Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions.According to the story your god murdered all of humanity sans eight, that is much worse than any claim you are making about others. He also murdered every living thing along with them, thinking people understand who is more evil, your god or Hitler. Hitler doesn't come close.
God did not murder them. He is the giver and taker of life. You are His creation and He has the right to do with you whatever He will, yet He never punishes the innocent. If He takes an innocent life He restores it. Thus, we see Jesus restored to life.
That is the difference between you and God, you do not create life in and of yourself, nor do you restore life after death (for the righteous) and in a better place.
God is not evil. He has given you over to the desire of your heart, to do what ought not to be done, but you understand that when you do wrong you are answerable for it. In a materialist/atheist universe there is no justice for Hitler and those (like in the days before the Flood) who do wrong. In your atheistic universe, there is no justice for the crimes of Hitler. In your universe, the crimes that people get away with every day, that sometimes result in the death of millions, do not always get addressed. Where is the justice there?
Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.You expect me to believe the justification invented by the IPSS for your god's evil, puuuuuuhlease.
Believe whatever you want. You will anyway. If you want to be wise you would heed His warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions.Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.Niether Stalin nor Mao were 'destroyed' and Hitler was more noted as a fascist than a socialist!
After the Flood, God promised He would never destroy the earth again as He did with the Flood.
After the Flood, God took a people (Israel) to make Himself known to the world. Israel agreed to live according to the covenant/mandates God decreed (Exodus 24:3, 7) and to show how holy and pure in nature God is. After revealing the inadequacies of these people to live according to that covenant He judged them and then He set up a new and better covenant to restore a relationship with Him. So, for those who trust in Jesus Christ and acknowledge who He is, our punishment for sin has been covered and atoned for by Another. For those who do not live by faith in Him, they will answer for every wrongful action with their own merit or lack of it once they physically die. Thus, He is not interacting in the same manner as He did in the OT and during the theocracy employed in Israel, yet sin is still judged.
***
You could call Hitler that but the party was a socialist party. You could argue that fascism is a more extreme form of socialism.
"Fascism and Socialism are two schools of thought that show some difference between them when it comes to their principles and concepts. Fascism is an authoritarian, nationalistic political ideology. On the other hand, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either owned by the state or owned commonly but cooperatively controlled. This is the main difference between the two terms. The difference that arises at the core idea of fascism and socialism makes them two whole different ideologies. However, if you put that fact aside, you will see that both fascism and socialism are ideologies where strict rules are applied to the members of the society."
(Bye-bye freedom)
Mussolini was a fascist.
"Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). The nickname is based on the first two syllables (as pronounced in German) and was already current in 1923 in Bavaria.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
There is no compassion in an evolutionary process.Only that brought to it by humans and that is what frightens you, death is death.
In your worldview, death is the final curtain. There is no fear of death for those who trust God. As I get older though I realize how fleeting life on earth is. It goes by quickly.
It just shows the grim realityYes it does, but it's only grim if you refuse to accept the reality. It is a fantastic reality filled with opportunity. Opportunity wasted on a god fear.
Then enjoy yourself. From an evolutionary perspective, nothing really/ultimately matters but you can make it matter for a while and deceive yourself. You continually borrow from my Christian worldview when you make it matter.
Good can mean whatever those in power want it to mean.To you apparently but not to me. I determine what is good, I'm a human.
What you call good is not so with abortion. It's all based on feelings and preference for you can draw no reference to an absolute or ultimate standard. As you say, you make it up, and when your idea conflicts with someone else there is war, greed, strife as the greater imposes their "good" on the weaker. So, your standards are no better than Hitler's.
Relativism is what wars are fought over because two different cultures or leaders cannot agree on which is the actual good. They have no means of determining this without a necessary Being since standards shift and change.
You deceive yourself by thinking a woman should have the right to kill another human being. What is good about that? It is a selfish thing to kill your own offspring. What if that human being were you, would you still feel the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions.Nobody mentioned injustice you were discussing the greatest mass murders and completely ignoring your mythical god's mythical flood. Carry on.
Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You firmly believe that you have more right to every woman's body than they have, you do realise that that is insanity.
You misrepresent me. Where have I ever stated I have a right to a woman's body?
What I have argued is that the woman's rights should not exceed the rights of the unborn by causing its death. What is discomfort for nine months as weighed or contrasted to death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How is that? What documentary evidence have you presented? All you have done is make assertions. Let me see your facts and then we will discuss them.Scandinavia proves you wrong but don't let reality impinge on your indoctrinated fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Although the unborn receives it nutrients and support system from the woman's environment, it has everything within itself to develop and grow what it is.So therefore abortion will make no discernible difference to it and you have no argument, unless you're lying.
By growing into what it is I mean that it will grow into the person that it is, so I don't understand your point at all.
What is it that you are trying to say???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Kind of like a smiley face or grin.What does (^8 mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
The Middle East Parasite VAMPIRES who invented and promote...the JEW GOD...JESUS GOD..ALLAH GOD...are all at war with each other...all 3 disagree about the only GOD that matters....all 3 use and abuse each other to gain POWER and CONTROL over weak minded individuals...all 3 totally undermine any other GOD perspective...yet all 3 cannot be RIGHT...the fact is THEY ARE ALL WRONG...
God has given humanity a progressive insight of Himself. The NT follows from the OT and is a fulfillment of it. This can be adequately demonstrated via Scripture.
You have created a false analysis by stating "they are all wrong." That does not necessarily follow. One religious view (Judaism, Islam, or Christianity) could be right/true and the others still have truths that are confirmed by the others. The OT is the common factor all three religions borrow from. Judaism does not follow the OT commandments of animal sacrifices or the priesthood laid down by God as the mediator between Him and them. The NT gives the reason for this. Until you understand this relationship I don't think you will properly understand the prophecy.
No human needs the Middle East GOD construct to exist and die....the Church-Temple CULTS need the humans to survive....without human slaves to serve the CULTS there would be NO CULT of any consequence.....just a bunch of ignorant insecure humans without brainwashed slaves to serve them....
The biblical God is not a construct and you are welcome to the soaked up atheistic groupthink opinion (since we are using emotive and ad hom language).
Anyone who is so mentally degraded to the point of surrendering their FREEDOM to think and reason critically over this Comic Book Garbage only proves how powerful the HYPNOSIS JESUS/ALLAH PSYCHOS truly is....they are SLAVES of the Church- Temple- Mosque programming...SADtruly PATHETIC....Ok go pray now for SALVATION....fall on the floor and shake like the imbecile you have been brainwashed into
Nice ad hom argument! Really strong points! Well done!
it is TRULY AMAZING that anyone in the 21st century would fall for this RELIGIOUS VOMIT....where are any of these IDIOT GODS ?
More garbage.
ANSWER : Between the pages of Bible-Torah-Koran COMIC BOOKS and then BETWEEN the EARS of totally HYPNOTIZED and BRAINWASHEDhuman sheeple slave drones of very clever PARASITE VAMPIRE CULT practitioners.....FOOLS ! utter FOOLS....pray now...confess...beat yourselfinto submission....for YOU...are a BORN SINNER CRIMINAL....the Bible Comic Book says so....
Brilliant argument! You really backed it up with sound logic, pure facts, and indisputable proof!
No animosity there!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
ALTERNATIVE to the JESUS-JEW-ALLAH God inventions ? EASY.....First....do the right thing.....= relegate the Middle East (human invented GODS) Jesus-Jew-Allah immediately to MYTHOLOGY where they can joinwith Zeus-Odin-Thoth-+++ to many GODS and so called "Divine Entities" to list...for entertainment purposes only.....
And replace the biblical God with what, your subjective relative views? Is that the alternative? Shall I bow now?
OH, by the way, .... what happened to all of the other GODS from 6000 years before JESUS showed up...and why isn't the JEW GOD of MOSES sopissed off at this nonsense he shows up himself and sets humanity straight ? BECAUSE IT IS ALL A HOAX...THEATER....a JOKE....
What other gods? Do you mean human inventions?
What makes you think that the other ancient accounts of creation and the Flood that are told are not corrupted from the original and God inspires and charges Moses with giving the true account? Have you taken that into account?
These false gods demonstrate they are false. God allows this deception for a period of time to demonstrate this impotency.
Through history, God chooses people and then a nation to make Himself known to the world through and through that people, He promises the Messiah, the Savior, who will restore a righteous relationship with God lost by the Fall. In the meantime, He demonstrates that humanity cannot live a righteous life without sin in showcasing His relationship with Israel. He promises He will make a new covenant and judge the unrighteousness with the destruction of the Old Covenant which happened in AD 70 and the destruction of the city, temple, and ritual economy.
