Christians have not been ‘reading the Bible this way for 2,000 years’

Whenever I write something critical of the relatively recent dogma of “biblical inerrancy,” someone always responds by insisting that Christians have been reading the Bible this way for 2,000 years.

That’s not true. It’s not possible.

Christians haven’t been reading the Bible this way for 2,000 years, because for most of the last 2,000 years, most Christians weren’t reading the Bible at all.

For the first of those 20 centuries, Christians weren’t reading the New Testament because it was still being written. Even 1,900 years ago, many of the texts we refer to as the New Testament were still a work in progress.

For much of Christian history, many of the biblical texts read by most Christians were neither texts nor biblical. (“Descent of Christ to Limbo,” church fresco in Florence by Andrea di Bonaiuto, ca. 1368.)

It took another 200 years after that for those texts to be collected into anything like a formal canon. That only came about after Emperor Constantine made Christianity Rome’s official religion. The next step, then, was to translate the Bible into Latin so that every Roman-therefore-newly-Christian could read it. Jerome didn’t finish that project until 405.

At that point — 1,600 years ago — it might finally have become possible for Christians to start reading the Bible in the same way that white evangelical inerrantists read it today, but that’s not how they read the Bible. Take a look at Augustine or any of the other early church writers from the first five centuries of Christianity and you’ll find all kinds of approaches to the text — wildly inventive allegorical schemes, symbolism, reinterpretations of the New Testament almost as radical as the NT authors’ reinterpretations of the OT — that would give contemporary defenders of “biblical inerrancy” the howling fantods.

Well, then, what about after Augustine? How did Christians read the Bible in the next several centuries?

They didn’t. Not most of them, anyway. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 and literacy in western Europe collapsed right along with it. During the Dark Ages, books were hard to come by, and people who could read and understand them were too. Christians were reading the Bible during those many long centuries, but not most Christians. It was read by, and within, the church. The prevailing hermeneutic, in other words, was nothing like the individualistic, face-value literalism that characterizes the approach of modern inerrantists. The prevailing hermeneutic was to interpret the Bible as meaning what the church says it means.

The majority of Christians during those centuries didn’t read the Bible at all, lacking both the ability and the opportunity to do so. They heard bits of the Bible read to them — in Latin, which they may not have understood — and they learned a lot of biblical lore from songs, statuary, pageants and plays. That was mixed in, of course, with a lot of other lore that was likely regarded as biblical, even though it came instead from, say, the Gospel of Nicodemas or the Vision of Tundale.

That’s how things remained for about half of those 2,000 years during which Christians have supposedly been reading the Bible in just exactly the way we’re reading it today.

The big changes didn’t come until more than 1,000 years after St. Jerome finished his Latin translation. The biggest change didn’t have anything to do with the church itself. The biggest change was technological — the invention of the printing press and the publication of the Gutenberg Bible in 1454.

Another big change came with first the Geneva Bible and then the King James Version in 1611 — more than a century after Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, these made English translations of the Bible widely available for the first time. And thus, for the first time in the English-speaking world, it became possible to begin reading the Bible the way that proponents of “inerrancy” read it today.

So if we can’t say that most Christians have been reading the Bible this way for 2,000 years, can we at least say that some Christians have been reading the Bible this way for 400 years?

Yes, I think that’s fair. I think the same hermeneutic now championed by Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist faction and by things like the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” first began to take shape about 400 years ago.

And here’s a brief timeline of some of that theological development:

1607: Jamestown founded in Virginia.

1611: King James Bible published.

1619: First 20 Africans sold into slavery in Jamestown.

1620: Plymouth Bay Colony founded in Massachusetts.

1636: The Desire, the first North American slave ship, built and launched in Massachusetts.

1643: Plymouth adopts a fugitive slave law.

1657: Virginia adopts a fugitive slave law.

1661: King Charles II of England calls for the Christian conversion of African slaves.

1667: Virginia passes law saying that slaves who convert to Christianity will remain slaves.

From there on it’s just a matter of filling in the details.

The shape of contemporary white evangelicalism — including the way it reads and interprets and wields the Bible — flows from that. That’s where the argument began and that’s where the argument remains.

"Well, what if I choose to NOT go there after He says I'm going there?"

LBCF, No. 161: ‘Still unsaved’
"And I like what you have done. No one can possibly take you seriously any ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."
"I am sure that your expectations for yourself are very low.Your reading comprehension is abysmal."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."
"Frank? I know quite a few gay people, and I currently have THREE trans women ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    The point is what you said in the beginning:

    I want politicians to be men of biblical faith if possible, everyone legislates based on their internal moral or ethical (read spiritual) codes. If a politican is a practicing bible Christian I would HOPE (big if) that He would legislate in a way that is pleasing to God.

    And I reply, they are and they do and that’s exactly the problem.

  • nolidad

    It appears you confuse people sitting in a pew with practicing Christians. Though that sounds judgmental it is not intended to judge. Proof is in the pudding as they say. And many fall far short of governing as Bible believing practicing Christians. They may attend a “christian” church but if the Word of God doesn’t influence how they wish to act when legislation covers basic morals, ethics and thte like then they are not acting biblically.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    For one who just offered yourself a pat on the back for not judging, you’re keen to place a distinction between Christians and people merely going through the motions. I suppose it’s because no true Christian does the kinds of things that result in bad outcomes. You’re welcome to make that distinction. I’m inclined to a certain form of Christianity myself, but I suspect you and I would disagree on the details.

  • nolidad

    I am merely stating a truth. I for one am unable nor qualified to determine who may be a true Christian and who is one like found in Matt. 7. And I am glad that I am not the judge- I would do a lousy job.
    Christians do many things that result in bad outcomes. We are not perfect, just forgiven and hopefully growing in His holiness.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Then why do you keep insisting that our government isn’t filled with Christians who pore over the Bible for their every decision? Is it just that convenient to your narrative that the country is sliding into decay?

  • nolidad

    Well I only know of a few. If it is filled with them could you please forward me a list of the ones you say are? I really would appreciate to know we have a government “filled” with legislators poring over the Scriptures. Maybe I am looking on the wrong websites.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam
  • nolidad

    I will not argue that most of our politicians attend churches within Christendom. But being an attender of a Christian sect does not make anyone a Christian anymore than walking into a garage makes someone a car. Religion does not determine relationship. If you need further clarification let me know I will try to answer more in depth if you do not understand.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    But being an attender of a Christian sect does not make anyone a
    Christian anymore than walking into a garage makes someone a car.

    *Really* now?

    So you who attend a “Christian sect”, I am free to define you as insufficiently Christian by your own criteria.

    Nice own goal there.

  • nolidad

    Well if I was trusting my “sect” to save me- I would hope you would call me insufficient. I make a general statement that Jesus made. I cannot walk into a church and tell you who is and isn’t saved. That is Gods purview unless the individual reveals they are trusting someone or something other than Christ for their eternal salvation.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Oh, I understand perfectly well. You want to pretend that some people aren’t real Christians because it’s very inconvenient and you don’t like the implication that so many people you don’t like are saved. You’ll talk up a storm about God being the only one who judges, but in the end, it’s very important to you that everyone knows that you’re saved and they’re not.

  • nolidad

    Your preconception is in error. I am merely relaying what Jesus declared.

    Mt. 7

    21 Not
    every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
    of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    22 Many
    will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
    name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
    wonderful works?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Who they are is not for me to decide- Jesus knows. I am just relaying the fact that there are. No Christian lives perfect, and some live lifestyles that make them appear to be unbelievers. and on and on.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Incidentally, the practice of bewailing the evils of the modern world is a venerable tradition: http://www.anxietyculture.com/antisocial.htm

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “Lije,” said the Commissioner, “you’re a modernist. That’s your trouble. In Medieval times, people lived in the open. I don’t mean on the farms only. I mean in the cities, too. Even in New York. When it rained, they didn’t think of it as waste. They gloried in it. They lived close to nature. It’s healthier, better. The troubles of modern life come from being divorced from nature. Read up on the Coal Century, sometimes.”

    Baley had. He had heard many people moaning about the invention of the atomic pile. He moaned about it himself when things went wrong, or when he got tired. Moaning like that was a built-in facet of human nature. Back in the Coal Century, people moaned about the invention of the steam engine. In one of Shakespeare’s plays, a character moaned about the invention of gunpowder. A thousand years in the future, they’d be moaning about the invention of the positronic brain.

    Apt quote from The Caves of Steel is apt. :D

  • Betwixt-and-Between

    …d’oh!
    Clearly, I need to work on my reading comprehension. I’ll just go back to lurking, thanks.

  • arcseconds

    If everyone who had less than optimal reading comprehension conceded so gracefully, the internet would be a better place for it :-)

    Please don’t re-lurk on my account…

  • Betwixt-and-Between

    =)
    I’m a lurker as it is–you didn’t scare me away. Thanks, though!
    And apologies to Dan Wilkinson for misreading. ^^;

  • nolidad

    I know that in this post Christian era in America- try8ng to legislate using Scripture as a guide is trouble (though many of our laws were based on Scripture even if non biblical lands mirrored those laws)

    Even ethical questions are solved based on ones worldview perspective. In the middle east it is not wrong to kill and rape and beqat people ini many situations- their ethics are based on their moral background which comes from the Quran.

    The issue about the ham sandwich is a real problem. the solution is not difficult but is not easily posted here for it goes into issues of systematic theological studies and applications.

    You bring up the gay issue. When did this become a basic human right? Is pedophilia abasic human right if a 9 year old consents? Is bestiality? Is polygamy if the wives consent? What is your authority for declaring something a “basic human right”. Both the old and new testaments declare that homosexuality is sin against God (as well as adultery and fornication) If God is God and I am convinced beyond doubt He is- then we should obey Him. I am also convinced our nation is continuing its death spiral because though not perfect and guilty of many things it has not just turned its back on God but is growing hostile towards HIm and God is ratcheting up His judgment. It is no coincidence that we went from the greatest exporter of missions and bibles to now the greatest exporter of porn. We cannot slaughter over 60 million children and not have God react. HE is loving and kind BUT above all else He is holy and will not be mocked. A nation that begins with covenants and charters and its first nationally elected leader in his first act leads all the fed governemnt to church to consecrate this nation to the glory of God and then falls so far from that lofty goal will be judged if it doesn’t return to the Lord. Most people do not realize we are balancing on a very precarious ledge as a nation and one puff of trouble could topple this nation.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Ahem.

    Is pedophilia abasic human right if a 9 year old consents? Is bestiality? Is polygamy if the wives consent?

    This shows you really don’t understand consent if you think a nine year old or an animal can offer it. That’s why the word is always paired with the qualifier: meaningful consent. Consent must be provided by someone presently capable of understanding the full ramifications of what it is they are consenting to. Some also add other qualifiers to that, like “enthusiastic” and “ongoing.” All of these disqualify children and animals, as well as most forms of incest between closely related family members.
    Polygamy is a different issue in that it’s more of a legal issue. Marriage can be tricky enough with only two partners involved when it goes sour! I think it’s still fully possible to make polygamy work if every partner is involved in ongoing legal agreements with what happens to what property in the event of a divorce (meaning each new partner causes all previous legal agreements to become void and necessitates the drafting of another one), but ultimately this would have to be a case-by-case basis sort of thing with a lot of legal facilitation.

    I am also convinced our nation is continuing its death spiral because though not perfect and guilty of many things it has not just turned its back on God but is growing hostile towards HIm and God is ratcheting up His judgment.

    Actually, for the most part, we’ve been doing a lot better in recent decades than we’ve done in a long time. Homicide rates in particular have been dropping like a stone since the 1990’s.

    It is no coincidence that we went from the greatest exporter of missions and bibles to now the grea test exp orter of porn.

    We are still the greatest source of missionaries in the world– 127,000 to Brazil’s 34,000.

    As for pornography, no pun intended, but: Beats me. The most religious states in the US are also the largest consumers of porn. Go figure.

    We cannot slaughter over 60 million children and not have God react.
    This is usually the time I point out Numbers 5:11-31, Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 2:23-24, 2 Kings 15:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:9, Exodus 12:29…

    The Bible… isn’t a good place to be for a child, though the first example is the most egregious.

    “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband, may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    Still love the repeated statements that our elected leaders aren’t Christian, when it’s almost impossible to become elected if you aren’t.

  • nolidad

    The Bible is a great place to bew a child- even in the Jewish Theocracy that has been long done away with. Crimes were different and punished differently. I will not apologize for God establishing what He chose to establish for a specific time period.

    If consent really means fully informed of all the ramifications, then we need to raise the age for everything in this country cuz most people still do not understand the full ramifications of their actions.

    We still send out lots of mission aries true, but our biggest export is still porn. I cannot attest to teh viewing habits of individuals in “religious ” states, I am not tasked with spying on them like the NSA does.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Iiiiii don’t see porn on heeeeeeeeere.

    You know, at first you seemed like you wanted to have actual discussions about things but you are increasingly retreating to what I have experienced are common Christian fundamentalist talking points. Whether you are doing this because you never intended to have a good-faith discussion in the first place or because you have failed to win over those who you are having discussions with–

    I have no idea, but I do know that fundamentalism tends to create binary modes of thinking about the world and it is doing you a disservice here because it seems to me you think either you must “win” or “lose”, not that both parties may come away having thought about things even if they agree to disagree.

  • nolidad

    If I have to explain it to you then you dont belong on teh internet!

    Well as I do not know what “talking points” you are talking about I can’t honestly answer to them. I am not connected to some “fundamentalist clearing house” to be on this thread so I would need you to be specific.

    I completely agree that both parties have thoughts on issues and we can agree to disagree. I am not looking to win debates. I am merely trying to express Gods truth as stated in His word in th ehopes someone may try to seek HIm. If there are absolute answers one should not shy away from them just because our society retreats from absolutes.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well as I do not know what “talking points” you are talking about I
    can’t honestly answer to them. I am not connected to some
    “fundamentalist clearing house” to be on this thread so I would need you
    to be specific.

    It’s not necessary for there to be a central clearing house per se.

    What does tend to happen, however, is that certain turns of phrase become indicative of one’s particular stance and/or perspective as a representative of a larger subcultural group.

    In your case, one telling aspect is your uncritical repetition of the kinds of hot-button one-liners that are intended to shut down any discussion by appealing to emotions such as revulsion or disgust.

    Examples:

    1. Claiming, without backup, that two prominent researchers on sex campaigned, in essence, for the total repeal of all age of consent laws. Such a bombshell would be well known and well established.

    2. Repeating the “60 million babies dead = Holocaust” while neatly sliding over the fact that that number tries to equate the number of abortions, undertaken at the individual discretion of each woman who has gone to get an abortion, with a comprehensive, industrial-scale* program of mass murder.

    3. Claiming the Bible as a source of “absolute” morality without any consideration for the fact that the Bible’s texts are deeply rooted in a culture and time period vastly different from our own and whose languages many people can no longer read or understand**.

    —-
    * The chilling aspect of watching this re-enactment of the Wannsee conference is how technical they could get at times over the details of how to cover everything up, as well as how to work the logistics involved. And Heydrich driving everything along and bullying anyone who wouldn’t go along with it is rather unsettling as well.

    ** Relatively few people in this world can read the original Hebrew in which the Old Testament (i.e. approximately the equivalent of the Tanakh, although I should caution I am not by any means an expert on Judaism or their hloly texts) is written. The mere fact of a linguistic shift from Hebrew to English is enough to introduce uncertainties in the faithfulness of a rendition of the text without also introducing stated and unstated cultural biases into the translation.

  • nolidad

    First let me ask for patience in answering. I di d not expect so many responses to me and I do wish to be thorough as I can with the time constraints I live in.

    First as to pedophilia:

    1. Claiming, without backup, that two prominent researchers on sex
    campaigned, in essence, for the total repeal of all age of consent laws.
    Such a bombshell would be well known and well established.

    http://thestateofamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/congressional-democrats-attempts-to-legalize-gay-pedophilia/

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/

    I will try a deeper search for Masters and JOhns on before Congress.

    As to equating abortion to a holocaust. Yes it is inflammatory language. So isn’t the “legalized” death of 60 million unborn children in 40 years inflammatory. Hitlers holocaust of Jews was just as legal based on their laws approving Jews as sub human.

    Well if one studies the bible and gains mastery of linguistic tools availablwe and studies cultural habits. It is not too hard. I can give you a list of accurate translations into English of the ancient hebrew/aramiac and koine greek texts into todays english. that is a red herring argument.

    I have been at it for over forty years now. Looking at it from the believers and skeptics side.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    None of those articles reveals that the two people you specifically mentioned advocated, literally, the legalization of pedophilia.

    In particular, the “State of America” blog quotes from the Catholic League, and is simply rampant cheap button-pushing.

    And World Net Daily? Really?! WORLD NET DAILY? I’m pretty sure they’re also the “Aliens and UFOs landing every second week” news folks.

    In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

    Just because it is, does not mean any serious lawmaker would thereupon repeal all the laws which ban sexual contact with minors. You are fishing for cheap emotional buttons to push yourself and I will not go down that road.

    Hitlers holocaust of Jews was just as legal based on their laws approving Jews as sub human.

    I have no doubt of that; they loved playing games with laws to suit their own purposes. But an industrial-scale program of mass murder, backed up by the government and given full logistical and material support is not the same by any means to individual women of their own accord seeking abortions, especially when governments are generally either indifferent or even in some cases hostile to abortion-provision.

    Here is a simple example of how context and culture matters. I know some French, and a simple French slang expression is “appeler un chat un chat”.

    In English, we would render that “call a spade a spade”. But a literal translation is “call a cat a cat”.

    Or for that matter, even within English there are substantial variations. Australian English is liberally salted with unique slang terms that simply don’t have any direct correspondences in Canadian or American English.

    Trust me when I say that once you consider even minor linguistic differences, they can only magnify tremendously when adding time and space removed from the present day.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Well, you’re not wrong.

    They’re also the people who’ve been big on the Obama is gay!!11 thing.

    WND is basically what happens when you mix conservative news with a tabloid. Basically, Fox News in another couple of decades.

  • P J Evans

    Some people call it ‘World Nut Daily’. That’s how bad it is. That Our Current Troll thinks it’s a legitimate news source does not speak well of its judgment or intelligence.

  • nolidad

    Well as I said when I find the masters and JOhnson testifying before congress I will post it.

    60 million children whose lives were prematurely cut short with full government sanction (meaning its legal) is tragic no matter what word you wish to use.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well as I said when I find the masters and JOhnson testifying before congress I will post it.

    You were so all-fired Goddamn sure they said it and now it’s been a day or so and you still haven’t come up with the exact reference.

    If you’re stooping to outright making things up to try and score rhetorical points, just stop, put the keyboard down, and think about the fact that Jesus Christ had things to say about false witness (that is, making claims you know cannot be true):

    For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

  • nolidad

    Well I am trying to keep up with multiple commentors. It is about 12-1 against me so I am falling days behind. I will search for it by the weekend.. If my memory has failed me or if I attributed to Masters and JOhnson something done by someone else– I will gladly reacnt that statement and apologize for a mistaken reference. It is not the first time my memory has failed and I am sure it wont be my last if I got the info mixed up. And I am glad I am not guilty of bearing false witness –making claims I know cannot be true. I am guilty of faulty rememberance of things I wrote years ago in another thread, That is all. If you wish to write me off because of it and will freely admit it if I was mistaken– then so be it. I hope you will never confuse facts and have to face someone as harsh as you are being towards me. I will get to it–

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You happily tried fobbing me off with links to World Net frikkin’ Daily and that didn’t work. So clearly you have links to hand, but it’s pretty obvious as well that those links are not well-sourced.

    Perhaps you should do more research more carefully before habitually tossing off potentially libellous material (yes, technically, if you were wrong about Masters and Johnson, you libelled them by claiming they supported legalizing a sex act commonly frowned upon by society and libel is a civil tort).

    The fact that most people don’t really give a damn about what some commenter on a blog says is what’s saving you from being held to a more stringent standard of behavior about making claims on blogs.

  • nolidad

    Well I suspect that even if I quoted SCOTUS about an issue, because it is me, you would find a way to object but I digress Well I am glad you mentioned Masters and JOhnson. I wasn’t sure who posted it so I was waiting. I did go researching, and I am guilty of falsely attributing testifying before congress on pedophilia. I had confused another issue I had looked up quite a while ago for a different blog. I can only apologize and say when I recall info that I had looked up in years gone by, I will have to re research it to make sure I am not confusing facts. If that is not enough, you make take me out back and set me up before your firing squad. Erroneous–yes libelous- I do not think that my faulty memory rises to the level of intent…

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Probably not quite enough to condemn you to burning in the lake of fire with all liars… perhaps…

  • nolidad

    Well hagsrus, I hope in a debate when you confuse facts in your mind and then acknowledged you messed up, you do not have to face someone as unmerciful as you appear to be. But if I am totally beyond credibility to you because I screwed up- well I already apologized so so be it.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    I expect Jesus will forgive you.

  • nolidad

    Just as I know He can and will forgive you .

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    We don’t need to worry about this hell business, then?

  • nolidad

    Only if you have a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

    13 Enter
    ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way,
    that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Or be sure you’ve got your potato.

  • nolidad

    Don’t need to bring food, because of His grace I jave a place reserved for me at His banqueting table in heaven.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Actually SCOTUS would’ve been an easily verifiable and reliable source, since it’s in nobody’s interest to fabricate a court proceeding when the full text is available in print or on the web.

  • nolidad

    Well as I said, I have learned form this. Instead of trusting memopry form things discussed several years ago, I will now look first and post after. I would love to invent edible shoes, at least given th enumber of times in my life I have put my foot in my mouth, I would at least get nourishment from it! LOL

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    And here I thought Heaven and the Earth would pass away before the smallest iota of the law would become invalid! :P No, I’m actually very glad the laws of Moses were edited and in some cases repealed altogether (by the Jews themselves in the first century). The last thing I would want is for, say, Deuteronomy 13 to still be applicable.

    But Romans 14, etc, etc.

    Tracking down precise numbers is unsurprisingly difficult, but the highest estimates place pornography’s total gross revenue (among all companies and counting illegal sources) at $13 billion (though it should be noted that no two companies agree on numbers even particularly close to each other, and Forbes, which seems to have undertaken the most comprehensive effort to estimate it, places the number at about $2.6 to 3.9 billion total). To put that into perspective, our agriculture industry has a gross revenue of $173 billion, so pornography doesn’t even rank in the top 10. Well, you could be counting sheer consumption, not just of sales, and a lot of porn is free… but regardless, exports of capital goods (materials used to produce goods, such as tools and factory parts) are actually top of the list as far as economics go.

    But again, I imagine this isn’t convenient to the narrative that we’re sliding into a pit of doom. Nebulous, ill-defined and unverifiable or even contradictory threats are the best kind!

    If consent really means fully informed of all the ramifications, then we need to raise the age for everything in this country cuz most people still do not understand the full ramifications of their actions.

    Age alone isn’t adequate. I gather you’ve got a few years over me, and you clearly do not understand the purpose or function of consent, which is… rather quite embarrassing, really, when you know a little something about me. I was diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, meaning my emotional development was stunted and I have little if any conscience or empathy, at least as reckoned by others. Consequently, I’ve made psychology, sociology and ethics my primary focuses in order to minimize how often I cause unintentional injury to others. If I can be thus educated, then there must be hope for others.

  • nolidad

    Well I shall try to be more specific in my language . I was using export idiomatically not literally. Porn has outstripped every category on teh web as a general category site.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/30-of-webs-total-traffic-is-for-porn-tech-magazine

    Its growth is explosive if its revenues are not.

    Here is the actual site the above quotes:

    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/123929-just-how-big-are-porn-sites

    http://theweek.com/article/index/204156/

    Yeah porn output in teh US is far outpacing missionaries –It is a huge export despite the amount of money it takes in.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    People have been moaning about porn for a long time. Moaning about it was in fashion back when Perversion for Profit came out in 1965.

    And probably even before then people have been moaning about porn. If it really were a contributor to the decline of civilization, why then is the Soviet Union a vanished empire and the USA still around? The USSR’s bans on porn were far past anything the US ever had. By your logic the Soviet Union, having banned the stuff rather effectively for quite some time, should still be chugging right along.

    It’s almost like their economic planning problems had a lot more to do with it.

  • nolidad

    porn existed long beofre cameras were invented. But the internet has caused an explosion of the availability of porn that was not ever experienced.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Did you even watch that show? George Putnam uses almost your exact language to characterize the highspeed printing press.

    So yes, there have been previous “explosions” of the availability of porn.

  • nolidad

    I don’t know who George Putnam is, so I would definitely say No to watching his show.all previous exp[losions of “porn” were mere firecrackers compared to the nuke of porn disseminated by the internet

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “Perversion for Profit” is geared precisely to people like you. Do yourself a favor and watch it, you need some pearls to clutch today.

  • nolidad

    I catch the sarcasm, but if I can access thousands of web sites that say porn is more pervasive now than ever before thanks to the WWW I do not need to watch this guy and whatever he is promoting.

  • P J Evans

    The VCR was part of it. Clearly Our Current Troll hasn’t noticed adult book and video stores. (Although there are fewer of them, now that it can be bought via internet, so people don’t have to know what you read or watch.)

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Which sounds like a lot, until you put it against the larger context and discover that pornography constitutes only about 30% of the Internet — not all that much for the world’s oldest industry. Besides, when I want something hardcore and erotic, I just read Ezekiel. Now there was a man with a filthy mind. :p

  • nolidad

    Well i f you want real biblical porn song of Solomon translated in to todays vernacular is far better.

    You think 30% of the internet is not all that much??? almost 1/3 of all activity on the world wide web not all that much??????????????????

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Most of the Song of Songs is innuendo, though. Ezekiel was gritty. :p

    It’s a non-trivial statistic, but a lot lower than I expected. They say the first book to come off the printing press was the Bible — and the second book was smut.

  • nolidad

    wouldn’t surprise me nor shock me.

  • Michael Pullmann

    “The Bible is a great place to bew a child”
    .
    Unless you’re a firstborn Egyptian male. Or a Judean boy born around the same time as Jesus. Or you mock Elijah on the way to school. Or…

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Or if your mother was an adulteress, whereupon you’ll be killed in the womb in one of two ways — either your mother is stoned to death on her wedding night, or chemically aborted.

  • P J Evans

    Or you happen to live in a town where someone annoyed God and It decide that everyone should be killed, down to the dogs and cats.

  • dpolicar

    And also many cattle.

  • nolidad

    Well seeing how it was Herod a nonbeliever who killed approx 65 Jewish children in Bethlehem and that Pharoah ordered the death of His own children by seeking to destroy Jewish children, or yes you mock Gods prophets. Or in America in the past 40 years you were one of the 60,000,000 who weren’t loved enough by their moms to be kept alive. But no general life in Jewish communities or under the patriarchs for children was quite wonderful, notwithstanding some temporary evils other brought to bear.

  • P J Evans

    History fail.
    Herod was a Roman client, and Pharaoh, whoever it might have been when the not-Jews were not-slaves there, was himself close to a god.

  • nolidad

    Herod was considered a mongrel Jew (Idumean) but the pharisees considered him no Jew at all. Pharoahs may have ascended to godhood but they never were God.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Please start all new replies here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/25/2-years-ago-fake-authenticity-and-pretending-not-to-use-hair-products/

    People are reporting this thread is so huge now it’s crashing web browsers. Thank you for your consideration.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Even ethical questions are solved based on ones worldview perspective. In the middle east it is not wrong to kill and rape and beqat people ini many situations- their ethics are based on their moral background which comes from the Quran.

    I pointed out that a standard of governance that starts from the principle that harming another human being is to be prevented if possible, punished if not, is one that does not depend on any religious faith at all and actually depends only on the fact that we all have nerve endings that tell us that pain is bad, so purposely inflicting pain is doing harm.

    It’s about the closest way to root an ethical code in our evolutionary history/development that I know of.

    Obviously there are more complex gradients of harm than the purely physical, but that’s only because we’re capable of certain abstractions which other species probably aren’t.

    I am also convinced our nation is continuing its death spiral because though not perfect and guilty of many things it has not just turned its back on God but is growing hostile towards HIm and God is ratcheting up His judgment.

    If you believe the social gospel and things like James 5:1, then I definitely agree that this business of constantly succouring the wealthy at the expense of the poor is causing problems.

    But in terms of things like crimes, for all the sensationalism in the press–

    well, shit, don’t believe the numbers. Go to New York City or any other place that used to be perceived as some kind of crime-ridden anthill back in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The crime’s not there anymore.

    That’s what AnonymousSam is driving at with the homicide stats.

  • nolidad

    Well as we were created and not involved I would disagree with that premise. Besides the evolutionary standard is survival of the fittest. Nature apart from man has no ethics.

    I agree that favoring the wealthy is sin in Gods eyes. But that is not a code written to government but churches, though it is good practice for government, that is why in America the top 10% pay more than the bottom 90% combined.

    I don’t know why crime stats were brought up. If it is inreference to my death spiral, I am referring to our nation go ing down the tubes rapidly ala Rome in its heyday. We are doing it faster

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There are valid reasons to consider Roman imperial decline in the context of the USA today, but not, I suspect, for the reasons you think exist.

    The similarities are:

    1. An overreliance on the military with consequent overemphasis on its cultural significance within broader society (consider that what an army/navy/air force/marine person has to say is often unduly accorded weight beyond that which can be granted it on the merits of the statement).
    2. A tendency to let the wealthy escape their assessed (or should-be-assessed) portion of taxes in exchange for rising bribery and corruption.
    3. A general deterioration of the infrastructure because too much of the money goes elsewhere.
    4. So the wealthy go, so goes society. The coarsening of attitudes among the rich – the habit they have of scorning society as a whole and championing a mythical individualistic ideal – this inevitably is the one thing that DOES “Trickle down” and is reflected among the masses as well.

  • nolidad

    You forget teh degeneration of morals
    2. An advanced welfare state to mask the crumbling empire (Bread and Circus, I can spell that out if you like)
    3. Sexual promiscuity.
    4. Breakdown of societal standards..
    as far as the rich not paying their fair share, if the top 10% who pay more than the bottom 90% combined isn’t fair, what do you call fair?

    When and if I get rich I would love to find out if I scorn society or if I still live by the God who I seek to serve now.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    as far as the rich not paying their fair share, if the top 10% who pay
    more than the bottom 90% combined isn’t fair, what do you call fair?

    Well, I’ll give you a Canadian example that shows that the rates paid by people in different income strata have become remarkably uniform.

    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/putting-fairness-back-canada%E2%80%99s-tax-system

  • nolidad

    Well here in America we already have a very p[rogressive tax rate.

  • P J Evans

    Minus five points for not noticing that the tax structure has become far more regressive in the last 40 years.

  • nolidad

    Well it still is very progressive. the bottom 47% pay a net 0 in fed taxes. The top 1% pay 19% The top ten % pay 80% and the top 53% pay 100% If yiou don’t understand how that works let me explain. 100 people go into Mcdonalds to get a $1 burger. The first 47 people get to have their burger and leave without paying. one person pays $19 the next 9 people pay $61 dollars and the last 43 people pay $20 between all of them. That is pretty progressive by all but the most socialist mindsets.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    O HAI WHAT ARE PAYROLL AND FICA PLZ

  • nolidad

    Payroll taxes in teh federal sense are the fed income taxes withheld from a check. Fica taxes (do they still call them that?)

    FICA is the combined social security and medicare taxes.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “Payroll tax” is usually the catch-all for any non-income tax deductions required to be taken off an employee’s paycheck. Usually for things like unemployment insurance and what-have-you.

  • nolidad

    that is correct iin the broad sense, but in reference to what we were referring to it was to differentiate FICA deductions from federal income tax. Technically there is FICA, fed payroll, state payroll and even city payroll taxes where city taxes are deucted, but also they are all lumped tog ether as “payroll” taxes.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Wow. So you’re mathematically illiterate as well as biblically illiterate?

    Protip: the top 1% have 90% of the money. It’s not like ”
    The first 47 people go into the mcdonalds and get a $1 burger for free” It’s like “The first 47 people go into mcdonalds and get jack shit because they don’t have money. … The last person pays $100, gets 90 of the burgers, passes out the last 10 and expects sainthood for his magaminity.”

  • nolidad

    Wow so you can’t even let a fictional example go without spouting yourt personal bitterness? This was given to explain the distribution of federasl income taxes across the income spectrum– your answer has nothing to do with what was written. How high is that horse you ride?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    WHat I can’t let go unchallenged are destructive lies based on the sociopathic resentment and entitlement the rich feel over the poor. I can’t let people like you go around making up insane bullshit about how the poor, put-upon rich are getting the short end of the stick.

    Especially from someone who has the gall to call himself a christian.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Notice how it’s so often Christians, especially Southern Baptists, who do this, too. It seems damned peculiar how Christianity has come to be the holy bastion of billionaires…

  • nolidad

    Well first I never said that teh rich are getting the short end of the stick. Why6 you brought that up is beyond me. That example was made up —it was a work of pure fiction to just show the distribution of taxes.

    I do not know any people who are rich that have sociop[athic resentment and entitlement towards the poor. I am sure they exist- I just don’t any, cuz I don’t know many rich folk.

    You rlast sentnece I don’t even know what you are trying to say– I think you just flew off the handle there. I was just saying the rich pay the vast majority of federal income taxes, that is all. I think they pay their fair share- you are free to disagree with me. But this other stuff Wow! I don’t feel that way and if you do I am sorry that is powerful anger.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • nolidad

    Well let us see. IN 2012 Government collected just under $6 trillion dollars in taxes on the fed, state county(parish) local level. at 130,000,000 filers across the country that paid taxes, that works out to a tax payment of of roughly $46, 150 /taxpayer. Our nation took in more in taxes than the GDP of every country other than ours or china. how close did you come to paying $46,150 in taxes for 2012?? Yes there is much greed and waste in the private sector. And yes there is more greed and waste in American government. That is why our nation is bankrupt.

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  • P J Evans

    No evidence exists for your points. I mean, really, there is no evidence that the later Empire was less moral or more promiscuous than the Republic.

  • nolidad

    I would suggest you read or reread the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and then rethink your position based on the record of History recorded there.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Would that be Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire you have in mind?

  • nolidad

    I believe so.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As hagsrus points out, your scholarship is a little lacking in that aspect if you can’t remember properly the title of a seminal book on the history of the Roman Empire.

  • nolidad

    Well if you are judging me with a microscope– then yes. But I paraphrased a title and it seems that all concerned knew what I was talking about. Do you wish a very detailed and hyper explicit use of terminology debate????

  • P J Evans

    If you’re going to believe everything Petronius and Gibbon wrote, you’re going to have a very strange view of Rome. It’s like judging the US based on one video of Miley Cyrus or Lady Gaga – or Mae West! – and 19th-century history books.

  • nolidad

    I donot accpet everything people write as absolute gospel– only the Word of God involves that. But the decline of Rome and the decline of America have some very similar parallels if being accomplished by differing methodologies based on time differences.

  • P J Evans

    Goes with the class I had in medieval history, where we spent the first couple of weeks watching the Roman Empire collapse under its own weight.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Besides the evolutionary standard is survival of the fittest. Nature apart from man has no ethics.

    As was just discussed on this here blog, calling it ‘survival of the fittest’ is an extreme oversimplification of what actually happens as species evolve.

    Yes, Darwin did say the “fittest”, but the word is better rendered as “the most well-adapted”.

    The inexorable work of natural or artificial selection to bias a species’ allele frequencies (in short, how their genes express themselves on average across many members of the species) one way or another means that the members of the species most-adapted to whatever environment they live in will be the ones most likely to survive and reproduce.

    While it is not a directed force and is a blind process of adaptation, nonetheless evolution exists.

    And no, nature does not have ethics, but nature also does not actively insist that the devil take the hindmost, as has too often been supported by Christians who have no problem accepting Social Darwinist positions on how humans within human societies survive and reproduce.

    Incidentally, Darwin himself insisted that his theories could not be applied to human society that way because evolutionary theory cannot be used to make value judgements about who is “most fit” to survive, only that it describes the way in which species adapt to their environment.

  • nolidad

    Well just because Darwin is dead wrong about macro evolution doesn’t mean that evrything he says is wrong. Islam is a false religion but contains many truths.

  • Daniel

    “Islam is a false religion but contains many truths.”
    Why is it a false religion? How do you grade truth and falsity in religions that specifically state you shouldn’t require any evidence to believe them?

  • nolidad

    Any religion that does not center on the deity of Christ and the death burial and resurrection of Jesus as the sole and satisfactory payment of ones sins to obtain eternal life is a false religion. That is the ultimate truth. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and many religions contain “truths” that are found in Scripture. those are “triths” found within their error.

  • Daniel

    First off- why is any religion that doesn’t centre on the deity of Christ false? You are aware that Muslims regard thinking of anyone but God as divine is similarly false and blasphemous? You are also aware, I assume, that Muslims believe the Qur’an is dictated by God and is flawless? Until you can offer proof as to why the bible is the inspired Word of God, but the Qur’an isn’t, you haven’t actually said anything.

    Secondly- have you ever considered the possibility that actually Christianity is the religion with the “truths…within [its] error” rather than the other way round? Given that numerous religions claim to be directly given to mankind by deities, what makes you sure yours is the right one and all the rest are false?

  • nolidad

    I would love for the Quran or other religion to be true (from a human level) for they all offer multpile wyas tro escape torment. But I could suggest several well written books as to why these are all false. But the greatest question to answer personally is this: Jesus declared that He is THE way THE truth and THE life and no man may come to the Father except through HIM! (John 14:6 emphasis added).

    Jesus is either right or He is wrong in this statement. If He is wrong He is either a liar or a lunatic because He claimed to be the sole exclusive source of getting to heaven. If He is right, the He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and makes any other way a false way! Every one has to decide for themselves whether He is right or wrong and if they decide He is wrong- be willing to suffer the consequences because they picked wrong. I would wish they picked Him (and not just a particular denomination)

  • Daniel

    Or he is mistaken, or someone else put those words into his mouth being as all the stories about him were written after he died. Personally I have no problem accepting that someone who claims to be divine has some kind of mental problem, or that they’re a liar. The fact that someone said they are something is not proof that they actually are- as you argue so frequently about people who claim to be Christian. I also don’t fully understand how a God of love, who apparently allows us free will, would punish us for using it by sending us to hell. The consequences of disbelief you mention are not really a threat because no one has ever proved that Hell exists.

    Myriad other people throughout history have made the
    same claim as Jesus. Why don’t you believe them?

    The books you mention- were any of them written by people who were not Christian before they wrote the books? In other words are any of the books written by impartial authors as genuine assessments of the validity of Islam versus Christianity? My guess is “no”.

