With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[David F.]

David F.
If you actually slow down your little head to READ what Persol wrote you will see that he was referring to your "cut-off point of conception" being arbitrary.

Yes, I read it. I don't know when the cut-off point is but I do know it is certainly something considerabley before birth. I make no arbitrary point. I simply say NO BABYKILLING and since you can't tell me when it becomes a baby (unless you want to make an arbitrary cut-off point) then I must say NO ABORTION. It is you who is being arbitrary.

We look at the barbarities of primitive tribes who sacrificed their children to their heathen gods (Molech, Baal, Kukulcan) and we see cruelty and unenlightenment. Imagine throwing your baby into a fire while it screams! Is abortion any different (we have only done away with the screams)? I am firmly convinced that someday people will look back on this generation as far worse than Hitler, Stalin, Musselini, Sadam... (pick your vilian).

 

[MagiAwen]

so now you people have put a throne up for jesus? Such humility in your religon.

Besides all that blabber, it is man who created your god...all gods as a matter of fact, but was it through a natural progression in an evolved thought process of man like the earth worshippers et. al.? No. Big surprise there it was something rules did to control their people. Is Christianity something that involves philosophy and "good rules" for daily living? That point is very much arguable. But I have seen better philosophy for leading just and happy life in Buddism and Zen.

When Christianity showed up, whole countries were classed as Christian when in actuality it was only the rulers who had adopted the new religion and often only superficially at that. Throughout EU generally the old religions (the ones you like to term heathen) was still prominent for the first thousand years of Christianity. (give or take)

Pope Gregory the Great attempted a mass conversion. He forced everyone at the time to bow down to him and his great religion because having people not under his control apparently was displeasing to him. He instructed his bishops to go to other non xtian temples, smash any of what he deemed as "idols" and to sprinkle the temples with holy water and to rededicate them.

Also, I have not made any comments about the abortion thing because it is a socio-political discussion and has no business in a religion thread in my opinion.

 

[David F.]

Pope Gregory the Great attempted a mass conversion. He forced everyone at the time to bow down to him and his great religion because having people not under his control apparently was displeasing to him. He instructed his bishops to go to other non xtian temples, smash any of what he deemed as "idols" and to sprinkle the temples with holy water and to rededicate them.

I do not even pretend to excuse Pope Gregory (or any other pope for that matter) since I see him (them) as part of the problem. At least we agree on that. It absolutely stuns me that the Catholic Church would simply rededicate pagan temples in the name of Christian saints, many times not even changing the form of worship (rather than tear down the graven images, they would sometimes just change their names - Venus become Mary, Mercury become Paul, Jupiter became Peter, etc.)

 

[Persol]

See, this is what happens when people forget to worship God and start to worship nature - life becomes arbitrary. The life of a cow becomes just as important as the life of a baby. This is where the truth of God is changed into a lie, and the creature is worshipped more than the Creator

A fetus is not a baby... you're still ignoring that.

As it turns out, the land of Caanan was riddled with incurable (at least at that time) venerial disease.

LMAO. You're kidding right? I didn't know the land had a vagina.

Perhaps we will stand before the throne of Jesus together and you can tell me that again.

Or perhaps when you find out there is no Jesus, you can tell us THAT again.

I simply say NO BABYKILLING and since you can't tell me when it becomes a baby (unless you want to make an arbitrary cut-off point) then I must say NO ABORTION. It is you who is being arbitrary.

Late term it begins to resemble a baby. Luckily most abortions are early/mid term.

 

[MagiAwen]

I do not even pretend to excuse Pope Gregory (or any other pope for that matter) since I see him (them) as part of the problem.

No, you just ignore the fact that christianity is man made.

 

[David F.]

A fetus is not a baby... you're still ignoring that.
LMAO. You're kidding right? I didn't know the land had a vagina.
Or perhaps when you find out there is no Jesus, you can tell us THAT again.
Late term it begins to resemble a baby. Luckily most abortions are early/mid term.

Isn't a fetus a baby? And you know this how...?

What does how they look have to do with anything? I suppose since Downs Syndrome babies look different than regular babies that they are not real babies and thus you would have them killed or condone their killing? What about other deformities? How about a thalidamide baby (no arms or legs)? Would you kill them because they only slightly resemble a baby? I suppose you support partial-birth abortion where fully formed babies which can easily live outside the womb are killed before they are allowed to take their first breath? Be careful. Just because you have not actually had an abortion or performed an abortion, does not mean you are not just as much a baby killer as those who do. Support means culpability.

 

[Persol]

What does how they look have to do with anything?

So you believe we should give tumors an exqual chance to live? After all, what does how they look have to do with anything?

The word 'resemble' does not mean only that which you can see with your eyes... so stop thinking with blinders on.

I suppose you support partial-birth abortion where fully formed babies which can easily live outside the womb are killed before they are allowed to take their first breath?

No... but that is late-term and where I draw the line. Also, as I said before, that isn't when most abortions happen.

Just because you have not actually had an abortion or performed an abortion, does not mean you are not just as much a baby killer as those who do

Likewise, just because you have not shot or killed someone yourself, doesn't mean you are not just as much a murderer as the government you support. Support means culpability.

