The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

By Far

June 6, 2006 | 26 Comments

What do I consider the most significant reward of nearly four years of blogging? By far, my association with kind and caring people like Ashli of the S.I.C.L.E. Cell, who made me and many others a proud part of this happy story. She reached out last fall to a stranger in need, stood by her for many difficult months and eventually brought her into her home. No post I’ve written has come close to accomplishing as much good — or ever will.


26 Responses to “By Far”

  1. Lily
    June 6th, 2006 @ 8:42 am

    You should be very happy and proud of the part you played. Ashli is an amazing woman and the joyful outcome of this particular story should be an inspiration to us all.

  2. ashli
    June 6th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

    tra, you and lily are MUCH TOO KIND. but thank you for your support. it has been a long, tremendously emotional haul, and i cherish the comfort of having good friends who care.

  3. crickets mommy
    June 6th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm

    I am crying as i write this..just seeing her face, overwhelmed by the love received from strangers who helped me keep going during the darkest days of my life, in order to bring my little “cricket” here safely. Your kindness saved her…it saved me. I owe so much to all of you and especially to Ashli. She held my hand from afar. She held us in her heart. She took me into her home and saw my youngest daughter draw her first breath. Someday my daughter will know, from my lips, what a miracle she is, Ashli is and you all are to me.

    We will forever thank you.

  4. Mister Swill
    June 7th, 2006 @ 1:07 am

    That’s wonderful. Congratulations! May “Cricket” live a long and healthy life.

  5. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 4:56 am

    I just now got around to taking a cursory look at Ashli’s story–which I got around to only because comments on all threads had reached one of those dead places, with everyone apparently out of breath, and this one remaining pitifully short on comments–only four in ten days. I didn’t inquire far into the story of Anonymous Mother & Baby Who, but I think I got the general picture.
    . First off, I should make it clear that I’m all out for people helping people–you helping Ashli, she and all others helping Anonymous Potential Mother, and even to some degree out for those who so eagerly awaited and aided the adoption of Baby Who. We humans have to stick together–together against each other if nothing else. And even when I strongly disagree with and disapprove of a person’s philosophy and actions, if the intention is to relieve or mitigate suffering, then I sympathize with the intent and I lay no moral blame on the perpetrator.
    . But, My God! [Please excuse the profanity.] Rather than abort a brainless, nerveless fetus, and knowing that she could not raise a child herself, this lady still opted (or was persuaded) to carry the embryo to term so that she could then turn its life and welfare over to strangers? Who is it in this scenario that is receiving “the gift of life”? The embryo did not ask for it. The Potential Mother could not tolerate it. But someone there always is who wants an itsy-cutesy baby to cuddle and mold. The “gift of life” is never to the cytoblast or to the embryo. They know nothing of gifts, have not asked for the gift, have no conception of “life” or “gift.” The gift is always and only to those who created the “gift,” or those who encouraged the creation, or–as in this case–whoever will accept and promise to pamper the gift.
    . Jesus Christ! [Pardon the ejaculation!] We have been inundated with such gifts, flooded by our fecundity, overloaded with itsy-cutesy babies that somebody either didn’t want or couldn’t feed. There are millions such now even in this, the wealthiest stinking nation the world has ever seen. But somebody didn’t adopt them soon enough, and they fast got to be snotty, scrawny little brats and weren’t cute and cuddly enough anymore for any pampered, selfish, gift-deprived American couple to be able to “love.” So they are share-cropped out to
    “foster homes,” one child here and a sibling somewhere else, and another brother or sister in a third “home”–and I can tell you, my caring friends, that very often they know not where their brothers and sisters are, and may not see one or another again for years–if ever. And this, my caring, embryo-saving friends, is because too damned many itsy-cutesy babies are being pumped into the system.
    . ‘Got another fifteen thousand dollars, anyone? I can show you where to make good use of it. I was reared in an orphanage. Lucky me! And that is not a sarcasm; nine of every ten children in this country (yes, even in our own vaunted country) would be fortunate to have had the childhood I enjoyed. Because it was a private and very special orphanage, and only
    accepted children who had no physical or mental defects or deficiencies. (Yes, even orphanages can be particular about which souls or which children they save!) I have since learned about many other orphanages, and as bad as some are, there are very few that commit that unforgivable sin of our national foster family system, which allows children who have already lost their parents to be further brutalized by rending them from their siblings!
    . I relate the foregoing as preface to this: As atrocious as our orphanages and our foster “care” systems are, they are semblances of paradise compared to the lives of a million other children, those who are dragged through the mean streets by mother or father who either love their children too much to surrender them to the unknown, or who do not know just how to safely dispose of them, or who need them for their own perverted purposes, children who are hungry every day, who get beaten and raped and brutalized beyond saving. And you are saving what? And these are merely a few American children I show you.
    They are a mere pittance of the world’s collection plate of tender morsels! And you are saving what?
    . Forgive me, my brother, my sister. I know you are well-intentioned. I ask only to be shown what valuable thing you are saving. Does hunger gnaw at its belly? Does it look pleadingly into its mother’s eyes, loving her, and seeing its own fear and hunger reflected in hers? Has it survived long enough to suffer the brutalities of the hungry others?
    . What is this thing you save? A mere gleam? A potentiality? Ah, perhaps it is a diamond of a sort, hyped by de Beers to the point of irresistability. -What? -A soul, you say? A tittle of the eternal substance! A donation of DNA from the Old One Himself! Sweet Mary’s cunt! [Forgive my blasphemy!] Why did you not tell me this to begin with? The suffering waifs be damned!
    . Oh my brothers! Oh my sisters! We are very much at odds, you and I. The world is drowning in souls. As fast as they can starve, as fast as they can be hacked to death or blown to bits by bombs, we cannot stem the tide. Yet you plead in courts and in the public squares for the salvation of every ovum that I and my horny hordes can fertilize. What a strange hobby you have. Entire species are vanishing from the Earth. Rain forests are shrinking, the very air becoming fetid with human breath. And you are saving what?
    . What more can I say? So much more–so much more! GOD DAMN!!!