  • nolidad

    Or He is simply who He claimed to be — THE Son of THE Father who together with the Holy Spirit are GOD and no other. Jesus spoke more on hell than heaven. Daniel if you want I will gladly write you a small treatise on free will and consequences for wrong choices. But the bottom line issue is this. You must decide if His cautions of rejecting HIm and hell are true or not. If they are not – then you are OK and you can vanish into nothingness when you die. But if His claims are true and He said He went to Hell and that even today we can come to have an intimate saving relationship with Him and reject it, then you will go to hell forever. It doesn’t matter whether we think it is fair or not. or whether we think He is being l loving or not. Our opinion does not matter.If what the Bible says is true in REv. 4:11 11 Thou
    art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou
    hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    we can say He is too harsh, but if He is God He gets to make the rules and we do well to seek to do what He requires. And Jesus saiod that His ways are joyous.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Fortunately, Hell isn’t actually a concern.

  • nolidad

    It will be one day for all who die rejecting the free gift of Salvation God offers

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    The gift you describe is hardly free. Fortunately, the steps you describe to undertake it turn out to be unnecessary.

  • nolidad

    Well free for man because Jesus suffered our penalty for sin. The steps are very necessary for as Jesus said:
    John 3:
    3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    4 Nicodemus
    saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the
    second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

    5 Jesus
    answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
    water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    8 The
    wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but
    canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one
    that is born of the Spirit.

    9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

    10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

    11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

    12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

    13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

    14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

    15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

    16 For
    God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
    whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

    18 He
    that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
    condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
    begotten Son of God.

    God loves us and gives man the choice to accept or reject. you must realize every choice we make has consequences either good or bad.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh god, not the fucking liar, lunatic or truth teller thing again.

    Jesus declared that He is THE way THE truth and THE life and no man may come to the Father except through HIM! (John 14:6 emphasis added).

    Mighty arrigant of him. I could point out that folks like Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh also had the habit of declaring they were the only way to salvation for their followers.

    The point is, what he says is unsupported by anything in recent history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    A few miracles and an instant reconstitution of his presence on this planet would be all right by me.

    Your thundering about Jesus, however, is of no effect without some proof.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    I AM the Father of this Universe, and even the source of the Father. I AM the Mother of this Universe and the Creator of all. I AM the Highest to be known, the path of purification, the holy OM, the three Vedas.

    I AM the way, the Master who watches in silence; thy friend and thy shelter and thy abode of peace. I AM the beginning and the middle and the end of all things: their seed of Eternity, their Treasure supreme. (Bhagavad Gita 9: 17-18

    I AM the soul, prince victorious, which dwells in the heart of all things. I AM the beginning, the middle and the end of all that lives. (Bhagavad Gita 10: 20)

  • nolidad

    Well to you I can only paste this for you have the same problem as the rich man! Luke 16

    19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

    20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

    21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

    22 And
    it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels
    into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

    23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24 And
    he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus,
    that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I
    am tormented in this flame.

    25 But
    Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy
    good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted,
    and thou art tormented.

    26 And
    beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so
    that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they
    pass to us, that would come from thence.

    27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s your rejoinder? Quoting the Bible at me?

    Christ, talk about being too lazy to do your own heavy lifting when it comes to trying to have a discussion about the salient questions surrounding a claim of 100% authenticity of the Bible’s words as pertains its claims of who to believe in as the One True God.

  • nolidad

    Well you ask for an impartial observer. I don’t think that an impartial observer would say the Bible is the Word of God. What kind of evidence do you request???

  • Sandrilene

    Surely the point of that story is that you should help beggars.
    It doesn’t matter whether it’s talking about a literal hell, what matters is that you feed the hungry.

  • nolidad

    Well we should feed the poor but that is not the point of this account at all. Keeping it in ots context- the ultimate point is that there is a literal heaven and hell, people go to both (though in this story it was paradise, or Abrahams bosom because no one could go to heaven yet for Jesus hadn’t shed His blood with but 3 exceptions Enoch, Moses and Ezekiel) And that hell is torment for unbelievers and paradise/heaven is wonderful for believers. It also shows that if one will not accept the Word of God (Moses and the prophets is a Jewish idiom for the Bible) even something as miraculous as one rising from the dead (as Jesus did) and witnessing it, would not produce saving faith.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Is pedophilia abasic human right if a 9 year old consents? Is bestiality? Is polygamy if the wives consent?

    Well, the first two are impossible since neither an animal nor a nine year old child can meaningfully consent.

    But I’m sure you didn’t mean to pull the classic bigot-move of equating beastiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality.

    We cannot slaughter over 60 million children and not have God react.

    Absolutely true. Thankfully, no one’s slaughtering 60 million children.

    In fact, the complete and utter lack of divine retribution, by your own standards, confirms this to be the case.

    As an american, the attempts to conflate church and state and let religion determine law angers and frightens me. As a christian, attempts to blame your own bigotry and small-mindedness on the bible enrages me.

  • nolidad

    Well do not tell that to Masters and JOhnson, they testified before congress to legalize pedophilia. But all those sexual practices are condemned by God along with adultery and fornication.

    No no one right now is slaughtering 60 million children. That has been done in America over the past 40 years.

    Do not confuse Gods patience with His lack of retribution. His patience is in order for man to see the errors of his ways so that man will not force Gods hand of judgment.

    Well then you must be a very angry man as many of the laws of this land were argued for over a century on the basis of Christianity.

    As for your accusations towards me, THANK YOU!! Jesus was called the most narrow minded person whoever lived by the crowd that condemned Him. Jesus said the road to heaven is a narrow way and only a few find it, but the path to hell is a broad way and the majority go down that. I will not apologize for seeking to see people escape eternal punishment nor seeking to see the nation I love avoid divine wrath.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well do not tell that to Masters and JOhnson, they testified before congress to legalize pedophilia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_and_Johnson

    Not proven. You do yourself a profound disservice repeating unreferenced scurrilous accusations such as the above.

  • nolidad

    Well I will seek to find the cite asnd post it. But for now I wish all on the thread a joyous and blessed Thanksgiving. For me the rest of teh day is devoted to my family. I appreciate this opportunity to interact with all of you.

  • AnonaMiss

    Jesus was called the most narrow minded person whoever lived by the crowd that condemned Him.

    Uh, no, actually, most of Jesus’s persecutors thought Jesus was radically, dangerously open-minded. He was criticized for hanging out with tax collectors, prostitutes and ritually unclean people; he spoke to the Samaritan woman as to an equal.

    You have a poor understanding of the Christ if you believe he was condemned as narrow-minded.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Well, what’s important is that if someone is criticizing a Christian, then they must be doing something right because the unsaved and Christianists cannot appreciate the morals of a Real True Christian. After all, did Jesus not say “If they hate you, know that they hated me first”? Therefore hate is equal to being Jesus. QED, if you do things that make people hate you, you’re in the right!

  • nolidad

    I think you need to study the gospels again. Jesus said He was THE wayTHE truth and THE life not A way. He said He was it period. If you consider Jesus actions open minded, then my church is one of the most open minded churches in America despite being called close minded by the religious crowd.

  • AnonaMiss

    Brother, the topic of conversation was not what Jesus was, but what he was persecuted as. You said Jesus was persecuted as closed-minded, but the gospels clearly state that he was all about breaking the rules of Jewish society at the time – eating and drinking with unclean people, not ritually cleaning himself before eating or after being made ritually unclean by a menstruating woman, doing miracles on Sundays, eating unclean foods and saying that it’s what comes out of a man, not what goes into him, that makes him unclean.

    By the standards of the time and place, Jesus was open-minded, and that is what he was persecuted for.

  • nolidad

    Just as His followers today are very open minded about somethings but very close minded about others. OPen and closed mindedness is subject to which issues you are talking about. (BTW the Jews were violating the law when they had respect to persons)

  • AnonaMiss

    As for your accusations towards me, THANK YOU!! Jesus was called the most narrow minded person whoever lived by the crowd that condemned Him.

    Your claim was that Jesus was persecuted for being closed-minded during his lifetime. Whether or not Jesus or the modern Church was or is in fact open- or closed-minded by modern standards is not relevant to the point I’m making.

    The point I’m making is that you have misrepresented the Gospel in the service of making yourself out to be righteous. You were so eager to compare yourself to Jesus that you stated a falsehood about the content of the Gospel.

    Pause and reflect, grandfather.

  • nolidad

    I have not misrepresented the gospels in the least. Jesus obeyed Jewish law while the Pharisees were disobedient to the Law. and yes “theologically” Jesus is extremely close minded. I even said it depends on how one wishes to define open or close minded. I was thinking spiritually you appear to be thinking on a social level.

    And your emphasis point is totally off the mark. I am not talking at all about me, I am speaking of Christ and His Word, not my own morality. I never even implied I am coming from self centered positions, if you think I am please cite my response where I did.

  • AnonaMiss

    As for your accusations towards me, THANK YOU!! Jesus was called the
    most narrow minded person whoever lived by the crowd that condemned Him.

    You are painting yourself as righteous by making false claims about the Gospel. You are bearing false witness and praying on street corners. Pause and reflect, grandfather. May God have mercy on your soul.

  • nolidad

    I paint myself as righteous, because He has declared me so by His grace- not my abilities. I bear no false witness against the gosp[el ( I assume you are referring to the open close minded debate), Don’t take my word for it– go seek an orthodox Rabbi and ask Him if Yeshua bar Jusef was open or close minded. And God has already granted mercy to an unworth y sinner as I

  • Daniel

    “But all those sexual practices are condemned by God along with adultery and fornication.”
    Genesis 19:30-36. Still waiting for God to punish that one.

  • nolidad

    Hadn’t been p[rohibited yet by God. Incest wasa banned by God much later.

  • Daniel

    So God’s laws are subject to change. Got it. Might that not also apply to homosexuality?
    Incidentally, “incest wasa [sic] banned by God much later” makes sex with your father OK- but how about the date rape aspect of that story- they got Lot drunk enough that he wouldn’t know what he was doing in order to have sex with him. That was ok, but a consensual relationship between two people of the same sex was not?

  • nolidad

    Well this forum is not the best place to go into laws God designed as for a temporary period for a certain people for a certain time and LAWS that are eternal. If you want set up a separate thread and we can go into Biblical hermeneutics and delve into the Scriptures. Gods Word shows and says which laws were meant to be only temporary and which laws are designed as binding throughout human history.

  • Daniel

    Where does it say that? I repeat: if God’s laws can change with time (in this case regarding incest) how do you know his ban on homosexuality hasn’t been changed?

    And you haven’t answered why it’s less immoral to date rape your father than to be gay.

  • nolidad

    Gods law on incest di dnot change, it just wasn’t given till much later. Because the “ban” on homosexuality is also repeated to the church which is for the time from Penecost till Jesus returns for His bride at the rapture. Once again I ask for patience from all who post. I have limited time to respond and so many respondents, I want to answer all as best I can . If answers are too short let us try to find a way of getting detail if you seriously wish to know.

  • Daniel

    Clearly the law on incest did change though- if it wasn’t banned at first, but was banned later: that’s a change. Also, I appreciate you’re pressed for time, but you haven’t explained at all why Lot’s date rape is considered OK, yet homosexuality is not.

  • nolidad

    Well in how you express it- then yes there was a change. There was never a permission for it, ubt once Israel was in the land and the Mosaic Law was given for Israel in th eLand they were prohibited. And no biblically Lots daughters rape of their father was wrong. why ? even though not forbidden Scripture tell us in Rom. 5: Romans 5:13

    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    If you do not understand the doctrine of imputation I will explain if you wish.

  • Daniel

    So Lot’s daughters sinned, but could not be punished for it because they hadn’t been told it was a sin. So how was it that God was able to punish all people with the flood when no law had been given?

    What do you think the sin of Sodom was? I am aware that there are two different interpretations, but either way as the laws are not given until Moses, how is it fair to have punished people for not following them? The same question could be asked about the tower of Babel- God never told people it was wrong to build a big tower, but he still punished them for it.

    So: there was a change. There was also a change in the Mosaic dietary laws, which is why Christians enjoy bacon. How do you know since the Bible was written that God has not changed his mind about homosexuality?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Another thing no longer against the law: doing work on the Sabbath (used to be an offense punishable by death). There’s a mighty list of things you’re not permitted to do on the Sabbath, although there’s some disagreement as to what day the Sabbath falls upon…

  • nolidad

    Well you will hate this answer for it is very complicated for someone who is not a student of Gods Word, but it has to do with progressive revelation, dispensations, the difference between rules governing a theocracy and rules governing the church. The law was never designed to save- but to show mankind how wicked we are in comparison to the holiness of God. It was also designed to lead people to Christ when He came. This is very simplisitc answer and it is far more detailed than what I write. And the fact God did not impute sin in a prior time does not mean people were not guilty of sin.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Considering that even some Jewish people ignore parts of Mosaic law, you’re not exactly making your case airtight about whose “laws” are what.

  • nolidad

    Presently it is impossible to obey the “MOsaic laws” for it would take the rebuilding of the temple and reinstitution of animal sacrifieces. But histoorically, they didn’t even obey which is why sent in Rome in 70AD (they were their long befoe that-this is a turn of speech) and caused the diaspora.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I’m not sure what’s more breathtakingly offensive: the fact that you implicitly assume Jewish people are irrevocably bound to be rule-followers with no sense of when they’re appropriate or not, or the fact that you assume God was the dude who visited tragedy on the local Jews in Judea.

    And you continue to wonder why I compare your version of God to the likes of a Ceausescu or Mao.

  • nolidad

    Well seeing I never said the first that is your own making.

    If you wish not to believe me on the second–just look up rabbinic writings where thay also freely admit that God visited much evil on Israel for their rebellion against God. It is not a secret to either Jew ort Christian. God disciplines those He loves.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    God disciplines those He loves.

    Yeah not buying that. This image of the strict-daddy-belting-the-rebellious-kids God is really just not on, thank you.

    But I can easily see why it is you think God lets bad things happen to people.

  • nolidad

    That is your privilege. But though God is a strict parent- I do not think it is in the way you may be thinking. He loves us and if He disciplines His children it is because of love not because He is strict. That is simplistic but it includes lots of other biblical promises that expand His love for His children.

    He allows bad things to happen, because He doesn’t “micro-manage” mankind, nor makes us automatons. He just take things that are “bad’ because we live in a world corrupted by sin and turns them into good for His children.

    I repost Romans 8 again :

    28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

    29 For
    whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
    image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

    30 Moreover
    whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them
    he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

    31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

    32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

    33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

    34 Who
    is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
    risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
    intercession for us.

    35 Who
    shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or
    distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

    36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

    37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

    38 For
    I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
    principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

    39 Nor
    height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
    from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    This is why I say though terrible things happen to people–God can use them for good in a persons life- if the person will turn to Him. He loves!!!

  • dpolicar

    Oh, you’re adorable.

    You bring up the gay issue. When did this become a basic human right?

    For my own part, I don’t care much about hairsplitting about what is or isn’t a “basic human right.”

    For example, if getting the support of my neighbors in building a committed family relationship with someone I love and trust and respect, and who loves and trusts and respects me, isn’t a basic human right, that’s OK with me. I still think it’s a good idea, because it makes life better for people.

    And if you think it’s a good idea for people like you to have their lives made better in this way, but not a good idea for people like me to get the same support… well, in an egalitarian society it’s not up to me to prove otherwise. It’s up to you to demonstrate compelling reasons to discriminate against people like me. And yes, as you say, in this era in America, a particular religious denomination’s interpretation of a particular scripture doesn’t qualify as a compelling reason.

    We cannot slaughter over 60 million children and not have God react.

    I assume you’re referring to terminating fetuses here. Far more fetuses are terminated by natural processes — that is, by the hand of God, on your account — than by the hand of Man. If God objects to terminating fetuses, God should stop doing quite so much of it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I also find it singularly curious how uninterested pro-life folks are over the fact that in all species besides* humans there are spontaneous miscarriages that must surely be known to God.

    Of course, the sheer absurdity of getting worked up over that immediately presents itself which leads to the rather easily obtained conclusion that pro-life people just want something to be offended about.

    —-
    * I probably should have said “and not just” instead.

  • nolidad

    As for the gay issue i was just responding to someone who brought it up. I also do not say that gays are malicious or nasty or have warts. They may be fine upstanding and compassionate caring people, but their orientation is hated by God just like the adulterer, and the fornicator.

    As for killing children in the womb, using your rationality, we should do away with laws against murder, because after all more people die every year of natural causes in America than are murdered by Americans. Sorry but that is a false argument.

    And if and that is IF steps God into the order he has prescribed for the planet and chooses for a woman to miscarry- that is His right and prerogative as creator and Sovereign of the Universe. I trust in His mercy and compassion more than I do mine or any person’s.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    They may be fine upstanding and compassionate caring people, but their
    orientation is hated by God just like the adulterer, and the fornicator.

    You probably can’t see it, but the patronizing is oozing off my monitor. You do yourself no favors setting yourself up, even indirectly, as an arbiter over whose particular sexual expression with people who are capable of consent shall be considered good or bad.

    To be able to privilege one social-sexual group over another is not the proper function of law. If no harm is done, then all the law is doing is reinforcing aspects of social oppression and that in itself is harmful. In short, the law does what the law should avoid doing.

    As for killing children in the womb, using your rationality, we should do away with laws against murder

    The inherent absurdity of your straw-person argument should be evident here.

    While a simplified description is that the law should seek to prevent/punish harm done by one individual to another, I have also said that we humans are capable of shades of abstraction and meaning not generally accessible to other species.

    As a result when it comes to pregnant women the temptation can be to simply assume that abortion should be illegal on the grounds that that would best prevent harm.

    But actually, the situation is not so clear-cut; medical researchers have established that at least in some cases, pregnancy is actually dangerous to a woman’s health.

    Furthermore, while the law is best at preventing physical harm, there is the question of emotional and financial harm. Even if a woman is perfectly capable of carrying a baby to term, she may not be emotionally or financially equipped to do so or to raise the child so born.

    Adoption is an insufficient alternative. It is not a magic bullet. Those who favor adoption tend to gloss over the very real issue that:

    1. Prospective parents are often implicitly, if not explicitly, desired to be heterosexual, of sufficient income, and do not profess “unusual” religious views.

    2. Prospective parents often want their children to have no significant developmental problems and to be of the same race as themselves, and to be as young as possible so they lack possibly-ingrained psychological issues that can make raising the child a challenge.

    This automatically biases the adoption system in favor of adopting out white, healthy newborn babies to middle-class or wealthier white couples who are a man and a woman. Furthermore, it is a mathematical certainty that there are fewer well-off people than the preponderance of the working class and the poor. In short it is almost inevitable that not as many children born and given up are adopted, so that there is always a pool of children growing up who in the old days were put into orphanages and today who bounce around the Charlie Foxtrot of a foster care system which is astonishingly negligent in the big things and unreasonably interfering in the small things (See, for example, numerous anecdotes of perfectly ordinary parents whose children have been taken away by social services because something got misconstrued along the way, while simultaneously abusive and neglectful foster parents can milk the system for years on end and not get caught until it makes a big enough stink).

    Very well. Adoption is not the cure-all so often trumpeted by pro-life advocates. So what then? If pregnancy can be dangerous the option of abortion has to be left open. If adoption is not the cure-all then abortion has to remain an option also. There are other cases that could be considered that ultimately boil down to needing to leave abortion as an option.

    It is therefore an unfortunate necessity that a choice has to be made about who to protect more in the case of a pregnancy and I have just gotten done saying that in general the law is a bad thing to use in privileging one group over another. On balance, however, it seems that the mother should be given preference since it can be argued that harm to the mother is likely greater than harm to the zygote/embryo/fetus*, and this is the way it works in a number of countries around the world: until a baby is actually born it is not legally a person and may be aborted**.

    And if and that is IF steps God into the order he has prescribed for the planet and chooses for a woman to miscarry

    You really don’t want to go there. You really, really, don’t.

    “God’s plan” profferred as The Reason for bad things to happen to decent people is a profoundly offensive thing. It implies that for all the talk of “God is love”, “God’s infinite mercy”, what is really the case is that “God” is fundamentally capricious and fickle and doesn’t really give a damn about what “God” does to people.

    —-
    * Different terms apply depending on the exact stage of pregnancy.

    ** Believe me when I say that if you are any student at all of human nature, you would grasp that very few women casually get elective abortions. Cultural and social significance accorded pregnancy implies that the “well, fuck a duck, I’m getting an abortion!” types of people who are implicitly used by anti-abortion advocates as their reason for “stopping the abortion Holocaust” are in the extreme minority.

  • nolidad

    I am not the arbiter, I am only saying what Gods Word declares, before I became a Christian I was a live and let live kind of guy.

    You r arguments used in supporting the murder of the unborn could also be said of the mother of a young child. She may not be in an emotional, psychological and financial place to raise a child and adoption or foster care is not the magic bullet for those children outside of the womb either.

    As to a pregnance endangering the life of a mother I agree. My wife had an ectopic pregnance and because the baby could not be moved, we saved the life we could.

    I do go into the what if scenario simply because I am not omniscient and know that God can choose when and IF He wants to step into the affairs of man and do certain things. I do not ascribe all things and cannot know when God does unless it is revealed. But I do knkow that even when “evil” occurs, God will work it for the good to those who love Him and are the called according to His purposes.

    Well I only know of the anti abortion advocates I know and we do not use the rhetoric you ascribe us to use. Some do most don’t. I know many women struggle with abortion–that is good their conscience is stil alive. Even NOW has recognized the reality of P.A.S.and its debilitating effects emotionally on many women.

    Well abortion is casual. It happens almost 3,000 times a day in America alone.

    If abortion isn’t the deliberate taking of a human life–what is it????? What is the “thing” that is killed in the womb???? It is alive.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well abortion is casual. It happens almost 3,000 times a day in America alone.

    Out of a country of 300 million people, so 3000 is a small number, comparatively speaking. It adds up to ~1 million per year.

    Even NOW has recognized the reality of P.A.S.and its debilitating effects emotionally on many women.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-abortion_syndrome

    Not medically proven. NOW not listed as recognizing it.

    But I do knkow that even when “evil” occurs, God will work it for the good to those who love Him and are the called according to His purposes.

    I dare you to tell all the Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia who died meaninglessly that the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the war that followed was “for the good of those who love [God]”.

    Bosnian Serbs are as a rule Serbian Orthodox (Christian!) and Bosnian Croats are as a rule Catholic (Christian!) and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians do.

    You’re not gonna be able to skate on the “they were heathens so it doesn’t matter” defence.

    You r arguments used in supporting the murder of the unborn could also be said of the mother of a young child. She may not be in an emotional,psychological and financial place to raise a child and adoption or foster care is not the magic bullet for those children outside of the
    womb either.

    No, because the young child has an independent existence and so all the prohibitions against harm must apply. Thus we do not murder young children. But we also put in place positive measures: some countries give money to women who are not able to afford to raise their own children, and offer broad-based daycare services to take some of the burden off single mothers.

    I am not the arbiter, I am only saying what Gods Word declares, before I became a Christian I was a live and let live kind of guy.

    Implying that you now “Speak for God”, which is a kind of admission that you are claiming a moral authority.

  • nolidad

    As for PASS-right disorder- wrong attribution my apologies :

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201010/post-abortion-stress-syndrome-pass-does-it-exist

    Well I cannot get into who is and is not saved.within Christian churches Mathew 7 and Matthew 13:24-30 that not everyone who names the name of Christ or is part of a Christian “sect” is necessarily a believer. I showed that earlier, religion doesn’t save a single person.

    As for national events I cannot tell you for I do not know. What I do know I now quote:

    Romans 8:

    28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover
    whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He
    also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

    Gods word doesn’t and I did not say all things are good, but that all things wortk for the good. How that plays out I can;t answer for anyuone else, sometimes not even for me- I just trust the one who inspired those words to be written.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The writer of the PASS article has an accredited Master’s and a non-accredited doctorate. She also concedes that it is not a special syndrome all its own, but rather appears as a subset of PTSD.

    In short, your case is not buttressed very well.

    Gods word doesn’t and I did not say all things are good, but that all things wortk for the good. How that plays out I can;t answer for anyuone else, sometimes not even for me- I just trust the one who inspired those words to be written.

    Which is no answer at all.

    You’ve as much as said you are happy to tell someone who has suffered a bad thing that it is somehow necessary to a larger plan.

    I press you again on the matter: Would you look a Bosnian Muslim in the eye and tell him or her that the Bosnian Serb that killed their family was simply a cog in God’s machine for a greater good?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    For that matter, for a closer to my heart example, why some Christians feel the need to abuse their children in the name of their religion to the point that said children, now adults, associate Christianity with abuse and thus are forever turned away from God?

    That seems like a pretty shitty thing to do, if God also adheres to eternal damnation for anyone who doesn’t say the exact right magic words.

    Fortunately, this turns out to not be the case.

  • nolidad

    well to directly answer your Muslim question. I could not tell them their pain for now is for their good. No. They are not believers if they are Muslim. If those deaths produce salvation in their life and leads them to godliness and fellowship with God perhaps it did. Not having Gods itinerary for HIm I cannot answer for others. I can speculate and give general answers but as to specifics I would tread very cautiously. But for believers God works evil things to their good, of that I am 100% convinced.

    Yes PASS is a subset of the larger PTSD There are many subsets under PTSD- each unique to the trauma that induces the stress. It is a legitimate psychological trauma that is written on. Of course NOW, NARAL et al would deny it, for it would weaken their pro abortion stance.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    well to directly answer your Muslim question. I could not tell them their pain for now is for their good. No. They are not believers if they are Muslim. If those deaths produce salvation in their life and leads them to godliness and fellowship with God perhaps it did.

    The sheer offensiveness of this statement completely passes you by.

    In the strongest possible terms, I say that you should reconsider that statement and withdraw it.

  • nolidad

    Well I am sorry if Gods Word offends you but what I said is from Romans 8:

    28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

    29 For
    whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
    image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

    30 Moreover
    whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them
    he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

    31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

    32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

    33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

    34 Who
    is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
    risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
    intercession for us.

    35 Who
    shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or
    distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

    36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

    37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

    38 For
    I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
    principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

    39 Nor
    height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
    from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    There is much evil in the world. The question of why a lovingGod would allow evil has plagued many. After 40 years of walking with the Lord and studying His Word, I think I have a vague handle on it. But I do trust HIm. He blesses all mankind with theologically is called “provenient grace”. But the blessings found in Scripture are reserved for His children. I wish all people were His children but the Bible clearly says NO. I do not relish when evil befalls a person, my heart breaks for them,and after giveing human consolation to an individual, I seek to convince to turn to Christ and receive the greatest gift–forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This sttatement I made Jesus and many other believers have said and it offended many as well.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I’ll explain why it’s offensive:

    You have just said that you believe tragedies and calamities are visited upon people by God for the express purpose of forcing them to believe your particular version of Christianity.

    Let’s pick another less loaded example:

    The collapse of the Soviet Union immediately aggravated already-extant economic problems for almost a decade, especially within Russia. In that time period, the life expectancies of Russians, and Russian men in particular, simply collapsed. Betwen rising alcoholism and lack of proper health care, millions of people have very likely died premature deaths in their fifties or even earlier, who otherwise might have managed to live until their sixties or seventies.

    Are you saying that God purposely immiserated all those Russians just for a bunch of extra notches in his belt?

    The sheer callousness of that claim is beyond belief.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Related thought: People who want to turn the Problem of Suffering into evidence for God seem more concerned with turning human suffering into a cosmic game of scorekeeping and thus miss the point entirely.

  • nolidad

    No I didn’t, I said God can use tragedies,m you are twisting my words.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s still offensive. A God of such caprice is not one I want to follow. Period. And it’s also offensive that you seem to think nothing is wrong with “using tragedies” as a conversion tactic.

  • nolidad

    Well people have imitated God since recorded history. Not with the omniscience of a loving God. But when gentle persuasion doesn’t work, people will ratchet up pressure just like God does. Why is it okay for man to imitate God but wrong for God to exert pressure (tragedies ) to bring someone around if gentler means refused to work. God works on the eternal basis of a persons soul, if temporary physical harm can achieve eternal salvation when gentle persuasion won’t work, it has doen its purpose. Just like when a loving parent spanks a child to get them to stop bad behavior when other means failed. I want to repeat. tragedies are allowed by God, not initiated by Him. He will choose to use them for good instead of just letting them happen for no cause. Sometimes God will initiate “negative” results (that is called suffering consequences for actions). God is not capricious at all. If He was He would have a following of none. He acts in love not capriciousness or evil. Once again this life is but a whisp compared to eternity and the Lords desire is that none should persih.but all come to everlasting life.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Why is it okay for man to imitate God but wrong for God to exert
    pressure (tragedies ) to bring someone around if gentler means refused
    to work.

    If you think I condone human beings purposely exploiting tragedies for their own gain you have another think coming.

  • nolidad

    Never implied you did. I think you have completely misread my statement.

  • Veleda_k

    So, because people sometimes behave horribly, torturing people to get them to “repent” or confess to things they haven’t done, it’s acceptable for God to do the same? Is anything horrible people do just them copying God?

    I suppose people see the God they want to see.

  • P J Evans

    Who appointed you as Speaker for God? She’s quite capable of speaking for herself.

  • nolidad

    Anyone who bothers to read HIS Word can qoute the decrees He made known for man. As His child and being a born again believer it is required to represent Him. I hope to do so faithfully all the time.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’re conflating “alive” with “human life.” The two are not equal. Algae is alive, but nobody complains about killing it. Cows are alive, but nobody complains about killing them.

    Speaking as someone whose actually *had* an abortion, please refrain from telling me what I felt about my medical procedures. You’re a male…You will never even be put in the situation to have to make that choice. And even if you were, you couldn’t begin to speak for any of the other people who have to make it. Your off-handed comment that abortion is “casual” simply because the number of them that happen is higher than you’d like is false and disrespectful.

    And no, you are not saying what “god’s word declares” about abortion. You are saying what you choose to read into the bible about the matter. There are several spots that clearly state that a fetus isn’t a life, and there’s a chapter in Numbers where god orders abortion. And then there are all the times god murdered pregnant women and their fetuses himself. There are also verses that, if forced into a specific context, could be read as “pro-life.” The bible is rife with situations like that…It’s full of contradictory statements. If you choose to read it one way, that’s fine. But keep your personal beliefs in your personal life, and leave my medical decisions alone.

    Also, please keep your delusions about god working everything out for the best to yourself. That’s highly insulting to people that your god did nothing to save from painful, senselessly bad things. If you choose to believe it yourself, then more power to you. But those of us he tossed to the wolves don’t need it rubbed in our faces.

    Lastly, no. A lot of the arguments for abortion cannot also be tied to a young child. A young child is not literally attached to it’s mother and leeching off her body. Every time you make that claim, you erase the woman, her effort, and the risk you’re trying to force her to take by demanding that she carry the fetus to satisfy your fuzzy feelings.

  • nolidad

    No as a man I can not ever hope to know what teh trauma of abortion is. But 1.5 million procedures in a society is a societal casualness towards it. We would need to peel off a separate thread to speak of the supposed “contradictions” you allege exist. What I find interesting is that every church that holds the Bible to be the inspired word of God all say the same thing- abortion is the taking of human life by a deliberate and willful act.Even if traumatic. I do not seek to condemn you. I would love to see a verse in the Bible that declares a living fetus is not a life.

    And you misquote me. I did not say that God makes all things good. Nor did I say that all things are good. I did say that God works all things for the good for His children. If someone is outside the family of God then no sadly God will not work bad things out for the good.

    If you think the baby inside a womb is not a child in just a different stage of human development, then please tell me what kind of life exists inside a mothers womb?

    Are you so cynical about children you refer to providing a baby nutrition as leeching? I am very pro choice! A woman has a right to get pregnant or not get pregnant, but once that new life is inside of her- she has made a choice whehter she likes it or not. And boy considering that several hundred million babies are born yearly, the risks are quite minimal medically speaking unless there are unique medical issues attached.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    What I find interesting is that every church that holds the Bible to be the inspired word of God all say the same thing- abortion is the taking of human life by a deliberate and willful act.

    I don’t find it interesting at all. When I predefine being a true Christian to mean “having coinciding views to my own,” I often find that all Christians agree with my opinions as well. However, you will be interested to note that among the people you are excluding as apparently not believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God would be Saint Augustine himself. Since Augustine believed in delayed ensoulment, it was his judgment that abortion was not murder before a certain point of development (usually before quickening, i.e., when the fetus is noticeably animated, kicking, etc.)

    I am very pro choice! A woman has a right to get pregnant or not get pregnant

    I’m glad rape doesn’t exist in this world, nor sexual abuse, nor sexual coercion, nor denial of access to or sabotage of birth control!

    And boy considering that several hundred million babies are born yearly, the risks are quite minimal medically speaking unless there are unique medical issues attached.

    The United States has the highest rate of maternal death of any industrialized nation.

  • nolidad

    Well Augustine held many biblical views, but many non biblical views as well. Many ante and post Nicene fathers held some bizarre views Origen and Arius two fo the more noted.If we wish to get into Augustinian theology I would suggest a new thread to discuss it.

    Rape, sexual abuse are hideous crimes! But murdering the innocent child does nothing to assuage the crime perpetrated against the mother.

    Well our high maternal death rate is not due to bad medicine but other policies Pregnance is considered a very safe condition under normal circumstances. I would love to see a study as to causes of maternal death and see what other causes left untreated produced those deaths.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    But murdering the innocent child does nothing to assuage the crime perpetrated against the mother.

    Stop erasing the woman’s role in the choice and stop and think about this. Of course it does, if it is her choice. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, risking permanent alteration and health complications and losing her job, all to have a permanent reminder of the crime committed upon her person? A child for whom the rapist can then drag her into a custody battle over? A child for whom, in some communities, will even lead the community to try and force her into marriage with him (in accordance with Biblical law)? A child who can be used as a means of coercion to keep silent and not leave an abusive home?

    There are as many reasons to choose abortion as there are reasons to not want to be pregnant.

    Pregnance is considered a very safe condition under normal circumstances.

    By people who have no knowledge of how pregnancy works, yes. For those who actually work in the medical field, there’s a reason why it’s called a miracle. Even a “normal” pregnancy has a tendency to leave its mark — as you ought to know. You have, what, six children?

  • nolidad

    Well being a board certified counselor, and having dealt with women in crisis pregnancy centers and counseling pregnant victims of rape, I have seen far more positive outcomes for women who carried their babies to term.

    And I never said that pregnancy carries no risk– even taking a simple aspirin carries risk. Every medical procedure carries risk. I know of no biblical communities who would force that woman to marry the rapist, But I would not be surprised there are churches like that. I don’t know of any case where a rapist after he raped a woman sought to go to court to get custody of the product of their rape.

    Oh I agree people have many reasons to end the life inside them. Outside of medical necessity nearly every reason is because of self centered interests.. “Not convenient” can’t afford another mouth”” have to quit school” . I am sure there is sad consideration but really? I will kill a baby because it is not the optimal time for me? Do yourself a favor and chart out the amount of child neglect, abuse, abandonment and murder in this country and see if it doesn’t grow the more and more legalized abortion became entrenched in the American mindset. Coincidence? Many would give many reasons to say why they don’t relate.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Ah, crisis pregnancy centers. Right, we’re done here. You’ve just admitted that you’re willing to say and do anything, whatever it takes, to further your agenda. You are a genuine Liar for Jesus. For you, the truth is so malleable that you can justify any perversion of fact if it appears likely to hammer down a tribal boundary or drag someone onto your side of it. You are a pathetic use of the clay which spawned you and your passing will incrementally improve the world.

  • nolidad

    Well the women helped prove you wrong but that is okay. Having fallen behind by the sheer number of responses. I shall delete any furhter answers from you as you wish to be done.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know, someone else rolled on in here about, oh, three months ago?

    Claimed to also have been a counsellor for pregnant women, et cetera.

    Now I don’t know if you’re the same person, or if folks like you think that’s some kind of armored magic tank that demolishes all opposition to what you have to say.

    But I will state right now I don’t believe you ever got your qualifications from an accredited institution.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    That’s okay. None of our recent trolls believe in professional accreditation. I assume they only use high-quality non-accredited medical doctors since they have such disdain for the AMA.

  • nolidad

    Well that person wasn’t me. And my certification was granted by AACC which is fully acredited to grant counseling licenses, degrees for LSW and MSW , as well as psychology , but as of yet not psychiatry their certtifications, licenses and degrees are accepted near universally… which has thousands of professionals in the field of counseling. I am not a LSW or MSW. Just certified for counseling. I do not work in a crisis center but counsel women within centers as well as having recommended some to centers.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    These guys?

    Plus you have Social Work degrees, although not the licences yet?

    What poor bastard did you flimflam to get all those licences and memberships? I wouldn’t let you near a pregnant mouse, never mind a human.

  • nolidad

    The list is long and illustrious!!!! I will take the affection of the many I have counseled and helped and even those who chose to go through with an abortion. Your opinion doesn’t mean much. Because most of it has been formed by you rown presuppositions and not who I am. You keep twisting my comments or making false assumptions to prove your own biased concepts.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    For the rest of you, this is why I object to crisis pregnancy centers and have no respect whatsoever for those who maintain them:
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/15/2948781/lies-cpc-week-action/
    http://www.naralva.org/what-is-choice/cpc/common-lies.shtml

  • nolidad

    Well when I get a chance I will read those propaganda sites. But having worked in some (not as staff but volunteer) and knowing thousands upon thousands of “success” stories, I know they have value. Without even seeing these, it wouldn’t surprise me if they cite some extreme fringe examples that are very very rare.. Let me ask you have you ever been to one and interviewed women involved?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Yes. They reported much the exact same as those “propaganda” sites. In fact, we have someone in this thread who has been to one as well — same exact story.

    If you measure success by “did we stop the slut from having an abortion,” then yes, you get results. If you measure success by “did you do what was best for the patient,” then by all means, don’t be surprised to find yourself sorted among the goats.

  • nolidad

    Well as I said- there are too many centers as were described. But all the centers I have dealt with , measure success by how both patients are dealt with, both pre and post natal.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Also the experience of the fundamentalist-raised author of the Defeating the Dragons blog, discussed in her Bitter Waters series:

    It started the day I called the Crisis Pregnancy Center, frightened and desperate, and the woman on the phone implied that I was a slut and I deserved whatever happened to me.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Oh, wow. I hadn’t heard of that blog or that series of posts, but it is amazing.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I’m surprised, Fred’s posted at least the first few.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Well, my attendance here has been spotty for the last while, due to job issues and a few other things.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    *Facepalm* Duh. Sorry! You just seem to always be around, upvoting everything. XD In any case, I’m glad to have shared something that made for good reading.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Heh. Yeah, as I’ve mentioned, I tend to upvote (or downvote) things so that I can tell at a glance what I’ve read. I’ve got decidedly mixed feelings about conversation threading.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I can’t follow the threading. I rely on e-mail transcripts. I miss edits, but it means things come to me in nice, sensible, chronological order. :p

  • nolidad

    Well I do apologize for teh rudeness of that person. That operator was dead wrong and should never have been put in a position to insult a woman seeking needed help like that. I am glad in my area there are none like this at least that I know of.

