I do not even recognise your name from when I used to read the comments - but am I close to the mark in saying there will perhaps be many dozens, and not a single one showing any nuance in thought which doesn't belie your dogmatic stance on the subject?

Where's my empathy? Well, what a merry dance we're having here! :) I have no interest in appearances, and this online show & pony show that goes on with all these facades. I'm much more interested in the reality of things.

You write "a victim of rape is being blamed". Blamed by whom? Blamed for what? And, once we get past the entirely obvious fact that there is no "blame" here by anyone at all - the question becomes, what drives you to make up this kind of bizarre interpretation? Loosen your dogmatic filters a bit. It's too easy to see right through you.

In your original post, you wrote "Who in their right mind would think a woman who had been raped could successfully bring up the child."

This is so abhorrent a comment, and one that is contradicted by REALITY itself - as there are thousands of women who conceived through a rape trauma, yet had those children and raised them "successfully", and love them profoundly - a complete disgrace you suggest this is impossible imo, and one must question if you ACTUALLY believe this, or just using this, as you say, as an "opportunity" to slam Gurinder? Because if you don't, you are demonising those women, and making it even more socially difficult, who choose to keep their unborn child.

Where the hell's YOUR empathy?

And, just a little more reality for you - beyond this rather wonderful online horse & pony show - RSSB has done FAR more on a PRACTICAL, REAL level for assisting women who would otherwise be unable to have safe, sanitary abortions, by giving them both the choice and facilities to do so - I suspect - than both you and Mr Hines combined because of their free hospitals.

But don't let a little reality get in the way of your high horse.

You are great virtual warriors for all that is righteous, in your virtual worlds!

PS - Brian, did you get the post with 2 links replying to the Eagleman blog or has it gone into your junk?

When Gurinder was asked to confirm whether he was advising not to have an abortion after rape, he replied "If it were me, I would not have the abortion, I would not do it". So this is his opinion, but he is not a woman and, as a so called saint, he could have shown some compassion to someone who had been raped.

I am empathising with the woman who asked the question and also the person who sent the letter to Brian. I am fortunate that I have never experienced rape or any kind of abuse from a male.

I am a Charan initiate and was happy to read that He felt that abortions were justifiable in the case of rape and the woman should have the choice.

I don't have an agenda here. I'm expressing sympathy for females who have been abused.

Manjit, sorry you cannot make sense of my post. We must be on totally different wavelengths. If some women have succeeded in giving birth to an unwanted child after rape and manage to give that child love and care, that I find quite amazing and difficult to comprehend. They must be saints.

"If it's not your body, it's not your decision."

Well, then how do you decide to kill the smaller body? Did it decide to kill itself?

Brian and his irrational liberalism.

It used to get you women to be a male feminist, so it's understandable for men of Brian's degenerate and hyper-destructive boomer generation,but I hope no younger guys are reading this blog and getting any bad ideas about attempting to suck up to women and thinking killing babies will get them laid.

Why ascribe anything to HIS opinion? He's the head of a failed spiritual technology.

Hey Jen what did you do for that woman aj? Yes you did. .you used her to show up before few boring man on even more boring blog how compassionate you are.bravo. .bravo...you just proved you are lazy egoistical lulo who used poor woman situation to show yourself.

Once in a golden hour
I cast to earth a seed.
Up there came a flower,
The
people said, a weed.

Abortion Is An Act of Murder

In reference to pregnant women, the term "with child" occurs twenty-six times in the Bible. The term "with fetus" never occurs once.

In Luke chapter one, verses 36 and 41, we are told that Elisabeth conceived a "son" and that the "babe" leaped in her womb. God does not say that a "fetus" leaped in her womb! He says THE BABE leaped. This is the exact same word that God uses to describe Christ in the manger AFTER He is born (Luke 2:12, 16). In God eyes, an unborn babe and a newborn babe are the same. They are both living human beings!

Dear reader, please answer a question: What is an "infant?" Get the answer in your mind and keep it there for a moment. Do you have it? Okay, please consider Job 3:16: "Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." Did you see that? Job referred to unborn children as INFANTS. Not fetuses! Not masses of tissue! INFANTS! In God's eyes, an unborn child is a living human baby. God never says once that an unborn child is anything less than a human being.

David said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." He did not say that a fetus was shapen in iniquity and conceived in iniquity. David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that HE was conceived. David, not a blob of tissue, was conceived.

The same is the case in Psalm 139:13-16:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

Who was in the womb? David! A literal and living person. The Bible never uses anything less than human terms to describe the unborn.