  6. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 5:40 am

    But now that there’s another sentient being in the world, by name of “Cricket” or any other, I wish her a happy, long, and minimally destructive life, as I do for the least of you.

  7. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 6:36 am

    And I thought I was a misanthropist.

    It all boils down to where lines are drawn. I’m sure I could find people who see nothing wrong with killing toddlers for similar reasons. Hell, I’ve come accross sites advocating mass suicide to save the Earth. But this planet would be worthless without a species capable of understanding worth.

    Sure, we are overpopulating this sphere. Yes, we fail to treat it and eachother with compassion. But there is a much simpler solution than ending someone’s life functions: stop fucking so damn much; or at least learn how to screw without getting so drunk that you forget how reproduction works and dump your load into/recieve a load from someone you don’t want to raise a child with/hate with all your might. It feels great, it makes babies. It really is that simple.

    You mention that an embryo or newborn doesn’t ask for life, that they haven’t the ability to understand gifts. Following your logic, nobody should have ever have been “carried to term” (allowed to live). I don’t doubt that orphans and foster children are given the short end, and I’m sure there are countless unfit parents treating their offspring like shit. But if you think that abortion is going to fix that, look around.

    Actions end in consequences. People will always try and find ways to get out of responsibility, regardless of what it takes. Why not wait until we know they aren’t going to be adopted? Wait until they become “snotty, scrawny little brats” then execute them. How about baby farms where any crop left long enough to “spoil” is turned into fertilizer for the next?

    I realize you aren’t advocating killing people after they pop out of someone else (location, location, location). I’m just pointing to similar solutions to the “problem” of life.

  8. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 6:50 am

    I’m hoping that’s the sort of post you were begging for.

  9. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 8:08 am

    EK, I don’t know what could have prompted you to peg yourself as a misanthrope. I am not a misanthrope. Though that may not be obvious to you, it’s obvious to me that you are not. It is because I care about the suffering of all sentient beings that I rail against people’s stupid priorities. Stop fucking, EK? You jest–surely you jest! You apparently acknowledge the fact that we’ve overpopulated the planet. Good–but you need to look further into the matter. We reached the first billion population just over 200 years back. At that time, how many miserable people would you guess were in existence. What figure would you estimate of today’s 6½ billion? If it’s the suffering that matters, is the suffering of two billion more to be lamented than the suffering of only a few hundred thousand? Or is it the survival of the vaunted human race you think more important? Why? If every planet in the cosmos were a “dead” one, who would care? What difference would that make? Keep thinking, EK. Keep thinking!

  10. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 8:10 am

    I don’t beg, EK. I provoke!

  11. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 8:47 am

    I’m a misanthropist to the point that I become upset with humanity BECAUSE of the suffering. I think it was on Wikipedia that the editor pointed out that some who are placed in that category love people, they just hate what most of them end up doing. Of course, Wikipedia is known for being inaccurate.