So 6000 years of civilization is wiped out...the calendar is reset and this boy GOD "JESUS" HOAX becomes the GOD of GODS !...this white jewish boy...SON of some ILLITERATE JEWISH VIRGIN TRIBAL GIRL ! (what a joke) ...a baby human form GOD ! is the only one that matters !
Again, all your highly charged language used to discredit this testimony by over forty different authors through a period of over 1500 years all centered on very specific and unified themes, one of which is the type and shadow of Jesus on almost every page of the OT, all this denied and tunneled by your opinion. Why should I believe you? How well have you investigated the Bible? How well do you understand its prophecies? How do you explain prophecy away?
YES ! .....he is for those who are hypnotized and brainwashed to believe this HOAX stunt !
Or the brainwashed hoax you are creating in denying your Creator is another alternative.
"JESUS" ?.... creator of billions of GALAXIES and TRILLIONS of WORLDS going back in time 14 billion years...shows up on EARTH ...14,000,000,000..... years later..... to help some lunatic illiterate tribe in a remote desert.... to get their act together and stop murdering each other in his name ! OK forget MYTHOLOGY just flush this CRAP down a TOILET and forget.......
That is your worldview bias coming through, not mine. You assume the earth is 14 billion years old based on secular humanistic reasoning. You assume that the present is the key to the past, that what we see in the present is as it was in the past. That is your assumption, not mine. You assume that ANE culture was one that would accept them in their lands. All you have done here is assert and assume. Support your allegations and I will discuss them if I am able.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
God never takes an innocent human life without restoring it, or else He would not be just. And I can back up my claims with biblical text too.The difference between God and you or me is that if we take an innocent life we can't restore it. God can. All life is His to give and take. You only have a brief time span on earth.We do not have the right, under God, to take innocent life - Thou shalt not kill.How it is wicked to take a life and restore it to a better place?How do you get billions of fossils all over the earth? How does fossilization take place? If animals die on a plain do they fossilize? Usually catastrophic conditions like mudslides of animals encased in mud and pressurized produce fossils. What catastrophic conditions do you ascribe to fossilization?There was no better place when the flood happened, right? The afterlife is a new testament concern.
It was OT too.
Daniel 12 (NASB)
The Time of the End
12 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”
The Time of the End
12 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”
So it's never right to kill? Let's play a game then. You are a man with a gun. You notice a child walking into a maternity ward. You see this child is wearing a suicide bomb, and a crucifix necklace, so he might be Christian. You can kill him and save others. Do you?
I said it was never right for human beings to kill other INNOCENT human beings. You misrepresent my statement.
This is the lesser of two evils argument, granted the child is innocent and has been forced to go into the hospital by someone with evil intent.
If animals are buried under volcanic ash on a plain they can fossilize. You're getting out of your depth. Are you about to question the scientific methods of dating beyond carbon dating? I'll save you the time. Where did all the water go?
True, they can, but my point is that it is through catastrophic events that this happens. The Flood is a catastrophic event.
Do you believe these billions of fossils all over the world met that volcanic fate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You should be good because you're a good person. Not because you think you're getting a reward. Or that you will avoid being punished. That would make you a person of integrity. And there are far more of those than there are bloodthirsty atheists waiting to take over your life, you coward.
Good in whose eyes, whose standard? What makes what you call good actually so - because you say so? Who are you? I can't earn salvation. It is a gift given by God. You can't earn that. How would my being "good" measure up to His perfect standard, His pure and holy nature?
Even though you deny God, you live by some of His standards and you borrow from His standards when you think of good. People believe it is wrong to steal, to murder, to lie, to covet something that belongs to someone else, to commit adultery, yet they neglect the most important commandment to love the Lord your God. Instead, they smear Him and make Him out to be a villain. Then they wonder why they are ignored by God and bad things happen. What happens is that God gives them over to the desires of their heart in doing what should not be done.
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them...21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;..28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;..28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
So, look what happens...God's gives you over to what you want. He says okay, reap the rewards of your denial of me, then see where it gets you.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions...
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not properYou sow what you reap, as Jesus put it because you do not seek God with all your being. And how can you believe in Someone unless you believe He exists?
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
[1] The problem is people like you who THINK there's some magic afterworld are the ones who say things like stem cell research is immoral, genetic therapy is an affront, etc. etc. [2] for no other reason than it continues to shrink your god's power and cedes it to people like me. [3] People who say "Wow, it sucks that you're dying of cancer, but I'm going to do research until I figure out a way to make it slower. Or make it better. Or eliminate it. Or research pain management drugs that will let you feel less as it ravages through you." YOU would tell these people "God gave you that cancer. You should thank him, and hope you're righteous enough that after he devastates your family, you get to go to heaven to be with the guy who gave you cancer. In fact he didn't just give it to you, you know all those kids with it? Yeah, them too. [4] But thank him on their behalf when you get there, and tell him to forgive the parents who are mad at him for killing their baby. OH, tremendous pain you're in right? That stinks. [5] Why take the medication? Just pray and it'll go away. And if it doesn't, t's just Jesus testing your faith, so if you waiver, get ready to burn in hell forever unless you decide right at the last second to kiss up to him again, then you're fine. Probably." That Christians think they have the market on comforting people who are in their last extremity is fucking offensive. [6] Lying to someone about a party they're about to die and go to? Reprehensible. Also, do any Christian comfort folks ever tell the dying "You might be on your way to hell for all I know, maybe nothing you can even do about it?" Are all dying cancer patients going to heaven? Give me a break you pompous ass.
[1] And it is people like you, who don't know if there is an afterworld yet tell everyone there is none that a Christian would say is deceived. One thing is certain, one of us is deceived.
[2] It does not shrink God's power. You are delusional if you think Someone who is omnipotent and unchanging can lose power?
[3] There is a reason for cancer, for death and decay. It is called sin, rebellion from God. It is the consequence of humans rejecting God and His guidance. It is humanity thinking they know better than God (and what a mess). And the inhumanity of human against human, how do you explain this moral evil if it is just our biological make-up working in whatever way they are programmed to work? What makes that evil or bad or wrong? Nothing. What makes the genocide of Stalin, or Mao wrong? What makes the suppression of Kim Jong-un on his people wrong? He is doing what he deems necessary for his survival and for a luxurious survival at that.
What death does is it makes us think about our temporary existence and the MEANING of life. Since the Fall we have thought about this meaning. We see meaning in everything we do and all that is around us yet you refuse to acknowledge why there is this meaning that our consciousness seeks out.
Ultimate, your worldview has no meaning to life. You are just a biological accident, and you just make up something because you like it, then you are gone, and no one cares (two generations down the line) about you.
[4] God does not take innocent life without restoring it. You, on the other hand, cannot restore life if you take it; a life created in the image and likeness of God. It is not the Christian who does not recognize the intrinsic value of every human life but the materialist. Life is so cheap that since Roe V Wade over 1.5 BILLION human lives have been snuffed out. Where is your humanity? Why are you not lending your voice to the most innocent in their defense?
[5] God has given us minds to worship and discover Him. We discover ways to improve our lives because of the reasoning power we as humans have. We learn of our environment and what makes us special through what has been made. God told humanity to tend the earth and gave us dominion over the earth, but He wants us to act responsibly with what He has given us. Greed and exploitation are not what He had intended and there is a time when we will answer for our wrongful actions and pay the penalty (either by our own merit of the merit of Another). So life is designed to that end in mind, a choice of either seeking God or seeking self and selfish pursuits.
[6] Either it is you or I that is lying. I claim you are the one who is deceiving other and can't make sense of existence, consciousness, morality, the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The fact that it is so, a product of human evolution, means that it's fallible (if in fact it were authored by an infallible being, no one would ever disagree on matters of morality because it'd be codified and clearly so). It doesn't matter that I exist to anyone who isn't directly in my circle of people, and it won't matter when I'm dead to anyone outside it.
You are wrong.