  • P J Evans

    When you can get pregnant, you’ll be qualified to tell us how wonderful it all is. Until then, you’re just making it worse by telling women they should give birth to a child they didn’t want and can’t keep.
    A ‘counsellor’ who can’t hear what’s being said to them isn’t worth going to.

  • nolidad

    Your response is so fallacious on so many levels. I hear what any one who comes to me has to say. Your presuppositions blind you from seeing I do not condemn people for their actions.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    (Trigger warning for some really ugly history.)

    “I have seen far more positive outcomes for women who carried their babies to term.”

    And the negative outcomes can be truly horrific: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-legitimate-children-of-rape.html Relevant quotes:

    One rape survivor, in testimony before the Louisiana Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, described her son as “a living, breathing torture mechanism that replayed in my mind over and over the rape.” Another woman described having a rape-conceived son as “entrapment beyond description” and felt “the child was cursed from birth”; the child ultimately had severe psychological challenges and was removed from the family by social services concerned about his mental well-being. One of the women I interviewed said, “While most mothers just go with their natural instincts, my instincts are horrifying. It’s a constant, conscious effort that my instincts not take over.”

    The journalist Helena Smith wrote the story of a woman named Mirveta, who gave birth to a child conceived in rape in Kosovo. Mirveta was twenty years old, and illiterate; her husband had abandoned her because of the pregnancy. “He was a healthy little boy and Mirveta had produced him,” Smith writes. “But birth, the fifth in her short lifetime, had not brought joy, only dread. As he was pulled from her loins, as the nurses at Kosovo’s British-administered university hospital handed her the baby, as the young Albanian mother took the child, she prepared to do the deed. She cradled him to her chest, she looked into her boy’s eyes, she stroked his face, and she snapped his neck. They say it was a fairly clean business. Mirveta had used her bare hands… The aid worker taking care of Mirveta said, “Who knows? She may have looked into the baby’s face and seen the eyes of the Serb who raped her. She is a victim, too. Psychologically raped a second time.”

    “I don’t know of any case where a rapist after he raped a woman sought to go to court to get custody of the product of their rape.”

    That’s because you’ve never bothered to look. I just did a Google search for “rapist child custody” and a lot of cases came up. The first hit was this article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

    “Do yourself a favor and chart out the amount of child neglect, abuse, abandonment and murder in this country and see if it doesn’t grow the more and more legalized abortion became entrenched in the American mindset.”

    Try charting it out yourself, and you’ll be surprised. Societies in which families are allowed to control their numbers are less likely to abuse their children; Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about this during his time among the South Sea Islanders. Then consider the 18th and 19th century, when so many children were abandoned that many foundling hospitals had unofficial “killing nurses”, and small children would often be found dead of “overlaying” — smothered to death while sleeping in their parents’ beds (their parents would often claim not to have noticed due to drunkenness).

    Here’s some more history of which Nolidad is clearly ignorant: what things were like during pre-Roe America. You see, banning abortion has very little effect on the actual number of abortions performed (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1& ); it does, however, have a dramatic effect on the safety of the women who seek them out. Here’s what happens:

    The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    About 90% of the patients were there with complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds, in addition to extra beds which lined the halls. Each day we admitted between 10-30 septic abortion patients. We had about one death a month, usually from septic shock associated with hemorrhage.

    I will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina. She survived.

    I will never forget the jaundiced woman in liver and kidney failure, in septic shock, with very severe anemia, whose life we were unable to save.

    Today, in Canada and the U.S., septic shock from illegal abortion is virtually never seen. Like smallpox, it is a “disappeared disease.”

    http://thecoathangerproject.blogspot.ca/2009/06/why-i-am-abortion-doctor-by-dr-gary.html

    Ironically, it was the medical profession, which had made abortion illegal in the first place, that started to speak out. Doctors treating the desperately sick women who landed in hospitals with raging peritonitis, hemorrhages, perforated uteruses, and septic shock often had to futilely watch them die, because the women had waited too long to get help—because they were confused and terrified, because what they had done was “illegal” and “immoral.”…

    …In the [book The Worst of Times], a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. “The deaths stopped overnight in 1973.” He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. “That,” he says, “ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1

  • nolidad

    I never disagreed that illegal abortions turned horrible way too often.

    If you like, I will gladly post numerous testimony of women who decided not to abort their child of rape or abuse, and with decent counseling, care and a support network loved that child and considered it an honor and joy that they chose life. For every horror story psychologically there are probably as many others that are great! I wonder if these women you cite can ever recover emotionally. Rape is intensely traumatic and the woman deserves our love, compassion and help to rebuild her psyche after that despicable act. But it has been done numerous times. And if it hasn’t one wonders if the victim will ever be stable enough to love children or will have PTSD flashbacks and do harm to her “wanted child”.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “If you like, I will gladly post numerous testimony of women who decided not to abort their child of rape or abuse, and with decent counseling, care and a support network loved that child and considered it an honor and joy that they chose life.”

    Notice that word there: CHOSE. These women made a CHOICE. Other women might have made a different CHOICE. Because every woman is different, just like all people are different, and what may be freeing and life-affirming for one could be, for another, like being raped all over again.

    You can’t make a CHOICE while having only one option.

    “…one wonders if the victim will ever be stable enough to love children or will have PTSD flashbacks and do harm to her “wanted child”.”

    Here’s an idea: ask each individual woman what she feels will be the best form of support for her.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    But but but! What would a woman know about such things?

  • nolidad

    Unless you are falling to your death or some other scenario where everything is outside of your control–there is always more than one choice. It may require some temporary difficulty or changes but there are always more than one choice.

  • nolidad

    There are always more than one choice unless you are falling to your death or a vehicle out of control. killing a baby is just a bad choice.

    I usually ask women (especially in the divorce care group I help counsel in) but sometimes the best form is not always a realistic option and people must goto plan B or plan C and let God give the joy in less than the best physical answers

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Oh, also, I just remembered something I’d read about in the 1990s which is still going on: Brazilian street kids are being exterminated by death squads, which often include former or off-duty policemen. This is not an exaggeration:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/death-to-undesirables-brazils-murder-capital-1685214.html

    http://www.stephenbrookes.com/international/2006/4/18/the-murder-of-rios-street-kids.html

    Like most Latin American countries, Brazil is extremely “pro-life”. So yeah, your notion that legal abortion makes people view children as disposable? Utter bullshit.

  • nolidad

    So you judge a whole nation by teh actions of a few ( do you know of these murderers are pro choice or pro life?)

    Well let me use your standard. I will if asked post about 7-8 cites where liberals callfor death to Christian and Jews. Therefore anyone who is a liberal believes in murdering Jews and Christioans. So much for the claim of tolerance form the left.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    First of all, you’re moving the goalposts. Your supposition was that CULTURES which have legal abortion must promote a widespread view that children are disposable — conversely, that would mean that cultures which have banned abortion would promote a widespread view that children are more precious. The actions of organized groups within a culture are a reflection of that culture’s mores. Whether the entire population agrees with the actions of said organized group is not the point of this exercise — the point is to examine trends.

    Perhaps this will hit closer to home for you:

    This study examines the question of whether infants and children fare better in U.S. states that have the most restrictive abortion laws. Eighteen indicators of infant/child health, family, economic, and educational status are analyzed. The empirical evidence finds that states with the most antiabortion policies are also the same states that have significantly lower indicators of infant/child well-being.

    Full study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24245932/

    “I will if asked post about 7-8 cites where liberals callfor death to Christian and Jews.”

    Really? Go for it. Let’s see these citations.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I could probably find about a hundred examples of people on liberal sites calling for the deaths of Christians, but a rather large number of them I’d probably classify as libertarians, not liberals. Not the same thing at all. <.<

  • nolidad

    No you said MUST I said generally speaking. I never made such assertion that is you reading into my words again.

  • AnonaMiss

    Well being a board certified counselor

    By what board?

    Outside of medical necessity nearly every reason is because of self centered interests … “can’t afford another mouth”

    Seriously? The fact that adding the financial burden of another child will cause other children to go hungry is an example of a “self-centered interest”?

  • nolidad

    Seriously? If a child goes hungry in America it is only because the parents if they are jobless do not avail themselves of the help available. In my state a person on full SNAP benefits with the state supplement receive $635/month in food benefit For a family of four. I don’t know of any family who would starve with $159 of food benefits /week. I am not implying people will live in th elap of luxury. But the poor in America are far better off than 85% of the rest of the world! Even such liberal papers like the NYTimes report on the growing obesity problem among the poor in America. And what about iin days gone by when there were no $800 billion in federal, state, and local benefits for the indigent? People had larger families than today and they all got by. Does that mean they were better thasn the folks of today? or Smarter? I have been to countries with REAL poverty and seen families with 6-7-8 children and they get by and are even happy without all the stuff we in America have. So sorry that really is an argument that doesn’t wash well.

  • AnonaMiss

    For your hypothetical family of four to qualify for SNAP benefits you need to have a gross monthly income of less than $2552. For a family of five, it’s $2987.

    So let’s suppose that our mother of three has a gross monthly income of $3200, spread across two jobs, at which she works 30 hours a week each. Renting laws (in my area) require 1 bedroom per two occupants, so she is currently renting a 2-bedroom apartment – but will need to move up to a 3-bedroom apartment if she completes the pregnancy. According to apartments.com, the cheapest 2-bedroom apartments in my area have $1200/month rent. $100/month for utilities, $100/month for car insurance, $600/month for food for the four of them (less than the amount SNAP would provide), $100/month car payment, $200/month on gasoline. I charged $7/hour to look after three kids at once Back In The Day, so let’s pretend she could still find care at that rate, and that her work always schedules her to work during school hours, so she only has to pay for 30 hours a week, for a total of $900/month on childcare.

    That’s $3200/month spoken for – well over the poverty line, well over the point where she could claim SNAP benefits, and without counting health insurance, clothes, incidentals and emergencies.

    Add another kid, and the cheapest apartments available are now $1600/month – and she has to move, with all the expenses that entails – because it’s illegal to rent out a 2-bedroom apartment to a family of five; and food and childcare expenses are only going to go up with a new baby.

    Basically, you’d rather dismiss poor women’s complaints as lies, and assume that they’re lazy and callous, than take the time and effort to do some napkin math to doublecheck if what they’re saying makes sense.

  • nolidad

    No to all your false accusation of me. Why do you and others here cherish presumtiousness??

    If you want me to show you math figures I can. Benefits vary state by state and amount by state etc.etc.etc. If a man would move his famoily to continue to provide for their needs if a more secure job requires him to move, why not a single mom to a better paying state until she can get back on her feet.There are many alternatives to yoru example but I am sure you would scold me as heartless or something.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Not all stages of development are equivalent to one another. Consider how many zygotes are naturally flushed from the body. If a woman were to insist, every time she had a particularly late or heavy period, on putting her issue into a tiny coffin and mourning over it, we’d think there was something terribly wrong with her — yet we understand and sympathize if she mourns over a stillbirth.

    Similarly, if it is discovered that someone absorbed their twin in utero (like this: http://boingboing.net/2009/05/01/the-mind-blowing-wor.html ), we do not consider them to have committed manslaughter.

  • nolidad

    I agree not all stages of development are the same either in utero or ex utero. An infant is far different in many many aspects than a senior citizen. If you are talking a miscarriage period no I would not expect a funeral either. Funerals are more attached to emotional attachments than other causes. But even in most miscarriages a woman experiences a sense of loss when she discovers her pregnancy has ended. That may becoming less and less as time passes but I know many women who still have a remorse over past miscarriages.

    As for chimeras and the like I would have to do studies, this article is not informative enough to make decisions.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Chimeras occur when a fertilized egg divides as if to produce twins, then merges again, producing a single embryo with two sets of DNA. The most famous case was of a woman who failed a paternity test for her own children, even immediately after giving birth. It turned out that her ovaries (if memory serves) were from an absorbed twin and thus she was biologically her children’s aunt.

  • nolidad

    Interesting. But is not germane to woman intentionally ending the unborn life in their womb.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Yes, it is. Because if you claim, as most anti-choicers do, that anything from a fertilized egg onwards counts as a “person”, then the logical conclusion would be that someone who absorbs their twin in utero is guilty of manslaughter.

    If you don’t think they’re guilty of manslaughter, then why not? If you do, then what do you think their punishment should be?

    Edited to add: this is why I brought up the thing about late or heavy periods in the first place. If you believe that every zygote is a “person”, then why, now that we know the odds that a sexually active woman’s period might contain a fertilized egg, would we still allow a woman to flush that down the toilet rather than charging her with Offering an Indignity to a Human Body?

  • nolidad

    Well I can’t honestly answer hypothetical s where “odds” and “mights” are involved. Secondly why one twin absorbs another in the womb is unknowable either medically or biblically . Manslaughter requires malicious intent or negligence.

    As far as the indignity thing, that is cultural and not biblical. the bible does not really address what is to be done with the results of a miscarriage. I know what my wife and I would do personally- but that is us and opur personal choice which we cannot impose on others.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Manslaughter requires malicious intent or negligence.”

    No, actually. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished by lack of malice aforethought — that’s why I said “manslaughter” and not “murder”. But it’s still considered a crime.

    So, I’ll ask again: if someone is found to have absorbed their twin in utero, do you think that they’re guilty of manslaughter? If not, why not? If so, what do you think their punishment should be?

  • nolidad

    Well as our laws do not hold infants capable of crimes then in utero absorption could not be a criminal act. It could not be iinvoluntary manslaughter by statuate.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well as our laws do not hold infants capable of crimes then in utero
    absorption could not be a criminal act. It could not be iinvoluntary
    manslaughter by statuate.

    An entirely reasonable stance. It then follows that removal of a zygote or an embryo or a fetus can therefore also not be a criminal offence.

  • nolidad

    If the laws of a land do not consider that a person, then according to the laws of that land it would not be criminal, I agree totally. I however hold to higher laws and know that the Creator of the Universe has laws that many times disagree with human laws. His Word says we all will stand before HIm to give account, so I seek to move life to obeying His laws. The Apostles also faced these very things and their answer was they would rather obey God than man.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Manslaughter requires malicious intent or negligence.

    No. That would be what makes it “manslaughter” and not “murder”.

  • nolidad

    Thats just what I said. IN American law there are two degrees of manslaughter- voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary calls for intent or a large degree of will ful negligence- but not premeditation like 1st degree murder calls for. Involuntary is accidental death of a person through ones actions.

  • dpolicar

    why one twin absorbs another in the womb is unknowable either medically or biblically .

    How confident are you that you, personally, know what is unknowable medically?

    How confident are you that you, personally, know what is unknowable biblically?

    How did you arrive at this confidence?

    I know what my wife and I would do personally- but that is us and opur personal choice which we cannot impose on others.

    And y’all are entitled to make those choices, and I applaud your willingness to allow others to make their own choices.

  • nolidad

    I only know what cannot be unknown medically based on what I have searched and studied. there is loads I do not know about and try to not comment on those or include that it is my opinion, and my opinion can be 0-100% wrong.

    Biblically- I am much more confident having studied the Word for forty years now. I am not inmfallible and have changed positions many times when better biblical arguments were presented. I am still learning and growing.

    For both it is the depth of research I have done. Medically there is but a few areas I can speak with real confidence in, biblically many many, many more.

    Yes even though many on th is site would say I am lying, I would defend to the death (metaphorically speaking) a persons right to make their own choices. BUT as I am a child of God and a serious student of His Word I would seek to tell them of the negastive consequences His Word declares if htey are going down a path God hates.

  • dpolicar

    Sorry, I didn’t quite follow.

    Are you saying you have high confidence, based on the depth of research you’ve done, that it’s unknowable medically why one twin absorbs another in the womb?

    Or are you saying you have low confidence, based on the depth of research you’ve done, that it’s unknowable medically why one twin absorbs another in the womb?

    I would defend [..] a persons right to make their own choices

    And I continue to applaud this.

  • nolidad

    I have high confidence that I do not know why one twin would absorb another. I have done almost zero research here so I am speaking in the dark if I go further. I do not even know that it can be explained fully correctly. I am sure there are theories out there, but just considering the situation and the complexities of trying to research this, I think there is no factual answers. But I may be dead wrong.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Do you need to stubbornly insist that we’re “casual” monsters to maintain what you have to believe about us so it fits your narrative? Because you have someone whose actually made the decision telling you that you’re wrong. You’re completely erasing the experience of a person whose actually done what you willingly acknowledge you cannot…You’re making a purposeful choice to refuse accurate information so as to cling to what you choose to believe.

    No, really, we don’t need a whole new thread for that point. I can give you citation and you can go look them up yourself. Or you can just ignore them and falsely claim that all Real True Christians believe as you do, like you did. Not every Christian who claims to follow the word of god believes a fetus is a life. You’re posting on the blog of a person who proves your example false. Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe you don’t have the right interpretation?

    Oh, and as for the evidence you ask for…Numbers 20. The usual punishment for a loss of life is not given of the woman is forced to miscarry, and further, even if the woman dies, there’s no mention of reparations for the fetus as a loss of life. It’s treated as a property loss.

    I’ve heard the verses people use for the “pro-life” argument. None of them apply. They’re one man talking to god about what said man thinks of his specific situation, all written long before people ever tied sex to reproduction, muchless had any idea about conception.

    And you would willingly worship a god who lets horrible things happen to his beloved creation simply because they don’t suck up to him? That says pages more about you, and none of it the good you think it does.

    There is no such thing as an unborn baby. By the very definition of the word, a baby is born. this is another of the lies your side tells to pull heartstrings…There is nothing at all similar between a first trimester fetus (when the vast majority of abortions take place) and an infant.

    And, really, if you want my answer? It’s all potential until late in the second trimester. See, I’ve actually been pregnant. I know the huge number of ways things can go horribly, scarily wrong during a pregnancy…Something that most people on your side either are completely unaware of or totally ignore. 85% of pregnancies end in miscarriages before the person pregnant even knows what happened. Would a god who thought that life started at conception really kill all those people? And if he does, why are you so worried about humans killing an infinitely smaller number? And that’s before we go into things like ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, fatally conjoined twins….

    No, I’m not cynical. I’m educated about how the process goes. That’s exactly what happens. Maybe you’re just unaware of how pregnancy happens? Or are you just trying to romance it for your narrative?

    Who are you to decide what a woman does and doesn’t do with her body? What do you think gives you the right to make this decision for people? Do you honestly think that your beliefs are so important that they should trump a person’s bodily autonomy? How do you justify this?

    And what do you say about women who didn’t get pregnant voluntarily? Where birth control failed, where xe was lied to about BC/it was sabotaged, rape?

    Lastly, please educate yourself before you speak on this topic again. You’re really talking about things you have no idea of. The risks are *not* minimal. Pregnancy and childbirth are still one of the highest ranking killers of women, even here in America. And that’s just the physical toll it takes.

    Not knowing of what you speak completely undermines your argument. the fact that you would presume to dictate peoples’ lives to them anyway just because of your translation of a book, quite frankly, belies your claim to have any morals.

  • nolidad

    Well if you want to cite OT theology when Israel was a theocracy and apply it to all you have real problems. First what you cite is the accidental death of the baby when a pregnant women is struck and the baby dies. Same price as for a slave who is killed. So do you promote slavery as you do for manslaughter of an unborn?

    No I do not completely erase the experience of a woman who has had an abortion. I weep for her and the other vicitm in this tragedy, her child. I would seek to let her know that God can still forgive and take her to better places than what she just endured because of His love for her.

    When did men not tie sex for reproduction? That has been understood since Adam and Eve did all the “begetting”!

    Well you imply that what is growing in you is only a potential person during the first trimester. So if it is only potentially human (but definitely sentient in that it has life) what is it? Virus, bacteria, fish??

    Rape and abuse are tragedies, but killing the innocent does not do justice to the perpetrators of the crime.

    Pregnancy is not the highest death factor for women. 650 women die on average annually due to pregnancy related problems. I will take breast cancer, smoking related cancer and a host of other problems. More men die of prostrate cancer each year than women do of pregnancy related causes. So you are misinformned here. I do know what I speak of.

    I do not believe you to be a monster. Just another vicitm of monsters.

    I agree with you that not all “true” Christians belief that the unborn are “real” people . I strongly and emphatically and biblically disagree with them.

    The Bible does not say specifically- thou shalt not abort. But I do believe the bible calls the unborn-children.

    Mt. 1 23 Behold,
    a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they
    shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    Lu. 1 36 And,
    behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old
    age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

    Jeremiah 1:5

    Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations

    Galatians 1:15

    But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

    I think this makes clear God calls the unborn people to HIm.

    As to why so many miscarriages take place I can give you guesses as to why God allows it.

    I also want ot make clear I dso not hate you or despise you. I hate abortion, not the people.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’re cherry-picking. You just openly admitted that you’re willfully choosing to ignore verses that don’t adhere to your chosen view. This is all well and good; most people do it. But at least OWN the fact that you’re doing it, instead of calling what you choose to believe “god’s true word.”

    What does how the fetus dies have to do with whether or not it’s a “life?”

    When you demand that every conception be carried to term, what you’re doing is enslaving people. You’re enslaving them to their bodies, and to your ideology. Why are you okay with that?

    Instead of projecting what you think just happened in a person’s life when xe had an abortion, and using it as an opportunity to shove your beliefs down xer throat, why not try catering to what xe feels xe needs? Your stance is all about you and what you think, feel, ETC. It has nothing to do with the real person in the situation, the one who just had an abortion. Think about that for a bit.

    Listen to your phrasing: “When did *men* not tie sex to reproduction…” Are men the ones who are out there getting pregnant? 99% of the time, no. So why does it matter what men think about abortion? You claim to not erase the pregnant person from the situation, and then you use phrasing like that. It shows how you really feel on the matter.

    You did this again with your statement about rape and abuse. Nowhere do you mention the person who was raped/abused. You talk about the “child” and the man who committed the crime. You may claim that you don’t erase pregnant people from their situations, but absolutely nothing about your views backs that up.

    Actually, no. That’s not what I implied at all. I said that a fetus has the potential to develop into a life. I specifically said “well into the second trimester.”

    A tiny, developing clump of cells is not a life. It’s a chunk of tissue that has the potential to develop into a life. A first trimester abortion (which is when the vast majority of abortions take place) is not murder. A first trimester fetus does not meet any of the qualifications for a life.

    You can choose to believe otherwise, because you think your religion says so. But you have no right to attempt to force others to live their lives by your religious dictates. You would scream bloody murder if someone tried to do the same to you, so why the hypocrisy?

    I google’d your statistic. It’s an estimate that applies solely to the actual birthing process. So…Please try again. Taking only the births during labor leaves out a myriad of other issues that can and do lead to death.

    I agree with you that the people who wrote the bible at the time may have seen a pregnancy as a child. That doesn’t mean that god sees it that way. And it also doesn’t take into consideration that the people who wrote the bible knew almost nothing about how pregnancy actually works, or anything related to it. the bible claims the earth is flat. We know that to be a lie. Why can you not accept that the bible might be wrong about when life starts? Especially since the entire thing is so contradictory on the subject?

    You have a nice set of verses there, but none of them apply to the topic at hand. None of them mention life or when it starts. You even admit as much when you say what you think the verses “make clear.”

    And you’ve yet to answer my original question: What makes you feel justified in forcing your beliefs on other people?

  • nolidad

    I am not “cherry picking ” verses. I am applying Scriptures with proper hermeneutic context. Atheists say the bible proves atheism because it says”there is no God” but ignore the entire context that is located in. So if I understand you correctly- because you want to adhere to that particular Mosaic law you want to adhere to the rest of them as well? You actually cherry picked a historic law and wish to use it outside of the context it was we=written in.

    I believe every unborn who dies is the death of a human life.Whether by miscarriage or the willful taking of its life.

    Why are you okay with just so merrily ridding yourself of an unwantede child? Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.

    And I am sorry but it is a biblical belief that unborn babies are babies not some “potential” person (wehich by the way you have yet to answer me what kind of living thing it is in the womb if it is only potentially human at some point.)

    Your original point was not just men but about sex and reproduction in generasl. Adam knew sex was for pleasure and reproduction. Do all men care? No! Do all women care? No!

    “A tiny, developing clump of cells is not a life. It’s a chunk of tissue
    that has the potential to develop into a life. A first trimester
    abortion (which is when the vast majority of abortions take place) is
    not murder. A first trimester fetus does not meet any of the
    qualifications for a life.”

    Let us see, it is growing, has its own DNA, its own circulatory system developing, feeding, it is a developing life! Until the 70’s textbooks for OBS?GYN students said that when a woman is pregnant the doctor was caring for 2 patients. The only reason why it is not considered a life is because SCOTUS declared it so just like they did in the 1800s when they declared slaves not people according to the law. Medically it is a human and biblically it is a human according toGOD. Your god may not think so butGOD says so inHIS Word. Sorry but that is why I say what I say.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Why are you okay with just so merrily ridding yourself of an unwantede child? Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy

    Again, rape happens. Molestation happens. Sexual coercion happens. Sabotage and failure of birth control happen. There have even been a few cases where someone who was made surgically infertile became pregnant (and incidentally, and there is a widespread effort to deny access to contraception and sterilization surgery). In total, 54% of people who got abortions reported having used contraception that month.

    Your insistence on painting people to be as evil as possible is a failure of C.S. Lewis’s test described in Mere Christianity and is inconsistent even with your own arguments. If women are sociopathically murdering their children, why would they have PTSD from the ordeal?

    And I am sorry but it is a biblical belief that unborn babies are babies not some “potential” person

    If that’s true, why are fetuses valued less than humans by the punitive laws of Exodus? Murder gets you executed, but killing a fetus gets you a fine, the same as if you’d only destroyed property. Not to mention the Yarek Naphal, the God-mandated ordeal that destroys fetuses…

    Let us see, it is growing, has its own DNA, its own circulatory system developing, feeding, it is a developing life!

    So is a tumor. Or a teratoma, which can even have functioning organ tissue (which usually seriously inhibits the body’s functionality, because the immune system will often start attacking the host’s normal organs as well). This description is not adequate enough to confer personhood to a fetus, much less to then declare that the rights of a fetus trump those of a person to whom they have a parasic and unwanted relationship.

    The only reason why it is not considered a life is because SCOTUS declared it so

    Actually, what they declared was that abortion is a medical procedure and thus covered by the privacy laws of the fourteenth amendment.

  • nolidad

    Yes the evils you say happen do happen I have acknowledged those despicable crimes and answered to that several times.

    I never painted people to be evil as possible. People do not reach the worst levels of evil we can become but every one is equally lost without Christ–enormous difference – this is a straw man argument you make.

    I also never said women are sociopathically murdering their children. Maybe some are I have not interviewed everyone who has had an abortion. Most women are now convinced that their is no moral wrong to abortion. Just because a society changes its moral viewpoint does not change iwhether it is right or wrong in the eyes of God.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Are you denying you have falsely characterized many women seeking abortions as being consciencelessly “merry” about getting them? I quoted those very words back to you in this thread, so don’t bother to deny that you have in fact, “painted people to be evil as possible”. Because you have attributed evil behavior to people seeking abortions.

  • nolidad

    Well seeing as many of my comments have been either intentionally twisted or partially ignored because a word was used or whatever, bring my posts that show I have accused women of merrily getting abortions. And is an abortion an evil? yes it is! do women getting abortions participate in an evil act? yes. Is drunkeness evil? yes do people who get drunk performing an evil act in the sifght of God? yes. Is child abuse evil? yes do child abusers perform an evil act? yes! Is cheating on yhour taxes evil? yes! Do tax cheaters perform an evil act? yes! do p[eople who steal tiume from their employers perform evil? yes Do you want me to go on! The bible is clear- people perform evil acts daily- it is called in the bible sin. Even believers sin. and yes they perform what God calls evil . do I need to define it further??

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    To quote you, word for word:

    Why are you okay with just so merrily ridding yourself of an unwantede child? Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.

  • nolidad

    The “tone” of your letters and apparent regard for abortion
    give you a strong appearance that it is no more a difficult decision than going to get a corn removed. I apologize for the word merrily. You may be far younger than me and not understand the idiomatic use of that word. It is meant to mean casulaness and that the decision is not an extreme decision. I will refrain as best I can from idioms of my generation.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, for God’s sake.

    It has been explained to you any number of ways that women don’t just go “Oh fuck a duck, I’m gonna get an abortion now!” and yet you keep circling back to a version of the falsehood that they do.

    Did your wife just go “Oh, gosh, dear, we need to get the turkey and oh, by the way, I want an abortion today”?

    Very likely she did not.

    Also, idioms “of your generation” are understandable to at least some of mine (I was born in the 1970s). I have purposely made a point of it to understand some of the historiography of the 1940s through to the 1970s, and as such am familiar with the slang of the era.

    So ixnay on the condescension, all right?

  • nolidad

    some do, some don’t I don’t know if they use the duck language but there are responses across the whole spectrum. That is what I was referring to. I think it is because you use a very wide biased brush that you paint my words as worst as possible. Many rtimes in the past on this site I have said thast many women struggle- that is why many pro lifers go out with signs and pleas . But there are alsop woman who have as much conscience towards having an abortion as getting a mole removed. If you do not believe this then you are in denial. I admit both sides and everything in between.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And what you are doing is trying to use the extreme minority of the “Oh-Emm-Gee, I’m off to get an abortion today!” contingent among abortion-seekers as a reason to assume every woman – except of course, your wife – is supposed to be CONSOOOOOOOOMED WITH GUILT!!!!111oneone when they go to get one

    and if that isn’t enough you want to pile on by trying to get the law changed so abortion’s illegal again.

    Just to make sure women who want abortions really really really feel shame and guilt and fear and all the rest so you can feel smugly good about your Godly Deeds.

  • nolidad

    Don’t ever go into business as a mind reader- you really are lousy at it. You are so wrong in your conclusions about what I said

  • nolidad

    I need to rerespond to this. Todays culture has taught women that abortion is just a simple medical procedure and there should be no sense of guilt or negativity attached to it. It is simply removing something from the body unwanted. One of the women on this thread even said it is just a medical decision. Even Pres. Obama said once in a televised comment he wouldn’t want his girls saddled with an unwanted pregnance and he would have them go “fix” it. I am sure that there are women out there who approach abortion with much somberness and gravity ( i have interacted with some) but our culture teaches it is no big deal- just a simple procedure- no worry no guilt should be involved. That is why I use merrily as a colloquialism

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Isn.t that the point of NARALS rants that it is just another no big deal medical procedure?”

    Please cite where NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or any other pro-choice organization has stated that abortion is “no big deal”. Please note that these must be actual quotes.

    Because in fact, the message that gets touted again and again is, “This is a vitally important decision, and the woman is the only one who should have the right to make it.”

    …when I called Planned Parenthood… she said the words “whatever you decide you want to do, we will help you get there.” She told me about helping me apply for assistance and aid, about adoption, about my options – all of my options. And I realized that at least part of what I’d always believed had been a lie.

    http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/ordeal-of-the-bitter-waters-part-one/

    Interestingly, the patients who try to skip counseling are often politically anti-choice:

    Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those “other” women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory).

    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

  • nolidad

    Make you a deal if you want to call me by the derogative “anti- choice, I will refer to you as” pro baby killer”.

    We both know you do not use that impartially I am contnet to use the accepted terms of each side “pro-choice” and pro life” if you do not want that for our debating and contentions let me know.

    I will dig up quotes from NARAL and NOW and planned parenthood stating that abortion is just another medical procedure. In other words- abortion is not a big deal according to them. If you don onot see them in a few days-please remind me. I am deluged with responses and now only 1 1/2 days behind in responses and slowly catching up.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    The difference is that a pro-choice advocate doesn’t advocate killing babies. Or even fetuses. They advocate having a choice and letting that choice remain to whatever a person’s beliefs or conscience guide them. Anti-choice is exactly that: wanting to outlaw that choice altogether.

  • nolidad

    Well many would “altogether”. But man also excludes life of the mother. The difference for us is we know that God can bless the woman even though the pregnance may arisen from the most horrendous circumstances. I fully understand why a nonbeliever would support abortion as a legitimate choice fro pregnancies. But beleivers see the supernatural and know the power of God to wiork good in even th emost evil of situations if the person will seek HIm. let me repost these verses.

    Matt. 11:

    25 At
    that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
    heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
    prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

    26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

    27 All
    things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son,
    but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he
    to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

    Matt. 6:

    24 No
    man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love
    the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
    cannot serve God and mammon.

    25 Therefore
    I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or
    what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not
    the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

    26 Behold
    the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor
    gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not
    much better than they?

    27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

    28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

    29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

    30 Wherefore,
    if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow
    is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of
    little faith?

    31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

    32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

    33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

    34 Take
    therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought
    for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

    These have been proven true by believers for centuries. That is why we are pro life!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam
  • nolidad

    Many many churches within Christendom are prochoice. If you remove catholicism form the mix (which BTW I am not) I would suspect that more churches within Christendom are pro choice than prolife. there are serious theological reasons for that but that is for a thread on eschatology and teh decline of the church Jesus prophesied in the Olivet Discourse.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Make you a deal if you want to call me by the derogative “anti- choice, I will refer to you as” pro baby killer”.”

    Here’s what you refuse to understand: we don’t call ourselves “pro-choice” because we’re afraid to say the word “abortion”. We say “pro-choice” because we want women to have as many feasible options as possible about how, when, and whether they reproduce. The anti-abortion crowd wants to limit women’s options; hence, “anti-choice”.

    Now, I’ve run into people who describe themselves as “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice” — basically, these are folks who believe that abortion is morally wrong, but who also recognize that limiting access to it only perpetuates greater evils. They’re also extremely angry with the way the current anti-abortion lobby is pushing to limit access to contraception and eliminate comprehensive sex education, since both of these measures only serve to cause more unwanted pregnancies. While I don’t agree with all of their views, I share their goal of building a world in which unwanted pregnancies are rare and in which every woman has the support and resources to bring a child into the world. This involves promoting programs like maternity leave, child care, education, and school lunches, and trying to eliminate poverty and misogyny. These people I respect, even though I don’t agree 100% with their views. I don’t call them “anti-choice” because they’re not voting to limit women’s reproductive choices.

    “I will dig up quotes from NARAL and NOW and planned parenthood stating that abortion is just another medical procedure. In other words- abortion is not a big deal according to them.”

    Ahhh, now I see where you’re confused. You think that saying, “Abortion is a medical procedure” is the same as saying, “Abortion is inconsequential”. “Medical procedure” is a neutral descriptor; it doesn’t assign any positive or negative value. The statement, “Abortion is a medical procedure” does not in any way conflict with the statement, “The choice of whether or not to abort is a vitally important one”.

  • nolidad

    Well the political points you cite are another argument fro another thread.

    Well then I accept you calling me anti choice. As far as abortion being a medical procedure–it is! BUT according to Gods Word it is the willful deliberate taking of a human life so it is a medical procedure that has definite “moral” overtones. It is not the equivalent of other medical procedures as NARAL has said. But even you have to admit that NARAL and NOWand planned parenthood pedal abortion as a medical choice alone. They do not assign personhood to the baby–they call it just a fetus and noyt a real person. That is why they were glad when SCOTUS ruled that a “fetus” is not a person according to the law for purposes of abortion-

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    That’s a terrible deal. In exchange for ShifterCat calling you what you are, you want to call ShifterCat something ShifterCat is not?

    Basically you’re saying “If you keep telling the truth about me, I’ll keep telling lies about you.”

  • nolidad

    Well can you tell me if you have been appointe shifters spokesperson now? For I answered her in length about the pro- choioce anti choice comments. But if you now are writing for her let me know.

  • nolidad

    A third comment to your post here. It is the “pro-choice” culture who has been pounding into society that abortion is no big deal!!! So why do you condemn me for using very casual words when describing it? Isn.t that the point of NARALS rants that it is just another no big deal medical procedure? I wish more women would have enormous guilt in aprroaching abortion clinics. In my mind they should be weighed down heavily with guilt! That way more childrens lives would be saved and we can comfort and aid those women and remind them of the love and tenderness and forgiveness Christ has to offer them,

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    If you comforted and aided them in the first place, they would feel less inclined to get an abortion. Many of the women who make that walk already feel trapped and hopeless, and then you hurl more abuse at them, making them feel even worse. It’s easier to condemn them than to understand them — because love and understanding aren’t even remotely the point, are they, man of clay?

  • nolidad

    Wish I could put my self in thousands of places at once and be available to help many. Wish I had billions to give away to help. But I don’t so I do the best I can. It is also true that many Christians seek to aid and comfort and provide moral and material support to these women (though far too few IMHO) but too many women do not want help in Jesus name.

  • Veleda_k

    Oh yeah, I’m seeing a lot of love, tenderness, and forgiveness from you. /sarcasm

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    God offers unconditional love (with the condition that you say the magic words first, or else he lovingly sends you into a place of eternal torment he created, dislikes very much, but has no choice other than to utilize for 99.9999% of the human race).

    Fortunately, people are under no such restrictions. :)

  • nolidad

    Oh you don’t like ti when someone fights fire with fire??

    If you would bother to ask more specific questions than just attack you would see the good side. Or if you took the time to ask people who know me well , you probably wouldn’t believe them either. It is hard to judge emotions form just words on a site. But you and many other seem to think you are expert at it.

  • Veleda_k

    Wait, I have to find out your real name and where you live and then perform interviews?That sounds like more work than you’re worth, not to mention creepy. And people have
    been asking you a lot of direct questions, that you have proven unable to answer.

    I am judging you based on your behavior. You don’t like that, possibly because you realize that your behavior makes you look like an ass, but that’s not my problem. If you didn’t want me to think you were an ass, then you shouldn’t have acted like one.

    You should feel free to judge me based on what you’ve observed of my behavior, by the way. I have enough self-awareness to realize that how I behave reflects who I am. I’m not going to whine that you just don’t know the REAL me.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Damn, apparently I’m creepy. But I wanted to know which denomination’s theology Pioneer Valley Institute of the Bible adhered to, and one thing led to another, and… yeah, I’m creepy.

  • nolidad

    biblical questions? I have given direct answers. Hypothetical or actual scenarios that are 2 sentences long? No one can’t give real specifics for that –there just is not enough info to go on to give more than gerneral priniciple answers. Sorry that is the best you or I can do in those types of questions.
    You r words:

    “You should feel free to judge me based on what you’ve observed of my behavior, by the way. I have enough self-awareness to realize that how I behave reflects who I am. I’m not going to whine that you just don’t know the REAL me.”

    Well I do not whine that you don’t know the real me either. I do not wish to judge you in the least- I can’t tell your behavior (I don’t have access to a NSA drone to watch you :) ) I simply seek to engage in honest if heated debate.

    Have I made mistakes in citing something? sadly enough yes! It taught me not to trust my memory of tings discussed years ago. Simplistic answers? yes I cited why above. Lack of statistics at times? yes– I just guess that I do that from informal surveys based on personal observation after 40 years of being a believer.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In my mind they should be weighed down heavily with guilt!

    How would you like it if someone said you deserved to have people come up and dump all over you for a mistake you made that there’s a safe fix for, and they don’t want you to get that safe fix made because it’s not ~morally correct~?

  • nolidad

    Well I know too many of my fellow Christians love to heap guilt on women who get pregnant and seek abortions. But that is not the guilt I am referring to. I am talking about the inner guilt that the Holy Spirit can give to try to stop her from carrying out the act of abortion. It is these kind of woman who tend (not absolute but tend) to listen to people trying to convince to stop. Christians should never hurl guilt and condemnation at a woman or anyone for that matter. Yes we need to talk about sin and guilt and these things but aslways in the context of the love of God and the great mercy and forgiveness He offers because of the shed blood He poured oout to buy our freedom. I do not disagree many “street protestors” are rude, crude and though right in their intent are very wrong in their actions.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Christians should never hurl guilt and condemnation at a woman or anyone for that matter.

    Oh really now?

    Do you deny you said this?

    I wish more women would have enormous guilt in aprroaching abortion clinics. In my mind they should be weighed down heavily with guilt!

    And what is this absurd business about inner guilt and the Holy Spirit? You do know that’s profoundly offensive to the beliefs of anyone who is not a Christian who wants an abortion?

  • nolidad

    Well that is the type of guilt I wish women would be laid down with. I was not proposing people lay guilt down. And you know that but you choise to selectively edit my comment to make it appear that I was saying we should make women feel guilty when what I wrote was the opposite. Bearing false witness is bad as you told me.

  • Baby_Raptor

    He quoted your own words at you and you accuse him of lying? You project too much.

    And really, any decent person would feel sick at the idea of wanting a person to feel guilty over making a decision about their own body/life/autonomy. The fact that you not only declare this right, but call it loving and just…It shows you for the immoral person you are.

  • nolidad

    Can I ask you an honest question? Do you always selectively read posts from people with differing view points than you so you can spout off? I said that the guilt I would want a woman to have would be from the Holy Spirit and not from a person. I have never in my life – ever thrown guilt or shame at a woman post abortion. She is as much a victim as the child that died is. You continue to misqoute me and create a straw man of me and then beat that straw man as if it were me. You should go back and read the qoute– It reads like I just wrote and not the lies you posted. I am sorry but your response is one lie after another.

  • Baby_Raptor

    No matter where the guilt comes from, you are still wishing guilt on a person. You said it yourself: “The guilt I would want a (person–Not all pregnant people are female) to have…” Your belief that it comes from your god and not you makes no difference. You’re still trying to shame a person for taking control over their own lives based on your personal opinions.

    How is a woman a victim for making decisions about her own life and body? Because she didn’t decide the way you wanted her to? Way to be sexist and infantilizing. Poor woman…She can’t think like I do! Must look down on her!

    No, I’m not a liar. You can keep insisting I am, and more power to you. But it’s not going to become truth simply because you keep repeating it. A fetus is not a person, a person who has an abortion is not a victim of anyone, and you have no rights to be trying to shame us or take away our rights to our own bodies.

  • nolidad

    Well let me ask you a question. Who gets to decide whether an unborn is a person or not? Who gets to decide if it is okay for women to rid their body of their pregnance? Even you admit that in America it was illegal to have an abortion for over 300 years of our existence ( I go back to before we were a nation) Do you believe that if a law is passed and accepted by the majority if the population it is okay ethically?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    THat would be “the only actual person whose actual body is involved in the process.”

    WHen you suggest that it might be okay for the law to compel a man to donate a kidney to save a child, we can talk.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but I cannot condone the law to force a person to donate body parts. Man is too imperfect and history has shown us that when these kind or type of laws are in effect evil always ensues..

    So babies are babies in the womb if the woman decides it is? And babies are not babies if the woman decides it isn’t?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Then if you endorse the principle of bodily integrity (which is why, societally, we have voluntary organ donor registries) in general, clearly abortion must fall into that category too. It’s not your decision to make.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    That’s just the point. He WANTS it to be his decision — otherwise it’d be left up to those uterus-having demihumans.

  • nolidad

    Ridding oneself of an organ is far different than having an abortion, I think you know that. My argument still stands, if Gods Word is the truth that Jesus declared it to be (and I have noi doubts it is) then the child in the womb is a separate individual who deserves the same love we would give a born child, youngster teen adult etc. A baby is not a kidney

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    So…. Absolute bodily sovereignty for men, limited bodily sovereignty for women?
    And no, I don’t believe that the woman’s decision makes a fetus a baby or not a baby.
    But I don’t have to give up a kidney to keep my son alive. I see no reason my wife should have to give up her uterus for the same reason. If women are people, it is irrelevant whether or not the fetus is a person, because under absolutely no condition can one person be forced to use their very body to keep another person alive.
    I mean, can you name even ONE other condition where a person could be forced against their will to accept the use of their body as a life support system for another person? At considerable risk to their own physical and mental health? When it will have permanent and irreversible side effects even in the best case?
    No. Because there’s no other condition like that. I can’t be forced to donate an organ to keep my own son alive. I can’t be forced to donate blood, and blood grows back. (I mean, it’s a moot point, because I’m AB+ and my son is B-, but still).

    But when it’s a woman, suddenly it’s all THINK OF THE BAYBEEZ!!!!!ELEVENTY

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Thread now unreplyable. Please use the alternate one. My browser literally stalled for ~30 seconds before I was able to type this in the reply box.

  • nolidad

    I am sorry you think bringing a baby into the world is a permanent and irreversible side effect! Gee I wonder why God gave women ovaries if not to produce babies by design? I do find it amazing that your side holds that even if a woman is in labor but the head isn’t crowned she has a right to snuff that life out! Even by the loose standards of the pro choice crowd. That baby is a person who will be viable and yet even though the woman is now in th eprocess of giving birth- she has the right to snuff that life out as a non person.

  • P J Evans

    Strawman, and lies as well.
    In the third trimester, abortions are done only as a lifesaving measure. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. That women would want one for any other reason, even in labor, is the worst kind of lie.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Small correction: It’s also legal to abort fetuses with fatal defects in the third trimester. At least for the time being.

  • nolidad

    http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

    If a woman is under mental duress several states allow her to abort in late term after viability. Sorry unless you think Guttmacher is lying and courts are lying.

  • P J Evans

    That’s a life-threatening condition – it’s probably a case of domestic abuse.

    Can you for Ghu’s sake lose your prejudices about women and abortion and listen to what people are telling you?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • Baby_Raptor

    And yet again you prove that you know NOTHING about pregnancy. Or raising children for that matter.

    But, serious question, how do you get from “Some people are born equipped to make babies” to “a conception is a person and all pregnant people must submit their lives to every conception that happens”?

    And please, quit lying. I know it’s all your side has, but you’re not going to get anywhere if you don’t stop. Nobody is advocating for mid-birth abortion. “Partial birth abortion” is a myth. There’s no such recognized procedure, and even if there was, it’s illegal.

    You might get your rocks off by demonizing your opponents to the fullest extent possible, but it’s just yet another action of yours that proves you’re morally bankrupt.

  • nolidad

    Well seeing how I haven’t “demonized my opponents I just assume you are referring to someone else. However I could go back and find many times when you lashed out in literary hate so maybe it is a guilty conscience?

    I raised 6 children and they all love me (unless of course they are lying like Ross said Historians are lying) And they are all upstanding well respected people. I don’t know but maybe I did a little right?

    Let me ask you– Which sex is designed to carry a baby and nurture it until it leaves the womb?

    I use the Bible as my reference that at conception that “thing” is a person in Gods eyes.

    I was morally bankrupt long before I met you. Got my account filled with His righteousness- mine couldn’t cut it.

    Before the ban here is a report

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/partial-birth-abortion

    They have been done and SCotus ruled they are constitutional

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-scotus.html?_r=0

    Life here also means emotional health as I cited earlier so they are still being done if rare.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You constantly lie about and insult the people you’re debating here. That’s the very definition of demonizing. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your chosen reality.

    See, you did it in your second sentence. Telling you facts you choose to deny is not “lying.” It’s just telling you things you don’t want to hear.

    Neither sex is designed to do that. There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A baby is, by definition, born. How many times must you be told this before it sinks into your brain? Continually re-defining words to fit your chosen agenda is not going to suddenly make your beliefs correct. It’s just one more way you’re an immoral asshole.

    But to answer the question you were actually asking, if asking incorrectly, people with vaginas (not all of whom are women) are biologically able to gestate fetuses. What does this have to do with anything?Are you trying to claim that simply because a person has a vagina, a conception is a person and therefore all pregnancies must be carried to term? A has nothing to do with B there, bud.

    The bible does not say that a conception is a person. That’s you projecting your chosen beliefs into the text. And even if the bible *did* say such, it saying so is not, let me repeat this so you’ll understand it, NOT A VALID BASIS FOR DENYING PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS. Are we clear?

    If your god existed, he would despise people like you. You are nothing like the New Testament claims god is. He wouldn’t claim you.

    Your first citation is an utterly biased website full of lies. I can’t read the second one because it’s behind a paywall. But I repeat: There was never any such recognized procedure. The legislative Act related to this claim is grandstanding…The person who sponsored it admitted as much. So…Please try again?

    As to me being hateful…Maybe, just a bit. Do keep in mind that you’re trying to outlaw a procedure that saved my life, and trying to strip me of my basic civil right to decide what I do with my own body. And also my basic right to live my life by my own religious choices. And a couple other rights. Why, exactly, should I show you any respect? You don’t even see me as human.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Could I ask for a move to this thread? Please? The current thread is impossible to use a browser with.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/25/2-years-ago-fake-authenticity-and-pretending-not-to-use-hair-products/

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    I KNOW you’re srry that I have enough basic knowledge of anatomy to know that pregnancy causes permanent and irreversible changes in a woman’s body and that I’m smart enough to not et you misquote me unchanllenged.

    I do find it amazing that your side holds that even if a woman is in labor but the head isn’t crowned she has a right to snuff that life out


    No one believes that and you know it you stupuid liar. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before it’s complete. If the woman is in labor, then the procedure for ending the pregnancy is called “childbirth”.
    Again and again you come back to the monsterous idea that forced pregnancy is a punishment to be doled out to women as “consequence” of having sex. Yu don’t believe women are human beings who deserve the right to control their own bodies, and you make up shameless lies about what the other side believes. It doesn’t make SENSE to have an “abortion” during labor. No one would propose that, not because of morality, but because there’s no such thing. You can’t terminate a pregnancy after the pregnancy is over.

  • nolidad

    Well I cited the rulings of courts and SCOTUS giving them the leeway for states to allow partial birth abortions.

    You think it is a punishment but Gods Word still calls it a blessing even though how that women conceived that child are monstrous. Ps. 127: Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

    I do believe woman are human despite you rstraw man and I do believe she has the right to control her body. When she becomes pregnant she is now a steward for another life. And now she is responsible for 2 lives not one.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Again, I don’t think it is a punishment. YOU think it is a punishment. You WANT it to be a punishment.

    A woman finds herself pregnant. She is horrified. There is an invader inside her. Maybe it’s a 9-month long reminder of a rape. Maybe it’s nine months of “You can’t take the antidepressants that keep you from wanting to kill yourself”. Maybe it’s “my abuser has a new thing to blackmail me with”. Maybe it’s “It takes every dime we make to keep the four kids we already have healthy and happy”. Maybe it’s “My boss reckons it’s cheaper to fire me than to let me go on maternity leave”. Maybe it’s “I’m sixteen.”

    To me, that’s a pregnancy gone so horrifically wrong that ending it could only be a blessing. You just say “Well it’s your responsibility, so suck it up.” You think that when the creation of new life becomes a burden, body horror, a prolonged assault, a woman should just suck it up and endure the torture.

    To me, when something as magnificent as the creation of new life has gone so wrong as to be not a blessing but torture, that is the abomination, and abortion is the solution to that abomination.

  • P J Evans

    If it’s a blessing, why do so many women not want to be pregnant? It’s physically hard, it’s mentally hard, and taking care of a baby, whether wanted or not, is hard. And many men don’t care enough about their partners that they’ll do more work at home to help.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Also, Just gonna point out, roughly 80% of all women become mothers at some point in their lives. Roughly 33% have at least one abortion.

    There’s no way those numbers can happen unless a significant percentage of women do both.

    Which means that even for the same woman some pregnancies are blessings and some aren’t.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The current thread is impossible to use a browser with. I heartily plead for a move here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/25/2-years-ago-fake-authenticity-and-pretending-not-to-use-hair-products/

  • Baby_Raptor

    Yup. the god who raped a 14 year old thinks pregnancy is a blessing. What you’re missing is that what your god thinks about pregnancy has *bugger all* to do with the law or how pregnant people who don’t hold your opinion act.

    You don’t believe pregnant people are human if you would deny them bodily autonomy.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Where do you find Mary age 14? I don’t remember it.

  • Baby_Raptor

    It’s not actually in the bible. It’s an approximate age that scholars have given as about the age she would have been at the time.

  • Mark Z.

    Mary was not raped. Luke 1:38 is as clear a statement of consent as you’ll find anywhere.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Is this missing a snark tag? Because if not, I don’t think you understand consent.

  • P J Evans

    Then you don’t understand. You don’t believe that women can make decisions for themselves, and youdon’t understand that pregnancy is dangerous both physically and mentally.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You ARE cherry-picking…You admitted it. Stubbornly insisting that you’re not doesn’t change that. You’re ignoring and justifying ignoring the verses that don’t support your view. That’s what cherry-picking is.

    And I never said anything about wanting to adhere to Mosaic law. My life would be a living hell under such. All I said was that Mosaic law contradicts what you’re claiming.

    An abortion is not “getting rid of an unwanted child.” And, frankly, even if it WAS, I would still support a person’s right to do it, because that “child” is entirely dependent on another person’s body, leeching off them and taking control over their lives. In no other situation do we require a person to give up their bodily autonomy to support another, and a fetus isn’t even a person.

    No, my original point was not just about men. You’re right. You’re also redirecting. My comment was about how YOU view this stuff.

    Please show proof that Adam (look, you erased the pregnant person again!) knew that sex was tied to reproduction?

    It’s not a “biblical” belief that life starts at conception. It’s a belief that can be supported by verses in the bible. You believing something does not make it biblical.

    I did answer your question. Sorry if you don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t answer it.

    So…a fetus is a life because you threw some random qualifications at it? Do you realize that there are already set standards for what is and isn’t a life, set by people who know vastly more on the topic than you could ever hope to? Algae meets all the qualifications you set. Is it a human life? What about fish? Are they human lives? (I’m ignoring your stubborn insistence on equating “life” and “human life.” It’s incorrect, but you’ll never admit that.)

    The reason it’s not considered a life is because the facts don’t prove that it is. You can keep insisting so until you turn blue, but that’s not going to change reality. Your version of god can keep insisting that, but it still won’t make it true.

    And, I’ll go broken record here…Why are you so convinced that your personal opinions should trump other peoples’ rights?

  • nolidad

    From Genesis 1:

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And
    God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
    and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
    of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
    that moveth upon the earth.

    Key word is MULTIPLY–Adam knew.

    Mosaic Law was for Israel when they lived iin Israel. It was designed for that nation until Christ should come.

    I agree with you that me believing or not believing something makes it biblical. God makes it biblical, it is up to us to accept what He says or not.

    My personal opinions I would clearly state. But if Gods inspired word says something clear then it is not my opinion, but me reciting what God says.

    I agree people far more educated than me have made determinations on when life is or isn’t. But God who is above all also stated His decree and He trumps all, .

    And my opinion before I became a Christian was very very pro choice for women on the issue of Abortion. It stayed that way for years afterwards as well. I resisted organized religion trying to change my position. But Gods Word did for me.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    That’s mythology, not history. It’s as relevant as using the Norse Sagas to “prove” the existence of frost giants.

  • nolidad

    And your empirical proof its just a story is????????????

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    That’s not how it’s done, Nolidad, and you know it. If someone says, “The world is secretly ruled by giant invisible teddy bears”, the burden of proof is on them, the claimant, to prove the existence of these giant invisible teddy bears. They can’t just snap, “Well, you can’t prove that it isn’t!”

    Here’s a handy guide to logical fallacies, to help you avoid committing them in the future. I suggest you pay close attention to “Begging the Question” and “Burden of Proof”. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

  • nolidad

    Well you claimed the bible is just mythology, I am asking you to prove it. So where is your proof?

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat
  • nolidad

    Well my answers are already there. Is it a different blog? Also I am asking you to prove the bible is mythology, I have no need to prove that for I believe it not to be mythology.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And my opinion before I became a Christian was very very pro choice for
    women on the issue of Abortion. It stayed that way for years
    afterwards as well. I resisted organized religion trying to change my
    position. But Gods Word did for me.

    There is a difference between being the vanguard of opposition to actual crimes that have ripple effects beyond perpetrator and victim, and being recalcitrantly opposed, fundamentally, to a medical procedure that really isn’t any of your business.

    For every Einstein you say got aborted, I say the odds are equally in favor of the next Stalin that got aborted.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    And once again: Cum Ghosts

  • nolidad

    Well you can try to tell me what my position was in teh past, but I think I know it better than you rguesses.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Why are you okay with just so merrily ridding yourself of an unwantede child? Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.

    There you go again!

    First off even after you have been told that on average, it defies common understanding of human nature to claim that women “merrily” undergo abortions, you still insist that this casualness exists.

    Second off, you are doing what is called “blaming the victim”. Of course anyone knows that if a man and a woman have unprotected penetrative vaginal sex it can lead to pregnancy.

    Gosh it’s almost like nobody’s ever heard of The Pill or condoms or anything.

    But no, you just want to smugly smirk about how stoooooooopid girls go and get knocked up so they should just have to live with it.

    How would you like it if you made a mistake and someone insisted on hanging that albatross around your neck for the rest of your life?

    Even if there was an easy way to undo the effects of that mistake?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    He thinks a third of all women are psychopathic murderers. Of course he’s going to be an asshole if he thinks such a large percentage of the human race are monsters.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Which just makes me want to link this, a collection of stories from people who had abortions, many of whom express having had doubts, fears, regrets… even the ones who wound up having more than one. I don’t know how many people get an abortion who think very little of it before or afterward, but it can’t be many. I’ve known exactly one in my lifetime and she was not a woman who I would want raising a child.

  • nolidad

    No I actually was implying just the opposite. Even the most uninformed people in our society knows unprotected intercourse can have serious consequences. Most children born are unplanned. (informal surveys done). It is the attitude that people have afterwards that determine if the child is loved or if the selfishness of an individual considers the baby an “albatross”. Did your parents resent you being born and that is hwy you have such a harshness in your defense? Were you made to feel like you were an albatross instead of being loved? If you were I am sorry.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    While your internet diagnosis of me is inappropriate and incorrect, I shall ignore it in favor of the fact that you at least grasp the point that a woman who does not want to be pregnant and have a baby as a consequence will want an abortion, which YOU are bound and determined to try and stop unless the woman in question is your wife.

  • nolidad

    And there you go again adding words to my statements. I will say this for the record.

    Any women who is pregnant and that pregnancy would take her life if kept going ass far as medicine can determine has the right to take the baby. It is better to save one life than lose two. This is the only case of abortion that is biblically justifiable. I have known all along women want abortion and the majority of abortions are clearly because the baby is inconvenient at the moment.

    Of the 1.25 million abortions a year (approx) less than 1% or 12,500 are due to rape and or incest.

  • P J Evans

    Citation very definitely needed. For all those numbers. Especially sense the politicians you’re supporting oppose even incest, rape, and the life of the mother as reasons for abortion.
    All of them are men, who will never have to face that choice.

  • nolidad

    Seeing as I don’t thin I have even mentioned one politician I support , you must be the premiere mindo reader of the universe. But here is the best available web site I could find now (it has other links) for the 1% figure

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114200923AAy5zMs

    And for the record, there are a lot of women politicans I support, and the ones I do favor msot of them are pro life- but how pro life I couldn’t tell you.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You forgot adultery, since that’s the only time abortion is directly referenced in the Bible.

  • nolidad

    could you post you r cite please?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Numbers 5:11-31.

    Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her,and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

    “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause
    you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

    “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a
    memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

    “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

  • nolidad

    Thank you so much. As you can see that this is not a man caused abortion but a miscarriage that was done by God and not man. It was by no means a decision to allow people to go ahead and insert objects into a women’s vagina and womb and kill babies.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That wasn’t my point. I said this was the one time abortion was ever specifically referenced in the Bible — as a punishment for abortion. Though with that in mind, if you suspected your wife was committing adultery and might be pregnant with the child of another man, how would you handle it? According to the Bible, you should take her to a priest to give God the opportunity to kill the child…

  • nolidad

    Sorry I am late in responding life has gotten in the way. With six kids and six grandkids that happens alot this time of year. But know this wasn’t an abortion (the reference you gave me) It was God taking the child. Well if we were living IN Israel during the time of the Mosaic laws I would, but seeing this is the church age and I am a gentile we are bound by the New Testament, not the old.

    Well as my first born is not my own biologically, I can tell you that I love him as my own for I am his father and he is my son!

  • Veleda_k

    So, it’s okay for God to force an abortion on a woman, but wrong for a woman to choose that for herself.

    Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    It only sounds stupid to you because you think women are people.

  • nolidad

    It doesn’t matter what I think or you think, do you want me to write out a two page synopsis of why this kind of thing took place under the Mosaic Law? Besides I thought you were through talking to me?

  • P J Evans

    Did you READ that passage? It’s abortion by drug.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    THen abortions aren’t abortion; the doctor is performing a ritual and God is causing a miscarriage.

  • nolidad

    In that specific biblical reference–yes! Others have to be determined. An abortion in America is a free choice where a woman goes and rids herself of that baby/ fetus in her womb. In Scripture it was in response to adultery- not to rid an unwanted prgegnancy. But as punishment for adultery . If you want I can go deeper into the theological implications of this as veleda may ask.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    No. In america as in everywhere else, an abortion is a procedure that terminates a pregnancy, because words have meanings.

    In the bible, they describe a procedure which terminates a pregnancy.

    Also, I notice that once again, you assert that the key point isn’t the destruction of a fetus, but that a woman would dare make a decision about her own body.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    How do you suggest that we determine which abortions are “justifiable” and which are not?

    What do you propose we do with the 99% of women seeking abortions who would, were your will enforced, be forced to become mothers against their will?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    If you were actually sorry, you wouldn’t be trying to ensure that as many people as possible have to grow up that way.

  • nolidad

    That is why I share the gospel, teach, counsel and go on discussion threads where I know I will start out with three strikes against me because people come at me with their presuppositions at the fore. I am sorry, and I do what I can. I am but a mere mortal like you and am limited, by space, time, and disabilities. God is not, but too many people reject His ways and that leaves them stuck with a bunch of lousy secondary choices .

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Even the most uninformed people in our society knows unprotected intercourse can have serious consequences.”

    As I pointed out earlier: far too many places, especially fundamentalist communities, refuse to tell their children what “unprotected intercourse” ACTUALLY MEANS. Abstinence-only programs will either tell kids that condoms are ineffective, or they’ll refuse to explain what kind of “protections” are available in the first place.

    Also, far too many rape victims are too young to have been taught much about sex, let alone about contraception.

  • nolidad

    No doubt they are some out there. Can you cite any specific fundamental groups that refuse to teach unprotected sex definitions. Well condoms do have about a 30% failure rate (unless in the past 2 years they have improved greatly).

    One young child is far too many but statisdtically just pubescient girls make up a small 5 of rape victims. Once again — to me 1 young rape victim is too much I am learning I better repeat things like that, because if I just cote statistics too many here think I am some kind of monster for citing statistics only.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Er, condoms have between a 10-18% failure rate for imperfect use and a 2% rate for perfect use.

    I don’t know what group taught at the schools I attended, but both sex-education classes I took utterly failed to impart any information about pregnancy whatsoever. They haphazardly discussed anatomy and then went straight on to “but don’t ever have sex because you will get AIDS and die, and plus sex after marriage is so much better than sex at any other time in your life.” I’ve heard far worse stories from others who grew up in more sectarian regions.

  • P J Evans

    I think mine was anatomy only, with handouts covering menstruation for the girls (and they weren’t all that useful: in junior high, you might already have found out).

  • nolidad

    Well then condoms have gotten much better. I for one would love to see parents take their responsibility and teach their children well. But that is not reality in the U.S. I have no doubt sex educatoin can lag and with som e”legalistic” churches it is probably a nightmare.

  • P J Evans

    Citing statistics isn’t your problem: it’s citing statistics without sources, which is close to making them up.

    Also, nearly all fundamentalist groups want kids taught only about abstinence, despite the fact that it’s about as effective in sex education as nothing at all. Actually teaching kids about condoms and birth control is looked upon as encouraging them to engage in sex.

  • nolidad

    Well then when I quoute from other than personal observation I will try to post the reference site as well. I agree that nearly all fundamental groups (just curious is that citing a statistic without a source which is close to making it up? :))

    I do agree without having to have you prove that claim that nearly all fundamental Christians (do you know what fundamental means BTW? I would like to see your definition to see if I would call me fundamental according to your opinion) do teach abstinence until marriage.

    The bible is clear any and all sex outside of marriage is sin. That is a judgment against the action not the person BTW. We will not teach protected sex outside of marriage for we will noit encourage sin. I alsop know many Christian kids ignore that advice etc.etc., but just because people will not choose Gods command is not a reason to abandon it. He still calls something sin regardless of how culture changes.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    You were asking about religious communities which fail to educate their kids. These three reports go through who funds and partners with abstinence-only programs, what kind of misinformation they teach, and what the outcomes are. I warn you they’re pretty long, and in .pdf format:

    http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/FL%20Report%20-%20Sex%20Education%20in%20the%20Sunshine%20State.pdf

    http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/SexEdRort09_web.pdf?docID=981

    http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/Raising%20Expectations%20in%20the%20Rockies%20Final%20Posting.pdf

    “One young child is far too many but statisdtically just pubescient girls make up a small 5 of rape victims. Once again — to me 1 young rape victim is too much I am learning I better repeat things like that, because if I just cote statistics too many here think I am some kind of monster for citing statistics only.”

    This entire section is such a mess I can’t even tell what you’re trying to say.

  • nolidad

    For the second part of my response– sorry I am a lousy typist and at times do not use spell check.. I was just adding that I hate rape and 1 rape is too many.

    Thank you for the cites. I now understand you are referring to para church orgs. as fundamental as well.

    I only skimmed them but will try to go through more in depth when and if I ever catch up to all the posts. You folks are great in that you continually answer.

    I have alot of problems with abstinence only programs that don’t also instruct folks how to energize abstinence (receiving Christ as Savior and all that means biblicaaly)

    While abstinence only is a 100% guarentee for preventing pregnancy and STDS, without telling them about Christ is like taking a person who has never seen modern society, handing them keys to a car, telling them to drive and obey all traffic laws–it just doesn’t work well. Same with abstinence only- without a person having the Holy Spirit in them, odds are they will have sex as you know the stats show. Even Christian kids have premarital sex! But just because someone is determined to disobey the Word of God even if there are alot of unwanted potential consequences is not justification biblically to aid them in committing sin by lessening the possible physical consequences. I know that sounds so unloving but it really isn’t.

  • dpolicar

    While abstinence only is a 100% guarantee for preventing pregnancy and STDs

    (blink) To find this sentence in a comment that also talks about rape leaves me extremely confused as to what “abstinence” is being understood to mean.

    without a person having the Holy Spirit in them, odds are they will have sex as you know the stats show. Even Christian kids have premarital sex!

    This seems to suggest that unmarried Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and atheists have premarital sex at a significantly higher rate than unmarried Christians.

    Without looking it up, how confident are you of that?

    just because someone is determined to disobey the Word of God [..] is not justification
    biblically to aid them in committing sin by lessening the possible physical consequences.

    So… let me make sure I understood that.

    Suppose, in the course of committing a sin, I accidentally injure myself and require medical care to save my life.

    On your account, is there Biblical justification for providing that care?

    On your account, does the Bible teach that you should let me die?

  • nolidad

    Well I don’t have the stats in front of me but I do recall many messages where Gallup polls were cited and IF Christian kids are having less premarital sex, it is not by much as secular kids and kids of other faiths.

    Well I wasn’t directing that comment towards rape victims. I was referring to the abstinence programs and the fact that they are th eonly 100% fail safe method of preventing STD’s and pregnancy.

    As for your example. No not at all. While I would not aid you in committing whatever sin you involved in, the fact that you were injured is a separate issue. I would jump in and do what I could to get you the needed help. the bible is rich in showing Gods Mercy. Our sins cannot stop Gods love for us, but it does keep us from experiencing its depth. Sin carries its consequences whether slight or severe. But Jesus died so we may know forgiveness.

  • dpolicar

    I have combined a number of different threads into one and moved our discussion into a different post because the size of the old discussion was exceeding what some browsers can handle.

    The response is here:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/25/2-years-ago-fake-authenticity-and-pretending-not-to-use-hair-products/#comment-1160918161

  • nolidad

    thanks I am learning the new site.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    While abstinence only is a 100% guarentee for preventing pregnancy and
    STDS, without telling them about Christ is like taking a person who has
    never seen modern society, handing them keys to a car, telling them to
    drive and obey all traffic laws–it just doesn’t work well.

    I think if you want to convince people that abstinence is a 100% guarantee against pregnancy, you may want to steer clear of the story of Jesus.

  • nolidad

    Well the Virgin Birth was a supernatural one time act not to be repeated. so yeah now that God will not have the Holy Spirit impregnate a woman abstinence is 100% fail safe. I also realize in our sexual culture that is not a real world answer for kids determined to experience the craving of their hormones.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Why are you okay with just so merrily ridding yourself of an unwantede child?

    Why are you so okay with turning the miracle of human development into something where you can say “Too bad, slut; forcing you to go through nine months of pregnancy is your punishment for not keeping your legs together”?

  • nolidad

    First off I would never call the woman a slut! Even if she is a hooker I wouldn’t call her one. She is an object of Gods love I though I am not perfect I try to deal with people on that basis.

    Secondly, every decision we make has consequences attached either good or bad. If a girl makes a mistake and gets pregnant- Allowing her to kill her baby only compounds the problem, it doesn’t erase the problem. I know in m y cirlce, we would rally around her and support her and help her all we can. she is carrying something precious. And we remind her inthe Lord she is precious as well.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Allowing her to kill her baby only compounds the problem, it doesn’t erase the problem.”

    I sometimes hear this kind of thing, yet no anti-choicer has been able to give me a straight answer to any of the following questions, which I have based as closely as possible on real-life situations:

    Case #1: A single mother has become pregnant while working two jobs to support herself and her child. She found out too late that her now ex-boyfriend sabotaged her birth control. She has no insurance, and lives in a country without universal healthcare. She can’t afford pre-natal care, and if she takes too much time off, she could lose one or both jobs. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #2 a: A teenage girl has become pregnant due to acquaintance rape. She knows that proving the assault would be extremely difficult, especially as she failed to go for a rape exam afterwards. She does not want to submit to the further humiliation of having her personal life pored over at a public trial, or of being called a liar by her community. She has told her family that having a physical reminder of her trauma is tearing her apart psychologically, and that she just wants to put the experience behind her as thoroughly as possible. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #2 b: As above, but the girl in question is ten years old (yes, some ten-year-olds can get pregnant). How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #3: A teenage girl lives in a strict religious community which insists on abstinence-only sex education. Because she and her boyfriend were not given proper sexual information, she is now pregnant. Her family is likely to abuse her, or throw her out of the house, if they find out. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #4: A married woman must take teratogenic prescription drugs to stabilize various medical conditions. On the drugs she functions well, succeeding at her job and her relationships; off them, she can barely take care of herself. In order to have a healthy pregnancy, she would have to stop taking her medications for six months before even trying to conceive; therefore, she has chosen to remain childless. Now her contraception has failed. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #5: A mother has been secretly putting money aside so that she and her children can leave her abusive husband without risk of being tracked down. She knows that her pregnancy will deplete the physical and financial resources she needs to make a clean escape, and she also realizes that pregnant women are under twice as much risk from abusive partners. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Please answer in practical terms.

  • Carstonio

    Case #4 is unavoidable with present medical technology, but all the others exemplify how our society fails women and girls.

  • nolidad

    Well first off so I won’t be accused of being heartless because I didn’t explicitly state it, I am heartbroken by any situations like this where a woman is thrust into an unwanted pregnancy. Having said that let us go on to try to succinctly answer these:

    1. Well countless children are born onto poverty worldwide that were unplanned and pose a great fiscal burden, but the women still make a choice to love that child. Here in the U.S. that woman would qualify for medicaid, housing subsidies, snap, wic as well as other benefits, to help her raise her family.

    2. That girl needs to seek counseling. She is entrapped in the after effects of her trauma. The vast majority of women can successfully surmount the emotional aftermath with decent. counseling. Killing her child will not erase the memory of the rape.People in this kind of situation can go on to become abusers of other children that come later because the trauma roots in their life and cause behavior they would never commit if the rape hadn’t occurred.

    3.Tell that girl to come to my church or Thomas Road Baptist Church. We openly welcome girls needing helpo and wanting it. We don’t condemn but rally around them to support them. We have had this situation occur in our church community several times and we are considered very rigid by many because we are Baptists. Consider is the operative word. If her family and community are condemning maybe it is far better for her to get out from that legalistic unbiblical attitude and find a church that is moe biblical and she can find help in her time of need.

    4.Well I must take prescriptions that for a woman would be considered teratogenic. I don’t which one or ones she is taking that requires a six month lag time. Most teratogenics MAY cause defects in the child-but that is not a guarantee. I do not know of any that DEFINITELY will in the super majority of cases, but there probably is. I dont know al the restricitveness of all meds. First her and her husband should have used a more stronger contraception. Pills, and condoms fail. An IUD or even tubal ligation would be better if her case is that severe where being off medications nearly incapacitates her. Sometime difficult decisions m,ust be made in advance. But come to my church and see the number of children born with birth defects (some very severe) and see the joy and warmth and love the parents have and while they all will tell you at times it is a great struggle, they are so grateful that child is there. Killing that baby does not change her situation nor does itbring a cure. And I would be surprised that cases like this make up more than .0001% of the pregnancies in America.

    5. There are numerous ways a woman can escape an abusive relationship without her trackiong her down unless he is a man of great resources and can drop much cash on P.I.’s. If the relationship is abusive and her and her children are living in fear of continued harm= they need to leave immediately, seek legal counsel (there are numerous attys who do this type of work pro bono.) there are many steps to take . It may not be as convenient or according to her best plan but that still is no answer for killing a child.

  • Veleda_k

    You’re too self-satisfied and wrapped up in self-righteousness to see it, but your answers to ShifterCat reveal that you are heartless. Underneath your cloyingly sweet flourishes, your answers amount to “tough shit.” She should just get over being raped the way nolidad thinks she should, who cares what she actually needs. You state that getting an abortion won’t help a pregnant rape survivor without actually thinking about real people who did make that decision. You say that a poor woman should just go an SNAP, as if that’s enough, and as if Republicans aren’t trying to slash funding for social programs left and right. You’re so sure that it’s easy to leave an abuser, which only proves the depth of your ignorance.

    You know nothing. Your ignorance and smugness are deplorable. And for all your talk of love, you don’t care about the very real people who need to make this choice. If you cared, if you actually cared, you would know how hard it is to live in poverty, you would understand how abuse works. But you don’t.

    At this point I’m truly disgusted with you. You’ll blow this off, because you’re obsessed with yourself and how wonderful you are because JESUS, but still. Disgusting.

    Jesus weeps.

  • nolidad

    Well veleda I cannot help you believe the words I write because it appears you were self convinced from the beginning. The depth with which you are arrogantly presumptious is astounding. You do not read my words or skew them terrible. I am glad no one will stand beofe you in judgment for if they do not agree with you in all points you would cast them into th elowest judgments. I will accept the judgment of the people I interact with, the poor, the divorced and abandoned and the downcast- they would tell you how deceived you are but you wouldn’t believe them either I fear. That truly is sad. I shall no longer bother to debate yoiu , you rmind is made up=. That is fine. I wish you well.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat
  • nolidad

    Not being real tech savvy- how can I post onto another blog so you know it is a specific response to a specific question? Such as like the one above.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Addendum to the questions I just asked: please do not attempt to dodge by saying things like, “Well, I don’t think that should ever happen” or “If she lived in my amazing hypothetical community…” Realistic answers only, please.

  • nolidad

    Well I tell you what, if you have real cases where women are still living with physically abusive husbands, tell me we will communicate privately and wioth the network of caring churches our church knows we can find a place to get her help and put her on the road to recovery and rebuilding her life. And if the abuser wants help we will help him to apart from his wife to put his life back together so that if reconsiliation is possible they stand a good chance of being a loving nurturing couple.

  • nolidad

    Shifter, you also need to understand that I cannot give very specific answers to 2 sentnence examples. I will give principles that generally apply but without further info that is teh best I can do. And one part of the answer that is true for all situations is that if the woman is willing to seek God will have this promise from Him:

    Matt 11:

    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

    You see as a believer I know that the Lord can take even the most drastic situation and have a person be more than an overcomer. Unless the baby will kill both itself and the mother there is no need for a woman no matter what happened to her to get her pregnant to kill her baby.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Protip: You are still calling a woman a slut if you make it clear that you think they are morally bankrupt due to their sexual habits even if you avoid using the exact word.

  • nolidad

    Well to you I guess I will. Good thing I do not have to stand in judgment before you. I know what I think when I or anyone else falls short of Gods glory (thats called sin). I know what I believe so your false accusations do not bother me much.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.”

    Unfortunately, this is not true, especially in strictly religious communities which refuse to give their children proper sex education. Actual quote: “I didn’t think I was having sex. I thought I was making love.” If kids aren’t told what sex is, much less how pregnancy and contraception work, they won’t have the tools to make healthy choices for themselves. Also, many schools fail to give kids proper information about sexual assault. Some teach kids that if someone’s had sex with you, you’re worthless… even if you didn’t consent.

    Consider, also, some other factors:

    1. Sexual assault. Factor in, if you please, the extreme difficulty of getting an assault legally proven, and how much awfulness gets heaped on a woman who even admits to having been raped, much less tries to get her rapist brought to public justice. Rapists often tell their victims, “Nobody will believe you.” All too often, they’re right.

    2. Domestic abuse. Frequently this is paired with sexual assault or contraceptive sabotage. Bear in mind that if a woman is trying to get out of an abusive relationship, she can’t just up and run — she, and any children she might have, need to VANISH. This takes preparation and resources — resources a woman doesn’t have if she’s pregnant. Also bear in mind that the two times a DV victim’s life is in the most danger are right after she leaves… and when she’s pregnant.

    3. Survival sex. This can be anything from, “He’s not really a good guy but he’s keeping a roof over my kids’ heads” to “If I don’t turn tricks I don’t eat.”

    If you’re really interested in bringing abortion rates down, you should be focused on promoting comprehensive sex education, eliminating misogyny, and, perhaps most importantly, eliminating wealth inequality.

  • nolidad

    WEll I am sure there are some “religious communities” (what do you think that means?) that may do what you say. I am in a church that considers ourselves a “religious community” and our parents do inform their children.

    Generally speaking, our culture is offering sex education earlier and earlier in public schools. There may be exceptions ( I would imagine the Bible belt would have the most exceptions) But GENERALLY speakinhg the vast majority of reproductive age people in America know unprotected sex can and does lead to pregnancy eventually.

    Sexual assault is horrendous- but destroying an innocent life doesn’t bring justice./

    Domestic abuse is also despicable- men should be loving their wives like Christ loves the church. But too many don’t. I know what we do iin the circles I associate with. We seek to protect the woman untill the husband can change his tune.
    I am sorry but “survival” sex is a terrible alternative. The woman is degrading herself and the wonder of what sex is designed to be. She has made a choice. In our society there are alternatives to accepting that lifestyle. They may not be as convenient and they may require some temporary difficulties, but women do it all the time to remove themselves from degrading circumstances so as not to degrade themselves. I would tell those womento flee those situations and direct them to the help that is already out there for them.

    Sorry I don’t buy wealth inequality as “forcing” anyone to act in a degratory manner. I nkow of thousands -literally tens of thousands of women who are dirt poor and will not stoop to debase themselves for temporal goods. they struggle physically, but they are womnan of joy, peace and character. Sorry but poverty does not hold a gun to a womans head and make her give her body away. It may be a pressure factor like many other things that can coerce a person, but we are responsible for the decisions we make.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “…GENERALLY speakinhg the vast majority…”

    …is not a synonym for “everyone”, and you bloody well know it.

    “Sexual assault is horrendous- but destroying an innocent life doesn’t bring justice.”

    The victim may not want “justice”. She may just want to move on with her life without having a physical reminder of her rape staring her in the face. I already linked to an article about some of the things that can happen to a woman who is forced to bear her rapist’s child.

    For that matter, if she does want justice, it’ll be a hell of a lot easier for her to prosecute her attacker without having to worry about him suing for custody of her child. Which happens, as described in another link you apparently refused to read. 31 states allow rapists to have parental rights, and rapists will often use the threat of suing for custody to keep their victims from pressing charges. Just saying, “Oh, well, that shouldn’t happen” doesn’t change the fact that IT DOES.

    “Domestic abuse is also despicable- men should be loving their wives like Christ loves the church. But too many don’t. I know what we do iin the circles I associate with. We seek to protect the woman untill the husband can change his tune.”

    First of all, many women don’t live in communities which will protect her. Second, her husband may never “change his tune”. Those are facts. Women in such situations need all their resources to preserve their own lives and those of their children. Just saying, “Oh, well, *I* would never allow that” isn’t helping any actual women.

    “Sorry I don’t buy wealth inequality as “forcing” anyone to act in a degratory manner. I nkow of thousands -literally tens of thousands of women who are dirt poor and will not stoop to debase themselves for temporal goods.”

    Temporal goods like food and clothing for their children? Yes, how greedy of those women.

    Pro tip: if you’re going to give a statistic like “literally tens of thousands”, back it up with solid proof. Otherwise we’re going to have to assume you pulled those numbers straight out of your ass.

  • nolidad

    Well if you want to see the proof, come to my neck of the woods and I will introduce you to some of them, and then we will have to travel to parts of the country to meet the others and then to many churches to meet therest.

    I do bloody well know that generally does not mean everybody. I am quite positive America will never reachthe everybody statues in anything. We still have people that live without electricity after what about a century +.

    As for the poor- once again you conveniently edit what I write to make me sound evil when the opposite was true.

    America still is an extraordinary generous nation. If someone goes starving in America given all the avenues of help available in all 50 states there are other reasons in that help wasn’t around. Like I said in my state snap benefits for a single mom with 3 kids amounts to $638 a mointh or $159 week. Have these women move to my state. We will hook them up with health care, apartments, food, clothes and even furnishings if needed. It may not be the ritz, but it will be livable, safe and pretty comfortable while she is rebuilding her life by leaving an idiot.

    Afd for women who don’t have caring Christian communities to fall on to escape to, there are many avenues they can get the help. Once again you selectively edit my words to make me appear cold hearted. If a woman is in a situation where there is real and imminent threat to her health and safety (or her children) she needs to leave imediatley. If she is squirreling money away for a future date to do it, then maybe the threat isn’t so gresat or she is a fool for keeping her life in danger. I am sorry but if a poerson is standing in the middle of the road with an approaching car and says they know they need to move but don’t- I feel terrible but they are going to get the results of that decision. For the woman she is trading safety for extra money. That is a terrible reason to stay in a dangerous situation.

    And I am gong to give you a comment you can surely jump on. Most of your responses to th ese situations always include what a woman wants what she thinks and feels. The bottom line is what is the right thing to do? If a woman is having trouble coping with rape- she needs counseling. She doesn’t need an abortion she needs to cure the emotional truama lest she react to children that aren’t a product of rape or have the trauma wreak havoc with the rest of her life. If women are lovingly counseled and shown safe alternatives, they may not be the best choice, but they can produce peace and contentment internally.

  • Veleda_k

    I am not “cherry picking ” verses. I am applying Scriptures with proper hermeneutic context.

    Ha, of course. “You cherry pick. I apply scripture with proper hermeneutic context.”

    Unless you have the IQ of a rock you know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.

    Unless you have the IQ of a rock, you know that getting into a car can lead to an accident. Therefore, if your car crashes, don’t come whining to me about it. Don’t selfishly ask for “medical attention” when you should be sucking it up and facing the consequences.

    (Because treating first a fetus and then a baby as a punishment for sex is a super healthy attitude toward pregnancy and motherhood.)

  • nolidad

    Well this will sound very insulting- If you think that having a baby is punishment for sex- I hope you never have children. Who knows if after you give birth you won’t later revert to that mindset and do harm to that child.

  • Veleda_k

    Are you being disingenuous or stupid? I don’t think having a baby should be punishment for having sex. I think children should be wanted. It’s the anti-choice position that treats pregnancy as a punishment. “You had sex, so suffer the consequences.”

    I hope I never have children too. Luckily, if something should go horribly, terribly wrong in my life and I get pregnant, I can get abortion. That way no child has to suffer for my misfortune.

  • nolidad

    Well honestly, I hope you never have children either. If you think a child is punishment, even if you had a “wanted” child who knows if yiou would change your mind and not want it after even you say its a person.

  • P J Evans

    When you force a woman to give birth to a baby she doesn’t want, and maybe can’t afford, you’re punishing her for having had sex, even if it was rape or incest.

    Face what you’re advocating, and recognize that it values women only for nine months at a time, and not at all for the rest of their lives.
    Jesus would NOT approve. Nor would his mother and her cousin.

  • nolidad

    No you are placing the worth of a child based on the emotions of the mother. What happens if after 5 years she changes her mind and doesn’t want a baby anymore– will there be advocacy for infanticide up to the age of six or seven?? I am sorry but love is an act of the will not a fleeting feeling. And I value a woman all their lives not just nine months despite your false allegations.

    You are right Jesus would not approve a woman aborting her child. He knew that child before it even entered the womb. Jesus would definitely “anti-choice” if He walked the earth today in human flesh.

  • dpolicar

    love is an act of the will not a fleeting feeling.

    I assume you love your wife, and she you.

    On your account, were you both equally capable of loving anyone you met, since love is an act of the will, and you just happened to choose to love each other?

    Or is there something special about your wife, on the basis of which you love her rather than other women?

  • nolidad

    Well through the whole process of “courting” and through prayer we believed God called us together. I should have been more specific for love does involve the whole person and that measn emotions as well, but love first a decision and even when emotions are absent we must still act in love.

  • dpolicar

    (nods) That makes more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

    On your account, what is the correct thing for me to do if, through prayer, I come to believe that God has called me to be together with someone, even though I am currently married to someone else?

  • nolidad

    Well simple answer- is NO NO NO! Marriage is a binding covenant between a man and a woman. So even if through p[rayer and meditation and other “esoteric” practices you believ you should vbe with someonme else- No. We must pray, but we must also let Gods Word to be our final arbiter in issues. Scripture has much to say about marriage, divorce and remaariage, the allowances and restrictions are very clearly spelled out.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    So in addition to psychology and obstetrics, in which other fields of medicine do you believe that your personal 19th century interpretation of the bible trumps licensed and accredited experts?

    Also, why do you hate traditional marriage? I define marriage the way the bible does. One man, one woman, her homely sister, and a couple of handmaidens.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    What happens if after 5 years she changes her mind and doesn’t want a
    baby anymore– will there be advocacy for infanticide up to the age of
    six or seven??

    http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/head_bde6c3_991300.jpg

  • nolidad

    LOL I like that.. But it is a legitimate question. Let us look at some real U.S. history. SCOTUS ruled and it was law for decades that blacks were not people. SCOTUS has now ruled that babies up until the head crowns are not considered people according to the law. While my question seemed far fetched, SCOTUS legalizing abortion even when a woman is ini the onset of labor was just as far fetched in the 50’s. I could also mentioned Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement. So given our history, what seems bizarre today could become accepted somewhere down the road.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    All right, since you speak for God. What would Jesus do?

    If a woman came to him, in tears, because she’s been raped and forcibly impregnated?

    Would he shame her like you? Would he tell her to suck it up and think about her baby? Would he magically mind-whammy her into not being upset over the continuing violation?

  • nolidad

    Well seeing how I have said I wouldn’t do these things it is a false question.

  • P J Evans

    You don’t understand the message of Jesus at all, then.

  • Veleda_k

    Hah, that’s been clear for a while now.

  • nolidad

    I think I understand His love and compassion quite well. Not as much as I will know it in the future but I know He acts in love. As fior HIs message- it is repent, believe the gospel and be forgiven for your sins. That is the main message Jesus proclaimed then, and proclaims now through his imperfect servants calle dChristians.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You think having a baby is a punishment for sex. It screams out in EVERYTHING YOU SAY. Every word out of your mouth on the subject is about “consequences” and “responsibility”. You are the one here who treats parenthood as something to be forced on an unwilling woman as recompense for having sex.

  • Baby_Raptor

    He’s projecting so hard we can expect Power Point soon. But he’s so convinced he’s right that he’ll never admit it.

  • nolidad

    ONly to you Ross and others who refuse to accept what I believeabout these issues. YOu may think you can determine what I know based on a few paragraphs, but I don’t think you can convinceme. you know my heart better than me. But thanks for trying.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    I accept that you believe what you believe. I object to you pretending that your beliefs are supported by god or the bible.

  • nolidad

    Well I do not pretend. They are from God and the Bible. Am I perfect? Not close? Do you disagree with my position on a biblical topic? Show me a better biblical argument! I have changed my position many times over the years as I grew in my understanding of Gods Word and I am confident I will change positions in the future. But if you want meto change my mind about what Scripture says show me why my position is in error biblically, not culturally or philosophically.

  • P J Evans

    I’m waiting for one of those women to tell you what you can do with your condescending view of her. Preferably including physical emphasis.

  • nolidad

    Oh some have no matter how gentle you try to be. See you read too much of your own personal anger and prejudices in my words than are there. I generally find the more self centered one is the more hostile they are

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    I’ve encountered plenty of people who sincerely thought that they were being “gentle” and “reasonable” when in fact they were being patronizing, pig-headed prigs.

    You don’t have to be yelling at someone or calling them names to be disrespecting them.

    Also? Nobody can be an objective judge of their own behaviour. You’re old enough to know that by now.

  • nolidad

    Are we 100% objective of ourselves? Of course not! But have I entered these debates with sincere and honest motives? yuup. I have used sarcasm at times, but more for humor than maliciousness (that is my style as people who know me know) Writing on a blog does little to reveal emotions unless harsh accusatory language is used or gentle caring words are used. as you know.

    In presenting my arguments when I cite what I call sin- it is a neutral statement never meant to judge the individual- it is simply calling an action what the bible calls it.

    I want you to know that i am diligently trying to avoid being condenscending, patronizing, though I guess I am guilty of pigheadedness (when citing what Scripture says)

    Priggish? if by that you mean: a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if superior to others.

    Then very definitely not. This is a common accusation believers get, mostly because we cite scripture and tend not to budge. I know the evil I am capable of and have done . When I cite scripture I am simply one sinner telling another sinner where gree salvation can be had. To sum up my righteousness: I am no better than others, just better off because I found HIm who forgives our sins and delcares us righteous because of what He has done and not what I have done. I hope that gives you better insight in the background that guides my writing on these blogs.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well if you want to cite OT theology when Israel was a theocracy and apply it to all you have real problems.

    Why that almost sounds like you think the Bible should be read for context instead of just blindly followed with no regard for cultural or linguistic changes over the intervening centuries.

    Surely you don’t mean to suggest that the Bible should not be read…. literally?

  • Baby_Raptor

    But apparently applying the New Testament to everything isn’t going to cause “real problems.” I guess because he agrees with that one. I wonder what the Old Testament has to say about him that makes him deny it so hardcore?

  • nolidad

    No I am saying distinctly– the Bible must be read LITERALLY! With all that means in biblical hermeneutics.

    I 100% believe this verse:

    2 Timothy 3:16-17

    King James Version (KJV)

    16 All
    scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
    doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    Just because every word of Scripture is inspired- it is not all equally applicable. Some is historic (though we may learn and understand things form the ended history)

    Some is prophetic.

    Some is instructional
    some is parobolic
    some is symbolic

    If you like I can post you the rules of what has been dubbed The literal/historical/grammatical rules of study.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Just because every word of Scripture is inspired- it is not all equally applicable. Some is historic (though we may learn and understand things form the ended history)

    Some is prophetic.

    Some is instructional
    some is parobolic
    some is symbolic

    Ah, so reading the Bible literally, except for all the parts nolidad says not to read it literally.

    Hi, can I have my cake and eat it too please?

  • nolidad

    Well I do not know if you are being just sarcastic or do not understand principles of biblical hermeneutics. but to boil down how to read the bible the basic questions of who what where when why and how should be asked. Once again teh whole Bible is inspired by God and should be accepted at its face value. Not all scripture is equally applicable (we do not face the same test as Adam did in the garden though we can learn things from that one time historic literal event).

    Well one hope when one is served cake, they can eat it! :)

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    The thinking now is that humans caught on that sex was tied to reproduction fairly quickly… but this didn’t always lead to what we’d now think of as “logical conclusions” about paternity. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/01/when_did_humans_realize_sex_makes_babies_evolution_of_reproductive_consciousness.html

  • Baby_Raptor

    One other thing–To imply that people lack a conscience because they don’t buy into your particular views?

    Why should anyone take you seriously when you so casually dehumanize anyone who disagrees with you?

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Your views leave any number of ways that one could accuse you of having no conscience.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Heyyy, since when is having no conscience a bad th–oh, right. :p

    (I’m so glad my group identity as a sociopath is limited to poking fun at the automatic assumption that empathy is necessary for morals and ethics…)

  • Baby_Raptor

    Hey, you know I don’t claim to have morals. /shrug

  • nolidad

    With so many people firing replies to me, could you please direct me to the post where I say people have no conscience if they are not born again Christians? I do not remember saying such a thing, but my words could have implied, but I would like to see the specific qoute to know if I was over aggressive.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You claimed that a woman who feels bad about her abortion “still has a conscience,” implying that those of us who don’t do not.

  • nolidad

    In this particular area, if they have the same type of emotional response as say getting ones tonsils out, then no in this areea they have no conscience

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In this particular area, if they have the same type of emotional
    response as say getting ones tonsils out, then no in this areea they
    have no conscience

    You’re the one who claims women suffer “post abortion syndrome”, so obviously they DO have an emotional response.

    It’s almost like you’ll just toss off whatever you think will score rhetorical points for you with little regard to consistency of your narrative.

  • nolidad

    OK I will go simpler. Many women suffer from PASS many women don’t. PASS is a legitimate stress disorder. Women who have no sense of moral guilt when they have an abortion have no conscience towards abortion. Do I need to explain it any more simpler. When I write I make general and not absolute statements. That is how most people talk and write and it is usually understood that way. If you want every time I respond to you I will go through th eroutine of reminding you it is a general statment not applicable to all, so we may have an orderly back and forth on this contentious issue and not get hung up on what should be understood.

  • P J Evans

    Oh, you believe that all women must want to be mothers, therefore any woman who has an abortion for any reason must not have a conscience.
    Male self-centered ego, sounds like. It requires a total lack of knowledge and understanding of women to say something like that and believe it’s a true statement.
    And yes, I have heard women say that all women must want to be mothers. From a woman who was a poor mother.

  • nolidad

    No that is not what I believe at all. That is you taking partial statements form me or intentionally twisting my words. If a woman is pregnant she is a mother whether it was the plan or not. Every child can be a wanted child- it just means the mother has to choose life instead of death,

    I see morel;love and dignity generally speaking from poor folk who have lots of kids , than the supposed sophisticates of this world sprouting “every child a wanted child”.

    Having children is never easy. It requires sacrifice, selflessness and changes of plans alot (I know I have six with 5 grandkids) One can either be grateful to God for the gift or whine and complain that at an inconvenient time on their life or by a less than optimal conception. If a choice to love a child is based alot on the right time, with the right finances with the right social status one wishes to attain– that is a near guarentee for disaster because that is all self centered based reasons to have a child.

  • dpolicar

    If a woman is pregnant she is a mother whether it was the plan or not.

    If a pregnant woman miscarries, is she still a mother?

  • nolidad

    Well she is a mother of a child who has passed away. If that is still considered being a mother then yes she is.

  • dpolicar

    Do you consider her to be a mother?

  • nolidad

    I do not know how to answer that. She was a mother but the child passed away. Does that still allow her to be a mopther? I would not have a problem either way –meaning yes she is or no she is not.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    If abortion isn’t the deliberate taking of a human life–what is it?????
    What is the “thing” that is killed in the womb???? It is alive.

    Abortion is a medical procedure performed on a woman which terminates a pregnancy. It is not a procedure perfomred on a baby, a child, or a “human life”. It is not even a procedure performed on a fetus. It is a procedure performed on a pregnant woman.

  • nolidad

    So if the fetus that is “terminated” is not human what is it. What is the pregnant woman terminating a cocker spaniel?? It is a living entity in-the mother, I am asking what kind of living entity is it????????????

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well, genetically, that fetus is certainly human. But the simple fact remains that you’re sticking your nose in where it’s not wanted and it’s going to be smacked every time you do. It’s simply not your business whether a woman does or does not get an abortion.

    Now, if someone getting an abortion somehow directly caused you pain, that would be another matter altogether and a very concerning one*, but as it is there is an ample body of evidence that a person getting an abortion is between that person and their doctor and harms no-one.

    There was that report quoted in this comment section from a doctor who routinely used to do autopsies on women with botched abortions. After 1973, that number simply vanished. Women no longer needed to run the risk of unsafe medical procedures.

    Well, in my book, more women living after safe medical procedures is pro-“LIFE”!


    * It would back up those pseudoscientific notions about ESP, for example.

  • nolidad

    Well the law in America is on your side–right up to the point where a woman can go into labor and as long as the head hasn’t crowned she can destroy that not human life as you call it right before she would have delivered that not human whatever.. Sorry it may be legal but it ain’t moral and the 60 million dead children since our nation legalized it is one reason why America has entered into a time of divine judgment.

    You do not have to accept the Bible as authoritative, that is your right. but if it is divinely authoritative there are eternal consequences all have to bear. I know it is.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Actually that is not strictly true. Roe v. Wade only permitted abortion unrestrictedly through the first trimester.

    Canadian abortion law permits abortions up to the moment of birth.

    Try not to overstate your case, it tends to make you look silly when facts are different than you state them to be.

    And “you know” the Bible to be divinely authoritative is not in itself sufficient proof for me to go along with you in the matter.

    God could resolve the matter in about two seconds by doing something that is entirely out of reach of human science, but as yet I don’t see that happening. It seems that you’re trying to wave around a paper tiger.

  • nolidad

    Well between Roe v. Wade and now third trimester abortions have passed constitutional muster.

    Well He did do something out of reach of human scince -He rose from the dead physically after His body was drained of all blood on the cross.

    Let me give you a somber warning . The account found in

    Luke 16:19-31. Faith cannot be gained by “miracles”, but faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Romans 10.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well between Roe v. Wade and now third trimester abortions have passed constitutional muster.

    True.

    Re: “out of reach of human science”

    Your claim that he “rose from the dead physically” is unsupported by any evidence with enough weight to merit being evidence.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for them.

  • nolidad

    He was seen by 500 witnesses and was witnessed to physically ascend into heaven. Extraordinary evidence given. Acts !

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In short, from the same book which you assert had divine guidance in its writing. How about a writeup by even ONE of those 500 folks in an independent account? Say, to a Roman inquisitor who happened to keep a record of what transpired?

    Or even just not a Biblical text?

  • nolidad

    Yeah it would have been much easier if they had just grabbed a camcorder and taped the Risen Lord.

    But let us consider the facts:
    1. Jesus was killed by Rome as a simple common criminal.
    2. He was killed in a backwater part of the empire that was considered a hellhole outpost to be sent to.
    3.The fact that a Roman guard was dispatched and His body was missing would have meant teh deaqth penalty for the 16 guards assigned to guard the tomb if they weren’t bought off by the Sanhedrin (oppossed to Jesus)
    4. There is almost no Roman written records about their governing Israel.
    5. The 500 witnesses did what they could do. They went and told everybody and anybody.
    6. They even went beyond Israel into hostile pagan territory to spread the news of a Risen and Living Savior.
    7. The rest is history and history being made and prophecy being fulfilled.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    3.The fact that a Roman guard was dispatched and His body was missing
    would have meant teh deaqth penalty for the 16 guards assigned to guard
    the tomb if they weren’t bought off by the Sanhedrin (oppossed to Jesus)

    Why would they give a damn about a “common criminal”? And why would they care if a bunch of Roman occupiers got their asses handed to them?

    Incidentally, when I read about this way back I seem to recall it was THREE guards; sixteen seems a little excessive.

    4. There is almost no Roman written records about their governing Israel.

    Says who? You? I won’t take that assertion unsupported.

    5. The 500 witnesses did what they could do. They went and told everybody and anybody.
    6. They even went beyond Israel into hostile pagan territory to spread the news of a Risen and Living Savior.

    So where are the accounts from people in Asia Minor or what are today the nations around the Black Sea and Caspian Sea who presumably heard from these folks and got some kind of proof that Jesus Christ was the real deal?

  • nolidad

    Because of teh interconnection between Caiphas, Annas and Pilate and the intense passions aroused by Jesus.

    When Pilate dispatched the watch– that is four squads of four soldiers– four awake at any one time.

    Well go look I can’t prove a negative. Pliny wrote about rome and Israel. Other than hos accounts I think thare may be some records of Titus destroying Jerusalem and the bar Kochba rebellion in teh 130 A.Ds but I do not know of any cahe of ancient Roman documents that deal with Israel other than in passing as part of teh empire. It just wasn’t important in the cog of the empire.

    Well read the works of the ante nicene fathers. look around and see the churches which continue to this day

    there is a plethoira of documents of the early church.

    Here is a small sampling

    http://www.churchhistory101.com/century1-p9.php

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    The Bible has far too many contradictions to be considered a reliable historical source. Consider all the conflicting accounts for the resurrection alone:

    Jesus’ First Resurrection Appearance:

    Mark 16:14-15 – Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)

    Matthew 28:8-9 – Jesus first appears near his tomb

    Luke 24:13-15 – Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem

    John 20:13-14 – Jesus first appears at his tomb

    Who Sees Jesus First?:

    Mark – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to “the eleven”

    Matthew – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to ”the eleven”

    Luke – Jesus appears first to “two,” then to Simon, then to “the eleven”

    John – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas

    Women’s Reactions to the Empty Tomb:

    Mark 16:8 – The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet

    Matthew 28:6-8 – The women ran away “with great joy”

    Luke 24:9-12 – The women left the tomb and told the disciples

    John 20:1-2 – Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen

    Jesus’ Behavior After His Resurrection:

    Mark 16:14-15 – Jesus commissions “the eleven” to preach the gospel

    Matthew 28:9 – Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet

    John 20:17 – Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasn’t ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway

    Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection:

    Mark 16:11, Luke 24:11 – Everyone doubts and/or is scared at first, but eventually they go along with it

    Matthew 28:16 – Some doubt, but most believe

    John 20:24-28 – Everyone believes but Thomas, whose doubts are eliminated when he gets physical proof

    Jesus Ascends to Heaven:

    Mark 16:14-19 – Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem

    Matthew 28:16-20 – Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee

    Luke 24:50-51 – Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection

    John – Nothing about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned

    Acts 1:9-12 – Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet

    Not to mention that Matthew (nota bene: the writer chronologically furthest from the alleged event) reports an earthquake splitting the ground open and disgorging a lot of dead people, who proceeded to wander about Jersusalem, “seen by many”. An earthquake, followed by a ZOMBIE HORDE. Yet not only doesn’t this event appear in any other histories, it also isn’t noted by any other gospel writer.

  • nolidad

    Wow you really don’t know how to read the synoptics do you ?

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    How about giving me a real answer, Mr. Condescension? Or don’t you have any?

  • Veleda_k

    He seems remarkably short on actual answers to direct questions. But that’s okay, because he has a super applicable Bible passage to share with us!

  • nolidad

    I have mnay times, I am no wasking you stop reading your own presuppositions of who I am into my answers and then telling me that is what I believe. Jesus did not preach a social gospel. He preached repentance for sin and that He was the Messiah. When Israel rejected Him, He then prepared His disciples for what His true mission on earth was. To go to calvary and die for the sins of man and rise again physically from the dead on teh third day for our justification. Helping the poor is the outworking of presenting that gospel to a lost world. Good enough?

  • Veleda_k

    Ah, the old “We know the Bible is true, because the Bible says so!”

  • nolidad

    Well I can only reply this way:

    1 Corinthians 1:18

    For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    1 Corinthians 1:21

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

    1 Corinthians 1:23

    But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness

    1 Corinthians 2:14

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    1 Corinthians 3:19

    For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

    I ask, why don’t you deek Him- He can be found. Find out what billions over the ages have found-Him.

    He will never be found if you are just doing an intellectual curious inquiry. His Word will never be appreciated if you forst do not meet Him who died and rose for your sin.

  • Veleda_k

    Well I can only reply this way

    Yeah, I’ve noticed. All you can do is throw out scripture, rather than actual arguments.

    Funny story, I did seek God once. In my early teens I became very interested in Christianity after being raised loosely Quaker. But the hate and judgment I found sent me running the other way. People like you are the reason I’m not a Christian. The self-satisfaction, the “Because the Bible says so!” I had no patience for it. Still don’t.

  • nolidad

    You are not a Christian because you do not wish to be. I do know that I am far from perfect witness for Christ to my shame. I also know that you and everyine else on this thread have taken my words and added to them things I never said or implied. I have people capping and bolding phrases telling me what I think! And I am called arrogant? I look at the words people reply to me with and then say that is what I mean when I know it is not. No, veleda Christ is full of love and grace and mercy, that is why a sinner like me is saved- If you want to run from Him because of His imperfect children, well I suspect you would want to run from HIm for anyother reason. And that is a true tragedy.

    And I wll not apologize for throwing out Scripture I accept what God said that it is the final and ultimate arbiter for issues man must deal with. So yes my arguments I try to keep based on the Word of God instead the word of nolidad. or some philosopher or politician etc. etc.

  • P J Evans

    We are familiar with the Bible, thankyouverymuch. We hear the same thing over and over, but the people who keep reciting verses don’t seem to be able to understand what they mean.
    Jesus came to the poor, the overburdened, the unclean, the sinners, and lightened their spiritual loads.
    He didn’t lay more burdens on them by telling them they were sinners and going to go to hell for doing the best they could. Or that they were poor because they were lazy, when they were working as much of the time as they could.

  • nolidad

    Well if you knew th Scriptures like you say, you would know what you just said is not Scripture but a rephrasing of what Jesus said and changing what He said to mean something totally different.

  • Daniel

    “Well He did do something out of reach of human scince -He rose from the dead physically after His body was drained of all blood on the cross.”

    Prove it.

  • P J Evans

    Especially since no one has claimed that, and it’s not in the Bible. (i believe it’s also not possible.)

  • nolidad

    Well if five hundred witnesses who saw HIm and wrote it down, if the fact that Christianity has flourished despite all the opposition to it. If the changed lives of millions and if His Word is not enough, there is no proof that will cause you to believe and Jesus said in Luke 16 19-31. You have to really want to know and then be prepared to give account for that knowledge.

  • Daniel

    Five hundred witnesses did not write it down though, did they? Someone else wrote that 500 people had seen it, which is not the same thing. An example:
    Yesterday I turned into a whale. Four million people saw it happen, and then they saw me change back again. If that doesn’t prove I turned into a whale then nothing will.
    Why do you not accept that claim?

    Christianity has suppressed opposition to it for most of it’s history. The most famous example of that is the Inquisitions. It hasn’t “flourished despite all the opposition to it”- it has crushed any and all opposition for the majority of its history, and now it’s actually being criticised openly without the power to kill opponents it is finding its authority lessened and its answers inadequate.
    The fact that it has “changed the lives of millions” does not prove it’s true- millions more are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs etc. but you still think that they are wrong. So the quantity of people believing a claim does not affect the truth of that claim. Do you believe Mohammad was commanded to recite the Qur’an by Jibril and that he was a prophet of God? If not why not? Millions believe he was, millions have had their lives changed by that, and the Qur’an itself makes that claim. So why do you not believe it?

  • P J Evans

    The last time Christians were persecuted in the western world for being Christians was before Constantine. Which Our Current Troll seems to be ignoring, probably because that puts a major dent in its thesis.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    It’s true, I saw you do it, although I have a completely different account of what happened.

  • Daniel

    At least you acknowledge it happened. Without that belief life is porpoiseless.
    It’s been a long day. Puns are all I have.

  • nolidad

    Matthew saw it and wrote it, Peter saw HIm and wrote it, JOhn saw HIm and wrote it Paul saw HIm and wrote it. Seeing how literacy was fairly uncommon no you would not expect them to twitter it back in those days. :) Back in Jesus day there really weren’t too many Nikes to grab photo evidence.

    As for suppressing evidence- you do realize that until c. 325AD the church was hunted, persecuted and martyred by the various emperors? And ther Inquisitions were the religious crowd suppressing the truth. Remember this was the organization that killed people for reading the Bible and condemned all who did independent of their accepted opinion. the Inquisitions laid the foundations for the Reformation which brought the Bible to the light of Day and Gutenberg helped get the Word into the language of common man in a much faster methodology.

    Christianity is the most persecuted faith in teh world and the Bible the most attacked religious book in the world. There never was a time (except the Crusades) when there was wholesale slaughter of people for reading the Qur’an The Bible has been and still continues to be attacked on all 6 inhabited continents. I have friends who were arrested in China for having bibles on them. Recently in N. Korea I believe it was 85 people who were murdered for having bibles and reading them.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    And each of them wrote completely different accounts with little agreement for details. Jesus met and spoke with different people, treated people differently in one account to another, and one account opened up with a huge earthquake which caused dead people to rise from the grave — which is not mentioned in any way in any of the others.

    This is not the makings of reliable history.

  • nolidad

    Well if you expect them all to agree with each other. But they each wrote segments that fit their audiences as God saw fit.

    Matthew to the Jew
    Mark to the Roman mind
    Luke to the Greek mind.

    JOhn in a large measure to counter gnostic heresy.

    Each took the part of the historical record to meet the need of the people they were writing to . when taken as a whole we get a good picture of events. Like putting the resurrection into a greater chronological detail.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You’re implying that writing to a different audience means completely changing details to be in no way compatible with other tellings of the same account. I disagree with this logic. “When taken as a whole,” we get contradictions that are irreconcilable — such as Jesus not allowing anyone to touch him in one account, and allowing Mary to touch him in another. Or the earthquake and subsequent resurrection of saints which isn’t acknowledged in any other account — is that or isn’t it history? If it’s history, why did no one else acknowledge such a miraculous event, including any other apostle?

  • nolidad

    But they did not change details, they only used the part of the whole narrative that God instructed them to for their audience. To have recorded Jesus whole life and ministry would have required far more works that are around. Let me answer your “contradiction here about being touched.

    Mary saw Jesus on Resurrection morning. Jesus is still in His high priestly mode. Also as the Lamb of God- the lambs blood had to be poured out onto the altar. So when He sent Mary away He ascended to the altar in heaven of which the earthly was modeled and poured His blood on the horns of the altar to fulfill the requirements of the law.

    That is why He could tell Thomas to touch Him for He fulfilled His priestly duty (for until the High Priest poured the blood of the lamb out He could not be touched or he would become ritually unclean.) Hebrews explains the Mosaic Law as the types and Shadows of things to come.

    For the earthquake-Why God chose only Matthew to record teh earthquake for the gospel presentation is subject to speculation and opinion.

  • P J Evans

    Citations – from reliable authorities, not the Bible – needed for your statements about the writers of the gospels.

  • nolidad

    Well what would you consider reliable??? As there are no authors critiquing scriptures form the first 3 centuries other than Christians and disciples of the original 12 I don’t know at all what you would consider reliable. The Jews hated the Christians, Rome wasn’t interested until it became a movement inthe empire and then spent much time and energy for 2+ centuries to eradicate them. So what do you consider reliable authorities?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    right up to the point where a woman can go into labor and as long as the head hasn’t crowned she can destroy that not human life

    This is not actually true and is yet another failing of the C.S. Lewis test. Or, to phrase this more Biblicly, stop bearing false witness.

    Abortion is not legal after 24 weeks in most states. After that, the only reason anything resembling abortion can be allowed is if the pregnancy poses a significant danger to the life of the mother. Of all the abortions performed in the United States, 0.08% are performed after 24 weeks.

  • nolidad

    Well my bad, it is legal in some states and D.C. I did not recheck what I had seen and made an assumption. For this I apologize. But it is constitutionmally legal. I will try to dredge up the cite when I can catch up with all the posts I get.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Assumption is the brother of all fuck-ups.

  • nolidad

    so stop doing it

  • P J Evans

    ‘Your concern has been noted and logged.’

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    “Terminated” isn’t the operative term. Abortion is the removal of biological tissue from the womb, causing the pregnancy to abort. If it were possible to remove the tissue without causing its death (as will one day be possible), the same could be accomplished without “killing a baby” and I suspect the vast majority of people would be fine with that.

  • nolidad

    If it lets the baby live yes they would. My wife had an ectopic pregnancy and the first question we asked was if the baby was moveable. When they said not with present technology, we knew we had to end the babies life. Better to save one than risk two lives. The baby was going to die anyway.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    *The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?*

    *If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. *

    *You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. *

    *Finally we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

    *

  • nolidad

    Well I am sorry you feel that way, cause I don’t despite the numerous times you tell me I do. I actually love people whether they agree with me or not. You just keep assuming I must hate people cuz of things they do, and I keep saying I don’t. But if you want to believe your own opoinion of me instead of what I tell you thats your right.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Why, it’s almost like you decided some abortions are okay by you.

  • nolidad

    Why its like we could choose!! Kill 2 or kill one. We chose the lesser of 2 evils in this no win scenarion for at least one of the lives.

  • dpolicar

    I have an appendix. It is a living entity… it consumes nutrients, it consumes oxygen, it reproduces cells, it heals when injured. And it certainly isn’t a cocker spaniel. It is a living, human appendix. And when doctors remove my appendix, it dies.

    But removing my appendix does not end a human life, and there’s nothing especially immoral about removing an appendix.

    I’m not saying an appendix is just like a fetus… it isn’t.

    Nor am I saying that removing an appendix is morally equivalent to removing a fetus.

    But I am suggesting that you stop arguing for the immorality of removing a fetus using an argument that can just as easily be used to support the immorality of removing an appendix.

    I’m saying that if you want to argue for the differential immorality of abortion, observing that a fetus is a living human organism (just like an appendix) is insufficient.

  • nolidad

    well you didn’t have sex to produce that appendix, it was with you at birth. The baby inside the womb has its own unique DNA. If you were to take tissue from an abortion to a forensic pathologist and ask them to ssay iof that dead tissue was from a human–they would say YES. And like you said removing a nonfunctional or failing organ is not the moral equivalent of ending the babies existence.

  • dpolicar

    you didn’t have sex to produce that appendix, it was with you at birth.

    That’s true. Is having sex important?

    The baby inside the womb has its own unique DNA.

    Also true. Is having unique DNA important?

    If you were to take tissue from an abortion to a forensic pathologist and ask them to ssay iof that dead tissue was from a human–they would say YES.

    I would certainly hope so. Is being tissue from a human important?

    And like you said removing a nonfunctional or failing organ is not the moral equivalent of ending the babies existence.

    I didn’t say anything about babies, but I certainly agree that removing an organ is not the moral equivalent of ending a baby’s existence.

  • nolidad

    Well see you just draw the line of what makes a baby a baby more on morphology than on its existence.

  • dpolicar

    Every adult was once a baby. It existed as a baby, but was not an adult then. Adulthood requires existence, but existence is not sufficient for adulthood.

    Every baby was once a fetus. It existed as a fetus, but was not a baby. Babyhood requires existence, but existence is not sufficient for babyhood.

    Every fetus was once a fertilized egg. It existed as a fertilized egg, but was not a fetus. Fetushood requires existence, but existence is not sufficient for fetushood.

    Every fertilized egg was once an (unfertilized egg, sperm) pair.

    And on and on we go, all the way back through the glorious chain of cause and event back to the beginning of time.

  • nolidad

    Being 2 days behind in answering because I am very outnumbered here, refresh me why you are making this point please?

  • dpolicar

    Don’t feel obligated to respond, if it’s too much of a burden.

    I make the point in response to your earlier point about my “drawing the line” between babyhood and nonbabyhood based on “morphology” rather than “existence.”

    In fact, as I described, I draw lots of lines between lots of stages of existence based on lots of things. Existence by itself is insufficient to draw any of those lines, because there is always existence.

  • nolidad

    I will try to answer all comments, it is only the proper thing to do.

    But the only thing that separates a zygote from a 75 year old is time and development. It is a human zygote which if left to continue the designed process will become that 75 year old. The only difference between a newborn and a 75 year old is time and development. The Dna in the zygote is still the same DNA in the 75 year old (if not tampered with) the baby morphologically does not resemble at all teh 75 year old. It has hands and feet and head and body but they are all different. That zygote has hands and feet (they just haven’t popped yet).

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That zygote has hands and feet (they just haven’t popped yet).

    A zygote is not an uninflated balloon.

    The physical and genetic differences between a zygote and an adult human are actually pretty significant. The whole reason you age is because your body stops being able to properly replicate its genetic material — your DNA changes structure over time, gaining abnormalities which cause it to produce cells with defects.

    The cells produced are also quite different between a fetus and an adult, hence why stem cells were such an important research opportunity — stem cells are undifferentiated and can be transformed into any other type of cell (including nerve cells, which are no longer produced in adulthood), while adult cells have already specialized and are much harder to transform, much less to redistribute.

  • nolidad

    I understand that. What I was trying to say is that within the genetic code within the zygote is all the ionformation for hands, feet, etc. It is not something added to the baby, it is all within the baby form conception. That is why I also said a baby is far different from an adult. We still ahve the same genetic code we had as a zygote, but as you said it ages .

  • Baby_Raptor

    …Please, for the love of whatever you consider holy, stop talking until you have any idea what actually happens during a pregnancy. You are so incredibly wrong here I don’t know where to begin.

    Zygotes do not have limbs. Limbs have to grow and develop, assuming they aren’t just genetically programmed to not develop said limbs. A zygote isn’t a chunk of flesh that needs shaping. All of that has to develop.

    Which leads me to my second point. A 75 year old is a fully developed, sentient, independent person. A zygote is none of the above. A 75 year old is not forcibly attached to another person, leeching off them to exist, grow and survive. (Hey, look. Your recurring problem of erasing the pregnant person cropped up AGAIN! Still denying that?) A 75 year old person memories, senses, working bodily systems…A zygote has none of that. A 75 year old person has a brain, and the capability to use it. A zygote does not.

    A 75 year old individual is a person. A zygote has none of the qualifications for such. the only things a 75 year old and a zygote have in common are the fact that they have DNA and the fact that they’re made of tissue.

  • nolidad

    Well I answered that but I will summarize again. A zygote is a complete human being genetically. It is afull loaded person . All that it needs is time for that code to develop. The limbs are programmed in its DNA as well as its brain..

    Your use of terms like “forcibly attached” and leeching” are very ominous indeed. Once again I base my determinations on the word of God and not the present cultural or medical or scientific understanding.

    Remember for about a decade Ernst Haeckel held sway with his recapitulation theory. A century from now who knows what science will think. God i nHis Word calls that child that is in the zygote stage a person, so I will rest there.

    Let me ask you a question though. Does a zygote have its full genetic “instruction package” for want of a better term off the top of my head) or does it have to get instructions elsewhere?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Let me ask you a question though. Does a zygote have its full genetic
    “instruction package” for want of a better term off the top of my head)
    or does it have to get instructions elsewhere?

    The latter.

    You may or may not remember this, but back around the turn of the century, people who made reckless speculations based on science news you only barely understand were all saying that with the then-pending completion of the Human Genome Project, we’d soon see all of human genetics well and truly sorted, giving us unbounded power to cure genetic ailments and possibly give ourselves superpowers.

    Do you know why this didn’t come to pass?

    It’s because one of the major discoveries of the human genome project is that our DNA isn’t a “full genetic instruction package”. It’s more akin to a genetic menu. Those genes can be “turned on” or “turned off” by environmental factors at key stages in human development, changing how or whether traits express. If you took a pair of embryos which had just separated into identical twins, and you were able to extract one of them intact and successfully implant it in a different, unrelated woman, who carried it to term, the children who were born wouldn’t be identical. Their nuclear DNA would be the same, but they could develop radically different traits because of differing conditions in the womb.

    God i nHis Word calls that child that is in the zygote stage a person, so I will rest there

    Where?

    Answer: Nowhere. The zygote was discovered in 1875.

  • nolidad

    So let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you . Are you saying that the DNA a “fetus” has does not have all teh instructions it needs to be a person, like legs, and arms, and feet, and hands, and teeth, and hair, and a heart etc. etcf. etc.

    So I do not misunderstand you , what are some of these environmental factors you speak of?

    And what kind of research was performed to prove this theory that identical twins if able to be spearated into differing wombs would no longer be identical (but that is a morphological thing and not a genetic thing. There Dna is different from each other even if they look “identical” physically)

    So I do not misunderstand you also–what kind of conditions in the womb would cause a baby to change its predisposed conditions? And how do we not know if those are not recessive genes already in the child that rise to the dominant status?

    Maybe the term “zygote” and what it looked like under a microscope was discovered by man in 1875- But God knew it before He even called the universe into existence.

  • Ian

    You probably should take some basic biology classes, your misunderstandings are coming thick and fast.

    all teh instructions it needs to be a person, like legs, and arms, and feet, and hands, and teeth, and hair, and a heart etc. etcf. etc.

    DNA doesn’t work that way. Genes code for catalysts to chemical reactions. There is no gene for hands. If you replace all the DNA of a fertilized pig ovum with human DNA, you would not grow a human being. The mother and the ovum both produce complex sets of chemical signals that are required for proper fetal development. A good popular science book on the biology of pregnancy is “The Stranger within.” That also describes some of the chemical battles mother and fetus wage to avoid the mother’s immune system destroying the fetus. And how often the fetus loses.

    And how do we not know if those are not recessive genes already in the child that rise to the dominant status?

    We know, because that’s not what a recessive or dominant gene is.

    And what kind of research was performed to prove this

    Sixty years of basic biological research into the genetics of reproduction. Here any basic undergraduate textbook will describe the science in detail. There is no need to stay ignorant on this, your local library will have plenty of resources.

  • nolidad

    Well to this I can only post this:

    “That
    is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual
    cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct
    organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning
    developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not
    take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard
    human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing
    Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology &
    Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology
    & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

    “Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization
    (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer
    (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active
    disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human
    organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact,
    scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells
    precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their
    organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology
    textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of
    the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert
    George – See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/#sthash.vreGubol.dpuf

  • Ian

    Why can you only post that? Why can you not say “Okay, I’ll go and read up a bit more and understand what is going on during pregnancy”? Why do you need to write a come-back at all?

    You’ve mentioned a few books there, that presumably you think contradict me. You only think that because you seem to be conflating a bunch of different ideas. Your quotes, while interesting are talking about something else, not the determinacy of DNA. So maybe you should choose one of those books, get it out of your library and read it. Rather than assuming you know what it says become someone else has happened to name-drop it.

    if you’re not willing to do the reading and check references, and work hard to understand, you’ll forever be at the mercy of anyone who says what you want to hear.

  • nolidad

    Because simply when sperm and egg meet, they cease to exist and a new entity begins. If left to develop normally it will keep developing in its own right. Once it is a new entity it has its own uniques human DNA code that is separwate from its mother. Which is why the mnothers body tends to fight it. That is part of the mystery of life, despite all the scientific explanations. But let me ask you do you deny what I posted is true or not?

  • Ian

    You didn’t answer my question, even though you started your post with ‘because’.

    Why do you need to write a come-back at all?

    Because simply when sperm and egg meet, they cease to exist and a new entity begins.

    !

    But let me ask you do you deny what I posted is true or not?

    It is neither true nor false. It is a set of intentionally tendentious ways of phrasing things.

    With suitable qualifications and definitions of terms all your statements could be true. As they stand all could be false.

    So I ask you again, why don’t you visit a library, ask for the books you yourself cited, and read them?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Maybe the term “zygote” and what it looked like under a microscope was discovered by man in 1875- But God knew it before He even called the universe into existence.

    But you have no basis for asserting how God feels about zygotes because if God had opted to reveal that, the discovery of the zygote would predate 1875. The fact that it doesn’t proves that God’s feelings about zygotes is not part of the revealed truth of the bible, so you are making up shit and putting it in God’s mouth when you dare to assert that you know His will in this regard.

  • nolidad

    Jer. 1:

    4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

    5 Before
    I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
    out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto
    the nations.

    Psalm 139: 3 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

    14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

    15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

    16 Thine
    eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my
    members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet
    there was none of them.

    17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

    God knew what a zygote was long before man coined the term.

  • P J Evans

    Please, for the sake of whatever you claim to believe in, go get a book about the development of the fetus. There are some very good ones out there, intended to explain ‘where did I come from’ to children of various ages.
    It will greatly improve the quality of your trolling if you have a clue what you’re talking about.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but that little ball of cells isa complete human genetically. Its DNA contains all the info it needs to develop. Just like a baby when born has no teeth. But it has inits DNA the code to grow teeth at the time appointed. it doesn’t get that command from moms milk or a can of enfamil, but I think you know that already. Matter of fact that little ball of joy already ahs it hair color instructions, how tall it will be what color eyes it will have eetc. etc. etc.

  • P J Evans

    read up on things like molar pregnancies before you make statements like that that are not necessarily true.
    Also you’re remarkably ignorant of biology and psychology, as well as the Bible and its actual meaning past whatever your pastor lies to you about..

  • nolidad

    So a molar pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that will not come to term like an ectopic pregnancy. It is a non viable egg. that is actually dead before it begins. What is the point.

    Well you tell me how the fetus is lacking genetically. And my “ignorance” of the Bible as yopu put it is only to the liberal mind who does not generally accept it as Gods Word. Or one who believes the bible must be defined by culture or as allegory. To thosae folks I wear their term “ignorant” as a badge of honor. But if you wish to go head to head in Scripture and proper hermeneutics let us have at it in any category of your choosing.

    And your presumptious arrogance about my pastor does nothing but demean you and make you appear LIKE a whiny little child throwing a tantrum.

  • dpolicar

    Yes, agreed that what separates a zygote from an 75-year-old is time and development. (Of course, said development is a complex process, and depends on a wide range of other things being available, and a wider range of still other things being absent.)

    Also agreed that the same DNA is present (if not tampered with or naturally mutated).

    And also agreed that the zygote and the adult are morphologically distinct.

    So, yes, as you suggest, we can say a zygote has hands and feet that haven’t “popped” yet, in the same sense that a baby boy has a beard that hasn’t grown in yet, a baby girl has a fully-developed breasts and uterus that haven’t developed yet, and so forth.

    Agreed.

    All of that said, it’s entirely inappropriate to treat a baby as though it were an adult.

    So… why is it inappropriate, if the baby and the adult have the same DNA, if the expected future development of the baby includes the adult?

    Answer: because DNA, though it matters, is not the only thing that matters. Because expected future development, though it matters, is not the only thing that matters. And because, although morphology is not the only thing that matters, morphology matters.

    Specifically, the morphological difference between a baby and an adult justifies permitting certain behavior with adults that is entirely inappropriate with babies. Time and development make a difference.

    Similarly, the morphological difference between a baby and an adult justifies
    permitting certain behavior with fetuses that is inappropriate with babies.

    Adults and babies share DNA, but they are different.
    Fetuses and babies share DNA, but they are different.

    And the differences matter.

  • nolidad

    I agreed with every thing you wrote except for the last three lines. For the fetus carries the same DNA as the baby which carries the same DNA as the adult, the only thing that age does is to begin the process of death and DNA from replicating properly The other issues are issues of culture and nurture and has nothing to do with a person being more of a person because they have aged and learned things and is able to perform more tasks.

  • dpolicar

    the fetus carries the same DNA as the baby which carries the same DNA as the adult, the only thing that age does is to begin the process of death and DNA
    from replicating properly The other issues are issues of culture and
    nurture

    Wait, what?
    I think I must have misunderstood you.

    Age makes the difference between a one-day old baby and a ten-year-old child. There are non-cultural, non-nurture differences between a one-day old and a ten-year-old that have nothing whatsoever to do with beginning the process of death and nothing to do with learning things.

    If you disagree with any of that, I am… bewildered.

    If you agree with that, then I misunderstood your claim.

  • nolidad

    Culturally and behaviorally there are enormous differences. I was just referring to genetics. No new DNA is introduced as one gets older unless of course it is forced upon the person.

    Every stage of life involves differing skills and nurturing.

  • dpolicar

    A one-day-old baby is not capable of doing what a ten-year-old can do, not just because of cultural and behavioral differences and skills and nurturing — not even primarily because of those things — but because of physical differences.

    Do you agree with that?
    Or disagree?

  • nolidad

    Of course I agree. Also a baby cannot do physically what a ten year old can do etc.

    But I am talking that there is no genetic difference in personhood from a fetus to a senior citizen. No new genetic material is added. unless forced.

  • dpolicar

    Of course I agree. Also a baby cannot do physically what a ten year old can do etc.

    Then I don’t understand what you mean by “the only thing that age does is to begin the process of death,” given that you agree that as a one-day-old infant ages, it develops capabilities that are not the result of culture, behavior, skills, or nurturing, but rather the result of physical differences characteristic of aging.

    Are those capabilities not examples of important things which age does, which have nothing to do with death?

    there is no genetic difference in personhood from a fetus to a senior citizen

    Yes, that’s true.

  • nolidad

    I should have been a little clearer. I was speaking in the grand scheme of life- the moment we are conceived we begin the march towards death. I realize we grow and develop up to age X then we actually slowly decay until death, but we are al born with death as the goal. Maybe that was a poetic way of saying it.

  • dpolicar

    Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

    And sure, that’s true enough.

    It remains true despite that that there are differences between stages of life, and those differences matter, which was my original point, with which you seem to agree.

    Just because a baby and an adult share the same DNA and are separated only by time doesn’t mean a baby is an adult or that it’s appropriate to treat a baby the way we treat an adult, or vice-versa.

    In the same way, just because a fetus and a baby share the same DNA and are separated only by time doesn’t mean a fetus is a baby or that it’s appropriate to treat a fetus the way we treat a baby, or vice-versa.

  • nolidad

    Well this is the meat of the debate here. I would say we should give the fetus the same right to life as a baby out of the womb has because though it is less mature physically, according to God it is still a child.

  • dpolicar

    (nods) And if you want to justify your position based on your beliefs about what God believes about its status, I won’t dispute that. You might be right about what God believes, or you might not, and in either case I’m in no position to judge your unverifiable beliefs about God.

    I do, however, oppose passing laws on the basis of what you believe God believes, just like you oppose passing laws on the basis of what other people believe God believes.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The urgency of replying on the other thread is now critical; It literally took me two minutes to write this because the disqus javascript autorefresh is slowing my browser too much. Also, the thread no longer loads past AnonaMiss’s complaint.

  • nolidad

    Let me ask you a serious question. I know how I wish to see laws based, but what authority do you stand on to base laws. Let us even make it personal. I would assume you applaud states legalizing gay marriage. What do you base your position oin that it is right?

  • P J Evans

    If you want a biblical basis:
    love your neighbor as your self
    do to others as you would have them do to you
    Why deny committed partnerships to LGBTs? They’re as much involved in a loving commitment as anyone else.

  • nolidad

    Well the Bible also says there is no God . Keep things in context and read what God prohibits. He prohibits homosexual behavior. If two gays wish to marry and lead a celibate life- I think(this is my opinion) that God would allow that. Averse out of contexzt is a false pretext.

  • P J Evans

    God does not. God rejoices in love and partnership, and hasn’t banned marriage. ALL the verses you’re about to quote are about prostitution for religious purposes.

    See: David and Jonathan.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Please provide a definition of “homosexual behavior” and then cite chapter and verse which both clearly meets that definition and clearly prohibits it.

    Not “If you pretend this word means ‘buttsex’…” Not “This part clearly prohibits somethng vague so therefore it prohibits the specific thing which I want it to prohibit.”

  • Baby_Raptor

    He’ll cite the verses that People Who Know believe weren’t actually talking about homosexuality at all but pedophilia and then shove his fingers in his ears and insist that he’s totes right and gawd sed so.

  • P J Evans

    Those verses are always given without context, because they’re commandments.
    They’re the ones at the very center of Christianity.
    You just failed, badly.

  • dpolicar
  • dpolicar

    Moving this thread here so others can read it.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Oh, the same right to life?
    So then, “Under absolutely no circumstance can any other human being be forced to sacrifice their own body to keep the fetus alive against their will?”
    I mean, you’ve already said that you wouldn’t force one born person to donate organs or tissue to keep another born person alive.

  • nolidad

    Apples and Oranges as you know. But iof you want to live in a totalitarian state there are still a few that could be recommended to you.

  • dpolicar

    Can you clarify why the comparison isn’t valid on your account? I mean, I understand that on your account I am the moral equivalent of a fetus, but the question still seems to arise: if my survival depended on you harboring a several-pound growth in your abdomen, should the law force you to do so against your will to ensure my survival?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    How is it apples and oranges? In one case, you’re asking a person to usetheir body as a life support system for another person against their will, when it will have irreversible negative side effects for them. In the other case, it is exactly the same thing.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You don’t even realize what you’ve done. do you? In your desperate effort to render your claims indisputable, you’ve caveated and qualified them down to be meaningless.

    Sure, a person’s nuclear DNA doesnt change over the course of their life.

    But since you’re ONLY talking about that and NOTHING else, then having unique nuclear DNA doesn’t have anythign to do with someone being a distinct and realized human being. You get that? You’ve made absolutely sure that ALL you’re talking about is a string of polymers. You’re NOT talking about human life any more.

    My DNA pre-existed me the same way that all the protons neutrons and electrons in my body preexisted me.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but your DNA did not preexist you. It came into being the moment that egg and sperm met, died and gave way to the new identity. Your genetic predispositions existed, but your unique DNA “fingerprint” did not.

    If you are talking behavior and emotions and actions, every stage of development has its own set of unique behaviors, and actions. As for emotions and thoughts well those do not happen until the brain begins to function in the baby. I am argiung one line. Do you wish to expand the argument?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Nope. WHen sperm emt egg, my DNA came into existence in a matter of seconds. I came into existence later, not all at once like Athena, but forming slowly over time.

    By your own admission, unique DNA has jack allto do with personhood, because every time someone tries to explain to you how human development works and how EVEN GENES grow and change, you just dismiss it because ALL you’re talking about is DNA — just DNA, not personhood.

  • nolidad

    Well God decided it was personhood. Personhood by sciernce and other methodologies has changed over the years but Gods word has kept it the samew–before we were formed in the womb- He knew us.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    No, He didn’t. If he had, he’d have said it. There is NOTHING in the bible to support personhood at conception, especially not that “Before we were formed in the womb” stuff — that would place personhood BEFORE conception. SO, what, “Sorry honey, I’ve got a headache” is abortion now too?

  • nolidad

    Well He did – I will take His Word over your opinion any day. But hjere are a couple more;

    Gal 1: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

    Ps. 139:

    13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

    14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

    15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

    16 Thine
    eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my
    members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet
    there was none of them.

    You rlast comment shows you nothing of the character of God.

  • P J Evans

    Actually, the way that DNA works DOES change over time. Otherwise, hair wouldn’t change color, people wouldn’t grow (what, you thought that wasn’t controlled by DNA?), kids couldn’t be born….

  • nolidad

    Well DNA changes in that it obeys teh 2nd law of thermodynamics. It wears out and breaks down and that is why people get grey and get bald. Same original DNA-just not functioning as it did..

  • P J Evans

    That’s not the same thing. DNA isn’t static.

  • nolidad

    Would you clarify a bit? That leaves alot to the imagination. nce a person has a h hair color it is because it is encoded. It can only change if altered by external forces. Otherwise Dna is static in a person. Height is determined and will be actualized if negative factors do not inhibit growth (like poor nutrition say) Another example you have an African couple do invitro fertilization. you take the succesful zygote and implant it in an asian woman- the baby will be African though nourished by an Asian.

  • P J Evans

    Hands and feet don’t appear until some time into embryonic development. For the first couple of months, you literally can’t tell what species the embryo belongs to.
    Please take time to read about actual development. There are good books intended for children that will explain it in words you can understand.

  • nolidad

    Actually you can–if it is a woman’s womb- it is homo sapien. If it is a dog it is cannidae. Matter of fact they can even tell you what sex it is if they were to take it out and study it closely. You are not talking Haeckels theory are you ?

  • P J Evans

    No, look at the pictures of developing embryos, in any biology book or a good encyclopedia. Without labels, you can’t tell them apart.
    (You seem to have trouble with the concept of biology and embryology. Possibly this is because they tell you things you don’t want to know.)

  • nolidad

    So you do hold to Haeckels theory of ontology recapitulates phylogeny>!!

  • P J Evans

    biology fail.

  • Mark Z.

    The baby inside the womb has its own unique DNA.

    So does a tumor.

  • nolidad

    Well then you should let others know that abortion is the moral equivalent of removing a benign tumor. Others on this site do not equate the baby in the womb as a tumor. I don’t as everyone knows. God calls it a person. A tumor does not continue the process of becoming an adult and eventually dying. the baby in the womb is just one stage of human development. Unless you know something I don’t

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    He’s simply pointing out that “living human tissue genetically distinct from its host” does not equal “person”.

  • nolidad

    To God it does.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    God calls it a person

    When?

  • nolidad

    In His Word as I have posted 2 or three times already.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Oh. So the important bit there is that she had sex. Thanks for clarifying that. You think that pregnancy is punishment for having sex. Gotcha.

  • nolidad

    Why do you twist words to promote your owen preconceived notions? If you cannot be more civil I may just ignore you. I for one amtrying to have serious discussion. I have never made little snarky comments like you nor have I ever condemned people like you. Can you be mature or do you just need to vent at me for whatever reasons you feel you must.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    It’s not just psychological harm that needs to be considered concerning the legality of abortion. When legal access to abortion is restricted, it has very little impact on the actual number of abortions performed, but a dramatic impact on the safety of women.

    Stuff like this happens: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&amp;

    This essay explains a little more. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1 I’ll pull a few quotes from the last page:

    Ironically, it was the medical profession, which had made abortion illegal in the first place, that started to speak out. Doctors treating the desperately sick women who landed in hospitals with raging peritonitis, hemorrhages, perforated uteruses, and septic shock often had to futilely watch them die, because the women had waited too long to get help—because they were confused and terrified, because what they had done was “illegal” and “immoral.”

    …a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. “The deaths stopped overnight in 1973.” He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. “That,” he says, “ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal.”

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Pregnancy also poses problems in and of itself which don’t cease to exist if the womb owner chooses to adopt rather than abort. Pregnancy places huge stress upon the body and complications can cause permanent and sometimes highly negative health conditions (such as weakening the heart, making the person significantly more likely to have a heart attack). Employers are often perfectly willing to fire pregnant employees or find ways to shuffle them out of the picture, such as by giving them a position that pays a lot less. Even if all goes perfectly well and a healthy baby is born and sent off to be adopted, pregnancy can still permanently change the body in undesirable ways.

  • dpolicar

    I also do not say that gays are malicious or nasty or have warts.

    Many of us are, and do. Of course, the same goes for straights.

    their orientation is hated by God just like the adulterer, and the fornicator.

    Maybe God hates my orientation, maybe God hates yours, maybe God loves everyone and all the ways we find to live lives as “fine upstanding and compassionate caring people”.

    I don’t know and I don’t presume to speak for God.

    You do presume to speak for God, which I find distasteful, but I support your freedom to do so. I simply insist that my secular nation not treat people like me worse than people like you.

    using your rationality, we should do away with laws against murder, because after all more people die every year of natural causes in America than are murdered by Americans. Sorry but that is a false argument.

    Your comment, which I quoted, was about God’s reaction, not about America’s laws. I was replying to that. If you want to change the subject to secular laws against abortion that’s fine with me, but I won’t let you retroactively decide that my comment was about a different topic.

    IF steps God into the order he has prescribed for the planet and chooses for a woman to miscarry

    You misunderstand. It is the prescribed order itself that causes miscarriage. Millions of them every day. No special intervention is required; this is the ordained path… not just for humans, but for all species.

  • nolidad

    Maybe you should seek to find out. He is not beyond the reach of anyone if they really want to know.

    I am not Gods mouthpiece. I just quote His Word. Well many societies have found my brethren in the past distasteful as well. Some they killed, others they imprisoned . I still live in a nation that has yet to outlaw religious freedom, so I just must put up with peoples disdain.

    Well I cannot know Gods reaction, I only said IF which is a condition I do not know unless specifically guided to.

    How can “evolution” be random, mindless and without a plan and yet have a “prescribed order”. How can random nothingness ordain things?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There are numerous aspects of the formation of body parts in animals and humans that clearly indicate that they are path-dependent results from suboptimal initial conditions*.

    For example, the human back. We evolved from beings that, in large part, walk on four legs, not two.

    But being as we do in fact walk on two legs, the survival advantage accorded humans who did only pushed adaptation so far within the environmental selective pressures exerted on the species as a whole.

    And so today people get pinched nerves, sore backs, and all manner of issues that arise because the body part that evolved in the context of four-legged ancestors of humans had to be “carried over” to us, the two-legged mammals.

    If we were made de novo from a Grand Designer, the human body simply wouldn’t have the structure it does. No intelligent being designing a human from scratch would give it all the structural and metabolic weaknesses that we as a species are prone to.


    * In short, kludges which can be perfectly explained through the action of evolution.

  • nolidad

    so much for survival of the fittest! You contradict your self in this post. Two legs give us advantage but we are so weak. You forget acquired characteristics cannot be passed on genetically.Or your kludges can be perfectly and better explained by ex Theo creation. And how do you know that an intelligent being would design us this way? Have you talked to every intelligent being or every designer with ideas? Or are you speaking based on your own biases. Is your first statement in this post implying a Haeckel theory idea?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I have explained elsewhere that the concept is better rendered “survival of the most adapted“.

    For whatever reason, the fact that we walk on two legs clearly had to come from a survival advantage, however slight, that went to our ancestors who had the required phenotype to balance themselves on their rear legs.

    Or your kludges can be perfectly and better explained by ex Theo creation

    The human eye is a marvel. It is also “designed” in a way that facilitates unnecessary absorption of light before it strikes the nerves responsible for translating that light into nerve signals.

    nd how do you know that an intelligent being would design us this way? Have you talked to every intelligent being or every designer with ideas?

    Well, human beings are a pretty good approximation to intelligent designers, I should think! And are we not made in the image of God, by the reasoning of your own faith?

    And human beings, given the chance to invent something brand new from a clean slate, usually try to make form follow function and have processes work in the most efficient way possible.

    If I were designing a human being from scratch, I’d take care of a lot of little things that just aren’t optimal. For example, the prostate gland has a tendency to enlarge with age and in doing so can cause issues with a rather necessary biological function: urination.

    A God who presumably is omniscient on the matter of how biological organisms ought to work would only do even better.

    Yet there are curious issues with the way humans develop certain degenerative diseases that can only point to evolution from structures in our ancestors that in turn were the best-adapted for their environments and had to be selected upon by the environments humans lived in, later on.

    There is for example the unproductive accumulation of fat in the heart’s arteries in some people. No possible survival advantage comes from it, but it happens. Presumably for whatever reason our ancestors who would have been prone to it from fatty diets were not subject to a strong enough selective pressure to push that particular trait out of the population. And so it survives to today.

  • nolidad

    Well you forget that our original parents sinned against God and thereby took a perfect creation and added death to it. It was niot designed so, but due to God giving Adam and Eve free will–we now bear the ill effects of 6000 years of sin .

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That’s odd. You mean the Sumerians didn’t experience death or sin?

  • nolidad

    Well seeing how all societies sprang from

    Adam and Eve yes they did (more correctly all civilizations sprang from Noahs three sons Shem Ham and Japheth) read Genesis 10 and 11 and trace the lineage of all the earth from those three.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You’re really working overtime to ignore consistent internal evidence that there have been working human groupings that can reliably be dated back ten thousand years in some cases.

  • nolidad

    Well bring one specific group and th eevidence that supports a pre Adamic existence and we will tear into it. But if I prove it would you be willing to accept the evidence or am I just spitting against th wind if I do it with you?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe

    One doesn’t have to look far to see there are reliable data points that can show human civilization to have been, in some cases, continuous in an area for at least seven thousand years.

  • nolidad

    OK spo throw me some of these not looking far. You made the point now throw me th eevidence and see if I make a fool of myself (though I am sure you think I have already dozens of times over :) )

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Did you or did you not see Fred’s article about a verifiable relic found in Israel datable to well before 4000 BC?

  • nolidad

    I either missed it or deleted it before reading I apologize for that. I would like to see it (this time I will do better to read it before deleting it :) ) and see how they date tings.

  • P J Evans

    There’s far too much ego in your cosmos. You refuse to see that your viewpoint is not the only valid way to see the universe, and that the Bible is not intended to be read literally.

  • nolidad

    Every way of looking at something is a valid way. The issue is whether it is right in the eyes of God.

    Let me ask you what authority do you declare for your self to say the bible is not to be literal.. I know parts are no longer literally applicable and that parts are to be read parabolically and parts are very symbolic, but God cearly marks those out in grammar. After all He created language. Why do you find it so incredible that a loving God would want to leave a record for mankind so we can come to know HIm better.? After all He was there when He created the universe. If He wanted to tell us it evolved He could have donme so ini simple language. If the earth is far older than the approx 6,000 years He would have told us so. I know the arguments about simple uneducatef folk writng these things down but it dreally doesn’t wash.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    God cearly marks those out in grammar

    In a language only a fraction of Earth’s population can now read.

    Or are you one of those people who says the King James Version is somehow divinely inspired as a translation?

  • nolidad

    No I like the KJV because it has more linguistic tools and aids than other translations. But only the extant manuscripts were divinely inspired and those faithful coipies . Linguistic translations done by the church have linguistic shortcomings but no doctrinal errors unless they were willful mistranslations. But that is another topic for another thread.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Get this through your head: assertion is not argument, and quoting ancient assertions is not evidence.

  • nolidad

    Well you haven’t proved the Bible is not the Word of God.

    Just calling it mythology and assertion do not make it so.

    If it is untrue–why is it not the Inspired Word of God for all man for all time penned by His children as per His instruction?

  • dpolicar

    you haven’t proved the Bible is not the Word of God.

    Indeed not. Should I therefore believe it is?

  • nolidad

    I wish not only you but all my antagonists here would accept it for what it is–Gods INspired word. I know it to be His Word and rest in joy with that knowledge asnd continue to study to grow in its wisdom.

  • dpolicar

    not only you but all my antagonists here

    On what basis do you consider me an antagonist?

  • nolidad

    Well I use the term as one who holds a differing opinion. I consider our conversation the most genial and non judgmental, and I appreciate that. there are some who have preconceptions about me based on teh fact of past experiences with folks like myself. But to me an antagonist is just one who hold a contrary opinon. It does not necessarily mean any animosity..

  • dpolicar

    OK. Thanks for clarifying.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Once more with feeling: BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE CLAIMANT. It’s not on someone else to prove a negative.

  • nolidad

    Well Seek HIm and He will show you it is. It really is that simple. But if you want one proof to get your hands on May 14,1948.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The independence of a country is proof your sky daddy exists? Laughable.

    All the independence of Israel proves is that the Jews needed a homeland and that America would back them up.

    And you’re still lying. There are thousands, if not millions, of us who sought your god and never found him. Stop erasing us because we’re inconvenient to your narrative.

  • Veleda_k

    And he explained to me so helpfully, if you sought God and didn’t find him, or were chased off by judgment and hate, then it’s all your fault, and clearly you wouldn’t have been a Christian anyway, don’t blame hateful people for making you unwelcome.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Hateful people chasing others away from a loving god being the chasee’s fault…All the sense made there. *sighs*

  • nolidad

    well according to Scripture I can fairly say your quest was insufficient- He promised any one who seeks HIm will find HIm.. Keep seeking you will find Him.

    As for Israel that is one proof . it is a fulfillment of divine prophecy over 2400 years old! It also let us know we entered into what the bible calls the end times-( I imagine you are giving me the hairy eyeball for that!!!! :)

    When Israel became a nation it sent alot of the religious world into a tizzy. Because it fulfilled prophecies in Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and the synoptics.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You know that many of us did seek God. And many of us found Him.

    And hardly any of us recognize the insane petty tyrant you keep describing when you talk about Him.

  • nolidad

    Well the God of the Bible is not a petty tyrant, and I do not describe HIm as such. I think it is your preconceptions of me that color my responses to you and others.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    *squints*

    That would have some weight if I believed what you believe.

    Since I don’t, the entire bit about Adam and Eve is the rankest nonsense.

    Besides, to suppose that original sin also means our biologies suddenly shifted between Adam+Eve’s and Cain’s and Abel’s, is a rather bizarre case of several mutations all occurring at once to give rise to new phenotypes, for example the problem with prostates, back issues, all the rest.

    It’s a lot less absurd to simply consider that since we share genetic commonality with other primates, that a common ancestor of ours had similar bodily characteristics and our Homo sapiens branch is evolved from that predecessor species.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    It also implies that all mutations are negative. Some examples of positive mutations in humans include lactose tolerance, the ccr5-Δ32 mutation and the German superboy mutation.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It is darkly ironic that that mutation confers AIDS resistance largely to Northern Europeans.

  • Daniel

    German Superboy Mutation- released an album of watered down electropop hybridized with watered down hip-hop Funk My Plug in 2003, were briefly hailed as a band to watch by the Guardian before being decried as a crappy, vapid bit of fluff on the music scene by the Observer. They released one more album Electrozaun in 2006 after two years of creative difficulties only periodically relieved by mountains of cocaine, after which their record company dropped them. The lead singer, Marcus Fridge, is now a solicitor in Harrogate, while their drummer/keytar player Crispin Day is still recording with his new band Howling Fantods, which he describes as “Space Punk”.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I love the Howling Fantods and I’ll stab anyone who disagrees in the eye with a fork.

  • Daniel

    Clever- that’s a line from Porpoise Cozy isn’t it?
    I think Day did himself a favour cutting Fridge loose, to be honest. Writing this has made me go back and listen to their early demos, back when they were still Cardigan Shrapnel but before their brief stint supporting F! Alafel Collapse. They had some good stuff. I may have judged them harshly.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I think it was from their single, Naughty Periodicals, back when they were still trying to market themselves as “edgier than a stab-bat.”

  • Daniel

    Naughty Periodicals for it’s US release had Venerable Monosyllable as it’s B side, but over here it was Mr Peaslin’s Credentials their not-very-good early Floyd sound-a-like- it was part of their overly ambitious attempt to create a “third summer of love”. In Leominster.
    It didn’t take.

  • nolidad

    Well as you believe Adam and Eve to be the rankest nonsense I shall not waste time I can use to answer others with.

  • P J Evans

    Lots of ego, not much knowledge.

  • nolidad

    Well as I was paraphrasing Romans 5:12-17 ego has no place there.

  • Daniel

    Why is it fair for God to punish everyone ever for what two people did *cough* 6000 *cough* years ago? In what way is that just?

  • nolidad

    Well you will not like my answer, but you must take it up with the Creator Himself. Anything I can say is only my opinion and it would be anywhere from 0-100% right. I have my ideas based on Scripture but they are not conclusive.

  • Mark Z.

    And there it is: God is the creator of everything, except all the parts that are because of original sin. (How do we know which parts those are? Simple: they’re all the parts nolidad doesn’t like!)

    It was niot designed so, but due to God giving Adam and Eve free will–we now bear the ill effects of 6000 years of sin

    Yeah, stupid free will! What did it ever do for us?

  • P J Evans

    not to mention: SPRUUUCE TREEEE.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but I can’t accept credit for “those parts”. I cannot apologize for God declaring the wages of sin is death. It is! that is why God in HIs love sent Jesus to die for our sins so we can be free from the curse of sin. We sinned against God- not God against us. We offended HIm but His love gives us a way to be restored from the consequences of sin.

  • P J Evans

    Knees. Knees are a really bad adaptation to being upright.

  • dpolicar

    He is not beyond the reach of anyone if they really want to know.

    Good to know.

    I still live in a nation that has yet to outlaw religious freedom, so I just must put up with peoples disdain.

    Yup, exactly. You must put up with my disdain, and I must put up with your belief that my loving marriage is hated by God. The law allows you your religion and me my marriage, and I endorse that.

    I cannot know Gods reaction

    Absolutely agreed.

    How can “evolution” be random, mindless and without a plan and yet have a “prescribed order”.

    You’re putting words in my mouth again; I wish you’d stop it. I didn’t say a word about evolution.

    But since you bring it up:millions of fetuses are terminated every day. On your account, is that the result of random, mindless evolution? Or the result of a Creator’s ordained plan?

  • nolidad

    I will defend your right to have a gay union to the death. It is becoming the law of the land. But I will still even if it should become illegal, that the God who created you and loves you hates that “orientation” and it separates you from HIm. This life will end for all, and eternity awaits. I wish no one to hell and will do all in my ability good or bad to convince others to receive the gracious gift of forgiveness of sins in Christ and receive HIs gift of life with Him instead of an eternity in hell.

    As to the other thought, when you said natural order- I presumed an implication to evolution- If wrong I apologize.

    But to answer very succinctly if not deeply, God has set in order the universe and He has given man liberties to act within bounds. How far the bounds stretch is subject to heated debate. I do not believe millions of miscarriages and abortions occur daily but no it would not be Gods perfect plan, but what He allows man to do for now.

  • dpolicar

    You are free to believe that God hates the way my husband and I love and care for each other. The law of the land supports your right to have such opinions, to express them, to proclaim them from the pulpit if you choose, and I endorse that law despite disapproving of the way you choose to make use of the freedom it provides.

    when you said natural order- I presumed an implication to evolution

    I did not say “natural order,” either, so this seems unlikely.

    What I think actually happened is you have a preconceived notion of what I believe, what I’m likely to say, what I am, and you’re letting that preconceived notion interfere with your experience of what’s actually in front of you.

    I do not believe millions of miscarriages and abortions occur daily but no it would not be Gods perfect plan, but what He allows man to do for
    now.

    How many miscarriages do you believe occur daily, without any action taken by man to initiate them?

  • nolidad

    Well your preconception about my preconceptions sis wrong. If you did not say “natural order” then I may have blended two comments into one my apologies. I have had over 100 responses so far and am trying ot respond to all.

    Well millions implies at least 2 million/day or a minimum of 730 million/year That seems way overblown. How many actually occur? I have not researched that as yet.

  • dpolicar

    I understand that you haven’t researched it, but you clearly have some intuition about the correct number, since you felt confident correcting me. So I’m asking you, what number sounds right to you?

  • nolidad

    WEll if I have to try to guess: Given current population approx 7 billion
    2. Women are 60 -40 of population so approx 4 billion females.
    3. probably half of not child rearing age(too young or too old or infertile).= 2 billion able to bear children
    4. to say millions of miscarriage sdaily ( and we will use conservative 2 million) you are saying one of 3 child bearing women are miscarrying daily or each woman who can bear children miscarries approx 120 times a year. Ovulation only happens approx 36 -40 days a year so that number is enormously high!
    If I were to venture a guess I would put it at 1-2 million annually but I have no clue as of yet how accurate that would be.

  • dpolicar

    OK. Using your guess, then, and repeating my original question: do you think the 1-2 million fetuses terminated every year are the result of random, mindless evolution? Or the result of a Creator’s ordained plan? Or something else?

  • nolidad

    I assume miscarriages here. Let me try to answer.

    1. as I reject evolution that would be no.
    2. Could some be part of Gods plan (MAYBE) and that is a big maybe. Unless He makes a direct revelation I can only speculate here.
    3. Something else? This is the best answer and the something else is that God set laws in motion to govern His creation. When Man fell and caused sin to enter catastrophic things took place. A partial list is in Genesis 3. I believe miscarriages are part of the fallenness of the systems due to sin.

    Now in case you will ask- Why does God allow it all? It is His plan and purpose and I casn only give you my suppositions based on 40 years of biblical studies. But I stress I cannot be absolute about them for they are my conclusions drawn from my studies.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Or maybe miscarriages just simply freakin’ happen because of any number of reasons, including pure chance.

    Between pregnancy and miscarriage both being considered in your belief system to be “punishments” for women, I have to say I’m less enamored of it with every passing moment.

    Did you tell your wife she was being punished for a pregancy that went wrong and had to be attended to medically?

    Or did you just mentally make an exception because you two are “saved in Christ”?

  • nolidad

    First I never said they were punishments on women that is you trying to portray my position falsely (was it you railing about bearing false witness?)

    Second God has set things in motion and allows things to work out pretty much on their own. He works with His children on earth and allows the natural laws He put it in place (though now marred by sin) to continue to this day.

    And no I rejoiced that God blessed us with a child and we both sorrowed over her miscarriage and then also her ectopic pregnancy that ended with them having to take the baby. We didn’t blame each other nor did we accuse God of evil.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    For the record: I am sorry to hear about your wife’s ectopic pregnancy, and glad that she did not die of it.

  • nolidad

    Thank you . We were glad she lived but also so sorrowful we had to sacrifice a child. It was a hard decision but saving one life here was better than sacrificing 2.

  • Carstonio

    If you had any true sense of morality, you would condemn hell as unjust. No one deserves to suffer for eternity. Don’t presume to know what is best for others. Who consenting adults choose to marry is none of your business, and none of mine.

  • nolidad

    true sense according to whom?? By what authority do they decide what is morally just or unjust? If a person goes to eternal hell they are an interloper there. Hell is designed for the devil and his angels. Mankind goes because we choose to reject Gods love and the gift He gave man to escape the just punishment everyone deserves. Also we can scream and shout about how just or unjust hell is, but HELL IS! God makes the rules we don’t. And He demonstrated His love for us at Calvary.

  • Carstonio

    According to nobody. Morality isn’t about rules or authority, or purported authority. Morality is about how one’s actions affect others.

  • nolidad

    that is societal morality. There are differing categfories of “morality” for lack of a better term. I btend to speak from biblical morality for all other moralities have been subject to change based on the advance or decline of morals in a society at large.

  • Daniel

    To tread on Carstonio’s point a bit- you’re saying that you’re happy to have your code of ethics dictated by someone who offers no justifications or reasons for said ethics beyond “because I said so” and “I’ll make sure unspeakably horrible things happen to you if you disagree”? You really think that’s a solid ethical code?

    A question about hell- it’s designed for the devil and his angels. God created them. God knew they were going to rebel. God also knew, because He is almighty and cannot be beaten, that the rebel angels really were no threat to him. BUT He still sent them for an eternity of suffering in Hell. Except for all those times (like in Eden) when the devil gets out, apparently without God knowing, and messes stuff up. So the question- what is the point, and what is the justification, of Hell?

  • nolidad

    Well the fallen angels are not in hell yet. Hell is uninhabited now. Satan and his fallen host are still free to roam and wreak havoc and deceive. I will be honest. I have a very difficult time knowing that an omniscient holy loving merciful compassionate God knew the demons would fall, knew that Adam and Eve would fall and cause all their progeny to be born with sin natures and didn’t do it differently. But I also know that God is perfect in justice and if it could have been done a better way He would have done it. There is something about giving His creation free volition and suffering the consequnces of negative volition that God highly desires . I can direct you to deep works on this subject, but because Scripture has but a little to say on this, they are very scholarly but very opinionated. I just know that God knew what would happen and provided a means of escape for mankind by sending His Son to pay the price for our sins. Why not the fallen angels. POSSIBLY because they were already glorified creatures and in constant fellowship with God and when they fell it was that. Can’t be sure– But it is what is, whehter I understand it or not or think it is fair or not. He made the rules not I .

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Well, that’s one answer for the Problem of Evil: Just chalk it up to all being part of the plan. Apparently it’s vitally necessary that some people live futile, miserable lives filled with suffering and ignorance and then die and go to Hell for all eternity, and we should pity them for their poor choices. Would that everyone had the good sense to be born to wealthy parents in a Christian neighborhood to be made acquainted with a Jesus who wasn’t synonymous with abuse and death! Instead, many people foolishly choose to be born in poorer countries where other religions dominate and thus doom themselves to sad, pitiful lives and an eternity of consequences for their failure to receive and believe.

    Sigh!

    … Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case.

  • nolidad

    Well of course you are free to think what you want. But as you write it I know that is not what I know to be truth. Yeah I wish I grew up with 2 parents or the one who had scads of dough. But I didn’t. Well if you want to be concerned about those in foreign lands become a missionary!! I know Gods heart
    2 Peter 3
    But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

    People go to hell that is a fact. But if any of them desire to know the truth-God will get it to them to be saved. He is far beyong your meager accusations. You see the externals and judge-God knows the heart of every individual.

  • dpolicar

    You don’t, in fact, know God’s heart.

    I realize you believe you do, which is why it’s so important to you to express your beliefs about God here. And that’s fine… you’re free to express them.

    But you don’t, in fact, know God’s heart.

    Nor do you know that people go to hell, let alone why they do so if they do.

  • nolidad

    All aspects of His heart- No. What He declared in HIs Word about His” heart” Yes I do know.
    Do I know specifically which people go to hell–no I do not. But do I know that mnay people do go? Yes I do! Why? Because God in flesh declared so and inspired it to be written down.

    That is why everyone who names the name of Christ as Savior, must go out and give the good news of Jesus’ death, burial, and physical resurrection for the full payment for our sins. He commanded no matter whether we are received positively or negatively8. Matter of fact we were forewarned that most people would not understand us and despise us, as is evident here on this thread.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Actually, I would simply point out the verses throughout the Bible which equate evil as being God’s design, from hardening taking credit for children born with disabilities to hardening Pharaoh’s heart to rousing the animal scourges of the desert to the earthquakes to the collapse of towers. The early Hebrews were perfectly fine with the idea that God sometimes destroyed lives for the sheer joy of it. They were more concerned with having a warrior deity who would destroy their enemies and bring retribution upon any who crossed them. It was rather later that any other interpretation was proposed, much less a loving one.

    Fortunately, God is not limited by these adolescent interpretations. You can tell when theology is insufficiently developed when the God it proposes is even more simplistic than its followers. As I say, it turns out to be much greater than this.

  • nolidad

    God has visited “evil” on people periodically yes that is true. But I would disagree with you that He did it for the sheer joy of it. But the most harshest act performed by God was the flood and Scripture says it repented God He made man- meaning He was heartbroken.

    I also agree they were more concerned with super Warrior who would take vengeance on their enemies. It was that way when God came down in flesh to visit His people. Many rejected HIm because He would not take up arms against Rome.

    I Agree that God is not limited by our interpretations. He is God and will do according to His Will. However when He said in His Word that He would act thus and such in certain situations, He also bound Himself to His Word.

  • nolidad

    As a PS just remember when we seek to criticize God for doing what He does: He is eternal we are not He is omniscient we are not. we see but a mere speck and He knows the entire picture -=Past present and future. So we opine form an extremely finite limited perspective.

  • dpolicar

    Agreed that our perspectives are limited, and that this limits what we can know about an eternal and omniscient being.

  • nolidad

    True we can only know what He chooses to reveal about Himself to us. To suppose on things not revealed is a dangerous practice. That is why so many cults and bizaare sects within Christendom exist.

  • dpolicar

    Indeed.

  • Daniel

    Then he shouldn’t punish us for refusing to accept something he will not allow us to understand. He knows the past, present and future- so he knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge. Yet he still put it in the garden. He flooded the earth to wipe out sin but then admits ” the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his
    youth”- in other words the entire genocide was pointless. He knocks down the Tower of Babel because “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this,
    then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”- so first off he appears not to have known they were going to do this, and secondly he appears to be annoyed because they’re doing it well.

    Then there’s the whole problem of why he should need to kill himself to pay himself back for the sins he knew we were going to commit, rather than just ignoring or forgiving them. And why he needed all those babies to die shortly after his incarnation when he could just as easily have saved their lives. And why, being all powerful, he didn’t just appear on earth as a grown man but instead impregnated a young girl (who incidentally he never actually asked) and then came to earth as a baby. This is all far too nonsensical for God to get pissy with me for not believing it.

  • nolidad

    Well Daniel you can kick and complain all you want about how nonsensical it appears to you. That is your privilege. BUT, IF (I use these 2 for your benefit) He is God and creator and sovereign as He is, then to complain about His wisdom when you are like me-just a mere speck of dust in His creation (though we are loved nonetheless) is like smashing your head against a 10′ solid steel wall. You will only get a headache and accomplish nothing. His game is the only game in town that counts for all eternity. Try reading all of the Scripture (Start with Johns gospel, then Romans and the Pauline Epistles) and get a bigger picture than the myopic view you just presented.

  • Daniel

    I don’t see asking legitimate questions for clarification as “kicking and complaining”.
    I have read the bible. I have studied religious philosophy. I have also read texts from several other religions. I would argue my view is much less myopic than yours. I am asking questions about the Bible, which you are not. You have accepted, without any question or clarification, the words of a two thousand year old book despite its multiple contradictions. If God expects me to believe in him, I need answers to those questions. As none have been forthcoming that don’t depend on circular logic or special pleading I have not been convinced. Hell seems totally illogical and unfair and inconsistent with an all loving and all powerful being.
    As you say, this is very much like beating my head against a wall- you have provided no actual answers to any of my questions so I think I’ll stop this now. It’s taking up too much time and you don’t seem to even appreciate there are questions to be asked.

  • nolidad

    Well then Daniel I ask your forgivenss. I thought wrongly that you were just throwing out those things to say why the Bible is “useless”(or whatever term is more applicable). If you were seriously seeking answers I would love to continue and answer you questions as best as possible. Many “contradictions” are easily answered. Some require a little deeper answewr and understanding of theological studies such as hermeneutics, soteriology, jsutification sanctification and the like. So if you are still willing let us proceed.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Assuming hell even existed. What’s your proof for it? I can just as easily choose to believe it does not and that belief does not alter the path of my life one iota.

  • nolidad

    You are 100% correct in saying that you can choose to believe that hell doesn’t exist and it in all probability not affect you rlife on earth one iota. BUT after death when you will stand before the LORD and find out His word is true- then you will believe in hell and be cast in it for rejecting HIm in life. Neither the Lord who is more important nor I would wish that for you.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    He must not wish very hard, then, to have created a Hell and then the rules which guarantee that all but a miniscule number of people in all of history wind up there, and then blaming every one of them for it happening.

    Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case.

  • nolidad

    Not on the least- He gave the means to escape and then let man choose for himself whether to take Gods offer or suffer the consequence for rejecting Him.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Indeed. Your understanding of this process is impaired by your prejudices against the people you have termed Reprobate, however. Obtaining Paradise is both infinitely more easy and more complex than you imagine.

  • nolidad

    Not according to Jesus- I will take His Word over anyone elses every day.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    My source predates mankind, much less Jesus, you silly man of clay.

  • nolidad

    Well Seeing Jesus is eternal- go for proving it. I wish I could graduate to clay- I am but dust. :)

  • Michael Pullmann

    Hell is. Just like Darkseid.

  • nolidad

    Whatever that may mean.

  • P J Evans

    I am not Gods mouthpiece. I just quote His Word

    You’re certainly spending a lot of time telling us what YOU think God wants, without regard to the feelings of anyone else.
    I remind you that Jesus said to love your neighbor as your self. There are no conditions or exceptions, no option for ‘if I approve of the way they live’.

  • nolidad

    Tough love is still love. It is the height of love to try to convince someone to turn from the errors of their wasy and receive the grace, mercy, and forgiveness and salvation Jesus freely offers. I would be just as guilty of a crime to not seek to tell you Gods Word as if someone knew a bridge was out on a blind curve and didn’t do something to warn the drivers he knew were going down that road.

    If you want me to back everything I say with verses please say so and I will, but will you then just simply say “that is your interpretation”??

  • dpolicar

    Just to be clear… do you actually consider yourself to be acting from the height of love in your behavior on this site?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “Tough love” – that’s a dead giveaway that he thinks of God as like the sterotypical stern father master-of-the-house type that was held up as the social ideal for a long-ass time.

    And it’s always in the context of “I love you so much I have to permanently throw you out of my house” which, while probably true in the case of hardcore drug abusers who will say or do anything in service of their addiction, is still not something that should be routinely resorted to, but is freely called upon by people of that ilk because it sounds very manly, and of course anything manly is automatically good by definition.

  • nolidad

    perfectly? Not in every single word. But am I acting in love? As I know what is in my heart far better than you – I can only answer yes I am. What you fail to inquire is motive and intent and it appears that you as well as others answer from a biased presupposition of who you tink I am. I may be wrong but this isn’t my first time debating these type of topics. Much cannot be known by simple posts about intnent.

  • Veleda_k

    Sufficiently “Christian” love is indistinguishable from hatred.

  • nolidad

    Wrong, but then again I suspect you would crucify Jesus all over again because He would tell you many parts of your worldview He is opposed to.

  • dpolicar

    am I acting in love? [..] I can only answer yes I am.

    OK. Thanks for clarifying your position.

    it appears that you as well as others answer from a biased presupposition of who you think I am.

    What biased presupposition of who I think you are does it appear that I’m answering from?

  • nolidad

    Well about the only thing I know about you are that you are gay and stated you are in a committed relationship and at least in this debate do not jump to conclusions but ask for clarifications instead of being presumptuous. I also know that Jesus died and rose again form the dead to purchase your salvation and He loves you intensely. Do He hate your homosexuality? Yes He does! Does He love you ? Yes He does!

    I do not think you are answerring from a preconceived bias. If you are you are being careful to probe past your own preconceptions. I am grateful for this. Responding to you is a breath of fresh air compared to the animosity of others for they jump to conclusions that are so wrong.

  • P J Evans

    Tell that to women who have had fetuses die in the seventh month, and need an abortion to save their own lives. Or the woman I know who lost a pregnancy literally during labor.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    They may be fine upstanding and compassionate caring people, but their
    orientation is hated by God just like the adulterer, and the
    fornicator.

    Then why did God make them gay?

    Did God create these people just so He’d have someone to despise?

    Also, you’re wrong. God does not hate anyone’s orientation, nor does the bible say he does. You’re projecting your own 21st century homophobia onto the bible; the homophobia you’ll find in the bible is radically different in nature than the homophobia you’ll find in, say. 21st century america.

  • nolidad

    God didn’t make anyone gay. People make people gay.

    No God didn’t create anyone just to despise them.

    The Bible clearly says he hates a persons sexual orientation.

    Just ask and I will give you a long list where but for now here is but one, from Romans 1:

    or the wrath of God is
    revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
    who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

    19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

    20 For
    the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly
    seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his
    everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

    21 because
    that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;
    but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was
    darkened.

    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23 and
    changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image
    of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
    things.

    24 Wherefore
    God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that
    their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:

    25 for
    that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and
    served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
    Amen.

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 and
    likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
    their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and
    receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

    28 And
    even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up
    unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    God didn’t make anyone gay. People make people gay.

    No God didn’t create anyone just to despise them.

    So the same god who knows people in their wombs, who authoritatively is the Creator of EVERYTHING, is yet somehow totally incapable of also predicting the future path of all that he has created?

    The same god who you yourself quote as purposely “giving [people] up to unnatural passions” is somehow hands-off not responsible for the expression of a person’s sexuality? An act done by omission is still an act.

    How singularly curious that your all-powerful God should suddenly become a passive bystander in the matter of who is gay, bisexual, straight or otherwise.

    But that’s rather convenient, isn’t it? Lets you wash your hands of the fact that you continue to give offence to others and claim moral authority for yourself as to who is “good” and who is “bad”. That is not for you and you alone to decide, however much you protest that you are simply “relaying God’s word”.

  • nolidad

    Well lets clear up the moral authority red herring you throw. I am no better than anyone, I am just as much a sinner as the rest of the world. I was also just as lost as the rest of the world until I received Christ, so when I tell you things, it is the word of God and not my “moral authority”. No He predicted the future and still allowed creation to play out as it is. There are verses that explain this but they would offend you as others have. People decide to commit to their own orientation- God just allows it. Their are consequences to our choices both good and bad. God is just allowing people their volition.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ah, so God is perfectly fine being hands-off right up until you, nolidad, decide to appropriate disasters and tragedies for the express purpose of claiming they are instigated to “bring people closer to God”.

    That kind of capricious interventionism without rhyme nor reason strikes me as nothing so much as combining all the worst features of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes the world over: chronic inefficiencies in certain things and overefficiencies in other things, with a Godhead at the top who cares nothing for anyone except his personal aggrandizement.

    God, in your paradigm, is a Stalin, a Hoxha, a Ceausescu, a Mao.

  • nolidad

    Why do you insist on selectively editing my words and then creating your own straw man of me and accuse me of being that straw man.

    I have been careful to say that God does intervene in His ways and times. I cannot tell you when, where, how or even why God does. But He does. He set the laws governing the universe in order and allows those to play out . He will intervene when He chooses, not me nor my opinion matters a whit to that. You call it capricious but you are just like me a mere finite limited mortal who only sees a tiny piece of the puzzle of Gods design (and even though this sounds egotistical far less than me for you reject Scripture as being authoritative ) At least I know that this so called capricious God loves enough to intervene He is more interested in the eternal good fo man while you appear to be interested only iin the immediate.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You do know that all the above dictators I mentioned had at least one thing in common: They insisted that all the suffering endured by the citizens of the countries they ruled was in the name of a never-quite-realizable utopian future.

    The God you hold up as the exemplar of who to follow apparently has decided the same thing is true: all the suffering endured by human beings is jim-dandy and needs no remedy because *handwave* HEAVEN! And he is clearly willing to let tragedies go unanswered because they might bring some people closer to heaven.

    Of which there is not a shred of proof or an inkling of truth.

  • Lori

    There’s also the issue of the fact that every tragedy that brings someone closer to god also drives someone farther away.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I have to say, if ever there was a dictator God had to be in the mold of? I’d pick Josip Broz Tito. At least his ego was in check enough to know self-gratification was not the sole reason to lead Yugoslavia, and grasped that people who lived in that country needed to live for the present, not just some future Utopia.

  • nolidad

    To your first paragraph- they tried to imitate God ( as do all communistic and depsotic tyrants try) but without the divine ability that only God has.
    Your second paragraph is not even close to what I have been expounding on. You either are tryiong to twist my argument or have n ot paid attention.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Do you deny that you have said to me you believe God works tragedies to try and bring people “closer to him”?

  • nolidad

    I did say that and I believe it. But to ask me of specific scenarios I can only give you my best “guess”. I am not the Lords chief of staff. How and where and why He does is His decision. I will say that most of the time it is only through hindsight that people see the Lords hand in guidiong them through the tragedy. I also want to say. God does not create the evil. Man does the evil, God will use it towards their good. God did not cause the Bosnian Serb war- but can He use ihat tragic situation and make good come out of it if He chooses? Yes He can. But once again the only times I can say for sure are the times that God worked bad things in my life for my good or cite the testimony of others on their personal situations.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    God will use it towards their good. God did not cause the Bosnian Serb
    war- but can He use ihat tragic situation and make good come out of it
    if He chooses? Yes He can.

    So you would look a Bosnian Muslim in the eye and tell that person that the war that engulfed their country and resulted in their family’s needless deaths, that it was all God’s doing and they should just suck it up and read some of that good old King James?

  • nolidad

    Not in the least.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    But you just said to me that God works tragedies to “bring people closer to him”, and you’ve been all about relaying God’s word as far and as wide as you can.

    So, please, *chinhands* tell me why you would NOT tell a Bosnian Muslim that the utterly pointless wars in the former Yugoslavia were in fact God’s work to bring them closer to him?

    Could it possibly be that you’re not actually as insensitive as your words would make you out to be? If so, progress.

  • nolidad

    Well if you want I could speculate without 1st hand knowledge. As I said I am not Gods chief of staff, so I do not hold Gods calander for Him. I just fo know that for those who love God and are the called according to His purposes, God will woprk evil things that happen for their good. The specifics I can only know when the ones who God worked through tells them and explain the good that came about from God from the tragedy that happened. I can relay one parable. A man had been praying for a wife for a long time. He went on a trip got into an accident and his car was severely damaged. As a result of that He had to find a car to buy. While doing that he meets a woman, they strike up a conversation and lo and behold they ultimately get married , have children and ar what many call “the perfect couple”. Now him getting onto the accident was not good. but through that bad thing- the guy met the giorl of his dreams so God worked good through that bad thing. It isnot a perfect parable but ewnough for you to see my point I hope. When and how God works good from tragedy can only be known when people share it to others. I could only speculate.

  • nolidad

    I must add a P.S. If I were to go over there in a relief team, I would not just go say to them “buck up, accept Christ and this will all be good” I do not think they would be in a position to receive that. I would grab a shovel help dig them out, help reconstruct, feed and whatever else I could do. Then if I had shown them the love of Jesus, I would share the gospel andlet them know that God could take the tragic events that took place and use them for good somehow-if they are willing to love Him as Romans says.

    Many times my words sound insnensitive, but that is mostly because I am trying to just answer the question asked without speculating on other secondary thoughts the asker may have.

    When I say that a woman who has an abortion has killed her baby, that is not meant to judge the woman in any sense it is just merely saying what the act did. Same with nearly all other queries I try to answer without judging a person just judging the act

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    God didn’t make anyone gay. People make people gay.

    How does that happen?

    And how is it that no one’s noticed this despite decades of homophobes like you desperately looking for proof of it?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Clearly people are just out looking for a reason and means to defy God. I’m not entirely sure how it happens that two straight parents in a Christian household so frequently wind up having gay children, or why those children remain gay despite all their prayers…

    Oh, of course. How silly of me. They aren’t really Christian, because if they were, they’d be perfected in God’s image! It’s so nice to have neat, easy explanations dismissing the vast majority of the population!

  • nolidad

    Well most societies accepted that until the fatally flawed medical tests tried to give credence that people are born gay.

    I am not a homophobe. I neither fear homosexuals nor their sexual sin. In fact I know several and they no my stance and we actually get along nicely. I will not impose Christian sanctions on a non believer. That is unjust.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    To put it one way, Ron, my sexuality is so innate to me that a friend once had to make me realize that the language I used implied that people choose to be straight.

  • nolidad

    I have no doubt of that. Sorry I am behind. between work , recent family emergency and the number of people responding I am behind. I am not trying to ignore or be rude, just spending as much time as I can to catch up. I will answer every response I can.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well most societies accepted that until the fatally flawed medical tests tried to give credence that people are born gay.

    This is me giving you the hairy eyeball.

  • Veleda_k

    Once upon a time, people just knew things before all those horrid facts got in the way.

  • P J Evans

    I will cheerfully back you on that, standing in for the many gay people I know. (And the trans people also.)

  • nolidad

    OK Cool :) What is a hairy eyball??

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And you claim to be intimately familiar with slang terms from the 1950s and 1960s.

  • nolidad

    Never claimed to be intimately familiar- that is you overreading my words. I am familiar with slang form the 50s and 60s as it was used in my region. Can’t say if it was different in other regions.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Oh, for cryin’ out loud: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hairy+eyeball

  • nolidad

    What? You love asking questions but dislike answering them when someone honestly asks you one?

  • nolidad

    hairy eyeball (plural hairy eyeballs)

    (slang) A look askance at someone; a look of disdain or skepticism.

    He was giving me the hairy eyeball.

    (slang) A fond look at someone while batting one’s eyelashes.

    She was telling me about a boy looking at her and she said, “He gave me the hairy eyeball.” That meant he liked her.
    Thanks was that so hard???? I will take it you guys are using the second definition :)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, read for context, for crying out loud. Yes, I was metaphorically eyeing you askance.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Man, you’re just an all around reality-denier. You refuse to learn anything about anything, and you cling to your interpretation of a thousands of years old book written by men who knew nothing.

    It must be so awesome being you…Not being weighed down by facts, or life or anything inconvenient. Life is what you say it is, and Fuck anyone who disagrees with you.

  • nolidad

    Well that book, the ink on paper was put there by man, but it was inspired by God for all mankind (as He is sovereign of every thing). I actually care about people who disagree with me and have no thought like F*** those who disagree with me. It SEEMS that might be your own thoughts you are trying to force on someone else.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You do realize Romans 1 isn’t prophetic or referring to the present day, don’t you? Or is this why I never hear anyone quote Romans 2, much less future verses?

    God didn’t make anyone gay. People make people gay.

    This is categorically untrue. Homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual activity is a choice, but it’s not the same thing.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but it still is a choice. Sometimes a coerced choice but a choice nonetheless. God does not design a human soul to be a polygamist, gay, pedophile, bestiality one, or to be a nympho or satyr.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    So God’s off drunk and doesn’t know squat about the humanity that’s supposed to be his greatest creation?

    You can’t have it both ways, with God being a micromanager to the point of knowing people in wombs and then simultaneously being so hands-off he won’t even roll on in to give us a divine miracle or three to prove he really still exists.

  • nolidad

    He knows everything about mankind. He is not a micromanager-Omniscience does not mean coercive control. He has allowed man volition to live. And He does still do miracles– but once again Miracles do not produce faith.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    For a “jealous God” he sure doesn’t seem keen on proving with absolute unbounded certainty his existence.

    There are numerous things – simple things, even – that would constitute unambiguous proof.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    God doesn’t micromanage, but he considers it very important to take a census on every citizen population and to arrange tents in just the precise oval arrangement and to determine which group of several thousands of people is to carry what parts of the tabernacle~

  • nolidad

    Well this response is loaded and surely bring howls . Eventhough this in its specific context is a hisoricasl progression, it is also true of people in all generations:

    Romans 1:

    18 For
    the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
    unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    20 For
    the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
    seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
    power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    21 Because
    that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
    thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
    was darkened.

    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23 And
    changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
    corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
    things.

    24 Wherefore
    God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
    hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    25 Who
    changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
    creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    Though our idols change over time, man when He rejects the one true God that deep down knows is there, creates their own gods and worship them. Today it is wealth, materialism, success, happiness , cars, careers etc. etc. These are normal things that people can make into false gods. And the results are the same throughout all ages.. I fman rejects what God reveals- He will not do more.”God has declared He will conclusively reveal himself one way:

    Romans 10:

    But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    9 That
    if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
    in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
    saved.

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    14 How
    then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
    shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
    they hear without a preacher?

    15 And
    how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
    beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
    bring glad tidings of good things!

    16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

    17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    You may not like it, but opt paraphrase Carl Sagan, He once said that he didn’t care if they found the Ark, brought it down form mount ararat and paraded it down main street- he wouldn’t believe The Word of God produces faith, miracles and even Jesus in the flesh will not produce faith to a heart not searching for God– Jesus even said that.

  • dpolicar

    Just to be clear… you’re saying that when I first looked at a hot guy and thought he was sexy, when my straight male friend looked at the same guy and didn’t think he was sexy, that’s because I made a choice to think that. If I’d made a different choice, I wouldn’t have thought he was sexy.

    Yes? That’s your claim?

    How do you know that?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Because he rilly, rilly thinks god said so. And no matter what anyone else says, or what the bible actually says, that’s His Truth.

  • nolidad

    That is way too of an over simplification to answer . It is not you just wake up one day and say _What teh heck I guess I will be gay. Maybe I am assuming that you have far more background info than you do.

  • dpolicar

    (shrug) If I lack the background to engage with productively, you have the choice not to engage with me.

    Failing that, I’d still like to understand what choice it is you claim I made, and when you claim I made that choice, and how you know that.

  • nolidad

    Well I would need to sit down with you and talk at length over many things before I could make any kind of even educated guess. But to answer that now would be foolish. I am speakinig in the general terms that it is a choice. To try to pick a person and say when that choice took place without knowing their history is assinine. Wouldn’t you agree?

  • dpolicar

    I would certainly agree.

    But then, I also think it’s asinine to say that we choose our sexual orientation. But you clearly believe that’s a reasonable thing to say.

    And, hey, it’s possible I’m wrong about that, and you’re right. I’m a fallible human being, I can be wrong about stuff.

    That said… if you can somehow know that I made a choice, even though I’m not aware of having made any such choice, even though you haven’t sat down with me and talked at length with me, even though you don’t know my history, even though you don’t know very much about me at all… if making that claim isn’t foolish and asinine, despite it seeming that way to me… well, maybe you can also know when I made that choice.

    Both claims are equally unlikely, really. If one turns out to be true, the other might as well.

    But OK… apparently not. On your account, you know that I made a choice, but not when I made it.

    OK.

    So, how do you know that?

  • nolidad

    Scripture. I know the term “making a choice” is very simplistic but it is a decision every one makes, just like someone makes a decision to commit pedophilia or adultery or even what job they will take. Without mind reading skills I couldn’t even begin to tell you when the decision to be gay occured in you.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Do you seriously think that’s how it works?

    Did you just wake up one morning and be all like “OOH I THINK I WILL BE STRAIGHT TODAY”?

    Or was it understanding what your attractions meant and who you were attracted to?

    Even within the broad class of heterosexuals there are people who prefer skinny folks and some who prefer larger folks. The exact driving force of those attractions is not always well-understood, yet we don’t go around giving men or women a hard time for having certain preferences when it comes to the exact person they’re sexually attracted to. And we certainly don’t pooh-pooh those attractions with a, “Oh, well, you can just CHOOSE to like category Z instead of category O!”

    Yet you’re doing essentially the equivalent to dpolicar wrt same versus opposite sex attraction.

  • nolidad

    simplistically- of course not! People do not just wake up one morning and go – I think I’ll be a pedophile. it is a process in the mind and heart and is gained over time. How long? Can’t tell you . Every person is unique and each situation has its own uniqueness. I speak in generalities here and simplified answers to many of these complex questions.

  • Veleda_k

    How long? Can’t tell you

    Of course you can’t.

  • nolidad

    Veleda be careful you just agreed with me (though I think it is sarcastically :) ) that could ruin your reputation . LOL

  • Baby_Raptor

    Bullshit. If god didn’t design people to be poly, then what is the entire Old Testament? If god didn’t create pedophilia, then how come Jesus was born to a 14 year old? And frankly, I doubt you even know what “nympho” and “satyr” actually mean.

    And there’s not any such thing as a “coerced choice.” Do you even understand what a choice is? A choice is a decision freely made. If there was coercion, there wasn’t any freedom and thus no choice.

  • nolidad

    Well I frankly do not care what you think I do or do not know. You reaslly need to get off your high horse. I came into this meaning nor anyone else harm. I knew there would ber strong disagreement but instead of making all these assumptions about me (which I don’ think you have been right once yet)If you don’t understand what I mean ask! I just learned today that I use colloquialisms that are no longer used by the younger generation and because of that a person totally misunderstood where I was coming from. So if you just want to vent anger– Okay I am fine with that if you want to debate our strong differences please for civilities sake –chill out!

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “You reaslly need to get off your high horse.”

    You know that expression, “When you point at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you”? It applies here.

    “I just learned today that I use colloquialisms that are no longer used by the younger generation and because of that a person totally misunderstood where I was coming from.”

    No, everyone understood perfectly. Word usage has not changed as much as you’re pretending it has.

  • nolidad

    Also some of your complaints about the Bible (which you appear to not have a sizeable understanding _ not judging just making a neutral observation) To try to answers some of your complaints would take very verbose responses.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    So on the one hand, decades of medical science and psychology. On the other hand, you (Do not blame this one on God. There’s not word-fucking-one in the bible that claims that sexual orientation is a choice.) How is it that you’re so convinced that you’re not just better qualified than actual experts, but also that you are qualified to speak for God?

  • nolidad

    There is plenty as to how God made people heterosexual. Genesis 1 is a good start and you can proceed from there. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    If He made provision for homosexuality, then why did He condemn it in Israel and the churchand warned that those who live in such sin would never see the kingdom of God.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Oh wow – what an original and witty comment! I must remember that!

  • nolidad

    very unoriginal (as you probably know) but many find it witty . some find it offensive.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    As someone just explained, the “Adam and Steve” quote is from a fictional character named Alan Partridge. Here is what that character is like, courtesy of Wikipedia:

    Partridge is characterised as an insecure, superficial and narcissistic “wally”. He is concerned largely with status, the level of his public profile and, to a lesser extent, the ostentatious possessions this allows him to acquire… Despite being a broadcaster, Partridge is socially incompetent and awkward, prone to one-upmanship, embarrassing social faux pas and displays of deep insensitivity to social norms. His thoughtlessness and selfish lack of interest in anything beyond himself exposes an unsympathetic character that is disliked and privately lampooned by many of those with whom he comes into contact… Partridge is [generally] depicted as being unable to forge genuine friendships or connections with other people, who are, seemingly without exception, repelled by his unpleasant and self-absorbed personality.

    Also:

    Partridge is depicted as being a sexually repressed and prudish man, uncomfortable and awkward with overt (or even subtle) displays of sexual or romantic feelings, or what he views as being “perverted” sexual practices. He is particularly disconcerted by homosexuality, and despite describing himself as “homosceptic” at one point appears to entertain homoerotic or bisexual tendencies. This is the subject of numerous running gags in I’m Alan Partridge, in particular his numerous efforts to deny his interest in Bangkok “lady-boys” (whom he describes as “fascinating creatures” whilst insisting that he is merely confused by them and not attracted to them) and a recurrent gag in which he will daydream about performing an erotic dance in a peephole Pringle jumper and a vulcanised rubber thong for a selection of men (usually those who can help further his career in some way, such as BBC Chief of Programming Tony Hayers).

    So, to lay it out for you: the writers giving this character the line, “In my mind God made Adam and Eve, he didn’t make Adam and Steve,” was to show that this character is a STUPID, SELF-RIGHTEOUS ASS (who is also, quite possibly, in denial about his sexuality). That the American Religious Right didn’t understand that this was not only a joke, but a joke directed at the character saying it, says a lot about them, none of it complimentary.

    It’s a bit like people approvingly quoting Shakespeare’s “kill all the lawyers” line without understanding that the character who said it was planning a dictatorship.

    We’re not laughing at your line; we’re laughing at you, because you had no idea how idiotic you just made yourself sound.

  • nolidad

    Doesn’t matter who created the comment it still istrue God did not create Adam and Steve (for sex) but Adam and Eve. you rranting just demeans you .

  • dpolicar

    Just to be clear: on your account, God created Adam and Eve for sex?

  • nolidad

    No having sex was part of what God designed them to do, but create them to just have sex or sex was the biggie issue/ No.

    Rev. 4:11 is pretty key.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Hey eveyrone, the prophet nolidad knows the mind of God!

    He somehow knows that, though God created both Adam and Steve, and though He created Adam with an inescapable, unchangable orientation to be utterly disinsterested in sex with Eve, but to enjoy sex with Steve, and even though He created Steve likewise, that God wanted Adam to suck it up and have joyless sex with Eve while suppressing his own desires and living a life of misery and dissatistfaction.

    And none of this is in the bible, so clearly nolidad must have a direct line to what the Big Guy is thinking!

    All hail the prophet nolidad who knows God’s will!

  • nolidad

    Bout time I get my due!!!!!!!! :) :)

  • Daniel

    Then who did make Steve?

  • nolidad

    Rebellious man made steve-As Romans 1 clearly points out- God just gave Steve over to his own fallen desires.

  • Daniel

    Ha!

  • AnonaMiss

    HUMANITY HAS CREATED LIFE

    CLEARLY WE ARE LIKE UNTO GODS

  • nolidad

    Ha! Ha! your turn :)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    HUR HUR HUR OH MY THAT WAS SO FUNNEY I HAVE ONLY JUST HEARD IT TEN FUCKING THOUSAND TIMES BY NOW

    Get some new material.

  • Daniel

    Incidentally, there’s an episode of I’m Alan Partridge in which Alan describes himself as “homosceptic” and says “the way I see it, God created Adam and Eve- he didn’t create Adam and Steve.” In the commentary on the DVD Steve Coogan claims he invented this line as a way of mocking homophobes, and that he was amazed to hear it used seriously by people afterwards. I don’t know if he did actually come up with it, but I like the idea.

  • nolidad

    Well I know what number 10,000 is but what number is ten F****** thousand??? Is that new math?????

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Now you’re just trying to purposely misunderstand me. Stop being an arse.

  • nolidad

    WQell when I am trying to spread sarcastic humor I will put a little :) or some LOLOL so it will define it at an attempt to bring a little levity to this war!

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Or you could use the “/sarcasm” tag at the end to avoid misunderstanding.

  • nolidad

    I will try harder to designate when I am using sarcasm as humor. That is my schtick and I forget people don’t get it always especially in writing where they cannot see my smile and lack of malice in my tone.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You obviously have problems remembering the “:)” or the “LOL”, then.

  • nolidad

    I am getting better. As of this response I am now only 34 behind from being current. I try to answer as best as I can and also as short as I can. I think I do not have the time for computers as some of you folks do. (that is not a judgment just a neutral observation).

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    HOLY FUCK WHERE DID STEVE COME FROM?

    What IS Steve? How could there be a man not created by God?

  • nolidad

    I think He came froM Ur anus (all pun intended)

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Can’t be. The one who’s been pulling things out of his ass is you!

    *rimshot*

  • Daniel

    Why with that joke you certainly put the “rim” in “rimshot”.

  • nolidad

    that explains the gas clouds surrounding my planet !!!! :)

  • Mark Z.

    There is plenty as to how God made people heterosexual. Genesis 1 is a good start and you can proceed from there.

    Genesis 1 says that God made people male and female, not heterosexual. Heterosexuality came in because of sin. If Eve had been more faithful and patient, God would have made a wife for her, but instead she sinned, and God said “Your desire will be for your husband.” That’s why their children were such a mess.

  • nolidad

    Wrong homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia, rape came as a result of sin.
    Gen. 1
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And
    God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
    and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
    of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
    that moveth upon the earth.

    He told them to be fruitful and multiply.

    (have lots of sex and make lots of babies)

    Then in Gen 2 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    then Jesus reconfirms this in Mt. 19:

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

    Though this is directed at divorce–Jesus shows in the beginning it was a man and woman-before the fall.

  • P J Evans

    Dear Ghu, you are impervious to reasoning, facts, and all forms of good sense.
    If you’re trying to get points for your missionary work, you’re now well into negative numbers.

  • nolidad

    depends on which reasoning you are referring to. Mans reasoning would disagree with me, I fully know that, but what I wrote is in complete agreement with Gods Word. That is what I bank on.

    Prov. 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
    But its end is the way of death.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You know, when you try to back up your position by quoting scripture, you would do better to quote bits of scripture that actually have anything to do with your argument, rather than just quoting generic verses and pretending that somehow “male and female he created them” means “Therefore No Homo”

  • P J Evans

    He didn’t. That’s all modern interpretation. Very modern, within the last two hundred years.