    The stop fucking comment is like telling a 600lb man to stop eating. He of course needs to eat, and we might as well make it delicious, but if he keeps eating as much as before the whole town is going to be stopping by to watch as the coroner removes the wall of his house to extract the corpse. The point was that it is easier to prevent pregnancy than to scrape the resulting development off the uterus wall.

    Of course I think the less suffering the better but, as I pointed out, abortion isn’t the ideal form of population control. We have had abortion in the U.S. for a few decades now and things keep growing. Infertile couples are using fertility drugs and in vitro to pump out sextuplets instead of adopting (arguably those sextuplets will inheritly be infertile, go through the same process, as will their sextuplets [thats 216 in a few generations! Worst case scenario.]). Gay couples aren’t allowed to adopt. Kids aren’t being taught proper sex education. People have kids they don’t want in order to “fill the emptiness” or save their marriage. And you are upset about RA and SICLE’s behavior?

    I don’t think that abortion should be criminalized or made less available, I just don’t see how it is the ideal course for fixing our (humankind’s) problems. If a woman believes it can fix her personal problem, it’s her decision.

    “I don’t beg, EK. I provoke!”

  12. physics teacher
    June 19th, 2006 @ 9:34 am

    EK said,”But this planet would be worthless without a species capable of understanding worth.”
    was the earth a worthless place 100 million years ago when humans had not yet evolved?
    I thing life of anykind is worth something.
    Life was on the Earth long before we human got here and I’m happy to say it will be here long after

    If you had a churh and and would speak to the masses, I would be glad to be one of them
    May Newton himself smile down(or up)opon you from where every he is.

  13. Lily
    June 19th, 2006 @ 10:10 am

    Thorn: What have you got against line breaks?

  14. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 10:27 am

    Physics T, I’d not want to incite some congregation to reinstitute the sport of the stake or such.
    EK, abortion won’t noticibly dent the population problem. If we could develop something that could be sprayed from planes, that could be promising. And by the way, I think the U.S. pop. has actually fallen to just below the replenishment level, something like 1.9 children per couple. I think I’ve met a few of the point-nines.

  15. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 11:37 am

    “I thin[k] life of anykind is worth something.”
    That was my point, without you here to think of it’s worth, it’s just creatures bumping into eachother. We aren’t much better off, but at least we know it.

    Spraying a sterilizing solution from a plane would get rid of that overpopulation problem and in 100 years, no more humans! Maybe that would encourage cloning or mind-to-computer transfers. Hmmm…tough one. I guess I’m game. Bring on the planes!

    At times, I think I’m one of the point-nines.

  16. Lily
    June 19th, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

    Y’all still buying into the over-population myth?

    Almost all of Europe is below replacement level; we are barely above; Japan is way below, etc. It is a huge demographic problem and one of the reasons the Europeans have a real problem knowing what to do with their muslim immigrants. They need them badly (someone has to do the work and pay for that hugely expensive welfare state) but the immigrants don’t want to assimilate, etc…

    It is an interesting problem and various countries are scrambling to find solutions. The French have even taken to outright bribing French women to have a 2nd child. Too little too late, I am afraid.

  17. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

    Yeah, the world’s population grows exponentially just because of China and India. Damn mathematicians and their lying numbers. We need more babies! Drive your hummer more! Eat more corn!

    Nobody is claiming that the entire planet is packed like sardines, there are more people today than there were tomorrow, and there will be more the next day. People are living longer. People are cheating infertillity. Over-population is an eventuallity. We can worry about it now, or wait until our grandkids are fighting over bread crumbs.

    I don’t see how under-employment proves the numbers are a myth.

    Oh well, we all know that Lily hates mythology.

  18. diogenes
    June 19th, 2006 @ 1:03 pm


    Maybe the future is not so catastrophic, depending on how technology evolves, and how we solve the energy problem, but it seems to be that the worst have passed at least in terms of population growth. If we don’t kill each others with guns or carbon monoxide, and bible’thumpers don’t prevail in matters of birth rates; maybe we can balance resources and population. Two big if’s of course, but as you very well know, it’s easy to predict things except the future. In my view, on a general basis, life is better now for most or the people than, say, 200 years ago, at least if you see life expectancy. See here:

    As an atheist I use to think tat as long as you have your skin you have hope. Once you lose it, you are at the mercy of Lily’s god, who never appears when you need him. I, like you, was an orphan and had a happy childhood, but I always knew I was very lucky. It is a delight to read your posts.

  19. Lily
    June 19th, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

    Sigh. There is so much information out there that you would have to be deliberately trying to avoid it not to find it.



    Here is one from UNESCO


    Here is one from CBS that is a little more optimistic than most:


    Are all of us crazy? And no, I love mythology. I love facts as well.

  20. EK
    June 19th, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

    So, according to the CBS one, there MIGHT be 88 million less people in Europe in 94 years “if the mortality rate stays constant”. But we see the mortality rate decline as technology advances. And the rest of the world is growing (maybe not the EU or Japan).

    I hope you are right and the population boom we’ve been seeing for the last 2 centuries is slowing to a halt.

    Your sources seem to be at odds with eachother on the numbers, timeline, and seriousness. I’m not sure what the “deliberately trying to avoid it” is about. CBS is the only one of these sources I’ve ever gone to for news, and they only talk about Europe. Global over-population is the problem we were discussing. And I think we were aware that industrialized nations have been slowing their growth rates as of late.

    Any chance I’ll see a response in the “decent and honest” comments thread?

  21. Lily
    June 19th, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

    Yes! There is more than a chance. If I am not smacked dead by a semi on my way home tonight, I will, fer sure, post something this p.m.

  22. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 4:02 pm

    Referring to population pressures as “myth” seems rather disingenuous. Is the 6½ billion figure a part of the myth? Every nation strives to increase its productivity in order to increase its relative wealth and power, and increased productivity generally requires some increase in population. Every community of any size does likewise, for much the same reasons. Is this demand for ever-increasing popular an indication that the planet is underpopulated? It’s a false argument. The U.S., which has a lower population density than most countries, can no longer adequately maintain its national parks, thanks to a constant assault by vacation homes, SUVs, trail bikes and snowmobiles that an increasing affluence enables an increasing number of people to acquire. Population pressure cannot be measured in mere numbers of people, but by the number of people who’re demanding the available resources. Among many other indicators I think a gross overpopulation of the planet is evidenced by the big trucks that’re gouging huge wounds in nearly every rain forest on the globe, by the near depletion of many of the world’s prime fishing grounds, and by the looming threat of serious conflicts over energy resources. There is a common illusion, and long prevalent in prosperous societies, that the end of widespread starvation and disease is just around the bend. Horsefeathers! The proportion of miserable people in the world population has been fairly constant for most of modern history, and was probably no greater under the Roman empire. The great difference is that the actual numbers of the miserable are now enormous, and the concentrations now vulnerable to famine, disease and human atrocity are ever more immense. You may call it population myth; I call it population madness. There is no solution, of course. Human beings will begin to behave rationally when pigs learn to fly, or when Jesus lands his space craft at Cape Canaveral. In the meantime, let’s be fruitful and continue to multiply.

  23. physics teacher
    June 20th, 2006 @ 8:02 am

    Lily, please read collapse by Jared Diamond.
    it’s not just about overpopulation, its about standards of living and the environmental costs of that. when China reaches the same standard of life we have in the states it will dubble the resorces taken from the earth, that means twice as many trees chopped down, twice as much fish from the seas, twice the CO2 put into the air twice the land needed to grow food. twice the mines to get minerials and metals.
    what will happen when the same thing happens to India, or the rest of the third world
    Lily PLEASE READ Collapse

  24. physics teacher
    June 20th, 2006 @ 8:04 am

    Lily, please read collapse by Jared Diamond.
    it’s not just about overpopulation, its about standards of living and the environmental costs of that. when China reaches the same standard of life we have in the states it will dubble the resorces taken from the earth, that means twice as many trees chopped down, twice as much fish from the seas, twice the CO2 put into the air twice the land needed to grow food. twice the mines to get minerials and metals.
    what will happen when the same thing happens to India, or the rest of the third world
    Lily PLEASE READ Collapse

  25. Thorngod
    June 20th, 2006 @ 8:21 am

    Physics T–Jared D’s “Collapse” is a work everyone should read, a fascinating look at prior and present-day societies, some wise, some very foolhardy. It’s one of the most rewarding reading experiences I’ve ever had. Lily is a smart lady, but she seems to read a hell of a lot of theology and theosophy, and I doubt she’ll take time to do a thoughtful reading of a book like “Collapse.”

  26. Lily
    June 20th, 2006 @ 11:35 am

    Oh dear. Diamond’s Easter Island ecocide theory has been thoroughly debunked. See

    and Science 10 March 2006:1360

    Have you read The Sceptical Environmentalist? It is well worth reading.

    Thorn Now you have gone too far. Theosophy??!! It is pistols at dawn for you, buster. Theosophy! Great jumpin’ Jehosophat…

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links