Since you have volition and you disregard the biblical revelation as a revelation from God, and you have no fixed measure, no unshifting starting point, how do you ever get to best? Do you just say, "This is best!" and someone else says, "No, this is best!" and they both contradict each other. Logically they both can't be true. When you have two contradictory beliefs regarding the same thing (best) both CANNOT be right or true. So which one is it? You do not have the necessary starting point to argue that one is best. If you don't have a best then how do you measure better or evil? It all becomes a preference enforced by those in power. What makes one system of thought any "better" than Hitler's system of thought? Nothing unless there is an objective standard we can appeal to, otherwise values and morality are meaningless. They can mean anything. The Law of Identity (A = A) is not met. Good can mean whatever those in power want it to mean.
This is where you get really aggravating. What hope do I have to offer someone dying of cancer? None, and if you were honest, you don't have any to offer either.
No, I have hope and I can offer it. I am being honest. What is your standard for honesty? Your worldview can't offer hope for someone dying of cancer without lying to them. You borrow from the Christian standard to comfort them. There is no compassion in an evolutionary process.
You admit you cannot offer such a person hope. It just shows the grim reality of hopelessness and despair from your worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Now, let's look at how reasonable us thinking Chance is why we are here. Can chance reason? Does it have intention? How does it sustain anything? Why should something happen, and continually happen, and why do we find meaning and reason for things in a chance universe? Why does every human being have some idea of morality and how do you make sense of morality from a material or secular humanist position? What does it matter that you exist and what will it matter when you are dead? What hope do you have to offer someone dying of cancer? Why should I be "good" as you define "good?" Why is your view of right and wrong actually "right" or is it? Who are you that I should believe your subjective, relative finite mindset and what you have to offer?Chance is not an agent. It's math.
Precisely. So, if Chance is not an agent how does anything happen?
Also this is a red herring question, [1] no one says chance can reason [2] nor does our ability to reason have anything to do with the truth value of a universe or existence by chance. It's not a why, either, it's a how. Chance doesn't sustain anything, but again no one says that either.
I asked the question since reason is derived from chance happenstance in your worldview.
[1] Exactly, Chance cannot reason yet if reason does not originate from a necessary Being it must originate through random (chance) processes. Demonstrate how. If, as you say, Chance cannot do anything (which I agree with, since one definition is a mathematical probability) then you have a problem describing a universe that as no agency or intent to it. It explains nothing. It just begs the question.
Also, since there is no reason for the universe (reason requires reasoning being) why do we constantly find reason in the universe, precise reasoning that we use mathematical equations to explain? If there is no sense to the universe because it was not created by an omnipotent, reasoning, and logical Being, then why do we keep finding reason in everything we analyze?
[2] The truth value? Truth value requires conscious, reasoning beings and yet you keep finding truths about the supposed chance universe. As many have pointed out, it is almost like we are thinking Someone else's thoughts after Him!
Since Chance is just a mathematical probability is has no ability or capability to do anything. It is a word we use to describe something we do not understand or what we deem the likelihood of something happening.
But the question is how do reasoning beings come from chance happenstance?
And why? Your worldview cannot explain the "why." It just wants to pontificate the "how" and even there it lacks the certainty to KNOW. It complies views that change over time as we learn more about the universe through our reasoning and inquiry into WHY things work as they do. With a new discovery, the paradigm changes.
The laws of nature are wholly sufficient to sustain the universe, adding something else that's not demonstrable into it demands an explanation.
Laws? How do we have laws if there is no lawgiver? If the universe is a chance happenstance then why should things remain constant? There is no reason they would or should, yet they do. What should that tell you? So why do you have these laws of nature without conscious agency and intent is not logical, is it? It does not compute.
Morality has been answered repeatedly, it's evolutionarily hard wired into any social creature.
It is not explained. If we are just biological functions and our "behavior" is governed by our genetics and the environment, then why should what I do be good or bad? It is just what has been determined by my genetic make-up and when a person murders another person all that is happening is a response to the specific genetic make-up. Why is the good or bad? Where is the free will here?
And how do you get a "best" without an absolute, unchanging, objective standard or reference point? Why is your relative standard any better than any other relative standard?
Look around the world. Whose moral standard is LOGICALLY the right or best standard? Is it the standard that says and legalizes abortion or the one that bans abortion and says it is wrong? Why was Hitler's Germany morally wrong if you can't point to an absolute and fixed reference point, a final measure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How is punishing the extreme wickedness described an injustice?The story by necessity includes him drowning countless babies (I presume you're an anti-choice guy, so aren't they all innocent lives?)m and since animals can't murder (as you are fond of pointing out), then it stands to reason no single animal is wicked, yet this all powerful god, who theoretically could just have 'deleted' the bad actors, chose wanton destruction. I don't know how you see it another way. I mean provided I take your meaning correctly and you somehow believe a global flood covered the entire earth for 40 days.
Yes, I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.
God never takes an innocent human life without restoring it, or else He would not be just. And I can back up my claims with biblical text too.
The difference between God and you or me is that if we take an innocent life we can't restore it. God can. All life is His to give and take. You only have a brief time span on earth.
We do not have the right, under God, to take innocent life - Thou shalt not kill.
How it is wicked to take a life and restore it to a better place?
How do you get billions of fossils all over the earth? How does fossilization take place? If animals die on a plain do they fossilize? Usually catastrophic conditions like mudslides of animals encased in mud and pressurized produce fossils. What catastrophic conditions do you ascribe to fossilization?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Ah, you recognize you are being childish! That is the first baby step! Congratulations!Nice roast.
A mild ad hom in response to a massive onslaught. (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#180 --Again, it boils down to what the unborn is and the value is put on that life. That is the key to the debate.0} keep your immoral, virtual rapist{?}, religous Trumpanzee nose *v* out of the pregnant womans bodily business, unless she gives you her consent.Do you understand that? No. I didnt think. I think were dealing with an inbreeding problem with PGA2.
Again, you do an injustice to yourself by attacking me rather than making your case against my arguments. It just goes to show others that you do not have adequate retorts, thus you focus on me rather than my arguments. You ridicule me, not my position, calling me immoral without sufficient proof, a virtual rapist for defending the innocent unborn human being, me, a person who IYO, is incapable of understanding, while you give no suitable rebuttal to justify changing my position, and then make it even more personally insulting by attacking my heritage.
1} unborn ergo human being that, has not taken its first IN-spiration,Do you understand this distinction between unborn-inside pregnant woman ---see #2-- and born-out? No? I didnt think so. Inbreeding problem is bigger concern for humanity.
More ad hom arguments, portraying me like an imbecile and inbreed instead of addressing the argument.
What does inbreeding have to do with abortion?
So, you believe it is okay to kill human beings, you just make a distinction on which ones. If it is okay to kill one group of human beings why is it not okay to kill another group, or do you believe it is okay to kill other groups?
2} fertilized-egg/zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is an organism of the pregnant woman....and let me repeat that for any inbred people reading this
The unborn is a separate organism, a human being, different from the woman. It lives within the environment of the womb and receives its nourishment and life support from the womb.
More insults underlined which show you have made this personal and you are being very petty in that you can't treat the argument on its merit alone. You have to malign my character also.
.....2a}fertilized egg/fetus/baby is an organism of the pregnant woman.... Now open your closed narrow mind for evidential data to support my oppinion"Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo.
Again, you poison the well by making it seem that it is my mind that is not open to the facts but you fail to look at your own mind.
So what if an interaction takes place. You interact from your environment too and rely on it for your survival. Does that make you less human?
Again, so what? The unborn interacts with its environment and gets what it needs from its environment just like you do. Does that make you or it less human?
4} keep your immoral, virtual rapist{?}, quasi-religous, Trumpanzee nose *v* out of a pregnant womans bodily concerns, unless she gives you consent to stick your virutal rapist{?} nose *v* in there. Do you understand? No?
My virtual nose is not in her body. I am raising a moral argument against abortion, one that you have not sufficiently responded to.
Then let me repeat in case your apparrent inbreeding is holding back your intellectual development.
Off topic but prove I was inbred.
5} keep....your....immoral........virutal rapist{?} .....quasi-religious..... radical extremism..... and Trumpanzee..... nose *v*.......out of....pregnant womens....bodily business.......unless...they.....give....you....their.....consent....to stick...your.....nose *v*........there.
Nice repetition! What are you trying to say???
6} Do.....you....understand......any....of....the....previous.....comments......above?
Not in relation to the argument on abortion. How is attacking me making a case for your position? It just makes you seem childish, IMO.
7} This is the umpteenth time Ive repeated them for you. I will not continue this ridiculous immature childs mind play with you much longer.
Ah, you recognize you are being childish! That is the first baby step! Congratulations!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How is punishing the extreme wickedness described an injustice?Then your god is a greater murderer than anyone. Thanks for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Socialist Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world, game cancelled for lack of opposition.