  • nolidad

    Well then you post up Gensis like I did and why don’t you take a stab to tewll us what those words mean.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Considering that people who do comparative religious studies have noticed that there are broad similarities of Genesis with other comparable creation stories of the time period (caveat: translation issues with languages unless the readers understand the originals very well) and so it is not much of a stretch to consider that the ancient Hebrews repurposed it for their own faith.

  • nolidad

    Or that the other writings were a corrupt version form the originals after the Tower of Babel dispersion and people forgot God and ended up corrupting th eaccounts. I know there are 226 flood accounts in all the ancient writings.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    One who may go to a Christian church but is trusting their goodness to save them is not a Christian.

    So you believe in works, not faith? That’s a change. :)

  • nolidad

    Quite the opposite- Man is saved by faith alone through grace, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast Eph. 2 The above quote should have made that clear..

  • Jamoche

    Faith without works is dead.

  • nolidad

    Now you are mixing justification with sanctification–apples and oranges. I can do nothing but receive my salvation, and if it is true- it will produce works. Th eworks prove my salvation not the other way around.

  • arcseconds

    It is clear also that, as we can only deal with the manifold in our representations, and as the x corresponding to them (the object), since it is to be something different from all our representations, is really nothing to us, it is clear, I say, that the unity, necessitated by the object, cannot be anything but the formal unity of our consciousness in the synthesis of the manifold in our representations. Then and then only do we say that we know an object, if we have produced synthetical unity in the manifold of intuition. Such unity is impossible, if the intuition could not be produced, according to a rule, by such a function of synthesis as makes the reproduction of the manifold a priori necessary, and a concept in which that manifold is united, possible.

    A more common reaction to opening the Critique in the middle is “hold on, this is completely incomprehensible!”

  • $7768756

    Also, upon opening the Critique at the beginning. At any point really. Kant did not write for understanding.

  • arcseconds

    Well, granted that Kant was not exactly a model for clear writing, even if he had been, something like the Critique would still not be an easy read, although one could hope that at least the beginning would be. If you’re trying to get someone to see the world in a completely different way than ‘normal’, that’s always going to strike one as either incomprehensible or nonsense on first blush.

    Apparently he initially had heaps of examples in the first Critique, which he took out because they made the text too long and (he felt) didn’t add anything.

    The sad thing is, one gets the impression that he’s actually trying to be clear, or at least strike a balance between clarity and precision. He wanted people to understand his work. With some authors, one sometimes gets the sense that they’re reveling in their opacity…

  • Daniel

    That’s the problem with his writing style- very experimental. He didn’t believe in beginnings, or middles, just that every page should be an end in itself.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    He reeeeeeeeeeeally likes his frikkin’ manifolds.

  • P J Evans

    It reminds me of meeting Mondrian on plastic art and pure plastic art, in the freshman general-ed art history and appreciation class. I told my Most-Senior Aunt (MA from Yale, with Albers) about it, later, and she offered sympathy: he’s very difficult to understand.

  • P J Evans

    ‘flood of idolatry’ ?
    Oh puh-leeze. Go read about the Iconoclasts.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but the historic record proves otherwise. That is why after a few centuries Europe entered teh dark ages. The improper marriage of church and state. Constantine s legitimizing Christianity brought more harm to the faith than 3 centuries of Roman persecution did.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The improper marriage of church and state.

    So what do you say about folks like Ernest Istook who have tried to have constitutional amendments passed which would mandate school prayer?

  • nolidad

    Can’t say as I do not know what He proposed and whether it was in the intent of what the founders expounded on outside of the constitution that gave definition to the articles within the constitution. I do know that our government paid churches to educate children, did not stop states from having an official religion for many many decades (though I think they all died a “natural” death and werte not forced to end it) As I have posted on this site, the founders intnended us to ba a nation that glorified and respected Christianity above all others. Not coercing people or applying religious tests but that Christianity was to be our underpinnings.

  • P J Evans

    our government paid churches to educate children
    Citation needed.
    Also there were public schools, if not of any form you’re recognize.
    As for your claim of what the founders intended: intent is not magic, and they didn’t include ANY religious intentions in the constitution. The claim fails for lack of evidence.

  • nolidad

    all they said was that congress shall make no law towards the establishment of a religion nor deny the free exercise thereof. Government openly practicing religion but not legislating falls within that restriction–Even if it is say Islam. The rest has all been judicial interpretation.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    So do you or do you not believe in separation of Church and State? On the one hand you want lawgivers to “govern Biblically” and on the other hand you condemn “inappropriate marriage of church and state”.

    So which is it?

  • nolidad

    I do not believe the state should seek to regulate or inhibit the church, but I do see the foundewrs in their writings clearly having the church help the state in crafting moral laws . And for many it was also to make sure a law fell within the parameters of being biblical.. That is simply history that cannot be refuted. The state should seek the church to be its “moral compass” without imposing religious tests for candidates and the church should help guide the citizenry to be upstanding citizens of that country. That is the relationship the founders sought (most of them anyway)

    But I would not favor what was in Europe at teh time- an official national religion(which to the founders meant a particular sect of Christendom)

  • Baby_Raptor

    You need to stop reading David Barton and actually read what the Founders said. Very few of the Founders were what was then called Christian, and NONE of them weer Christian by today’s standard. The country was founded religiously neutral, so that every citizen could be led by their own moral compass; not by the government seeking to use the church to impose what it thought was best. That undermines the very freedom of religion.

    And frankly, if you believe that one can only be an upstanding citizen if they buy into your specific values, you have no idea what citizenship is.

  • nolidad

    Never read a book by Barton though I know who he is. Would you like me to post dozens of web sites from other sources quoting the super majority of our founding fathers to be believers.

    The standard for someone being a believer is the Word of God! I do not care what anyone says what aChristian says even myself if it does not match what God Himself declared who is and who isn’t a Christian.

    I also never said that one could only be an upstanding citizen if they buy into my values. I believe the opposite! Even an atheist can be a model citizen! He is lost for eternity, but can be a good citizen, kind compassionate and caring on a human level.

  • AnonaMiss

    Would you like me to post dozens of web sites from other sources quoting
    the super majority of our founding fathers to be believers.

    If you can post a single reliable source to that effect, I would be very suprised. Considering that your previous attempts to provide sources have included World Net Daily, it’s clear that you do not engage in the level of skepticism/critical thinking/discernment needed to tell a ‘source’ from a ‘baseless claim’.

  • nolidad

    I think I sm,ell a trap here. I can go post a bunch of sources, but because you don’t like the compiler of the qoutes from the FAthers you will call it unreliable.

    World net daily does tell the truth at times. Considering the filth from the editorials of the NY Times- I would say they are running neck and neck with th editorial pages of many of our liberal newspapers.

    But define for me what you consider “reliable” and I wll do my best.

  • AnonaMiss

    Define for me first what you consider a “super majority”, list who you consider “founding fathers” and based on what criteria you exclude their contemporaries, and define what you consider sufficient evidence for any individual being Christian. Remember, you’ve said here that merely attending a Christian church or calling themselves Christian is not enough.

    Then for each individual on that list of founding fathers, compile direct quotes, with source name and page attribution if applicable, demonstrating that they meet your standard of Christianity.

  • nolidad

    Well I accept the Bible definition of what makes on e a believer which is found in Romans 10

    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    9 That
    if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
    in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
    saved.

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed

    That is the only standard that matters eternally speaking. Now as for lists of qoutes form founding fathers.

    http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-god-and-america

    http://minutemanpatriot.homestead.com/Christian/Quotes_Christian.html

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Resources/Quotes.aspx

    http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html

    these should be enough to get you started. I also can cite for you things like the Mayflower compact, the Virginia Charter and other state founding documents that seek to give Gory to the God of the Bible.

  • Jenny Islander

    . . . Wow. How far down into your particular rabbit-hole do you have to be to think that “Here’s a menacing guy with a gun!” will get people to come to your church?

  • Baby_Raptor

    It would probably work for other gun nuts.

  • Adam Nehr

    Actually it was worse than that the card was appealing to those already in the rabbit hole to band together at this particular church. Down here in Florida there is a small group of people that actually believe that our military should inscribe Christian sayings on their weapons and go to war with all of Islam peaceful and terrorist alike because they are all non Christian and therefore evil. To them war is not the inhumane abomination that reality has proven it to be but a holy quest to be hoped for and sought out against any enemy that does not think like they do. It is quite upsetting to see which is why I called the cops!

  • alexfigment

    I don’t see the link between inerrancy and slavery. Am I missing something here?

  • de_la_Nae

    It’s a reminder of the ignoble roots, soul-crushing truths, and history of awfulness some of our brethren would wish to forget. Hell, *I* wish to forget it sometimes.

    It is a warning that we must not forget the sins of our fathers, if we wish to make the better way through Creation that we yearn for. A warning to remember our history through one of the Great Sins of our country, so that possibly we can recognize something of when we are acting in another one.

    We wielded the texts of the Bible so often as a means to support the continued enslavement of our fellow souls. Time and time again we did this. So if we wielded them that way then…how are we wielding them now?

    That’s something of the connection.

  • Fanraeth

    The supposed writings of the Biblical figure Peter can hardly be considered primary sources when we do not have the original copies and have utterly no evidence that they were even written by Peter.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Not quite grasped the concept of primary sources have you? We do not have the ‘original’ copies of many documents but that does not cast doubt on their authenticity. And there is plenty evidence they were written by Peter….but i suspect you are not really interested in evidences are you?

  • AnonaMiss

    Well there’s the fact that they’re dated to a time when the apostle Peter would have been dead, unless he had a divinely extended lifespan…

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Not a fact – at all. In fact 1 Peter was dated to AD 63. But of course you don’t want to believe that. You start with the pre-supposition it could not have been written by Peter and go on to cherry pick whatever ‘evidence’ you can find.

  • AnonaMiss

    You conveniently choose a very early, unwarrantedly specific date in a range of dates. 1 Peter is not dated to AD 63. Estimates have ranged between AD 60 and AD 110; the majority of scholars who don’t already have a dog in the Petrine-authority fight place it between AD 70 and AD 90, when Peter was a-mouldering in the grave since the mid AD 60s (traditionally AD 64).

    And you also conveniently leave out that this is the earliest-dated of the documents we have attributed to Peter. Talk about “start[ing] with a pre-supposition” and “cherry pick[ing] whatever ‘evidence’ you can find”!

    Yes, there is a sliver of a chance that Peter wrote 1 Peter before his crucifixion; but there is no chance that Peter wrote 2 Peter, or any of the extracanonical documents attributed to him, before his crucifixion. In order for Peter to have been the author of 2 Peter, he would need to have risen from the grave to pen it.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    I love this – ‘1Peter is not dated to AD 63..estimates have ranged between AD 60 and AD 110’. It may have escaped your notice but AD 63 falls within that range!

    There are plenty biblical scholars who have no difficulty in attributing an early date to 1 and 2 Peter and before his death. You have zero evidence otherwise, but that does not stop you making the assertion. Peter wrote both before his death – and the only reason you state otherwise is because you have a prejudice against accepting the Bible as the Word of God and so will accept anything you read that refutes that.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It does, but you can’t nail it down that precisely. Trying to be overprecise without backing for it is bad science.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    But I was writing history not science! And it was not me being overprecise. I was responding to the absolutist claim that Peter did not write Peter because he was dead when it was written. So far no-one has been able to provide any evidence for this assertion – I suspect because they can’t. They are just repeating what they have been told and faithfully want to pass it on…

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam
  • David Andrew Robertson

    Oh dear. We were talking about serious scholarship. You will get an automatic fail for citing Wikipedia in most serious universities. Still looking for the evidence and proof (I am of course well aware that there is debate – as there is about every text of the bible – but the trouble is the liberal fundies who want to say ‘there is no debate…it has been proven that Peter did not write Peter’..and then offer no proof other than their own opinions!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Oh for fuck’s sake, read the citations at the bottom.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Oh dear….once again an inability to express oneself properly and think about the issues results in more swearing…..Of course I read the citations (another wee hint – just because something has citations does not make it true!) – Using Wiki as a primary source is an example of extreme laziness. Would you accept it if the person who wrote the article wrote of Peter writing Peter? I find it more than a little amusing that DA Carson is cited as one of the biblical scholars – presumably because the writer does not know that he thinks 2 Peter was written by Peter.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I would accept it if I could scroll to the bottom of the screen of a cited claim and read the fucking citations. That’s laziness, which you have demonstrated multiple times already.

    And if my potty mouth bothers you, by all means, fuck your tone arguments. Your respect matters exactly diddly to me. :)

  • David Andrew Robertson

    But I did read it. And a whole lot more. Just because I don’t accept your Wiki evidence does not give you the right to abuse. A foul mouth is really a sign of a weak mind.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Piss off, troll.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Ah – the good old – I don’t like what you are saying, and I can’t refute it, so I’m going to dismiss you as a troll (a troll being anyone who disagrees with you and does not have the wit and understanding to realise what a genius you are – as clearly evidenced by your last profound post!)..

  • Daniel

    I disagree with that. I don’t really see how swearing shows you have a weak mind at all, but then I’m not actually clear why words like “fuck” and “piss” are actually considered offensive in the first place. I would like to repeat a question I asked you several days ago that you haven’t yet answered. I think it’s relevant here, seen as how you’re criticising the evidence offered by others:
    What makes you think the Bible is the word of God? That’s a far more extraordinary claim than “it was not written by the man we originally thought wrote it, about whom we have very little biographical information or other writings outside the disputed ones to compare this writing to”. So it follows that your claim needs evidence.

  • Carstonio

    Part of me wishes that people would use foul language only when it’s justified, cursing only at people who hurt others. But mostly the word category is really an artificial one. George Carlin was right – the fact that the most offensive word in our culture is a euphemism for intercourse, and that it’s also used as a euphemism for harming someone, says much about how the culture views sex.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    I think the Bible is the Word of God because I have read it, it taught me Christ, because of its teaching, style, historical accuracy, its accurate teaching about the human condition, its dealing with the problem of evil, and because of the testimony of the Church and of the Holy Spirit.

  • Daniel

    So what’s your view of the Qur’an?

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Great Arabic. Rubbish theology.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Only a child thinks that someone using words they dislike proves that the speaker is flawed. You prove that you’re just out to feel superior when you resort to judging someone over a “bad word.”

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Really? Thats what you really think? So if someone uses the word ‘Nigger’ or ‘fag’ is ok – it does not, according to your logic, prove that they are flawed?! Does it mean you are just out to feel superior when you resort to judging someone over a bad word? I don’t think so. At least try to be consistent. In a discussion on the authorship of 2 Peter I suspect its not really helpful or a sign of strength to tell someone to piss off…do you think it is?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    It takes a true asshole to not know why using words specifically intended to evoke the speaker’s hatred and prejudice which are representative of years of violence and oppression and dehumanization…

    Is different than using a naughty word you don’t like. Waaah, my pearls, I said the word “fuck” and that’s obviously just like a white man calling a black man a nigger. AREN’T I SO ABUSIVE. NEXT I’LL BE EXPECTING YOU TO READ AND APPLY CRITICAL THOUGHT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF SPOON-FEEDING IT TO YOU. OH WAIT I ALREADY DID THAT. I’M SO ASHAMED. I’LL JUST BE OUT IN MY DOGHOUSE AND YOU’LL NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH ME AGAIN. I’M SORRY I’M SO SORRY.

    While I’m wallowing in self-pity, make a point to stop wallowing in your privilege, asshole.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Poor Sam. Logic is not really your strong point is it? Baby (aptly named) stated that ‘only a child thinks that someone using words they dislike proves the speaker is flawed’. I simply pointed out the fallacy of that. You are agreeing with me when you say there are some words are ‘different’. Point proved. Thanks…although sadly you still have to resort to calling names when you can’t handle reason.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In order to write history one needs to have reliably dated artifacts. If one can’t do better than date a manuscript to a certain time period then the choice of an exact date is a little arbitrary.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Indeed. I was not the one arguing that Peter did not write Peter because we know the date it was written. I was simply pointing out that there are many scholars who believe that Peter did write Peter and that it was before his death in AD 64. The onus of proof is on those who would claim that this was not the case.

  • AnonaMiss

    But I was writing history not science!

    And with one sentence DAR destroys any last sliver of credibility he had…

  • AnonaMiss

    IN made my first point for me.

    But NO ONE attributes 2 Peter to actually-Peter. It’s a settled issue. I defy you to find a single scholar who won’t lose his job if he says otherwise – that is to say, a scholar who does not belong to an American fundamentalist evangelical institution – who claims Peter actually wrote 2 Peter.

    Historian my ass. You probably believe Moses wrote the Torah. Get out of here, pretender of stolen authority!

  • David Andrew Robertson

    There are actually plenty scholars who attribute 2 Peter to Peter. The trouble is that you are such a fundamentalist that you have already pre-determined that anyone who does say it is 2 Peter by definition must be an American fundamentalist evangelical. And I love the threat you imply that anyone who dares to suggest that Peter wrote Peter will lose their job (is this how liberal fundamentalism works – agree with us or you are fired?!) Your faith will just not allow you to accept that Peter wrote Peter, or that Moses wrote most of the first five books that Jesus said he did!

  • AnonaMiss

    you have already pre-determined that anyone who does say it is 2 Peter by definition must be an American fundamentalist evangelical. And I love the threat you imply that anyone who dares to suggest that Peter wrote Peter will lose their job (is this how liberal fundamentalism works – agree with us or you are fired?!)

    Lolwut? OK, now you’re definitely just fucking with me. +1.

    My implication was not that anyone who suggests Peter wrote 2 Peter would be fired, but instead that I don’t care what anyone employed at a “Bible college” or “think tank” thinks about the subject, because they’re hired to uphold existing positions, not to do research. Any source from a historian at an accredited (or, if international, respected) university will do. Any such source who argues that Peter wrote 2 Peter – just to establish that there is even one actual historian who believes that. Because as far as I’m aware, not one does.

    Even Wikipedia, which you so despise, cites sources. Without sources, or at least evidence of your credentials, you’re less credible than wikipedia.

    But please, feed me talking points from Expelled some more. It’s one of my favorite comedies. Let me go make some popcorn.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Sorry Anona….I don’t want to upset you or mess with your head. But you are allowing your prejudices and emotions to run away with you. Many people in different universities and colleges are hired to do research. You seem to think that no creditable historian thinks Peter wrote 2 Peter – yet you cite no evidence of this. FF Bruce (University of Manchester), D. Carson and many others do think that Peter wrote Peter and no-one has been able to prove otherwise. You ask me to cite sources yet you state that Peter did not write Peter without citing any sources. And to cap it all – you bring is as evidence ‘Expelled’ which is a movie about science teaching, not biblical scholarship. Can I suggest you stick to the point? And try some reasoning?

  • AnonaMiss

    As evidence? Oh please. I can’t tell if you’re really this stupid, but that was not a citation. I was comparing you to Expelled as an insult, not a citation. Your inability to tell the difference does explain a lot about your behavior in this thread, though.

    But you are allowing your prejudices and emotions to run away with you.

    Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was letting my emotions get in the way of seeing the Truth of your Claims. I can’t recall you telling anyone else they were letting their emotions get in the way, even when they were swearing at you – just li’l ol’ feminine me, despite the fact that the only emotions I’ve felt or expressed in this conversation are humor and incredulity. Watch your own prejudices, Mr. Robertson.

    D. Carson and many others do think that Peter wrote Peter and no-one has been able to prove otherwise.

    A ha! Finally we get somewhere. I googled FF Bruce & D Carson to confirm your claim about their beliefs on the authorship of 2 Peter. FF Bruce has written so much about the epistles that I had a hard time finding his opinion on 2 Peter in the space of a lunch break, but if you wouldn’t mind, I’d like a more specific citation than just his name so that I can look that up. As for D Carson – look what I found on the first page of the google results for ‘D Carson “2 Peter”‘, on a page that AnonymousSam already posted on this thread:

    Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that “most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author.”

    cited to their ‘An Introduction to the New Testament’, 2nd ed, p 659.

    Now it’s possible that Carson was using this as an introduction to his opinion being contrary to the general thrust of modern scholarship – I don’t have a physical copy of the source, and I was unable to find the full text online when I searched for it by name. But “For no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author” is pretty convincing to me, whether Carson was citing the consensus to agree or to disagree.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Yes Carson was using it as an intro to something he disagreed with. The point is that you have NO proof that Peter did not write 2 Peter – the main argument tends to be how ‘modern’ scholars, 2000 years distant, think it unlikely because of the style used. And I was fully aware that you were using Expelled as an insult – though more than a little puzzled as to why you would bring it in – other than just to reinforce your group herd mentality.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Protip: do not accuse others of a “herd mentality” while trying to make the argument that your position is correct because it’s the position everyone else through history has held. It makes you look brain-damaged.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Thats quite funny – given that a) this is not my position and b) it is the position of the article I am arguing against!

  • P J Evans

    the only reason you state otherwise is because you have a prejudice against accepting the Bible as the Word of God

    Objection: that’s your opinion, not a fact.
    What you believe is fine for you, but your beliefs are not necessarily those of others – and most of us consider truth to be more valuable than beliefs based on lies.

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Indeed…..that is what I was saying about the whole article. It is an opinion piece not based on fact. I do indeed prefer the truth. (and motivation is actually a big factor in what people determine are ‘facts’)…

  • Fanraeth

    Really? You have evidence that people from this blog did that? Can you supply the names of these people from the blog who down-voted you?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    I didn’t say that people from this blog did that.

  • AnonaMiss

    Hey, “these people” voted this comment of mine down

    Who exactly does “these people” refer to, then?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Those with empty souls.

  • Daniel

    What does that mean?

  • AnonaMiss

    Ah, so you aren’t saying we’re harrassing you across the web without evidence! You’re just saying that you know the inward state of our souls, and that it is ’empty’. That is so much better!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    What should the punishment be for a woman who gets an abortion in a jurisdiction where abortion is illegal?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Since abortion kills an innocent human being, should it be punished, Sam? If so, who should be punished for the murder?

    Long time no see.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I’m asking you because you’re the one who (presumably) wants it to be illegal. You have always refused to answer.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Of course, murder of the unborn should be illegal, Sam, just as it is illegal to murder anyone in any location other than the womb. That is common sense, which sadly, is not common anymore. Isn’t it mean to let those who murder the unborn go unpunished? Aren’t we mean when we know abortion is murder and then look the other way?

    If a woman were to seek an illegal abortion, it would clearly be solicitation of a criminal act, and she should receive a criminal solicitation prosecution, since she did not actually commit the offense, thereby causing the death of her unborn babe. However, the doctor performing such a heinous procedure should receive a first-degree murder prosecution, because abortion is premeditated willful and deliberate murder.

    Now, will you answer my questions, Sam?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Your question invokes the begging the question fallacy because it begins on the assumption that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, a supposition with which I don’t agree. It is neither murder (which is a legal term to used to make distinction from other incidents which result in death), nor is “innocent” an applicable term (is a rock innocent regardless if it causes someone to trip and be seriously injured or not?), nor is “human being” an accurate term (it is human tissue, which is not the same thing).

    Fetal death can occur in countless ways, not limited to clinical dilation and evacuation (which is used in roughly 10% of abortions), including due to miscarriage — which can be brought on intentionally or naturally. Statistics show that nearly three quarters of all pregnancies naturally self-abort. How would we ever be able to prove which ones were murder and which were naturally occurring? If a woman cannot afford to eat regularly (a potential reason to seek an abortion) and her body aborts the pregnancy because she is undernourished, should she be charged with criminal negligence?

    Note that this concern is genuine, because this sort of thing is already a relevant question in states which now require a criminal investigation into suspicious miscarriages. http://feministing.com/2013/01/17/new-report-shows-how-the-principle-of-personhood-is-already-criminalizing-pregnancy-in-the-us/

  • Baby_Raptor

    She’s lying. Her first comment plainly referred to us.

  • Shaul

    What about those who claim to practice ‘New Testament Christianity’ simply because they share all their possessions, don’t hold jobs, sit around all day long singing Kumbaya?

  • Jamoche

    What about them? They’re not claiming unbroken continuity with a 1600-year gap that started with all the people who knew the real truth getting killed, are they?

  • jobeob987

    With the invention of the printing press, is there any wonder that the reformation would shortly follow? And then just a little later the radical Reformation (the Anabaptist) one of the few groups since the earliest Christians to think that Jesus actually meant the things he said. What remains true is that the words of Christ show us a radical way to live that places people over profit and comfort. This is what the world needs most now but it will upset profit margins and get in the way of business as usual. Scripture is the only place where real revolution can start.

  • http://annaredsand.com/ Anna Redsand

    Also, the Bible, when it was read with any understanding, was not regarded as literal or historical until the so-called Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason in the late 17th century and 18th century.

  • David S.

    Really? You jump into the conversation with naming calling and a distinct lack of refutation, and then bash someone else for that?

  • David Andrew Robertson

    Still not got the evidence then? How about actually giving us something to refute?!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Somehow Disqus ate this entire post, except for the first sentence. I’m not sure if the whole contents displayed before or went out to e-mails, so I am reposting it.

    Well I only accept one as a Christian according to the Bible definition. One that has placed their full trust in the death, burial and physical resurrection of Jesus as the only and satisfactory payment for their sins.

    Well, that’s good. Each and every one of them has done this, from the million dollar minister Jeremiah Cummings who teaches that wealth flows to those who give to the church first, to the Calvinist-extremists Westboro Baptist Church who teach that the sacrifice of Jesus only redeemed a very select number of people and the rest are literally incapable of redemption, to the Bob Jones University who preached against desegregation and today publish textbooks which teach that the inability to comprehend pencils is proof of God.

    Each and every one of these people is earnestly Christian. The problem is that they each define Christian a different way and can draw upon the Bible to back up their assertions. Are some of them wrong? Inevitably (they can’t ALL be right), but if we’re in the business of not judging our brothers, then I’m not sure how we’re going to assure ourselves that having a Congress full of Christians or a Christian in the White House is going to improve matters.

    After all, it hasn’t yet!

    I would encourage yopu to read Gods word and discover for y9our self whjat God says what makes a believer a believer and not just rely on peoples opinions

    Does having most of the Bible in over fifty translations, including Hebrew and Greek, count as having read it adequately for your taste?

  • P J Evans

    Hoover was a Quaker, too.

  • Jenny Islander

    “How weary I am of hearing about everybody’s so-called ‘rights.’ We have no ‘rights’ in Jesus.” Let’s unpack this statement.

    “How weary I am of hearing about . . . ” You have the right to an opinion.

    ” . . . everybody’s so-called ‘rights.’ ” In the context of this conversation, this probably refers to the right of two adults who are capable of knowledgeable consent to enter into civil marriage and all of its obligations and perquisites. Are you arguing that civil marriage is not to be permitted between certain adults who are capable of knowledgeable consent? Is this contract, then, to be regarded as a privilege conferred upon some but not upon others? By whom and on what basis?

    “We have no ‘rights’ in Jesus!” This is perfectly true, but unless you are arguing that the civil authorities that register and acknowledge civil marriage are Jesus, it is also irrelevant. Or are you arguing that civil marriage should be abolished and only religious marriages solemnized in Christian denominations that deny religious marriage to people of the same gender should be honored by civil authorities?

    That way theocracy lies. Theocracy certainly sounds attractive, but it is always administered by human beings. All Christian theocracies that I am aware of have produced killings in the name of Jesus–sometimes judicial murder under religious sanction, sometimes riots, sometimes bloody civil war. Far better, in my opinion, to separate civil and religious marriage even further than they already are in the U.S., so that all persons, even clergy, must fill out a marriage commissioner’s license like the one in my state. It is short and it simply verifies that the witness to the couple’s vows can speak English, can read, and is not mentally impaired.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Nobody is talking about rights in Jesus. We’re talking about the rights we have in this country, in our real lives. Civil rights that are in no way tied to and have nothing to do with religion. I fail to see what at all Jesus has to do with this.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Jesus has to do with absolutely everything!

  • Baby_Raptor

    To you. In your life. If your Jesus wanted to be involved in absolutely everything everywhere, he could insert himself. He doesn’t need culture warriors forcing him on everyone. The fact that he *hasn’t* done this should be a clue-by-four to you. He’s perfectly happy letting those of us who choose to live without him do so. Why are you trying to “fix” things for him?

  • Baby_Raptor

    It’s just so loving and moral of you to completely toss the rights of everyone who disagrees with you out the window. Let’s start advocating ripping yours away…I want to see if you handle it with the same carefree attitude.

  • nolidad

    You know raptor, maybe I wrote things in a way that has hit your hot buttons. But let me make some things clear to make sure I am not guilty of muddying the waters.

    !. I do not seek to toss anyones rights out the window.
    2. I am no better than anyone- all of us are equally guilty before God of sin.
    3. Just because I may strongly disagree with your position does not mean I would toss your rights. I am arguing positions not people.
    I usually do not like to answer hypotheticals- they generally are no win scenarios and make one look bad no matter how you answer unless it is in lock step with what the asker believes.
    4. My positions are form years of study of the Bible.
    5. Am I absolutely right? I think so but I am willing to be prove n wrong. But it must be a better biblical argument. I have changed my mind many times over the years as I continue to learn and grow.
    6. I do not condemn anyone for their “sins”> If we all got what we deserve before God (and that includes me) we would all go to hell forver.. I am glad God is rich iin mercy.

    I7. If you want to argue what current rights are legal– you win! But just remember what the govt. legalizes today it can also criminalize tomorrow. I choose to stand on the inviolate Word of God and suffer the consequences from a govt. if I must and like many of my brethren have (most recently- last week Noeth Korea murdered 80 of my brethren for the crime of reading the Bible)

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Once again I say unto you: assertions are not evidence. If you want us to believe all that stuff you’ve just said, your behaviour must show evidence of it. So far it’s not.

  • nolidad

    No your presuppositions say I dont shifter. I know what I beleive and will not accept false accusations against me just because you are angry. No matter what you think I think I know those five statements I wrote which you just commented on are correct for me.

  • P J Evans

    And if churches like yours have their way, most of us would have no rights whatever.
    This is why there’s separation of church and state.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I get the feeling that if someone were to try taking away Ginny’s right to be a “proud bigot for Christ” (her words) her attitude would change greatly. It’s those of us she disagrees with that have no rights because Jesus.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    The separation of church and state does not necessarily mean the separation of the state and God. Though the founding fathers of the United States were not all Christians, they did acknowledge the existence of God. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution claims autonomy or ultimate sovereignty for the state. The foundational premise of American government is that the state receives its right to govern from the Creator. The United States was rightly conceived as a nation under God, not over God or independent of God. To acknowledge the existence of a Creator God is to implicitly acknowledge His sovereign authority and ownership over all He creates. To be under God is to be under His authority and power. Basically, the separation of church and state means that these two institutions perform distinct and separate functions. It is not the task of the church to provide for the national defense or to bear arms. Conversely, it is not the task of the state to administer the sacraments or to preach the Gospel. Each institution has a distinctive role to play. Ideally these roles are to be carried out with mutual respect and cooperation. The state is to ensure that the church has the freedom to carry out its mission, and the church is to be supportive of the state in carrying out its mission. This separation was never intended to devolve into a rivalry for power and control.

  • P J Evans

    That’s why the Constitution says there shall be NO religious test for office.
    That means that there is no requirement for a candidate to belong to ANY church, or any religion at all.
    I’m sure that hurts your feelings, but tough. It’s past time for all you religious-law fans to grow up and recognize that this is, has been, and will be a secular country. (There are lots of countries with religious laws. You wouldn’t enjoy living in any of them.)

  • nolidad

    Actually I totally agree with you about religious tests. It doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.

    If you want I can repost the sites that qoute the majority of our founding fathers and SCOTUS that shows we were founded as a Christian nation- not like European nations were but the founders desiired (not mandated) we be bound by God and His Word.

    Federally speaking we were a “non-sectarian” not secular nation always there is a big difference. Secularism didn’t gain teh ascendancy of though in society until the 1930’s with John Dewey and the modern founding of secular humanism in this country with the publishing of the first Humanist Manifesto.

  • Amtep

    Even an eternal reward wouldn’t be an infinite payoff when calculated as expected net present value :) Unless heaven somehow gets exponentially better and better while you’re there.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    *SPLOOSH* :P

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I find it incredible that people nearly 2000 years removed from the
    scene and the people and can only know about a person from the
    historical records can determine that they can know that this is from
    Paul and that is not from Paul based on style of writing!

    So you claim that nobody can conclusively establish any chain of authorship of anything in the Bible?

    Your claim of the Bible’s “divine inspiration” might as well be comet gas, then!

    (PS. I like how when it’s convenient for you, YOU invoke the long time separation between the writings of the original material and the present translations of said material.)

  • nolidad

    Well you are talking about apples andf then complain my oranges aren’t apples.

    I have no problem with manuscripts uncovered. But when they deviate from the more ancient ones- the older is considered the more reliable- that is basic rule for judging manuscript evidence- whether Scripture or any other work of history.

    What I was referring to was things like the Jesus seminar where a bunch of very intelligent folks no doubt, Who got together and without other extant manuscript evidence or other secondary evidence contemporary with Scripture can decide what is and is not the words of Jesus. That was not an exercise on anything but their own philosophical bias..

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I appreciate the texts and manuscripts from ICR for their scientific
    research into biblical phenomena and how they prove that no modern
    scientist can with the scientific method can prove any of the accepted
    modern held theologies of the scientific community

    That’s…. probably because science is concerned with invoking natural origins to all phenomena. Anything supernatural is by definition unmeasurable, so science is not going to bother trying to weigh a soul or an angel.

    For someone who claims they were once well-versed in “modern scientific theory”, you sure freely avail yourself of all the standard pap pushed out by fundamentalists who have their own reasons for selectively accepting the validity of science and its application in technology.

  • nolidad

    Well you have misunderstood totally my appreciation of science. Science is great and testing and observing observable phenomena. And it is without a doubt totally awesome iin coming up with technology and new medicines and all that stuff. Where science goes wrong is making declaratory statements that they cannot prove, was unobserved, cannot be repeated and tested and verified–EVOLUTION organically and the Big Bang Cosmologically.

    Not one creationist can prove creation scientifically- none make that claim. (at least that I know of) Wer just say that the evidence we both look at is better explained by ex-deo creation than ex-nihilo evolution.

    These are both accepted as articles of faith from both the camps and neither camp can prove theior “genesis” account through the scientific method. No with empirical evidence. It is all what ones worldview is oriented.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    How curious that God’s guidance was felt so strongly back then and yet when it is needed all the more today due to all the international tensions and conflicts in this world he has no time at all to whip around with some attitude adjustments to preserve world peace!

    Surely that’s a lot more fundamental than a council settling their hash about what book would be accepted as the New Testament.

  • nolidad

    Then you would probably cry that God forces His will upon people and takes away free will. He has given His council, it is up to man to choose to obey His counsel or not. And face the consequences either good or bad.+

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well, it seems to me that if God actually REVEALED HIS EXISTENCE and said, “knock all that shit off”, it’d be pretty hard to argue the point.

  • nolidad

    Well He did, and in much less vulgar lace language said to knock it off, did miracles to prove His Deity and they crucified Him for it. I think if He opted to do it again , mankiond would crucify Him again.

  • AnonaMiss

    A belated gj on AWT. Later when Swing came out I kept going back to AWT because Swing was such a CPU hog.

  • https://twitter.com/authentic8info authentic8

    No sarcasm intended. I don’t know what you know or don’t know and want to make as few assumptions as possible.

    Textual criticism attempts to produce text as close as possible to the original so, yes, the issue of whether we have copies that are accurate to the originals would have been addressed. Generally, although no originals exist, there is agreement that we can deduce (or make a good guess) from the available copies that we have a very fair representation of the originals (the NT, in particular). This is due to the the similarity of independent transmissions, the closeness of the early copies in time to the original, the lack of evidence from contemporary writings doubting the accuracy of these early copies (unusual, if it were not accurate, given the amount of early discussion and disagreement over the content of the texts).

    You’ll rarely find scholarly, even ardent, critics focusing now on the issue of accuracy because it is not really considered a great point of contention. People are rarely so doubtful about other ancient texts, such as Josephus or Plato, which have far less evidence of accuracy. We should at least be consistent in our approach.

    Now it’s true (outside of religious faith) we can’t be sure that the copies are 100% accurate but it is a far leap to say we have “not the faintest idea”. Please note, I have not brought up the issue of inerrancy, but only addressed your contention that we have no idea about the accuracy of the copies. On the contrary, we have many clues.

  • https://twitter.com/authentic8info authentic8

    (Hopefully, an over-zealous mod will not delete this post also.)

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Fred has no other moderators and virtually never takes administrative action — trust me, far worse material is still present and accounted for here on the blog. It’s more likely that Disqus (the comment system) had a hiccup, as it did earlier in this thread when all but the first sentence of one of my posts mysteriously disappeared.

  • https://twitter.com/authentic8info authentic8

    Yes, sorry, you’re right, thanks. I looked for my original before but couldn’t find it but now I can see it.

  • kip

    Unfortunately, your argument is weakened by inaccurate statements like “Constantine made Christianity Rome’s official religion”. Constantine only made being a Christian legal. It was not until Theodosius that Christianity was made the official religion of the empire. Your carelessness with facts weakens some of the valid points you’re attempting to make.

  • Susan Russell

    Amen

  • g75401

    Of course, the blogger is actually referring to Protestants when he refers to Christians reading the KJV. Catholics were still attending masses held in Latin until the mid-60s, as in 1960s….

  • g75401

    That little “god” in your head, that is. Funny how he agrees with you most of the time….before the Reformation, millions of christians did as the priest told them and believed what he said.

  • Cam

    For the record, Gutenberg didn’t invent the Printing Press, he invented moveable type. AI don’t have a problem with any of the other info,

  • Phil Snow

    True, they ether couldn’t get or read it. But they Could hear the voice of the Living Word of God! Jesus Himself through the Holy Spirit!

  • dpolicar

    ..and?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Folks? This thread is getting into the 1200 comment range and it’s going to get to the point where it will render some peoples’ browsers virtually unusable. I know Internet Explorer has a really hard time with this thread, Pale Moon/Firefox less so, but anyway, could we collectively agree to move the discussion to another related post of Fred’s?

  • P J Evans

    Better yet, drop the whole thing, since it’s going nowhere.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    This is why I use e-mail subscriptions…

  • dpolicar

    I’m willing, but I’m not quite sure how to do that when I’m responding to someone else’s comment (as here).

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Repaste it somewhere else. I’ll start anyway because AnonaMiss said this thread is now crashing web browsers. So I’d say this thread should be gracefully exited. :)

  • dpolicar

    Repaste it somewhere else. I’ll start anyway because AnonaMiss said this thread is now crashing web browsers. So I’d say this thread should be gracefully exited. :)

    OK, I’ll give it a shot and see how it goes.

    (Repasting here.)

  • AnonaMiss

    I’m going to guess that some of my co-conversants have probably addressed replies to me here. So I’m posting to let you know that I can no longer reply to this thread, because when I open the comments enough to see what you’ve written, it crashes my browser. Peace.