Everything you are describing is an emotional issue. The problem is that we can’t make wise decisions when we are in an emotional state. You have suffered through great tragedy, which does not mean that you will make the wisest decisions. We do need morals and values to guide us – particularly when we suffer through horrific situations.

The heart of ALL people guides us in the wrong direction. That’s why we need to have the Bible to tell us not to follow our hearts blindly. The Bible sets down values and morals. Once we have established those, then we can act in the most compassionate way that still upholds those crucial values.

You believe it’s more compassionate to kill that child then to give it a chance at life? Wow! We really are addressing the heart of Pragers point.

Ask that child in 15 years if thats what s/he would have wanted.

Abra,

How about you address the issues in the article rather then your standard rant against religion? How many times can you post the exact same thing? I don't see Jesus mentioned once in the article.

What about Peta? What about the idea that people base their values like saving dogs over humans because they love their dog and they never met the drowning homeless guy?

In fact your argument makes the point. The emotional issue of the horrible crime of rape has nothing to do with the moral issue of taking a life. The child should be given up for adoption.

Is your point that since bad things happen it must mean that G-d doesnt exist?

If abortion is in fact the taking of a human life, then the only possible time when it would be okay is to save the life of the mother.

So much anger and negativity. Tsk tsk. I think we need a time out. ;-)

Chill out people. Prager made some brilliant points. Be respectful and respond on the merits of the issue. No need for such negativity. Where’s the compassion? ;-)

If in fact abortion is wrong then the notion that people will do it anyway can not be a justification. We can do things to make it easier for a pregnant woman to give the child up for adoption. Also a lot of the original concern 30 years ago doesn’t really exist today. Today you simply don’t have the stigma like 30 years ago. There are lots of teenage pregnancies and today people can deal with the notion and the vast majority wouldn’t have back alley abortions if it was illegal. Not the same stigma today.

I think if you would ask any child even in a terrible circumstance like a foster home if they would have rather been aborted – you know what the answer would have been. The issues surrounding abortion are difficult, but we can find solutions. There is an incredibly long line for adoptions – today more then ever.

But the larger point is, think about the folks from PETA. To them when they see a cute kitten that makes everyone’s heart melt – they can’t think beyond their immediate emotional tug. So they end up equating an animal’s life as equal to a humans life. That’s why the Bible warns against “following our eyes and hearts.” If we can save thousands of lives by testing on animals, we must do so.

Don’t you think it’s more inane for kids today to say that they would rather save their dog then a human stranger? How do you explain to someone whose heart is telling them one thing that they need to use wisdom beyond what their eyes pull them towards?

His point is incredibly true. If you think about the underlying issue – it’s really what tugs at people’s hearts the most that causes them to believe something. The Bible teaches us that of course we must be compassionate but we must do it in an intelligent way as prescribed by the values in the Bible.

The easiest emotional thing to do is not always the right thing to do. How are folks supposed to know the difference without certain guideline and values?

My pleasure Spider! ;-)

Peccy,

I just couldn’t say it any better then Dennis did in this phenomenal article that really gets to the heart of the issue of most of the arguments on here. I 100% agree with him. What about you?

It's The Heart Versus The Bible.

By Dennis Prager
March 16, 2004

I recently interviewed a 26-year-old Swedish student about her views on life. I asked her if she believed in God or in any religion.

"No, that's silly," she replied.

"Then how do you know what is right and wrong?" I asked.

"My heart tells me," she responded.

In a nutshell, that's the major reason for the great divide within America and between America and much of Europe. The majority of people use their heart -- stirred by their eyes -- to determine what is right and wrong. A minority uses their mind and/or the Bible to make that determination.

Pick almost any issue and these opposing ways of determining right and wrong become apparent.

Here are three examples.

Same-sex marriage: The heart favors it. You have to have a hard heart not to be moved when you see many of the loving same-sex couples who want to commit their lives to one another in marriage. The eye sees the couples; the heart is moved to redefine marriage.

Animal rights: The heart favors them. It is the rare person, for example, whose heart is not moved by the sight of an animal used for medical research. The eye sees the cuddly animal; the heart then equates animal and human life.

Abortion: How can you look at a sad 18-year-old who had unprotected sex and not be moved? What kind of heartless person is going to tell her she shouldn't have an abortion and should give birth?

The eyes and the heart form an extraordinarily powerful force. They can only be overcome when formulating policies by a mind and a value system that are stronger than the heart-eye duo.

With the decline of Judeo-Christian religions, the heart, shaped by what the eye sees (hence the power of television), has become the source of people's moral decisions.

This is a potentially fatal problem for our civilization. As beautiful as the heart might be, it is neither intellectually nor morally profound.

It is therefore frightening that hundreds of millions of people find no problem in acknowledging that their heart is the source of their values. Their heart knows better than thousands of years of accumulated wisdom; better than religions shaped by most of the finest thinkers of our civilization (and, to the believer, by God); and better than the book that has guided our society -- from the Founders of our uniquely successful society to the foes of slavery to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and most of the leaders of the struggle for racial equality.

This elevation of one's heart is well beyond self-confidence -- it is self-deification.

One of the first things you learn in Judaism and Christianity is that the eyes and heart are usually terrible guides to the good and the holy. " . . . Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after" (Numbers 15:39); "the heart is deceitful above all things . . . " (Jeremiah 17:9).

Supporters of same-sex marriage see the loving gay couple, and therefore do not interest themselves in the effects of changing marriage and family on the children they do not see. And since they venerate their hearts, the biblical ideal of male-female love, marriage and family is of no significance to them.

Animal rights supporters' hearts are deeply moved by the animals they see experimented on, not by the millions of people they do not see who will suffer and die if we stop such experiments.

Likewise, the hearts of the people who support PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are so moved by the plight of slaughtered chickens that the organization has a campaign titled "Holocaust on your plate," which equates our slaughtering of chickens with the Nazi slaughtering of Jews.

For 25 years I have been asking high school seniors across America if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority has nearly always voted against the person. Why? Because, they say with no self-doubt, they love their dog, not the stranger. An entire generation has been raised with no reference to any moral code above their heart's feelings. They do not know, and would not care if they did know, that the Bible teaches that human beings, not animals, are created in God's image.

So, too, those who cannot call any abortion immoral are moved by what they see -- the forlorn woman who wants an abortion, not by the human fetus they do not see. That is why abortion rights groups are so opposed to showing photos of fetuses that have been aborted -- such pictures might move the eye and the heart of viewers to judge the morality of many abortions differently.

It is undeniable that many people have used their minds and many have used the Bible in ways that have led to evil. And some of these people have been truly heartless. But not one of the great cruelties of the 20th century -- the Gulag, Auschwitz, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution -- came from those who took their values from the Bible. And the great evil of the 21st century, though religion-based, doesn't come from the Bible either.

Meanwhile, the combination of mind, Judeo-Christian values and heart has produced over centuries the unique success known as America. Reliance on the heart will destroy this painstaking achievement in a generation.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

This article is beyond silly. What is the point of picking one miracle in the Bible and saying that the people were high at the time. How would he explain all the other miracles in the Bible that was witnessed by all the people? For example the ten plagues in Egypt? Were ALL the Egyptians and ALL the Israelites stoned again?

Was the Bible a history of people who were high and stoned for 3000 years???

This doesn’t even begin to make any sense. If someone does not want to believe the Bible, fine. But to come up with these ridiculous explanations is ludicrous.

Hi Think,

Glad you are joining the discussion. ;-)

What do you mean by the natural trying to create the supernatural? Man trying to create G-d?

I particularly love what you wrote:

"We all seem to want to prove our philosophies of God. Why? Is that the love of God in each of us reaching out to creation. Is this proof of something? to see common threads in each other and follow the cord back to God?"

I couldn't agree with you more. Very nice! ;-)

Well I don't think we can say that G-d is made of matter and space. There is no way to know what G-d is made of. But pretty much everything else you wrote I would say that most religions agree with.

The tricky part is, do you believe that G-d has or does communicate with us? Do you believe that G-d is full of love and compassion and actively cares about each and everyone of us?

Jeannie,

Very interesting stuff about gravity. Thanks for posting it.

I think for the point of our discussion the issue is that we know as a fact that gravity exists and that won't change in ten years. We might learn new reasons WHY gravity exists or what its exact mechanisms are.

With evolution we are still in the process of figuring out if evolution (amoeba to man) happened. With the age of the earth we are still trying to scientifically figure out its age. The info that we have to date on those two subjects are primarily theory and not conclusive or testable to be called FACT.

SPQR,

The point that I am trying to make is not to disparage science and its process of creating a theory and then trying to prove it as true. I think that's great. What I would like is some honesty in this discussion.

Many of the great theory's such as the age of the earth and evolution has not been PROVEN. They are theory's and hypotheses, which is the nature of science, but they are not FACT. It is possible that we will discover something in ten years from now that completely disproves the theory that the earth is a hundred million years old. The age of the earth is currently based on extrapolation of materials that we assume has been stable for the entire period of time. Which means any kind of cataclysmic event or even stronger then normal cosmic rays can have wreaked havoc with the data and our assumptions.

That is very different from gravity which is proven FACT and won't be proven false in ten years.

For some reason the majority of people are not aware of this distinction and consider it FACT. That troubles me, simply because its an untruth.

Jeannie,

Why do you believe that Joshua existed? Why do you believe that the Israelites actually killed anyone? What are you basing those beliefs on?

Based on the Bible saying so. Yet you don't believe 75% of the Bible which talks about G-d talking to Moses and the laws and miracles He bestowed on the nation of Israel.

Like I said. It makes no sense to believe part but not all. It is all or nothing when it comes to the (Original (old) testament) Bible. I don't see how anyone can logically split it or pick and choose what to believe from it.

If one has questions or difficulties with parts - that's fair to question and to seek to understand. But to deny 75% and then say its cruel or other negative judgments is not logical.

Lonelyshorty,

It directly states in the Original (old) testament that G-d said not to light a fire on the Sabbath. It wasn't the priests - it was G-d will.