And the negative effects of socialism are being felt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I see you've given up on your spurious and ignorant claims, it's time to run away again golfer. bahahahahahahahaJust BTW they've been socialist for decades, I told you before get an education but you continue to get only propaganda.
It is obvious to most who has the bogus argument, and it is not me. And their socialism is causing problems that have been brewing for decades.
And you can't refute my argument so you run off crying to mummy that I won't let your lies stand. Oh boo hoo.
Typical tactic of leftists - cry, make an emotional and fallacious appeal to pity, and try to turn the tables into false charges when it is them, not me, who avoids the issue by continually attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela?You've had these countries pegged as communist for years, as a godist I understand your desperate need to keep moving the goalposts but I'll just continue to replace them where they belong BECAUSE they make your arguments look stupid.
Communist is some cases, socialist in all. The point is that if you think that socialism works, take a look at its track record. If you want such a system in America you fail to recognize how such a system of big government destroys a society over time. If you think that life is better in a socialist country try experiencing one. I lived in two, one for 14 years, the other for a year.
I see a danger with leftist liberalism that propagates and leaves the masses thinking they will be better off under such conditions as they want to impose when it never works in the long run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
In order for you to get to this growth you must first reject the woman's right to bodily autonomy, who gives you that right?It is not a "growth" but a human being.The remove it and let it live as a human being.
It needs the nutrients the woman supplies. That does not make it less of an individual human being.
You are using dehumanizing language to make the unborn less than what it is. Hitler used the same tactics with the Jews and others he considered undesirable. It resulted in the extermination of around 11-12 million people - those deformed, people of color, mentally challenged, those that opposed the State, and Jews.How many Godwin awards do you have on your mantelpiece?
How many do you have and what does this have to do with abortion? It is completely irrelevant to the debate on whether all humans have intrinsic value or how devaluing humans has resulted in their deaths way too often.
Why should someone have the right to kill an innocent human being? That is the question I want you to answer.No one has a right to kill another human being but that is irrelevant to the question at hand. That question is what gives you a right to interfere with the autonomous control of a woman's body?
There, you said it - no one has a right to kill another human being. You have just destroyed your own argument. The woman is complicit in killing another human being.
So, as a human being, I have a humanitarian obligation. Pro-lifers give their voices and stand for the rights of the unborn human being to live and not be treated with less value than other human beings. It is just common decency to protect those who are innocent and need protection.
Why should the woman have no consequences for her sexual promiscuity?Good ole christian punishment applied exclusively to women, why don't you burn her at the stake, misogynist. Carrying a fetus fullterm is now punishment. hahaha. Is it that god that claims to be LOVE punishing her. You people disgust me.
What is disgusting is that you think a person has the right to kill another innocent person, one who has done nothing wrong. Where is the love in that? If a wrong is done then just punishment should be the consequences. Burning at a stake is not just or humane. It is as barbaric as killing the innocent unborn.
So, what outweighs what - an inconvenience and discomfort for nine months or termination?A woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs your misogyny.
So, you are saying that putting an end to an inconvenient pregnancy allows murder, that it is okay to kill other human beings because they infringe on selfish bodily autonomy at the expense of another. You confuse my stance as the misogynistic one. It is you who are spewing forth this venom that takes no account of the right of the innocent forming human being. Abortion is a selfish act. It denies another human being the right to live - the most basic human right of all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins
....
Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1965 attempted to redefine “conception” to mean implantation rather than fertilization, medical dictionaries and even English language dictionaries both before and after 19665,6 define “conception” as synonymous with fertilization (sometimes via the intermediary term of “fecundation”).7,8,9 Moore’s 1974 edition of a human embryology textbook states that development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm and ends at death. It is a process of change and growth that transforms the zygote, a single cell, into a multicellular adult human being. Moore’s 2008 edition emphasizes that development does not end at birth but extends into early adulthood.1 Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, Dr. C. Ward Kischer, affirms that “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).”11 Even authors who philosophically lean towards not attributing the same value to human life at the one-cell stage as they do to later stages of development admit that “As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”
...The single-celled embryo is a very different kind of cell than that of sperm or oocyte, and contains a unique genome that will determine most future bodily features and functions of his or her lifetime...
The single-celled embryo is a very different kind of cell than that of sperm or oocyte, and contains a unique genome that will determine most future bodily features and functions of his or her lifetime...
It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.***
Your position goes against scientific evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So this separate human body can be removed from the woman's body without detriment then what is your argument.No objection if that were the case.It must be the case given your definition that this group of cells is a separate living human being, separate living humans beings do not require the support of the internal functions of another human being. Hence abortion will have no effect on your mythicak definition.
Congratulations. Arguments!
Although the unborn receives it nutrients and support system from the woman's environment, it has everything within itself to develop and grow what it is. The 23 chromosomes it receives from each parent forms the code that works internally in its development. Whether its environment is in the womb or outside it still needs basic supplies for life.
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.
“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”
Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136 “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”
Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)
“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”
Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99
“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum
anda much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
***
So, as you can see, human life begins at fertilization where a unique INDIVIDUAL human being starts to grow into what it is. Thus, the woman is complicit in murdering another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Refute the fact that since socialism the economies are in decline.I didn't read that propaganda but I did see the word Nordic used which tells me that the author is pig ignorant or a pathetic liar or both I lob for the latter. Refute the FACT that the socialist Scandinavian countries have a better lifestyle than anywhere else in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Right so you can't refute the fact that the Scandinavian countries are so much better than yours and the yanks so you post some meaningless irrelevant twaddle that I didn't read, stick to the subject.
You only see what you want to see. You are not open to anything that objects to your extreme point of view. Thus, it is a waste of time since instead of an argument all I get is a statement without facts (opinion).
I can list socialist government after government and demonstrate the social evils of such a system.
If you like socialism so much why not try living it in North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
As opposed to what - atheism? So far the 20th-century has been the bloodiest on human record. Look at the ideologies of those who perpetrated the worst inhumanity during that century. They were secular humanists or those who did not live according to a Christian standard.You seem to have forgotten your mythical flood.
The Flood was not mythical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So this separate human body can be removed from the woman's body without detriment then what is your argument.
No objection if that were the case.
In order for you to get to this growth you must first reject the woman's right to bodily autonomy, who gives you that right?
It is not a "growth" but a human being. You are using dehumanizing language to make the unborn less than what it is. Hitler used the same tactics with the Jews and others he considered undesirable. It resulted in the extermination of around 11-12 million people - those deformed, people of color, mentally challenged, those that opposed the State, and Jews.
Why should someone have the right to kill an innocent human being? That is the question I want you to answer.
Why should the woman have no consequences for her sexual promiscuity? It is a throwaway generation. When two people engage in sex there is a possible consequence that should be considered. If they don't want offspring they should use contraception to avoid pregnancy. If she gets pregnant she should look after the unborn and nurture it. If she wants she can put it up for adoption once it is born, but to kill it is a crime against humanity.
So, what outweighs what - an inconvenience and discomfort for nine months or termination?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
"Socialism has never worked, and will never work – period. It is an immoral system placing social justice above individual justice. It is a system that relies on liberties being surrendered to the state and forces people, against their will, to contribute to the collective, completely dismissing self-determination and personal responsibility and, in the process, increasing negative social consequences...
The Nordic culture is founded on working hard and taking responsibility. The welfare state, since it has been implemented, has gradually been destroying that culture. An example of this culture is being destroyed is evident when comparing Nordic people living in the US to their cousins living in the Nordic countries. There are about 12 million Nordic people living in the US, more than any population of any individual Nordic country. The Nordic American population’s forefathers were the poor and starving, so they left for America...
(The author of “Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism” does argue that welfare isn’t necessarily a bad thing when it is associated with small government – systems where there are low taxes and those taxes support basic education and basic healthcare, not the current system which traps families in welfare dependency.)
The advocates who use the Nordic countries are right about the successes of the Nordic countries but attribute this success to welfare and completely dismiss the culture of those people. The social success of the Nordics all predates the welfare state – high lifestyle, the low child mortality, low poverty. So to argue that those social successes are a result of the welfare state is to cite a result before the supposed cause. (Another reason social outcomes are becoming less favourable, is the increasing amounts of immigrants in some Nordic countries, who do not possess the culture necessary for success, becoming trapped in welfare dependency at the expense of the productive, contributing members of the society.)
