I think its great, but I shared with a few others and this is the response I had from one .
“I think that using an ad like that is deceptive. The message is clearly an anti abortion message. Christmas is a key time when Christians have the opportunity to show Christ's love to all those who are hurting, and we know that the majority of those who have had abortions are hurting, and some are never healed. Shouldn't we be showing them the forgiveness and love of Christ at Christmas, which is the reason for him coming? Bright ideas that seem to be fabulous opportunities for a timed "marketing campaign", need to be carefully weighed-up against the adverse impact they might generate. In this case, I think it's plain wrong, regardless of the handful of names that are supporting it. It's a time when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus; that's the message. To use this occasion in the Christian calendar for ulterior motives, no matter how well intentioned, is simply wrong”
I intuitively disagree with this response but not sure why.i think it is overly sensitive. Interestingly enough the Author is a male. I wondered what others thought as to how best I might respond. BJ
Christmas is a key time when Christians can and should reflect upon all the aspects of Christ's coming to earth as a small, defenceless child.
Why did God choose to do this, when He could have created Himself a body and come down from Heaven in a showy and grandiose way?
Could it be that He wanted to draw attention to all aspects of human life. That He knew that 2,000 years after His coming Christians would shy away from the protection of unborn children?
Yes, there are those that are hurting because they have had abortions. Forgiveness is always there for those that acknowledge the gravity of their actions.
However, what about all those women who are taken in by the lie that aborting their child is the solution to all their problems? Should they not be warned about what they might be about to do? Isn't prevention better than cure?
I wish half the energy being put in to anti-abortion crusades was put in to pro-life campaigns to improve the lot of the living. And I bet Jesus would, too.
Can't recall anything in Jesus' words about abortion, but I do recall a fair bit about helping the less well off.
Unborn babies are alive, and they own nothing. You could think of them as the poorest of the poor.
Before Jesus started his public ministry (and after He was baptised), he went off into the desert. After 40 days of fasted he was tempted by the devil, who wanted Him to change stones into bread. Jesus' answer was that man could not live by bread alone.
Improving the lot of the living should not be at the expense of their souls. Sure, your lot can be improved while you are alive, but what good is that if you go on to spend eternity in Hell?
I wish half the energy being put in to anti-abortion crusades was put in to pro-life campaigns to improve the lot of the living. And I bet Jesus would, too.
Aside from the fact that improving the lot of the living requires them to not be killed, religious organisations are at, and have always been, at the forefront of charitable services.
As a young woman, seeing this poster made my heart jump. At my age I have seen classmates and friends get abortions, all while I have been longing for the time when I can be a mother myself.
Even though I disagree with Christmas being a thing that christians should focus on, I still think this is a fantastic poster.
thanks for reminding me that Jesus said man could not live by bread alone.
Is that why he turned water in to wine (what a conjourer) and fed the multitude with loaves and fishes?
Gotta love the inconsistencies in the bible, eh?
"Sure, your lot can be improved while you are alive, but what good is that if you go on to spend eternity in Hell?"
How I wish I had a dollar for every time a xian has used this to justify inaction, then I'd be able to eradicate poverty.
Of course, Jesus did say "screw the poor, they'll always be around, but I'm only here for a quick holiday, so give me more of that expensive oil". OK, I am paraphrasing a bit, but you know what he said.
"... religious organisations are at, and have always been, at the forefront of charitable services."
True, up to a point, but how often has that charity been grudgingly dispensed, or only available with strings attached? Far too often, which is why the state needed to take over providing some charitable services so that charity, not proseltysing was the goal.
Then, of course, there are organisations such as the International Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontiers, Fred Hollows Foundation, UNICEF, Oxfam, Rotary, Nonbelievers Giving Aid, and so on.
Using religon as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
LRO, it is not inconsistent to say that man cannot live by bread alone and then feed people. Your point is weak.
Your original assertion shows the same flawed logic, implying that people cannot support more than one cause.
Man cannot live by bread alone does not mean that man can never eat. Just that eating, in itself does not make a complete life. The spiritual dimension is important too.