Notice that in Jeremiah 1:5 we are told that God KNEW Jeremiah:"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

To further confirm the fact that God views the unborn child as a person, please consider Exodus 21:22-23:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"

If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives ("no mischief follows"), then there's no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: "thou shalt give life for life." Why would God require the death penalty if He didn't consider the unborn child to be a human being?

Friend, like it or not, God says that life begins at conception, and the unborn child is a human being.

But the Bible isn't alone in declaring this truth. Science also declares that an unborn child is just as much an independent human being as you. The original human cell consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. At no point during pregnancy does the mother contribute any new cells to the child. The original cell divides itself and multiplies to provide development and growth for the child. Scientifically speaking, the child is just as independent at six months before birth as he will be six months after birth. Yes, the mother does provide nourishment to the unborn child, but she also provides nourishment to the newborn child!

At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.

Friend, abortion is wrong because abortion is MURDER!


Abortion Involves the Shedding of Innocent Blood

Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says, "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen."

Who could possibly be more innocent than an unborn baby?! Yet, our society has become so wicked that it condones the slaying of 1.5 million innocent children every year. The Bible says that God HATES people who do this.

Abortion Is A Violation of the Golden Rule

In Matthew 7:12, the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Would it be your desire to suffer and die while someone traps you in a cage and literally tears your arms and legs from your body?

Abortion is a violation of the golden rule.

Abortion Attempts To Destroy A Work of God

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Ecc. 3:14)

God is eternal, so His work is also eternal. Abortion is an attempt to do away with unwanted people--an attempt to make a liar out of God by bringing an end to His work. However, Jesus said you can destroy a person's BODY, but not their SOUL (Mat. 10:28). Parent, if you've had an abortion, your aborted child is in Heaven right now, because you only destroyed the body!

Abortion Often Brings Shame, Heartache, and Deep Regret

After his sin with Bathsheba, King David confessed these words to God: "For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me." (Psa. 51:3) David was living under constant conviction and regret for what he had done. He couldn't get away from it!

Most women who decide to have an abortion spend the rest of their lives regretting it. Are you thinking about an abortion? I challenge you to visit with some woman who have had abortions. Ask them if they would do it again. Ask them if they have any regrets.

In the book, The Christian and Social Issues, by Tom Wallace, a reference is made to a full page Washington Post ad, dated June 13, 1983. A lady who had undergone a saline abortion six months earlier describes the mental torments that she now suffers every day. She speaks of her "...everyday hell of never hearing a baby cry without crying within myself; counting days to see how old the baby would have been; wondering what contributions my baby would have made to our desperate society; and wondering if there will ever be another chance for motherhood."

Of the abortion itself, the lady recalls, "...sitting in a crowded waiting room studying each others fearful, anxious faces...signing death certificates for what is very much alive within you...seeing crying women given tranquilizers and sent home to recuperate and try to forget."

Abortion is wrong because it brings shame, heartache, and deep regret.

Abortion Disannuls A Plan of God

If God allows a child to be conceived, then God obviously has a plan for that child. Mary's parents didn't know that she'd give birth to the Savior of the world, but she did. God has a plan for unborn children (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:13-17; Gen. 4:25; Jud. 13:3-5), so to abort an unborn child is to stop a plan of God.

Abortion De-values Human Life

God created man to be the highest form of life on earth (Gen. 1:26-28). Human life is very precious to God. In fact, it is so precious that God Himself instituted the Death Penalty for anyone who takes the life of another (Exo. 21:12; Num. 35). God places great value on human life!

However, abortion promotes the message that life is NOT so valuable, and that man can do as he pleases with it. How long will it be before our nation decides that the killing of elderly people and sick people is justifiable? Why stop there? How long will it be before it becomes lawful to kill Bible believers who refuse to conform to the world system? It won't be as long as you may think (Rev. 13:16-18; Rev. 20:4). Abortion devalues human life, and it pushes our nation a step closer to that wicked day when it becomes lawful to murder innocent people.

Abortion Shows A Lack of Natural Affection

Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:3 that the last days will be characterized by people who lack "natural affection."

I believe the pro-abortion movement is a perfect example of this. It is NATURAL to conceive a child, grow to love that child, take care of the child during pregnancy, give birth to the child, and then raise the child with the best care possible. That's the natural process that God has ordained. It is NOT natural to kill the child! To commit such an act is to show a lack of natural affection, which is sin.