The Nordic people are not oblivious to the negative impacts of the welfare state and for the past 2 decades have been turning away from democratic socialism by introducing market reform, lowering the generosities of the welfare state, lowering taxes and moving towards greater individual freedom and a more market based economy. There are 5 (prominent) Nordic countries, 4 of which have centre-right governments which are doing market reform. (Only Sweden has a social democratic government and Sweden has never, in modern times, been as weak as they are today. Even their socialist government is doing market reform.)
To use Sweden as an example, prior to the first socialist democratic government, Sweden had the highest growth rate out of all countries in Europe. From the late 19th century until about 1970, they were very much pro markets, economic freedom, and minimal government involvement. Sweden’s socialist government from 1970 to 1991 attempted socialism and it failed dismally. Sweden recorded the lowest growth rate in Western Europe, and post 1991 introduced market reform, tax cuts, welfare cuts, which resulted in massive growth allowing them to have the second highest growth rate in Europe, with only the UK being higher during this period. Prosperity grows during economic freedom and is hurt when moving away from this freedom."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Socialism, as we see it around the world, exploits peopleDo you mean like the Scandinavian countries who all have a higher standard of living than any other country. Get an education.
Yes, even them. Scandinavian countries are finding out the socialism isn't the panacea they thought it would be. The level of lifestyle is declining since socialism was put in place in these countries due to the cost of big government. Many think it also gives the government more control than is desirable.
Main Component of Socialism
"The main component of socialism is redistribution of wealth. Many historical examples have shown this to have a negative net effect on society. The most dramatic example of this in the modern area has been the country of Sweden. Swedish citizens pay nearly half of their wages in taxes. The promised benefits are free education, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare. There are few people who could argue that these goals are outrageous. It is a natural human reaction to offer aid to the suffering. The capitalist answer to the economic challenges of others is charity given at free will.
However, a close examination of the effects of these programs reveal that:
“Right now more people than ever are on welfare. In 2008 Swedish newspapers reported that mentally ill children were being housed with violent, mentally ill adults due to lack of funding. Another major problem is work absenteeism. There is a growing concern that Swedes are faking illnesses to reap the benefits of the extensive medical leave program. Some economists believe that Sweden’s brand of socialism is fundamentally flawed. While it works well in the short term, it can lead to disenfranchised consumers in the long run. The more taxes the government takes, the less people are willing to spend in a consumer market, which leaves the government to prop up those flagging industries, creating a vicious cycle in the economy.”
--Rodgriguez, L.
In the United States programs such as social security have had similar effects as the Swedish economic system. According to heritage.org, social security has an average rate of return of 1.23% while low risk IRA and bond investments would give a return of approximately 5% each, W. W., & Davis, G. E. (1998, January 15).
In the United States programs such as social security have had similar effects as the Swedish economic system. According to heritage.org, social security has an average rate of return of 1.23% while low risk IRA and bond investments would give a return of approximately 5% each, W. W., & Davis, G. E. (1998, January 15).
Friedrich von Hayek, (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), wrote a book titled, “The Road to Serfdom”, published in 1944, in which he convincingly argues the role in socialist governments. The end results, he proclaims, fail and end in tyranny and oppression. In the book, Hayek refers to America’s shift towards a socialistic society as “creeping socialism”. He discusses the threat of state control over the means of production.
Hayek believed that excessive governmental controls on society did not deliver on their promises and that their ideology actually delivered unfortunate and hopeless economic results. He proclaimed it produces a psychological change in the character of the people in that man's desire to better himself is what drives him to succeed and also improves the way of life for those around him. According to Hayek, socialism strips man of his desire to succeed. In Marxism, which is pro socialism, argues that capitalism is what results in no creativity in labor and alienation from own human potential. The effects of socialism in America can still be felt today."
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Does the Woman have the Right to Choose Whether or not the Unborn Lives?As I keep telling you, you don't address the topic at all.The woman has bodily autonomy first and foremost, there is no fetus without the woman therefore her rights are paramount, you wanting 50% of the human population to be subservient to you is just mental masturbation.
Not just the woman. The male contributes too.
You do not have bodily autonomy to kill someone else, except in self-defense yet you think the woman should be able to kill her offspring.
Again, it boils down to what the unborn is and the value is put on that life. That is the key to the debate.
You can't argue that it is not human unless you go against science.
You can't argue that it is not living. Science does not back you up.
If you want to argue that all human life is not of equal value then why should I value your life or you mine? Do you want to go down that road?
Why do you think it is okay to kill other human beings based on whether or not a human being is wanted?
As pointed out in a previous post, there are four qualities that make it different than you or I (SLED). I don't think you can argue logically that these four qualities apply to it specifically, like size. If you want to disqualify it on its size then you get disqualified on anyone bigger than you. Should they be able to kill you because of your size? If you say it is not as developed, then the newborn girl or boy is not as developed as the adult. Should society be able to kill them also? If it is the environment that disqualifies the unborn then what about other environments. Should a difference of environment disqualify you or I from life? Or what about dependency? Does someone that depends on someone else make them less valuable and disqualify them from living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
"GOD" a human invention....used to HYPNOTIZE and abuse other humans into slavery and servitude ofsome imbecile who plays the character...
I love it, the seething anger and from a misunderstanding of the biblical God and the slavery or servitude as opposed to that of other ANE (Ancient Near East) cultures.
these pathetic creatures are mentally deranged and use their "GOD" like a toy to punish all who do notaccept the absurdity of their stories....like a young child attempting to convince everyone that SantaClaus is real....the child does not have the ability to think and reason critically...mommy and daddysay santa is REAL ! ....and they can be trusted ?
As opposed to what - atheism? So far the 20th-century has been the bloodiest on human record. Look at the ideologies of those who perpetrated the worst inhumanity during that century. They were secular humanists or those who did not live according to a Christian standard.
When you boil it down to basics there are only a few positions to come from regarding origins,
1. We are created,
2. We are here by accident, or,
3. The world is an illusion, or for the desperate,
4. Who cares.
I believe it boils down to two - God or chance.
Now, let's look at how reasonable us thinking Chance is why we are here. Can chance reason? Does it have intention? How does it sustain anything? Why should something happen, and continually happen, and why do we find meaning and reason for things in a chance universe? Why does every human being have some idea of morality and how do you make sense of morality from a material or secular humanist position?
then at some point in time the child no longer BELIEVES the story.....and learns that just because othersBELIEVE in something it does not mean they have to.........This is the TRUTH of these horrifically OBSOLETE and IDIOTIC "GOD" inventions..they are like thesanta Clause construct .....they are nothing more than a metaphor .......to be used as an example for 'learning.
And what is the point of atheism?
What does it matter that you exist and what will it matter when you are dead? What hope do you have to offer someone dying of cancer? Why should I be "good" as you define "good?" Why is your view of right and wrong actually "right" or is it? Who are you that I should believe your subjective, relative finite mindset and what you have to offer?
But the REAL TRUTH is these "GOD" constructs are used as tools of DECEPTION...used to HYPNOTIZEweak minded humans (like the child) into servitude and slavery of the Parasite Vampire that got betweentheir ears...and planted a CANCER of the neural network....ultimately eating away the curiosity and desireto explore and discover with an open mind ....
There is only one God. I am with you in your idea of the rest. But why is it you who have the REAL TRUTH? Who are you that you know it, in and of your own being or have you elevated yourself, a human being, to the place of God determining the REAL TRUTH?
How open is your mind? How molded to a particular worldview is it?
Reduced to a thoughtless and brainwashed slave drone...the child/adult is now under the spell of someParasite Vampire that sucks the energy from their being... leaving them as an empty shell in human form...paralyzed and convinced they are hopeless born sinning criminals....who must be punished and sufferfor even existing....both in life and death....Middle east "GOD" Jew-Jesus-Allah...the greatest disgrace ever invented by humans for power and control
Not a shred of evidence, just your opinion.
Now you have mine!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
The child is restless...it's Christmas Eve and.......Santa is coming ! bringing gifts and
candy !Then as it gets later in the evening the child begins to doze off ...eventually retiring for the evening inanticipation of the new day to come .......and it comes !and under the tree are GIFTS !the same construct is used for the JESUS HOAX....= waste a lifetime praying, begging like a dog for salvation.....YOU are a "born Sinner" a criminal ...the fact that you exist is a disgrace....you must repent-confess-surrenderyour mind and life to servitude.....ask not...think not..OBEY..and do as you are told....condemn all who do not acceptyour "GOD" they are the enemy.....and must be punished.....