 

[David F.]

No, you just ignore the fact that christianity is man made.

I do not support Christianity! Yes, most of Christianity is man-made. I do, however, support the bible, which is not at all the same as supporting Christianity (there are some churches, bible churches, messianic Jewish synagogues, who are trying to return to the bible). I am not a modern Jew either - the Jews rejected, and continue to reject, their Messiah.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ - The Jewish Messiah

 

[Persol]

I do, however, support the bible

The Bible has been the cause of MANY deaths. Remember, support means culpability.

I find it sad that you believe a book which contradicts itself hundreds of times is the end all and be all of morality on earth.

 

[David F.]

So you believe we should give tumors an exqual chance to live? After all, what does how they look have to do with anything?

The word 'resemble' does not mean only that which you can see with your eyes... so stop thinking with blinders on.No... but that is late-term and where I draw the line. Also, as I said before, that isn't when most abortions happen.Likewise, just because you have not shot or killed someone yourself, doesn't mean you are not just as much a murderer as the government you support. Support means culpability.

I support Human life. I see nothing wrong with killing a cow. I also support the death penalty - murders should be hanged (or stoned). Tumors, you might argue, are human, but they are also killers.

Why do you support early or mid-term abortion but not late term abortion (I believe Roe actual says ONLY first trimester, not that anyone pays any attention). Why do you think you are qualified to decide when the "fetus" becomes a baby? Why is it only late-term.

Yes, if someone comes into my house and I have to kill them to protect my family, that is just what I will do. This is the result of behavior, not the result of existance. (The bible makes the same distinction.) If my government, whom I support, chooses to go to war to protect my country, then I am culpuble just as much as the government if it turns out to be a mistake. (going into Iraq is actually saving about two hundred lives a day - take away from that the soldiers and civilians who are killed in the war and you get a net saving of life).

What does Iraq have to do with the fact that you are, or support, a baby killer?

Mary went to visit Elisabeth when Elisabeth was five-six months pregnent with the baby who would become John the Baptist. At the sound of Mary's voice, John lept in the womb. Are you going to tell me John was not yet a baby?

 

[David F.]

The Bible has been the cause of MANY deaths. Remember, support means culpability.

I find it sad that you believe a book which contradicts itself hundreds of times is the end all and be all of morality on earth.

Everybody keeps saying the bible contradicts itself and I keep asking them to show me where? Have you just heard this and believe or do you actually know where this contradiction is?

 

[MagiAwen]

David F. said:

I do not support Christianity! Yes, most of Christianity is man-made. I do, however, support the bible, which is not at all the same as supporting Christianity

So ah....the bible isn't also man made? Wanted to throw one other thing in here..I am not sure which bible you read but in the one that I have on a shelf here doesn't say anything about Gaza...I mean Caanan being infected with std's...course I could be misinterpreting it. It does seem to allude to the Caananites being baby killers and that they were not wanted in the kingdom of god. (to bluntly sum it up)


Anyway now that you made this also an abortion thread I thought I'd throw this into the mix...

It may be fair to state that abortion has not, by any objective, verifiable standard, caused a decline in what can be called "respect for life". There is no correlation, for example, between the incidence of abortion in our society and say, murder, assault, child or spousal abuse or infanticide. Nor can abortion be shown to correlate with promiscuity or unethical business practices or environmental disregard.

The "prochoice" forces have tended to be those that are more inclined to favor environmental protection, oppose nuclear proliferation, oppose capital punishment and favor universal healthcare and assistance to the needy and homeless.

Thus, to the extent that the "prolifers" have ignored or actively opposed these life-enhancing social positions and innovations, it could be argued that the antiabortion position correlates with an "antilife" attitude in several contexts.

It is possible that abortion numbers will drop (if they haven't started to already) since there are new advances in contraceptives. The "morning after" pills that are abortifacient at the very earliest stages of embryonic development could further dim the current debate, no matter how much some still insist that abortion is "murder" at whatever stage it is carried out.

It may be worth noting as well that through the decades of legal abortion in the US the literature related to it has not become increasinly more callous and uncaring. If anything, there has been more concern voiced by prochoice people in the context of calling for more productive alternatives to abortion, e.g., more and better sex education, beginning in elementary schools, more and better contraceptives and wider availability, especially among teens, more social and financial support for single mothers -- all generally opposed by those on the other side.

 

[David F.]

David F. said:

So ah....the bible isn't also man made? Wanted to throw one other thing in here..I am not sure which bible you read but in the one that I have on a shelf here doesn't say anything about Gaza...I mean Caanan being infected with std's...course I could be misinterpreting it. It does seem to allude to the Cannan's being baby killers and that they were not wanted in the kingdom of god. (to bluntly sum it up)

I did not say the bible meantioned that Caanan was filled with STDs (actually, the Israelites never conquered/wiped out Gaza). I said we found this out through archeology.

Anyway now that you made this also an abortion thread I thought I'd throw this into the mix...

It may be fair to state that abortion has not, by any objective, verifiable standard, caused a decline in what can be called "respect for life". There is no correlation, for example, between the incidence of abortion in our society and say, murder, assault, child or spousal abuse or infanticide. Nor can abortion be shown to correlate with promiscuity or unethical business practices or environmental disregard.

The "prochoice" forces have tended to be those that are more inclined to favor environmental protection, oppose nuclear proliferation, oppose capital punishment and favor universal healthcare and assistance to the needy and homeless.

Thus, to the extent that the "prolifers" have ignored or actively opposed these life-enhancing social positions and innovations, it could be argued that the antiabortion position correlates with an "antilife" attitude in several contexts.

It is possible that abortion numbers will drop (if they haven't started to already) since there are new advances in contraceptives. The "morning after" pills that are abortifacient at the very earliest stages of embryonic development could further dim the current debate, no matter how much some still insist that abortion is "murder" at whatever stage it is carried out.

It may be worth noting as well that through the decades of legal abortion in the US the literature related to it has not become increasinly more callous and uncaring. If anything, there has been more concern voiced by prochoice people in the context of calling for more productive alternatives to abortion, e.g., more and better sex education, beginning in elementary schools, more and better contraceptives and wider availability, especially among teens, more social and financial support for single mothers -- all generally opposed by those on the other side.

So all this long dissertation is to say that babykilling has made us better people - so that makes it OK?

 

[Persol]

Everybody keeps saying the bible contradicts itself and I keep asking them to show me where? Have you just heard this and believe or do you actually know where this contradiction is?

I've read the thing. Have you?

Lets start at the beginning.... who was made first, man or animal?

 

[Persol]

Tumors, you might argue, are human, but they are also killers.

Not all of them. Some of them are peaceful lumps of flesh which will never grow into anything else. Likewise, some fetuses actually become tumors.

Why do you support early or mid-term abortion but not late term abortion

Early and mid-term etuses have a very undeveloped nervous system. They are effectively brain-dead... except that they've never been brain-alive. (over simplification, but this the religious form, not biology class)

Why do you think you are qualified to decide when the "fetus" becomes a baby?

I've given you one of my reasons above. A better question is why do YOU think that you are justified? Believe or not the majority of people do not believe the Bible is devine, and you have no evidence that it is. On the contrary there are plenty of contradictions in it that seem to point to a very confused God.

What does Iraq have to do with the fact that you are, or support, a baby killer?

If you believe Iraq is the end all and be all of bad things the US has done, then you are evidently guilable in fields other than religion as well.

At the sound of Mary's voice, John lept in the womb. Are you going to tell me John was not yet a baby?

I'm going to tell you that the Bible is only a book, and is not a valid reference for deciding what is right for people who believe your religion is bullshit.

 

[David F.]

I've read the thing. Have you?

Lets start at the beginning.... who was made first, man or animal?

Yes, several times.

The Hebrew culture does not have a compuction with telling a story in chronological order. Rather, they tend to tell one thread to its end and then tell the next thread, even though we expect things to come chonologically, the bible does not do so - unless it explicitly says "after this came..."

You are refering to the two creation accounts (you know the Jews of 3000 years ago didn't see any contradiction here, it is only now that someone thinks there is a contradiction). If you follow the Hebrew way and don't assume chronological order unless it is given, there is no contradiction. The only order specified here is "this was done on this day" so the answer is, the bible does not say. It only says that man and the animals were created/made on the sixth day.

If I tell you I went to the gas station and to the grocery store, and then told someone else I went to the grocery store and to the gas station, am I lieing to one of you? No, I'm not. I have told both of you the truth even though my statements were not identical. I did not indicate to either of you which place I went first.

A good example of this is the story of the end of Abraham's life - he gave everything to Isaac, he got married again, he had a few more sons, he died, Isaac and Ishmael buried him. Next it starts talking about the birth of Jacob and Esau - but when you look at the age of Isaac, you see that this was fifteen years before Abraham died! Abraham is already dead in the story so does this constitute a contradiction? No, this is simply another culture's way of telling a story - one thread at a time rather than chronologically.

 

[Persol]

If you follow the Hebrew way and don't assume chronological order unless it is given, there is no contradiction.

Nice try... but the two different account state that they happened on differnt days, so order IS given.

The first account:
plants on day three
man/women on sixth day

The second account:
man made out of the dust of the plantless earth

 

[MagiAwen]

There is one list of biblical contradictions here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

 

[David F.]

Nice try... but the two different account state that they happened on differnt days, so order IS given.

The first account:
plants on day three
man/women on sixth day

The second account:
man made out of the dust of the plantless earth

A verse please? Where does it say that man was made before the plants (a plantless earth)? Are you refering to Gen 2:7 which says man was made out of the dust of the earth (nothing is said about there being no plants). Are you trying to indicate that God made the whole world so covered with plants that there was no dust left? Are you saying God could not gather some dust from under the plants? Perhaps you are referring to the planting of the Garden of Eden? Are you saying that the "planting" is somehow related to the creation of plants three days earlier? You are really reaching...

 

[David F.]

There is one list of biblical contradictions here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Been there done that - got a good laugh.