Abortion Encourages Sin

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." (Ecc. 8:11)

Why will 1,500,000 women have abortions this year? Largely because it has become popular. It is no longer illegal, and it is no longer considered a shameful sin by our society. Every time a woman has an abortion she helps society to become more comfortable with it. She's advertising it! By her example, she's encouraging others to commit the same sin, and other sins as well. The convenience of abortion will only lead to an increase of other sins such as adultery and fornication. Friend, abortion is wrong because abortion encourages sin!

Abortion Shows A Lack of Faith

Romans 14:23 says, "...for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Hebrews 11:6 tells us that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.

To have an abortion is to take matters into your own hands, rather than to trust God to work things out. This shows a lack of faith in God, which the Bible labels as SIN.

A desperate woman says, "I can't afford to have a child. I'm not ready for this." Lady, you need to start trusting God and claiming His promises. You need to STOP trying to run your own life for a change and START trusting God. You don't need an abortion, for such will only INCREASE your troubles. The devil has you thinking that abortion is the answer, that it will take care of everything, and you're very close to giving in to his subtle temptation. If you do, you'll regret it forever, and God will hold you accountable!

Hey Gossip you need a doctor.

Why do you keep quoting books and passages, that's getting old. Don't you have anything more...substantial?

Neon, in case you haven't noticed, there's nothing substantial about religion and supernatural beliefs. So I've stopped paying much attention to this. It's like, how many times can you say the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?

I do pay more attention now to my other blog, HinesSight, and my civic activism Facebook page, Strange Up Salem.

I still am interested in all things churchless, but since my own philosophical position has settled into a comfortable scientific secular humanism sort of view, I don't spend as much time writing about my own "spiritual" search.

Oh, okay.

I hadn't read the comments on this forum for a long, long while - I was expecting a kind of different dynamic to be honest.

I actually feel a bit bad now - feel like I'm part of a mob, and that always worries me - yes, I'm THAT kind of an ar@ehole! :)

Okay, okay everyone - this particular blog was an unpleasant one - though to be fair it did begin with the word "horrible", so we shouldn't have been surprised. Okay, perhaps Brian's comments were not the best advised, it seems from the general consensus here - but he is like the rest of us human, and prone to err on occassion.

But here's what is, truely and honestly imo, amazing and great about Brian. Let's balance out the criticisms.

Brian is, as far as I'm aware, the only person with a blog worldwide who has had a close association with an RS organisation, left the path, and openly discusses it.

He runs a blog where others like him - and there are MANY like him, including myself at one time, who now have a common place to connect and share and support each other in other ways.

There is, with exception of Dave's forum Radhasoamistudies, only this place where people can do this - it is an essential & important service he is providing.

Further, I believe it is also an incredibly brave & courageous thing to do, to be the face of such criticism - there will always be complete idiots out there who don't take well to their beliefs being challenged.

And for all that, I say bravo and deep thanks to Brian, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart!!

"If it's not your body, it's not your decision."

-- Wouldn't that apply to the baby as well?

Just sayin'

I dunno

I hesitated writing
after so many great comments

Another approach is Karma :

I know an initiated Lady who later
via meditations remembered
which means really SAW it happen
much clearer than one remembers a vacation )
that the boy she had aborted
when young
was the man who raped and killed her
in her former life during the separation of India 1947.

When it happened Saint Sawan Singh had placed Himself
between the jerk and Her mind_Self and there was no pain or real harm

I see only honesty in Gurinder's reaction
and horror only in the hystery here
like at the Salem witch hunting !

I didn't realize that throwing the first stone is such a thrill

But at side of the excitement . . .
Anything else he would have said , . . you had reacted likewise

Thanks commenters
I learned new things here
but what I knew already is that these Saints
have thousand fingers at their trigger

One for the Lady plus an inner answer if it was HER who was raped what I doubt
and 999 answers for the bystanders and a few for the eternal critics

777

Its all very well thanking the commenters when its typically an old man's club here. Only males answering, where are the females? Too frightened to comment?

Brian the only male who had the decency to put the word "Horrible" in the title of the thread.

@BloggerBrian

That message wasn't directed to you. It was to gossips wall of text and delusion.

"God says life begins at conception"???

But yes, I was equally as surprised to hear GSD say that. For me, it was when he said "I wouldn't do it". That made no sense.

The fault is in the one who blames. Spirit sees nothing to criticize.
Rumi

One should do things from the heart..with wisdom.

How important does one make a or your Guru in such cases?

Why ask him?
Why not have enough self-insight to feel and know what is the right thing to do?

Wisdom is really listen to one's own Self..

Everyone's circumstances and feelings and caracter is different..so..
God is Love as I hope;)

Nobody does an abortion out of joy,really nobody!!

"decency" Jen? Keep trying to convince yourself that that is what's going on here.

The absolute most disgusting and abhorrent comment in this whole sad scenario was, unfortunately, your one:

""Who in their right mind would think a woman who had been raped could successfully bring up the child."

Followed only by Brian's orinal blog entry, and trailed by Neon's comment saying "that made no sense" - the idea someone wouldn't kill an unborn baby.

You mention female voices here being absent? Trying to play that card? How about the lady who did comment, Marinero? Or was it you just didn't like that comment?

It's time to wake up Jen, Brian & Neon - show some class and admit you've shown here with your comments a far more abhorrent attitude than anything written by Gurinder, or indeed any other commentator here.

Your dogmatic agendas are showing, and everyone can see it - it is, I suggest, beaneath you ALL to USE such a delicate subject to enable you to poor feigned anger & scorn upon Gurinder - everyone sees through it, none of you have made a single coherent or rational response to the numerous criticisms in this thread.

Your not compassionate, you're not righteous, you're now showing empathy, you're not demonstrating wisdom.

Quite, quite the opposite.

Again, Jen's comment, which is reflected by Neon's, and Brian's original post:

"Who in their right mind would think a woman who had been raped could successfully bring up the child."

Wkae up - this is far more abhorrent than Gurinder saying "if it were me" her wouldn't kill an unborn child - and as anti-feminist as you can get.

Again, WAKE UP - show some class and show some sort of contrition:

"The rape exception in abortion law is so much the rule that many women who wish to keep children conceived in rape describe an intense social pressure to abort them, and the pressure to abort can be as sinister as the restriction of access to abortion. There can be no question that, for some women, an abortion would be far more traumatic than having a rape-conceived child."

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-legitimate-children-of-rape

So let's see it - who has some class amongst you? Who will admit that you were far too rash jumping on the righteous bandwagon of criticising Gurinder, and hadn't actually considered the pros & cons of the, extremely delicate, subject?

I mean, reality is bombarding you all with the facts which demonstrate, without any ambiguity, you are talking utter nonsense (RSSB hospitals and that fact women can & do raise children "successfuly")

For posters who, no doubt, like to talk about how deluded and out of touch with "reality" satsangis and spiritual people are - can you admit when you also fall into the same errors?

Let's see.....dogma and faith is dogma and faith, and humans can act very foolishly with immense cognitive disssonance when propping these up - and the "atheist" and "debunker" mind sets are no exception - as is evident in this thread - people can say some very, very nasty things in the support of their beliefs and agendas.

Let's see if there is any class whatsoever in any of you and you can face reality and show contrition?

Okay, I've just had a chance to actually read this link I posted earlier in full:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-legitimate-children-of-rape

I highly recommend reading this if anyone has a genuine interest or concern with the subject, it is insightful & heart rending.

The final paragraph:

"In working on my book, I went to Rwanda in 2004 to interview women who had borne children of rape conceived during the genocide........At the end of my final interview, I asked the woman I was interviewing whether she had any questions. She paused shyly for a moment. “Well,” she said, a little hesitantly. “You work in this field of psychology.” I nodded. She took a deep breath. “Can you tell me how to love my daughter more?” she asked. “I want to love her so much, and I try my best, but when I look at her I see what happened to me and it interferes.” A tear rolled down her cheek, but her tone turned almost fierce, challenging. “Can you tell me how to love my daughter more?” she repeated."


Heart breaking on so many levels.

Contrary to how I usually frame my posts and comments here & the RSS forum about a variety of "real world" topics like politics, wars, terrorism, diet or like here abortion - sticking pretty much to logic, rationale and facts etc (imo!) - I think I'll make one last comment here on this sorry thread before leaving it - I want to express what I think is the *real* driving force behind my opinion on these things.

As per the heart breaking question the Rwanadan women asked the author of the article, the whole thing - everything - is about love. Our capacity to love, and be loved.

In love there is no judgement, there is no condemnation, no fear and no hatred - there is only good will and hopes for everyone, equally.

And that's what life really is, for all of us. Our ability to love, as unconditionally as possible.

I know there are people who will even see the flaws in this attitude - we should never forgive such and such for such and such a reason for eg. - but that's what I'm saying, sometimes people emotionally cling onto pain and suffering, and it is only our capacity to love without judgement and unconditionally that can ease that pain.....this is our life striggle.

As a rule, I think this can be applied to everything and anything in life, and one will find the right "path" through all the hoopla and bluster on a variety of topics from terrorism, global politics, diet & meat-eating, and yes victims of rape who choose to abort their babies. And the babies themselves, too, let's not forget. Love all round, complete non-judgement.

What else have we humans got?

This is my last post on this sorry thread.

Comment from Marinero to Brian..."Please write other time about Rihannas legs so we would at least have something interesting to read." Doubt this is from a female.

I heard that Gurinder sometimes reads this blog. I hope he reads this thread to see the abusive, aggressive comments from satsangis. Especially when they then start to preach about love! What a farce.

Well, this has really turned me off Sant Mat for good. I was hoping that my over 40 years experience of being a satsangi was not a waste of time, but this shows me how insensitive satsangis can be. Especially the guru. He made a big mistake by showing his lack of understanding on what it would be like to be a rape victim and also the damage done to a child who is not conceived in love.

Jen -

Re Marineiro - apologies, meant Jesse's comment.

Then read the article to comprehend just how insensitive your "lack of understanding" is.

Reality is undermining your empty words at every turn.

Feelings, not emptiness are undermining my words. Yes, I know I have become involved in the drama cycle here on this blog. Whatever. As a 70 year old female what have I got to lose. As long as Brian allows my comments and opinions through, he's in charge of this blog and its his choice and I'm grateful.

btw I think Jesse is a male, could be wrong..

Jen you never know if this are satsangis you just have anger preset towards satsangis thus you conclude they are them.You have big issues with yourself and you proved that in history with another pseudonym.

Gurinder was caught in a Catch 22 with the Abortion/killing/compassion/ question. He would not kill, nor would I, but if we had all the facts of the rape case, before I'd answer such a question, i'd first want to know a little more about the circumstances, such as: was the rape victim young, old, attractive, seductively attired, in a Bar, in a House of Ill Repute, ( Brothel) , a Harem, or,.....was she ugly, obese, handicapped, lonely, married, single, or? Was she one of 4 wives of a Muslim Male, or one of many wives of a Mormon ? If a married or single Muslim, was she wearing her full length Black attire with Burka,.....or, ....might she have been wearing a Bikini on the Beach when attacked by a rapist!
If she was married, what does her husband think? Does he want her to have an abortion or does he want her to birth the child so he can raise it, cloth, feed and educate it?
For all the males reading this, if the rape victim was your wife, mother, sister, daughter, and they were raped by a hunch backed ugly old horny male with a different colored skin than your loved rape victim, would you want to abort the fetus, ( kill it ) , or encourage your loved on to birth the child? I can think of hundreds of other reasons to abort, but the above should be food for thought. I like the Karmic consequences 777 mentioned, but I remember Charan Singh advising us to consider every new action as the start of Karmic act, rather then excusing that act as the result of any old or past life Karma. Regards, Jim Sutherland

Killing a child or rapist? That is a question.

Jim

Sawan Singh Ji :
"You don't know what Dr Johnson did to this man in a former life"

777

ps
I don't know and tried to google what's a 22 question
I couldn't find but I suppose these are questions which trap and can never be answered
Like yo'r in a boat with a collude even a friend ,nothing to eat
but one might survive killing the other and eat
and reach safety
WHAT WOULD YOU DO ?

It's an immoral question and if answered the answer would be false
because nobody knows

Rare are the soldiers jumping on the grenade to save their comrades.

Gurinder is not stuped, most here will admit and his direct answer is probably an answer to unwrap activate certain results included mood changings

Let"s ve happy to be able to witness and some here to participate in 'sciences of the soul' in working
before the sun eats this planet to mention some sure coming fact and avoid about the rising waters

Let's try to love as much Souls as possible during our stay
A Saint can and does
For us it't difficult
You really have to hear the sweet Anahabad Shabd 24/7

Thanks Brian for allowing us to speak out and vent our frustrations here on your blog.

From the emailed message: "I was fighting back tears. I got up and left.

I felt betrayed by the community. I felt disappointed in my old Guru who I used to believe in. I felt rejected in the space that I once felt welcomed in. I have never felt so worthless in my entire life - save for when the incident itself took place."

This is the part that caught me, that I resonated with. Now I realise that this is my pain body and its time for me to step out of the drama cycle (perpetrator / victim / rescuer). I took on the protector/rescuer attitude and now I am back to being the observer.

Its very human, very comforting belonging to a group of people, a clan, a tribe and moving away from that group is not easy. Now that I no longer believe in the guru its a new path for me. Its not good to give one's power away to another. When I was initiated by Charan I put him on a pedestal and projected all sorts of beliefs onto him. Now.. I'm letting go of the neurotic need to understand and the need to work things out...

Resting as Awareness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIX_zk5NN6g

Jen all that philosophy so you at the end feed us with another guru.

Hey guro

I find insight from many sources without being attached to any particular one.

“The price of being a sheep is boredom. The price of being a wolf is loneliness. Choose one or the other with great care.”

yes you find and its cool but when you leave one philosophy do you always have such negative thoughts like towards sant mat...
p.s. sant mat for me was only meditation i never engaged in satsangs only prior initiation and never engaged in social meetings. i didnt knew any satsangis before and i only came there to pick up the technique and now i totally see it as individual thing. i dont know...hm life put me like that by itself and i love all people of all kinds so i am not engaged in any group but my self but i respect everybody and i learn from any and everyone.peace
p.s. and yes i consider myself as hatha siddha yogi.peace

guro,

Thanks nice reply. Yes I am going through a very negative period in my life. Very disillusioned with life and people. Yes, being a satsangi is an individual thing and I wish you lots of good luck :)

For 777 " A "Catch 22" is an American slang phrase. It means, "in between a crack and a hard plane. It mean, be damned if I do, be damned if I don't.

What defines death?
When precisely is a human or animal dead?
What and/or who decides.?

If you can't, without fault, answer these questions, then it follows that you can't make decisions about birth either. So having said that, the only person who can even come close to properly responding, is the one who has been impregnated. There appears to be a deep seated belief that women think nothing of having an abortion. I'm a 66 year old male and i assure you the idea of it is chilling to me, think what women really go through who have to make that decision. Men probably ought to butt out entirely. Peace/Love/Compassion

Geneses 2:7. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The question is,....just WHEN does a soul become alive in a human? Accordng to this Old Testament Scripture Verse, there is not a new soul that is alive in a man util that man takes the First Breath of God , and this can't happen until immediatly after physical birth of the fetus from the pregnant female from the birth cannel. Until physical birth, the soul that is ready to reincarnate does not own the physical body of the fetus, the female mother owns it, as she owns every other physical organ on loan from Kal until she reaches Sach Khand or Sat Nam. Until this time, that indidualized soul that has taken Non-Duality and is only testing the Play of Consciousness.

888 -- And the companion question. When does life begin? Does an individual womb happening have a soul attached to it?

Life and death, before medical advances, use to be straight forward. Now the lines are blurred in the forum of human consideration. We read about couples getting divorced and having custody battles over their frozen embryos. Are the souls frozen -- locked in some refrigerated limbo? Some mystical schools consider that the soul doesn't get sucked into the womb's budding form until about 4 months. The "quickening" or some such thing. The biological sciences have really butted God out of the womb though, just another bio-blob in the oven.

Read what actual Spirits have to say about abortion from "The Spirits Book" by Allan Kardec:
Union of Soul and Body

344. At what moment is the soul united to the body?

"The union begins at the moment of conception, but is only complete at the moment of birth. From the moment of conception, the spirit designated to inhabit a given body is united to that body by a fluidic link, which becomes closer and closer up to the instant of birth; the cry then uttered by the infant announces that he is numbered among the living."

345. Is the union between the spirit and the body definitive from the moment of conception? Could the spirit, during this first period of that union, renounce inhabiting the body designed for him?

"The union between them is definitive in this sense namely, that no other spirit could replace the one who has been designated for that body. But, as the links which hold them together are at first very weak, they are easily broken, and may be severed by the will of a spirit who draws back from the trial he had chosen. But, in that case, the child does not live."

346. What becomes of a spirit, if the body he has chosen happens to die before birth?

"He chooses another body."

- What can be the use of premature deaths?

"Such deaths are most frequently caused by the imperfections of matter."

347. What benefit can a spirit derive from his incarnation in a body which dies a few' days after birth?

"In such a case, the new being's consciousness of his existence is so slightly developed that his death is of little importance. As we have told you, such deaths are often intended mainly as a trial for the parents."

348. Does a spirit know beforehand that tile body he chooses has no chance of living?

"He sometimes knows it; but if he chooses it on this account. it is because he shrinks from the trial he foresees."

349. When, from any cause, a spirit has failed to accomplish a proposed incarnation, is another existence provided for him immediately?

"Not always immediately. The spirit requires time to make a new choice, unless his instantaneous reincarnation had been previously decided upon."

350. When a spirit is definitively united to an infant body, and it is thus too late for him to refuse this union does lie sometimes regret the choice he has made?

"If you mean to ask whether, as a man, he may complain of the life he has to undergo, and whether he may not wish it were otherwise, I answer, Yes; but if you mean to ask whether he regrets the choice he has made, I answer, No, for he does not remember that he has made it. A spirit, when once incarnated. cannot regret a choice which he is not conscious of having made; but he may find the burden lie has. assumed too heavy. and, if lie believes it to be beyond his strength, he may have recourse to suicide."

351. Does a spirit, in the interval between conception and birth, enjoy the use of all his faculties.?

"He does so more or less according to the various periods of gestation; for he is not yet incarnated in his new body, but only attached to it. From the instant of conception confusion begins to take possession of the spirit, who is thus made aware that the moment has come for him to enter upon a new existence; and this confusion becomes more and more dense until the period of birth. In the interval between these two terms, his state is nearly that of an incarnated spirit during the sleep of the body. In proportions as the moment of birth approaches, his ideas become effaced, together with his remembrance of the past, of which. when once he has entered upon corporeal life, he is no longer conscious. But this remembrance comes back to him little by little when he has returned to the spirit-world."

352. Does the spirit, at the moment of birth, recover the plenitude of his faculties?

"No; they are gradually developed with the growth of his organs. The corporeal life is for him a new existence; he has to learn the use of his bodily instruments. His ideas come back to him little by little, as in the case of a man who, waking out of slumber. should find himself in a different situation from that in which he was before he fell asleep."

353. The union of the spirit and the body not being completely and definitively consummated until birth has taken place can the foetus be considered as having a soul?

"The spirit who is to animate it exists, as it were, outside of it; strictly speaking, therefore, it has no soul, since the incarnation of the latter is only in course of being effected; but it is linked to the soul which it is to have."

354. What is the nature of intra-uterine life?

"That of the plant which vegetates. The foetus, however, lives with vegetable and animal life, to which the union of a soul with the child-body at birth adds spiritual life."

355. Are there, as is indicated by science, children so constituted that they cannot live, and if so, for what purpose ore they produced?

"That often happens. Such births are permitted as a trial, either for the parents or for the spirit appointed to animate it."

356. Are there, among still-born children, some who were never intended for the incarnation of a spirit?

"Yes, there are some who never had a spirit assigned to them, for whom nothing was to be done. In such a case, it is simply as a trial for the parents that the child arrives."

- Can a being of this nature come to its term?

"Yes, sometimes; but it does not live."

- Every child that survives its birth has, then, necessarily a spirit incarnated in it?

"What would it be if such were not the case ? It would not he a human being."

357. What are, for a spirit, the consequences of abortion?

"It is an existence that is null, and must be commenced over again."

358. Is artificial abortion a crime, no matter at what period of gestation it may be produced?

"Every transgression of the law of God is a crime. The mother, or any other, who takes the life of an unborn child, is necessarily criminal; for, by so doing, a soul is prevented from undergoing the trial of which the body thus destroyed was to have been the instrument."

352. In cases in which the life of the mother would be endangered by the birth of the child, is it a crime to sacrifice the child in order to save the mother?

"It is better to sacrifice the being whose existence is not yet complete than the being whose existence is complete."

360. Is it rational to treat the foetus with the same respect as the body of a child that has lived?

"In the one, as in the other, you should recognise the will and the handiwork of God, and these are always to be respected."

"The Guru's response was that it was a difficult situation. However, he then asked a rhetorical question - whether the child had done anything wrong."
...
"He then spoke at length about why the child should suffer, when the child had done nothing wrong, the child was innocent."

This is different to what I was taught in Sant Mat. We are born innocent? There is no such thing as reincarnation and karma? We are not born with karma from previous lives?

Is this a new version of Sant Mat? If not he should be very careful of stating his opinion, especially if it varies with what satsangis are taught - karma from previous lives, reincarnation etc.

Jen,......for the Record,.....( this Blog ) , I completely agree with you, regarding we Sant Matters were taught that because of Karma, we ALL, including Masters, reincarnate bach here. Chsran Singh eaud it many times, on Q & Answers. Also, that lines up perfectly with Spiritist teachings, as well as Christian Theology of the Total Depravity of man. So Gurinder Singh is deviating away from what we were all taught that attracted us to ask for Initiation in to the Radhasoami Sect in the first place. Guringer Singh is trying to act as the new Pope of Radhasoami. ( IMO )

Hi Jim,

At the moment I have a couple of old fashioned sayings in my head... the world is going to hell in a handbasket and... people are partying like there's no tomorrow.

I have very fond memories of being a satsangi in the flower power hippy days with Charan who was such a wonderful example of a humble and saintly being. Oh well, reality has struck home now.