And what is your alternative - is it Judaism, Islam, some other gods, or a secular materialistic worldview?
Let's see how reasonable it is. List your poison and in the meantime, we can discuss why believing in Jesus is not unreasonable.
Go now to ISRAEL and demand that all convert and OBEY the CHURCH......the Church is "GOD"the JEWS and MUSLIMS must be condemned....they follow a false "GOD" go save them !
Christianity is based on the Jewish Scriptures, or what Christians call the OT. It is based on the fulfillment of everything promised the Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#147 It is something most of us do when others trash us.Trash talk?1} your immoral religous fundamentalist -- truth ---,2} your immoral Trumpanzee fundamentalist --- truth---,3} your immorally stick your nose *v* into any and all pregnant womens body without their consent, --truth---,4} #4 above is a virtual rapist{?}---truth---,5} people like you should be Locked Away from a moral civilized society ---truth---.
How tolerant of you! Thank you for your high, lofty opinion devoid of hate and animosity! Very civil!
Golden Rule VariationsThe golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- hasa common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if therewere any other rules with such commonality e.g,
Not golden for the unborn, is it?
Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution withcompassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes ofhumanity or its distinct tribes. "
How are you seeking fairness and justice for the unborn, the ones that need our support most of all human beings?
Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgivenessby humans takes time.
Forgiveness from God depends on the merit of Jesus Christ.
Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure ifany animals other than humans practice this concept]
It is just, for what is equal justice but to receive equal compensation. It is not compassionate, however, and the New Covenant shows the compassion of God in forgiving others as we have been forgiven and even overlooking an offense against us.
Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not havethem share with you."
Nice made up rule by you!
Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to allhumans, does not neccessitate chaos."
Again, derived by you!
Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe Here Now
Do not understand this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#146 Who are they to decide?Who are YOU to decide what a pregnant woman does with her body? Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so.
I have no objection to what she does with her body as long as it does not affect someone else. If someone decides to use their fist (their body) to beat you in the face should you have any objection to them doing so if you have done nothing to deserve the fist?
Keep your virtual rapist"?} immoral nose *v* out of womans body.
It is not I who am being immoral here.
First prove to me that the unborn is not a human (something you have already stated that it is) and then that all humans should not be treated equally (then you should have no objection when someone treats you as scum, nothing more than an inconvenient blob and decides to "terminate" you).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#142 That is what you are doing, YOU are devaluing human life.1} NOT and independent/individual human being that has been born-out,
Tell me what is the difference between an unborn human being in the woman's womb and a newborn human being or an adult human being outside the womb?
There are four main differences according to some.
1. Size
2. Level of development
3. Environment
4. Level of dependency
SLED
Why does size make it less human? The newborn or toddler is smaller than a fully grown man and not all men are the same size. Should we be able to kill someone based on how tall they are if we want to, the taller getting to decide if the smaller lives?
If a girl is not as developed as a woman reproductively should we be able to kill the less developed girl?
If my environment is different than yours should you be able to kill me?
If a young kid depends on its parents to sustain it and the parents feel like they don't want to look after it any longer, should they be allowed to kill it like the woman decides to do with the unborn?
2} taken its first IN-spiration to become and actuall ---not virtural--- viable independent/individual human being.
No, you are wrong. Its first inhalation does not determine what it is nor does it make the newborn independent or an individual. It was already an individual before birth and it is just as dependent on others for its life after birth as it was on the woman before birth.
3} even in cases of some independent/individsuals adult or not, if that individual is not viable on its own then relatives ex spouse can have the bioglogical life terminated.
Then you believe that you can kill your newborn because it is not viable or independent yet. After all, it is your biological offspring, it is not viable and it is not independent. What crazy thinking.
...3a} your immoral attitude will not allow termination of human being irrepsective of all other considerations, begining with;
Why end with the termination of one class of human beings, like the unborn? If you do not regard them as valuable then why not "terminate" all those you do not think are valuable? After all, you are making the distinction of terminating a HUMAN life that you do not value. And what if someone wants to terminate you on the same reasoning; is that okay?
It is not my attitude that is immoral.
........3b} fertilized egg > zygote > attached to uterus > etc > born-out and viable individual/independent breathing, think and living a life that relatives{ spouse } are legality left to decide wether that life is worthy to live on irrresepective of time, effort costs etc.You lack moral and intellectual integrity because your a immoral relgious fundamentalist Trumpanzee who also lacks intellectual integrity. DO you understand any of the previous? NO? I didnt think so :--(
Where do you get morality from? Do you just make it up and label what you like moral, or is there a standard you are using that is independent of your own subjective FEELING and preferences? If so, what is that standard and why is it objective, universal, unchanging, and absolute? If it doesn't meet such criterion then what makes it better than any other standard such as ones that oppose your standard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#142 It is in her body but it is a separate body connected to the woman.1} Yes the fertilized egg{ zygote } fetus/baby etc is in her body, so when are you going to get the truth - fact that you are an immoral virtual rapist{?} for sticking your nose *v* into the woman bodily business? Not?
It is in her body but it has a body of its own. It is its own being, separate from her being, even though it relies on her for its nourishment and protection. When are you going to understand this truth?
How am I immoral in standing up for the rights and dignity of the most helpless, innocent human beings on earth? How is the woman being moral in denying it the right to life, the most basic of all human rights? How is the woman being anything but selfish in deciding to destroy her own offspring, made up partly of her genetic make-up?
You need to understand the argument more fully. Here are a couple of links:
With the last link ask yourself what is the difference between the unborn and the newborn or another human being? There are four differences explained in the video.
2} it is organ of the woman that is nourished by pregnants womans reproductive organs,
No, it is a separate organism, and a human BEING, that depends on the woman for a brief period of its life. Yes, it depends on the woman for its nourishment - so does the newborn.
3} is not seperate independent/individual human being, and,
It is separate from the mother. It is not the mother/woman. It has its own genetic code that differs from the mother/woman. We are all dependent on others in some senses. No one is totally independent.
4{ has not been born-out of pregnant woman,
You were there once, so what? How does that make it less human?
5} has not taken its first IN-spiration, and,
You mean inhalation, right? Does that make it less of a human being?
6} is not a viable independent/individual human being, until, at minimum has taken its first IN-spiration.
Neither is the newborn viable in the sense that it is helpless. It depends on others for its life needs, just like the unborn.
Do you understand any of the previous? No? Typical of radical religous and Trumpanzee fundamentists.
I understand them all. I have heard these same arguments many times before. What is more, I have read and own books on the subject. I have taken the time to understand the issue and weigh it out.
None of you have moral or intellectual integrity in these regards specifically. SO once again take a hike and dont come back until you address my comments as stated, with moral, rational logical common sense integrity/ Do you understand? No? I didnt think so.
Already addressed although you have not understood because of worldview bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#142 Although it exists in the woman's body that should not give her the right to kill another human being.Yes it does give her the moral and legal rights to kill a human being who is not;1} and independent/individual, that...1a} has taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen/breath,
1. So why should you end it there? The newborn is not INDEPENDENT.
You are giving her the legal right to kill another human being. Why not you? Why not her newborn who is just as helpless as the unborn in the virginal canal? If she ignores it and does not feed the newborn it will perish also.
1.a. How has it changed other than its environment one minute before birth as opposed to one minute after? is it any less alive one minute before? What does taking its first inhalation have to do with what it is? Does it have to be "inspired" by oxygen for it to live? If I hold my breath should you be able to kill me?
...2a} is inside the womans body,........2b} nourished by and dependent on the specific body functions of womans reproductive organs ergo an orgnasim of the pregnant woman until,..........2c} the fetus/baby has been born-out{ birth } and has taken its first IN-spiration.
2.a. Does being in the mother's body make it less of a human being? On what grounds?
The change between the unborn and the newborn is one of an environment. It's environment changes after birth. So what? From your environment, you get what you need to survive - food/nourishment, shelter. From the womb, it gets the same. It should get love and care as well. Why do you deny the most innocent human beings basic human needs? What has it done that is wrong? What wrong has it done to the woman? It did not choose to have sex without protection. It did not choose to be conceived. The woman did not take precautions in most cases. It is not the villain but the victim.
2.b. No, not an organism of the pregnant woman but a separate BEING dependent on the woman for a period of time, just like the newborn is dependent on the mother for NOURISHMENT and shelter and its life.