And people that oppose abortion may also support other causes, perform other actions and tasks. You seem to imply that many on the pro-life side are single issue people. I don't think that's the case at all. There are such people, but that happens across the spectrum of human endeavour. Indeed, specialization is very common in almost all aspects of work and study.
How I wish I had a dollar for every time a xian has used this to justify inaction, then I'd be able to eradicate poverty.
Where did any-one on this thread use this to "justify inaction"?
Again, you seem to have a problem with your logic. Just because one argues that the afterlife is also important, does not mean that they don't believe in helping people in this life.
The whole Christian package covers faith AND works.
Finally, your rant about religious charities doesn't hold much water either, and furthermore, no-one is arguing that non-religious charities don't exist - that point you make is irrelevant.
And state run charities do not exist because religious based organisations might also proselytize. I'd suggest it's because demand exceeds supply.
Using religion as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
It's not so much done "because" of religion, it's that religion is part of the codification of a sense of morality.
I also add that there is nothing wrong with people that focus their support on single causes - it's a broad church and a big world, and such dedication is admirable.
Also, being pro-life is a very strong foundation to build a moral platform on.
Your whole argument seems to be built on the point that YOU find it acceptable to terminate the unborn, so from that position you seek to denigrate any who hold that view.
To paraphrase: Bashing religion as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
I suggest that when the main criteria becomes "quality of life" without any fundamental respect for life itself, then we see that options like abortion, euthanasia, suicide, killing of the handicapped, mass sterilization and other options become increasingly acceptable.
I think it's important never to lose sight of the intrinsic value of a human life, and a pro-life stance reflects that.
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.
Wow, that really gets multiple messages across. Unfortunately the murderers that walk amongst us may miss the underlying messages.
ReplyDeleteIt's such a cool poster.
ReplyDeleteI think its great, but I shared with a few others and this is the response I had from one .
ReplyDelete“I think that using an ad like that is deceptive. The message is clearly an anti abortion message. Christmas is a key time when Christians have the opportunity to show Christ's love to all those who are hurting, and we know that the majority of those who have had abortions are hurting, and some are never healed. Shouldn't we be showing them the forgiveness and love of Christ at Christmas, which is the reason for him coming?
Bright ideas that seem to be fabulous opportunities for a timed "marketing campaign", need to be carefully weighed-up against the adverse impact they might generate. In this case, I think it's plain wrong, regardless of the handful of names that are supporting it. It's a time when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus; that's the message. To use this occasion in the Christian calendar for ulterior motives, no matter how well intentioned, is simply wrong”
I intuitively disagree with this response but not sure why.i think it is overly sensitive. Interestingly enough the Author is a male. I wondered what others thought as to how best I might respond.
BJ
BJ, how is this?
ReplyDeleteChristmas is a key time when Christians can and should reflect upon all the aspects of Christ's coming to earth as a small, defenceless child.
Why did God choose to do this, when He could have created Himself a body and come down from Heaven in a showy and grandiose way?
Could it be that He wanted to draw attention to all aspects of human life. That He knew that 2,000 years after His coming Christians would shy away from the protection of unborn children?
Yes, there are those that are hurting because they have had abortions. Forgiveness is always there for those that acknowledge the gravity of their actions.
However, what about all those women who are taken in by the lie that aborting their child is the solution to all their problems? Should they not be warned about what they might be about to do? Isn't prevention better than cure?
maybe its just me, but when I first saw this the ring above the head put me in mind of a rolled up condom.
ReplyDeleteHay Lucia, some people have always shied away from the protection of the living, children or adults.
Oops, work got in the way, comment truncated.
ReplyDeleteI wish half the energy being put in to anti-abortion crusades was put in to pro-life campaigns to improve the lot of the living. And I bet Jesus would, too.
Can't recall anything in Jesus' words about abortion, but I do recall a fair bit about helping the less well off.
LRO,
ReplyDeleteUnborn babies are alive, and they own nothing. You could think of them as the poorest of the poor.
Before Jesus started his public ministry (and after He was baptised), he went off into the desert. After 40 days of fasted he was tempted by the devil, who wanted Him to change stones into bread. Jesus' answer was that man could not live by bread alone.
Improving the lot of the living should not be at the expense of their souls. Sure, your lot can be improved while you are alive, but what good is that if you go on to spend eternity in Hell?
I wish half the energy being put in to anti-abortion crusades was put in to pro-life campaigns to improve the lot of the living. And I bet Jesus would, too.
ReplyDeleteAside from the fact that improving the lot of the living requires them to not be killed, religious organisations are at, and have always been, at the forefront of charitable services.
As a young woman, seeing this poster made my heart jump. At my age I have seen classmates and friends get abortions, all while I have been longing for the time when I can be a mother myself.
ReplyDeleteEven though I disagree with Christmas being a thing that christians should focus on, I still think this is a fantastic poster.
Hi Lucia,
ReplyDeletethanks for reminding me that Jesus said man could not live by bread alone.
Is that why he turned water in to wine (what a conjourer) and fed the multitude with loaves and fishes?
Gotta love the inconsistencies in the bible, eh?
"Sure, your lot can be improved while you are alive, but what good is that if you go on to spend eternity in Hell?"
How I wish I had a dollar for every time a xian has used this to justify inaction, then I'd be able to eradicate poverty.
Of course, Jesus did say "screw the poor, they'll always be around, but I'm only here for a quick holiday, so give me more of that expensive oil". OK, I am paraphrasing a bit, but you know what he said.
"... religious organisations are at, and have always been, at the forefront of charitable services."
ReplyDeleteTrue, up to a point, but how often has that charity been grudgingly dispensed, or only available with strings attached? Far too often, which is why the state needed to take over providing some charitable services so that charity, not proseltysing was the goal.
Then, of course, there are organisations such as the International Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontiers, Fred Hollows Foundation, UNICEF, Oxfam, Rotary, Nonbelievers Giving Aid, and so on.
Using religon as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
LRO, it is not inconsistent to say that man cannot live by bread alone and then feed people. Your point is weak.
ReplyDeleteYour original assertion shows the same flawed logic, implying that people cannot support more than one cause.
Man cannot live by bread alone does not mean that man can never eat. Just that eating, in itself does not make a complete life. The spiritual dimension is important too.
And people that oppose abortion may also support other causes, perform other actions and tasks. You seem to imply that many on the pro-life side are single issue people. I don't think that's the case at all. There are such people, but that happens across the spectrum of human endeavour. Indeed, specialization is very common in almost all aspects of work and study.
How I wish I had a dollar for every time a xian has used this to justify inaction, then I'd be able to eradicate poverty.
Where did any-one on this thread use this to "justify inaction"?
Again, you seem to have a problem with your logic. Just because one argues that the afterlife is also important, does not mean that they don't believe in helping people in this life.
The whole Christian package covers faith AND works.
Finally, your rant about religious charities doesn't hold much water either, and furthermore, no-one is arguing that non-religious charities don't exist - that point you make is irrelevant.
And state run charities do not exist because religious based organisations might also proselytize. I'd suggest it's because demand exceeds supply.
Using religion as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
It's not so much done "because" of religion, it's that religion is part of the codification of a sense of morality.
I also add that there is nothing wrong with people that focus their support on single causes - it's a broad church and a big world, and such dedication is admirable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, being pro-life is a very strong foundation to build a moral platform on.
Your whole argument seems to be built on the point that YOU find it acceptable to terminate the unborn, so from that position you seek to denigrate any who hold that view.
To paraphrase: Bashing religion as the basis for doing good is a bad reason.
I suggest that when the main criteria becomes "quality of life" without any fundamental respect for life itself, then we see that options like abortion, euthanasia, suicide, killing of the handicapped, mass sterilization and other options become increasingly acceptable.
I think it's important never to lose sight of the intrinsic value of a human life, and a pro-life stance reflects that.
Thanks Lucia Maria & Hannah. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteGood clear thinking Zen