The other day I came across a youtube documentary film called "Kumare" about an Indian man who pretends to be a guru as an experiment to try and understand why westerners are so taken in. Its rather wonderful in that his teachings were that he was not what he seemed, he was an illusion and he was just a reflection of who they truly are, the teacher is within.

"Faith begins as an experiment and ends as an experience"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yOi8Sk7MNM

I have it on one of many tapes
and remember that what Jim posted
in a way corresponds with CharanJi's opinion.

That the higher the real place of conciousness of the Soul
to occvupy a body is,
the later he comes
That is : a Real Saint comes at the first breath

I like to state that such a foetus is all the 9 months
extremely well guided according to allotted karma.

Also I remember that 3 month was mentioned for
visitors from the first region of consciousness , the astral

Charan never said that He would not do it
but I myself think a Saint wouldn't do it

Indeed, many foetus are not innocent

ps
Jim
The lady I referred to, who after and through meditations during years
recognized the foetus ( see my first comment here )
had done that abortion many years before her initiation
She came to know it, in the context of many former and future lives
For instance that she will be reborn in Nepal
I told about this already in this blog.

Nothing has changed in the teachings since Jesus _
It's a beautiful Path, the Path of the Saints; One falls in Love and it ever grows.

777


Apologies for the typos in my last post I didn't spell check. I was on a Cruise ship between New Zealand and Australia with very poor Internet connections. I am home in Virginia, USA now. But I wanted to say, I came from a Fundamentalist Christian background, as my blog documents my history. My Master's Degree Theses Introduction on my blog was written at the start of 1983 and shows where I was at that time.
http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2006/08/ete

Roland DeVries, who was Charan's Western U.S. Rep. Who initiated me by Proxy had a similar background to me, as did Dr. Julian Johnson. So, I was very comfortable beng initated in to Radhasoami RSSB considering I didn't feel I was deviatng from Christ at all by becoming an Initiate of Charan Singh. I always separated men from the Christ, i.e Word, Shabd of God, and still feel the same as I progress in the Sant Mat Journey of Souls.

Merry Christmas and Radhasoami to all.

http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2006/08/eternal-security-thesis-introduction.html

Prior Link did not work, so hope this will.

Interesting post.
No teacher who advocates Ahimsa and a vegetarian diet will openly support abortion. If eating eggs is wrong, destroying a human embryo carries more "Karma". Neither Gurinder nor Charan are advocates. Having said that, in Sant Mat it is always the woman's choice. And that is because there are negative dynamics before, during and after the conception.

Trying to take those issues out of the picture distorts the entire karmic web.

Maharaji did conduct abortions. I'm a big supporter of Planned Parenthood. They prevent far more abortions than any "abstainance only" program.

Having worked for them on a consulting basis for several years I will tell you no woman has an abortion casually. They know there is a level of destruction involved, and they must weigh this against the harm that has been done, whether rape or simply unwanted pregnancy, and the effect on her other children, their ability to stay above poverty, stay in school, or at least feed and care for the other children. So much is at stake, the entire future of the woman and all she knows, including her family. And who carries the entire burden? The woman. Therefore she has all the rights, and our role is simply to say "How can I help you successfully proceed with your decision?"

Yes a level of destruction is there,but the repercussions of either decision carry a huge burden of destruction also and we are in no condition to weigh the scale for anyone else. For everyone else there is only one purely right answer," What do you want to do? How can I help? "

And when she says, "This is what I've decided to do..." the entire world has only one right answer, "Good choice. Let me help." Period.

Let's try this again.
Short course, there is only one morally right answer to the question of abortion.
And that is for all parties other than the woman to ask her "What is your choice?....Good Choice. How can I help you?" Period.

The level of destruction for keeping the child and the level of destruction for aborting it have repurcussions that can only be properly weighted by the woman herself and no one else.

That is for any unwanted pregnancy, not just rape.
Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions and unwanted pregnancies than any abstinance only program in the world. As much as 10 times fewer teen pregnancies in Planned Parenthood communities compared to Abstainance Only communities. And they do it by honoring that simple right...that it must remain at all times upon the shoulders of the woman to choose, and by providing her with as many preventative choices as possible, along with the choice of abortion, and with a variety of mother / baby prenatal care diagnostics and support.

There is too much we can never know to do otherwise.

Honor that right, and you protect the greatest number of unborn children possible.
Yes, abortion is a level of destruction. But there are circumstances where the harm is greater still to both that child and others by restricting the woman's right to choose.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...