2.c. Yes, the BABY, the HUMAN BEING. What was it one minute before birth? Was it a chimpanzee or a blob? Show me scientifically if you do not recognize its humanness before its birth of what it is and explain to me why you feel it can be killed (murdered) without consequences before birth if you understand it is human.
So keep your immoral friggin virtual rapist{? } nose.....[Delete for emotionally charged content and for not addressing the issue but instead using language to attack me]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I take a pragmatic view - there will aways be cases where a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy. Where they are illegal, a black market will spring up.
Pragmatic - what works. It doesn't work for the unborn.
They are legal or illegal because those in power make them so, but are they moral???
My intuition is that early abortions are not really problematic but late abortions are highly problematic from a moral point of view! I am very uncomfortable with very late abortions and I would support making it mandatory to bring a foetus to term beyond some point, say 32 or 28 weeks (I'm not an ebryologist to be precise about it!). That is not incompatible with my support of abortion on demand for early abortion!
You still have not addressed my issues, however.
Is the thing growing in the woman, from fertilization/conception onward a human being? It is alive? When does life begin? If it is alive, what is it? Is it something that is different than the woman?
If you don't know the difference then should you be condoning the woman killing it at any point in its life because it is unwanted? Put yourself in its position. Would you like someone making the decision to kill you because they did not think you valuable? I don't think you would like it, just like you don't like it when someone does not treat you with respect. The pro-choice are not treating this unborn with any respect.
Should all human beings be considered intrinsically valuable? If not then what is your objection for someone selecting to kill you because they do not see your value or because they have devalued you to subhuman or non-human?
Abortion in most cases is insanity.
Science says it is a living human being from conception and if it is a human being then is it immoral to destroy it on the whim of the woman, no matter its size, since you are speaking of its size and level of development when you make a distinction of 28-32 weeks.
So, please answer these two questions, if you would:
1. Is the unborn a human being from conception/fertilization onwards?
2. Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Should you trash talk mustardness back?
It is something most of us do when others trash us. But, if you don't point out someone doing this and show the fallaciousness of such trash talk the other person tends to get away with doing this, without their bias being addressed. What you do when you address his personal attack is lead others to focus on what he is doing. He is not addressing the issue. He has made it personal and now he is trying to malign you instead of addressing the issue and proving his points are morally and logically justifiable. Disgusted uses the exact same ploy. There is a sense of victory when someone can't respond to your arguments other than to call you names. It shows they do not have a strong position.
And just pointing out a position as not logical does not necessarily mean I am attacking the person. I don't know the person, except what they reveal about themselves in their threads. But all worldviews have a way of looking at the world and the question is of whether that worldview can make sense of the world. So I continually point out that their worldview does not. When someone describes a point of view it reflects on their inner convictions. I challenge them to make sense of the inner convictions as sensible.
I value the worth of each person because I see them as made in the image and likeness of God. That does not necessarily mean I think their worldview is logical or valid. I don't. I point this out to them and challenge them to do the same with mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
...no morally better than the Nazis in their devaluation and dehumanization of human life. The reason I say this is because they [nazis], like the pro-life crowd, do not treat all human beings as intrinsically equal but discriminate,I think you meant pro-choice crowd, not pro-life crowd?
Very true! It should have been pro-choice. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
The question is whether a foetus is 'intrinsically equal' to a human being. I don't think there is one answer to that - it depends on what 'equality' means. When we say 'all men are created equal' we don't mean all men are physically identical; in that context 'equal' was probably meant to mean all men should have the same social and political rights.
Okay, is the unborn (from conception) a living human being? Or is it some other kind of being? IOW's what is growing in the woman's body? It is a human life or another kind of life? Is its genetic make-up the same as that of the woman once fertilization takes place or just part of the woman's DNA? Science says it is uniquely different than the woman. Do you disagree with this, and on what scientific basis?
What equality means is whether ALL humans should be treated equal and the law applied equally to all, or should we be able to devalue, discriminate, dehumanize, demonize, some as deplorable and worthless? Once you say the latter what prevents some group in power of devaluing your net worth?
True, we don't mean that they are physically all equal but whether they should all be treated as equal and able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Do all human beings have equal legal rights? No, the unborn is just one case in which some human beings are not treated equally in worth and rights. Would you like that same discrimination to be done to you, or would you like to see the principle of equality applied to all? I'm interested in your response.
Whether a foetus has an equal right to life as as a human after their birth is not a matter of fact but a matter of human choice.
So, what makes the human choice a "just" choice? Because someone can legalize it? Who are they to decide? What makes their moral choice any better than any other? I would argue with relativism that nothing does. Thus moral relativism does not work. It explains nothing regarding what is good and right for everything is relative, subjective, and subject to shifting to the opposite, like with abortion. Once, not long ago, abortion was considered a moral wrong. So, there is something that just does not fit, logically. That is the Law of Identity has been violated. "A" no longer equals "A." "A" can now equal "B" or "C" or "D." A dog is no longer a dog, but it now becomes a cat or duck or tree. Do you see the futility of such views as Relativism? Meaning becomes anything. You need a "Best" or final reference point. Which human being do you feel gives you that point of view? You? What is necessary for such objective, absolute, unchanging moral values (rather than subjective, preference, for without such absolute values that is all you have)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do not misrepresent me. I have discussed this issue many times. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy.You have never discussed the issue, which is all women's right to bodily autonomy. Your fantasy of murder is just an excuse for the ridiculous religious beliefs inculcated into you by the IPSS, just superstitious claptrap.
You are slandering me again. This is a total misrepresentation of what I have stated in the past. I can cite several examples, including in my debate:
Does the Woman have the Right to Choose Whether or not the Unborn Lives?
What is the woman choosing to do? Unless Con can prove that the unborn is not a human being, the woman is choosing to take the life of that being.
What argument is sufficient in taking this life; the argument based on dependency, or that the unborn is not a separate human? Alternatively, is it the argument based on its level of development, or that the mother has the right to do with her body as she desires, and she does not want the human in it?
What kind of humanity allows the right of a woman not to be pregnant at the expense of eliminating a human being during pregnancy? It is the kind that does not see human beings as intrinsically valuable. It is not the kind of humanity that is livable because the principle then can be turned on any class of human being once one class is deemed unfit. This principle has been applied unjustly to many classes of humans through history.
Why does the innocent unborn human being not have the right to live? It should have the greatest right since it has not done anything wrong.
Why should one class of human beings (the woman) have rights to life and another (innocent unborn human being) be denied those same rights? Which right should be more fundamental, the right to abort or the right to life? Which position should be more fundamental, to remain pregnant for nine months or the right to terminate that unborn life? Which position is more responsible, to take precautions if the woman does not want a child and is sexually active, or if she gets pregnant to then look for an abortion to take care of the situation? Which is more selfish, to guard the unwanted unborn life to term or eliminate it? Which is more permanently harmful, to eliminate an unborn human being or safeguard it to term?
The law exists to protect a person’s most basic rights, but not in the case of the unborn. Protecting basics rights is common sense that is no longer so common.
Abortion, IMO, is the worst kind of child abuse, for it results in the violent taking of innocent human life. Provided are pictures [7] of an unborn after being ripped apart in the abortion procedure (Warning: Graphic violence, not for children). The question is why anyone/a woman would allow this except her life was threatened, and there was no other choice?
The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomyThat is completely the issue, your pathetic misogynist beliefs are just that.
No, the issue is whether the unborn is a human being and whether human beings are intrinsically valuable. If not then don't complain when someone degrades you and decides to put you to death because they don't find you or your group valuable. That is the kind of discrimination we are dealing with here. It is a matter of life and death to the most helpless members of humanity.
I have come to see your complete myopia on this and other topics. You can't understand because you are so highly emotionally committed to a specific ideology. Nothing gets through even when your point of view is logically shot down. That is the level of your indoctrination, IMO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Thank God that in #127 and #133 you at least, not refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over and over.Your beginingg to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.This is 4th time youve done this. Please learn how to use,
More pathetic name-calling and avoidance of the issue. Typical liberal tactic. Why don't you learn something about your liberal indoctrination?
Your ideas of the worldview do not represent what is really happening. You are immersed in a cultural war that you do not understand because you are unaware of what is going on. You fail to see the greater harm of such a worldview because of your indoctrination. You seem unaware of where your liberal ideology is taking you and your country. Look at Venezuela and all other socialist states. Learn a lesson. Recognize the Black Swan exists. Do you want to understand the consequences of your ideology when it is too late?
Abortion is another Black Swan. The culture changed with Roe V Wade in regard to the sanctity of human life for the unborn.
1a} rational, logical common sense,2a} along with truth - facts and,3a} stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business,4a} as you have no moral or legal rights to do so.Do you grasp even one thing in all of the above ive stated to you? No? I didnt think so.The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
You are equating "attached to the body" as the same thing as being part of the body. This is not necessarily logical conducive and not true in the case of the unborn human being growing within her body.
If all human life is valuable then it is of great concern and worth of what the woman does to the unborn. Once one goes down the slippery slope of degrading once class or group of human beings they leave the door open to doing the same with other classes or groups of human beings. This was demonstrated with Hitler and the Nazis during WWII and the period leading up to the war. It is demonstrated in cultures throughout history such as Apartheid in South Africa, slavery in the USA and the Caste system in India. When a group is devalued it is dehumanized to the point of death in many cases. But when someone treats one human being as not intrinsically valuable they tend to do that with others. Life is not held high but it is on the road to despair and despondency.
1b} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
More trash talk.
Deleted the rest of your BS since it has nothing to do with the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The fertilized egg is floating down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attach to the lining. So what?Please use your moral integrity checkerIt is truth - fact that it is,1} produced by woman and a gift from the man,
TRUTH - It is not a part of the woman once fertilized but its own entity with its own genetic make-up, different than that of the woman's genetic code.
2} only exists inside the woman. and she has property rights to what is inside your body so keep your friggin nose *v* out of her body business as this virtual rape{?} by you and other immoral Trumpanzees,
Wrong again. It is you who are being immoral. Although it exists in the woman's body that should not give her the right to kill another human being. The womb is its environment. If my environment is different than yours that does not give me the right to kill you or vice versa? Until modern science, no human being could exist if it does not start its development inside the womb. Abortion has become a genocide, the greatest murdering in the history of humanity to date. Since Roe v Wade there have been over 1.5 billion human beings killed.
It is no longer the woman's body but the start of a new growing body within itself.3} Yes it is intimate part of the womans body, its processes and belongs to the woman, truth - fact, get over it and keep you friggin virtual rape nose *v* out of her body business,
It is in her body but it is a separate body connected to the woman. The womb is its environment where it gets its nutrients and life-sustaining ingredients from. IT is developing from within itself as its genetic code dictates. Its genetic code is not the womans genetic code, only shares part of her code.
.........."Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo. Human oviductal cells are known to secrete growth factors, cytokines, and other embryotropic factors (ETFs) that enhance and support the development of the pre-implantation embryos.59, 60 Oviductal cells may also affect gene expression of the pre-implantation embryo".......
Yes, so what? This does not make it part of the woman's body. It has its own body. It relies on the woman for its development and protection. So does the newborn.
Since fertilization, it is different than before. It now contains both chromosomes from the male and female. It is now its own entity, with a different DNA code, different blood, different genetic make-up. This zygote is a unique and separate individual human being.Unique human being that is never seperate from the woman. It is in the womans body the whole time of its development stages/phases and nourished by the woman in fallopian tubes even before implanation in uterus, so keep your friggin nose *v* out of the pregnant womans body business as that is virtual rape{/} by you all other immoral Trumpanzees.
Your argument has morphed. You called it part of the woman's body. Now you have made the distinction of being in the woman's body. Progress!
As for the rest of your mudslinging, what does that have to do with the issue of abortion? Once a person stops defending those who are most innocent and need the most protection because they can't yet speak for themselves life is devalued. That is what you are doing, YOU are devaluing human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
presenting minimal facts and not addressing the issue at hand,This is you. You have never addressed the issue at hand which is the right of a woman to her bodily autonomy.
Do not misrepresent me. I have discussed this issue many times. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy.
The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomy but whether her bodily autonomy infringes on the rights of another's bodily autonomy, that of the unborn, and that of whether the unborn is a HUMAN BEING. What about it? Is it human and is it another body she is destroying? Pro-lifers completely ignore these aspects in their uncaring which shows they do not value all human life equally (but would they feel the same if they were put in the position of being dehumanized, devalued and destroyed?). Those who treat the unborn this way and are aware of it are no morally better than the Nazis in their devaluation and dehumanization of human life. The reason I say this is because they, like the pro-life crowd, do not treat all human beings as intrinsically equal but discriminate, slander, and destroy those they oppose on their legal whims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Thank God in #127 you at least nor refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over. Your beging to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!
Please use spell check.
Another tactic by the left - accuse the other person of being the one who is unfactual while presenting minimal facts and not addressing the issue at hand, which in this case is whether the egg is part of the woman after fertilization or an entirely new entity.
Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.
More charges of "false statements" and scare tactics without adequately defending your position.
This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.
It is not me who is being irrational.
More ad hom attacks.
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
The fertilized egg is floating down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attach to the lining. So what? It is no longer the woman's body but the start of a new growing body within itself. Since fertilization, it is different than before. It now contains both chromosomes from the male and female. It is now its own entity, with a different DNA code, different blood, different genetic make-up. This zygote is a unique and separate individual human being.
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,2} grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }This is just two of the reasons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
The rest of this nonsense is irrelevant to the discussion and only used attack my character with false allegations instead of addressing the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Hebrews 9 explains this:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
He also said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to go to heaven(https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm). The only bible verses that I found that contradicted this were from the Old Testament(OT), the testament that gets overridden by the NT when applicable in the case of Christianity. This is one reason why I don't worship God. He made heaven too hard to get into. So do you think the NT advocates for socialist policies in order to screw everyone on Earth, but then to bless them into heaven, which lasts forever as opposed to like 60 years of time on Earth?
So Jesus has done what is necessary for those who will believe and trust in Him. That is the choice, your merit or His. The OT was inferior in that it could never take away sin, just atone for it until the next time one sinned. Thus, we, as Christians, have a better covenant.
So, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle that for this young man, or us without the merit of Jesus Christ to obtain our salvation through our own merit or works.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Notice, the good works come after salvation, not before. IOW's, we can't save ourselves. Jesus said we must be born anew, born of God, regenerated to new life in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I am a right wing capitalist. However, I'm seeing how you respond to the following comment:You're against socialism as am I, but is it the Christian thing to do? Jesus said to sell all you have and to give to the poor(https://biblehub.com/luke/18-22.htm).
Although there is a lesson there for us (in selling what we have) Jesus was addressing a rich young man who put his wealth above God.
The Rich Young Ruler
18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
Socialism, as we see it around the world, exploits people. Christians are to share with those in need, but that by no means we can feed everyone. We also have a responsibility to our families. There are many factors involved. This passage above is speaking about salvation. What it teaches us is that we can't earn our salvation. It is a gift of God. Jesus Christ came to life the life before God that we cannot live. He died the death we deserve to die to meet our payment for sin. So the question becomes will a person accept and trust what He has done on behalf of all those who will believe, or will he/she try to earn their salvation (a right standing before God). If you want to earn your way before God then you cannot sin for death is the penalty for sin.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you think you can live a perfect life before God (and if you did) there would be no need for the Savior. Do you know of anyone who has lived such a life? The biblical testimony is that One and ONLY One has - Jesus Christ. And as in the OT God required a sacrifice for sin, a perfect sacrifice without spot or blemish, Jesus is the sacrifice that puts us in right relationship with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happensFalse. Read my lips text and do not come back to tale to me until you can stop making False staments/commnets/etc. This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.
Just by stating something you think you have proven a point. You have done no such thing. You have what is called cognitive dissonance. You only see and hear what you want to. Then you try to dismiss the whole argument not with facts or proof but by all kinds of logical fallacies.
What you are doing is a leftist tactic to avoid a reasonable conversation by labeling me. It shows intolerance and bullying to avoid the issue.
Run Forrest, run!
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimiate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you as a Trunpanzee,
Your derogatory terms and name calling show bias and hatred, and your derogatory term Trumpanzee has now evolved and morphed into Trunpanzee. (^8
The fertilized egg or ZYGOTE, although attached to the woman are separate from the woman. Once fertilization takes place there is a new distinct individual growing inside her that is not her.
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
Again, your name calling avoids a serious discussion. It is a tactic used by those who don't have facts or are avoiding addressing the points laid out by their opponent.
2} just as grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }This is just two of the reaons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity
Again, you display vitriol that is not conducive to a reasonable discussion. I have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. What does grabbing a woman's private parts have to do with her decision to kill the unborn?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I support him.
I would too, although he would not be as dynamic as Trump.
Created: