 |
|
|
|
January 16th, 2014
11:29 AM ET
Supreme Court skeptical of abortion clinic buffer zonesBy Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer (CNN) - The Supreme Court waded cautiously back into the larger debate over abortion on Wednesday. A number of justices raised concerns about a Massachusetts state law preventing activists from crossing a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health clinics. During an intense hour of oral arguments, Massachusetts officials said the issue was more about public safety and pedestrian access on local sidewalks. Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated. What the high court decides in coming months could affect a broader range of free speech arenas - over issues such as war, taxes, corporate bailouts and elections - where the location of the message is often key. FULL STORY
« Previous entrySupreme Court to hear abortion clinic case
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture?
Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always tried to stay out in front of them.
Mr. Slave: How did you do that?
Chef: Well, like with our slang. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here." But then white people all started to say "in the house" so we switched it to "in the hizzouse." Hizzouse became hizzizzouse, and then white folk started saying that, and we had to change it to hizzie, then "in the hizzle" which we had to change to "hizzle fo shizzle," and now, because white people say "hizzle fo shizzle," we have to say "flippity floppity floop."
Mr. Garrison: We don't have time for all that, Chef! Oh, if only those Queer Eye For the Straight Guy people understood what they were doing. Wait. That's it! I know exactly what to do! Come on, Mr. Slave! Let's get back to our flippity floppity floop.
Chef: Oh no! Damn it! Don't call it that!
In Noah's time, there was an estimated human population of more than 16 million. 8 million were women. About 2% of women are pregnant at any time, so roughly 160,000 innocent, unborn children would have been killed in the biblical flood. Ouch.
Not to mention all the puppies and kittens!
@bostontola : so roughly 160,000 innocent, unborn children would have been killed in the biblical flood.
There are two ways to look at death, the secular view and the Biblical view.
In the secular view, death is the end of everything.
In the Biblical view, death is only the beginning of real life.
<><
Do the souls of aborted blastocysts go to heaven or do they go to hell?
The souls of all people get to choose – to follow or to go to hell.
heaven
It was chosen by God before the foundation of the world?
Live4Him
"The souls of all people get to choose – to follow or to go to hell."
I wonder if it's easier to "follow" when one doesn't have much of a brain (or none) or emotions from chemical/electrical connections?
Wow and I heard hell is frozen over – truth.
I hope this sets a precedent that will allow the middle-class and poor to harass all the greedy brokers and bankers on Wall Street up close and personal. What goes around comes around.
Christian Rock Hard
Randy: Stan, are you okay?
Stan: Yeah dad, we're just rehearsing our band.
Randy: Oh. I thought a group of Vietnamese people were getting their intestines pulled out through their mouths. [closes door]
"Abortions for all…" (people boo)
"Ok… Ok, Abortions for none!"(people boo)
"Fine… Abortions for some… Miniature American flags for others!" (people cheer)
.- Kodos the Alien, The Simpsons
[the boys unsuccessfully tried to bust men at a meth lab; the men kill themselves and a lot of damage has been done]
Lt. Dawson: One UPS vehicle valued at twenty-five thousand dollars, one civilian vehicle valued at sixteen thousand, the second floor of the post office and a coffee shop valued at sixteen thousand! The mayor's gonna have my ass!
Stan: Uh, sir, we just kinda got blind-sided by the–
Dawson: You got careless! Now, I don't know how they do things down at that dog-and-pony show they call the fourth grade, but here, we have rules! Jesus, we don't have guys to question now, because you killed them all!
Kyle: We're sorry.
Dawson: One more slip-up like that and I'll have your badges! You hear me?! Now hit the showers!
3rd Commandment violation.
Cartman: [singing] I wanna get down on my knees and start pleasing Jesus... I wanna feel his salvation all over my face
Interesting that you give so many Christian posters a pass on violating the 9th.
Isn't it, though?
When you are Christian, you can break alll the rules you want, because you are auto-forgiven. You see, Jesus is only really interested in having a fan club. You can rape and murder and all that, and if you tell Jesus he is really wonderful afterwards, you get the benes.
As that great Christian Captain Barbossa said, "The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
Wally,
Wrong.
Romans 6:1-2 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
1 Timothy 5:20 – Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
1 John 3:7-8 – Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
Well LoA you do have someone else that believe the red horn-y thingy is real – Scalia !
How?
Nobody has answered me this one yet.
The extremely Catholic Chilean government absoutely bans abortion in any and all circu/mstances.
Last year, an 11 year old was ra/ped and impregnated by her step-father.
Is it right that she is being forced to give birth?
It's not the baby's fault. There's no right to murder the child for that. If she doesn't want to be a mother, then there's always adoption.
The Bible is full of cases of God "murdering" fetuses. If it's okay for him, why not others?
God murdering fetuses? Where?
The flood. Puhleeze.
Observer,
Does it shock you, when you read passages like in Hosea 13:16 that “Samaria will be held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little ones will be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women will be ripped open…”
Now, are you as equally disturbed when you read passages about the grace of God? Like when you read passages that reveal that God forgives sinners? (John 3:16) Or when you read that God gives compas.sion to people who are guilty and deserve to be judged, like Nineveh in the book of Jonah?
Why are passages where God is shown punishing wicked nations more shocking?
Lawrence of Arabia,
The Bible is LOADED with commands from God to KILL women.
There isn't ONE CASE where God gives a rip if they are pregnant or not.
Do you think that God will punish women who have aborted their babies, Larry? If yes, then who are you to interfere with God's Justice?
The dolphins must have had a fun day though. It's not that often thousands of little beach ball sized objects suddenly floating in the oceans.
Observer,
Norman Geisler once put it this way, speaking of the Canaanites: “This was a thoroughly evil culture, so much so that the Bible says it nauseated God. They were into brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prost.itution, and even child sacrifice by fire. They were an aggressive culture that wanted to annihilate the Israelites.” By ordering their destruction, God enacted a form of corporate capital punishment on a people that were deserving of God’s judgment for some time.
If the child was conceived out of wedlock, God suggests burning the mother and foetus together (Genesis 38:24).
Numbers 3:15 says that newborns aren't considered to be people yet and Leviticus 27:6 assigns a specific, monetary value to them – 5 shekels for a male and 3 for a female.
Lawrence of Arabia,
"Why are passages where God is shown punishing wicked nations more shocking?"
Where is there ANY compassion? So EVERY SINGLE person in the nation supports EVERYTHING bad that is being done? There isn't ONE SOLDIER who was forced to be in the armies even if he disagree? Guess not. God proudly killed everyone.
In World War II supposedly EVERY person in Germany was rotten, but now we welcome some of those same people as tourists. Was EVERY SINGLE person bad? Get real.
Poetry,
Proverbs 6:16-19 – There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Doc,
Stop posting from some atheists website who have no understanding of the Bible.
Lawrence of Arabia,
How does he feel about people who tell the TRUTH about what the Bible says?
Observer,
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5
Lawrence: "Norman Geisler once put it this way..." You seem to have a tendency to treat the opinions of others as facts.
Lawrence of Arabia,
So EVERY ONE out of THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of people are the same and rotten? Get real. Please name one country where EVERYONE is good or EVERYONE is bad.
Still waiting for even ONE Christian to list the sins COMMITTED by ANY of the fetuses that God murdered in the flood.
Marco,
So... Your studies have shown that the Canaanites didn't do those things, and in fact were quite godly people?
Larry, how dies that answer what I asked you? Do you think you're God?
Observer,
Not everyone gets killed because they sin. If that were the case, then no one would ever live past childhood. God can and has chosen corporate capital punishment of wicked people to prove a point to the rest of the world – that God is serious about sin.
Poetry,
God hates those who shed innocent blood. And Genesis 9:6 tells us that the condemnation of murderers is the will of God. Later, the law would sanction the death penalty for those who intentionally kill a baby in the womb – Exodus 21:22-25. Furthermore, this particular law was never ammended under the New Covenant, therefore it is still valid by all proper hermaneutics.
And no, I'm not God, just one of His saints.
The idea of an all loving god ordering genocide should be shocking.
"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by who.redom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."
(genesis 38:24)
Seems pretty straightforward.
Judah is presented pretty favourably in the Bible, given that he is source of the Davidic line. All of his older brothers fall in one way or another, but he remains upright as a leader of God's chosen people.
"And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them."
– Numbers 3:14-15
God tells Moses NOT to count babies less than a month old.
"The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels ; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekelse; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekelsh and of a female at ten shekels."
– Leviticus 27
Infants have only a fraction of the worth of an adult to God.
Pete,
Then you have an incorrect understanding of what a loving God is. God loves righteousness, therefore He hates wickedness. And if God has a perfect love for righteousness, then He has a perfect hate for unrighteousness...
Psalm 7:11 – God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psalm 11:5 – The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Psalm 5:5 – The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.
I don't see justice in god ordering everyone killed in a town, but the virgins cause the men would need them around to r.ape.
marco: larry is really big on those appeals to authority. that is the whole point of quoting scripture, the claimed authoity that it speaks for god
Pete,
We in America are culturally biased to favor the idea of a compassionate God, and could never imagine a Biblical God who condemns sinners... Most people have a very shallow view of the love of God and don't see the flip side that requires anyone who loves to also hate. Sometimes it's hard to ascribe that quality to God, but it is Biblical. Furthermore, people do not feel that the punishment fits the crime because we are used to a failing system of justice where many who are guilty either walk free, or receive a very lenient sentence. Lastly, most folks don’t think that they deserve God’s wrath. They think that they are "good" people. But in fact, the Bible tells us that none of us are good – we are sinners from conception, and all deserving of the wrath of God. It is only through God's grace that some of us are allowed to live as long as we have.
Lawrence
"And if God has a perfect love for righteousness, then He has a perfect hate for unrighteousness..."
Doesn't Christianity teach that humans are unrighteous?
Sam,
Well, if this discussion was actually ON TOPIC for a change, if you appealed to the law of the land to make your case, wouldn't you be guilty of the same?
When one has no authority in themselves to speak on a topic, an appeal to authority is a logical course for argument.
If god were "serious about sin", he could wipe it out. But he doesn't. So, it follows that god is only serious about punishment. And, since free will and an omniscient god are incompatible, all god is serious about is being a vindictive, petty pr1ck
TJ,
The Bible tells us that we are all "dead in our tresspasses and sins" and that there is nothing lovely nor lovable about us. That's why grace is so important, because for no other reason than God choosing to, He has mercy on some.
Sam, quit trolling... If you've got an honest question, I'll do my best at answering it, but I'm not going to get drawn into your diatribe.
Lawrence
So, does your god love us, or have a perfect hate for us because of our unrighteousness?
@Live4Him,
"if God has a perfect love for righteousness, then He has a perfect hate for unrighteousness..."
I would suggest that this is necessarily so. Why can't a "perfect love" lead to apathy for the unrighteous? After all,, I suspect, we don't hate everyone whom we don't love.
"When one has no authority in themselves to speak on a topic, an appeal to authority is a logical course for argument."
And this depends entirely on how much the recipient of the message accepts the supposed authority.
You quote scripture all the time. This is a huge appeal to authority. Does that mean that you have no authority to speak on the subject?
If you have no authority to speak on the subject, why should we care what you have to say?
The best part about citing God as your authority is that He is never around to correct you.
Exodus:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judge determines.
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye fir eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Larry, this passage is clearly talking about the woman.
If the woman suffers a miscarriage, and additionally gets her eye plucked out, an eye will be taken out from the perpetrator, etc.
Fair enough, Larry.
I have a sincere question
If god knows what I am going to do before i do it, and god cannot be wrong, how can free will exist?
"So, does your god love us, or have a perfect hate for us because of our unrighteousness?"
---------
This goes into a couple of issues here, the Doctrine of Election, and the general and specific natures of God's love... It could take a bit of real estate on a blog like this, but let's just say that God chooses the elect to lavish specific love, and the rest are left to the unintended consequences of their sinful actions, but still receiving general love from God – they still receive some blessings, experience love, beauty in this world, etc... But ultimately, the non-elect are the recipients of the full wrath and indignation of God.
And lest we forget that the passage in Exodus directly preceding the bit about paying a fine for causing a miscarriage also says that it is perfectly OK to beat your slave to within an inch of their life because the slave is nothing but property.
So much for the sancti/ty of human life.
Lawrence
Thanks. Not sure I followed that, but it did lead me to wonder if you consider youself one of the elect?
"Does that mean that you have no authority to speak on the subject? If you have no authority to speak on the subject, why should we care what you have to say?"
--------
Dude, I don't have authority to do anything! If you knew what I did from 7:30 to 4:30 every day, you'd laugh. But you should listen to what I have to say because they aren't MY words... Just an analogy, but a town cryer may not be able to spell his own name, but that doesn't mean that you automatically discredit the newspaper he's holding...
@LAWRENCE: "23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
i love how nowhere does this passage, the whole thing speak against violence................it accually endorses more violence due to the original violence.
TJ: Do you really have to ask?
Sam,
The short answer is that we don't have free will... Well, not in the secular sense anyway.
By the term: ‘Free Will,’ we men that man’s will is not coerced. Man is not forced by some external force greater than himself to do something he does not want to do. Man is free to do what he wants to do within the limits of his ability… The Bible consistently teaches that 1) that man is free to do good or evil, that he is at liberty to do either, but 2) that he is able to do only evil because of his fallen condition.
If we do not have free will, what is the basis of judgement?
God knows what we are going to do before we do it
WASP,
Actually, it WAS a statement against violence. The Jews were in the habit of not exacting justice, but exacting REVENGE, so the Word of God instructed them to not go over what simple justice demanded.
Lawrence of Arabia wrote, "God murdering fetuses? Where?"
Your god claims both omnipotence and omniscience. As such, he is personally responsible for each and every spontaneous abortion that occurs – the vast majority happening in the first week or two, before the woman even knows she is preggers. This is estimated to be about 370,000 abortion each DAY.
"Man is not forced by some external force greater than himself to do something he does not want to do."
You don't consider god's omniscience to be something that limits man's choice?
I do not deny free will, I just claim it is inconsistent with an omniscient god
And, I do not hold to that fallen nature nonsense
Lawrence
"The Bible consistently teaches that 1) that man is free to do good or evil, that he is at liberty to do either, but 2) that he is able to do only evil because of his fallen condition."
I would change the word "consistently" to "contradictorily" (if that's even a word?).
Your version of Christianity seems to discount that people have different personalities as a result of various different circu.mstances, and that only people with a very specific personality need to bother considering religion at all, because those with all the other personalities are doomed anyway.
"If we do not have free will, what is the basis of judgement? God knows what we are going to do before we do it..."
-------
Oh, what's really going to cook your noodle is that if God is sovereign (and the Bible says that He is) then God doesn't just "know" the future, He WROTE the future. But here's what the Bible never tries to reconcile – The Bible teaches that God is sovereign, AND that man is responsible for his sins... I've heard a LOT of great preachers try to reconcile what the Bible never does, but the simple fact is that we may never understand how that works.
Sam stone,
Let’s play the shell game, except with just two shells. If I put a pea under both, I know you will win, the game is rigged. I should just give you the prize and forget about playing. This is how some describe life, if God is all knowing.
Let’s play again. I put the pea under one shell. I tell you which one to pick, because I know where the pea is and I want you to win. You still get to pick. I plead with you to pick the one with the pea under it, but you still have to decide whether to believe and trust me, or not.
One more time, same as above, except I have a time machine. I go into the future and see you pick. How does my independent knowledge prevent you from choosing?
Sam,
I agree with you, it's tough to grasp, and I assure you that I don't even grasp it... Here's what Paul said on the matter – just when you think that he's going to get us straightened out for good on the issue:
Romans 9:14-29 – You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Don't you just feel "told off" by Paul.... Ugh, I love and I hate that passage at the same time!
"1) that man is free to do good or evil, that he is at liberty to do either, but 2) that he is able to do only evil because of his fallen condition."
i am at liberty to play in the NBA, but I am not able to because I am old, average size with bad knees who cannot run, shoot, jump or dribble.
Yet, the free will for me to play in the NBA exists?
"I agree with you, it's tough to grasp"
It is only tough to grasp if you are dead set on denying logic
"I assure you that I don't even grasp it.""
That is not a stretch
"Here's what Paul said on the matter"
I don't care what Paul, John, George OR Ringo said about it. You are appealing to an authority and the appeal depends ENTIRELY on acceptance of that authority
"i am at liberty to play in the NBA, but I am not able to because I am old, average size with bad knees who cannot run, shoot, jump or dribble. Yet, the free will for me to play in the NBA exists?"
---------
I love it! You know that's actually a great analogy? Our wills are fallen due to inherited sin, but it is God who chooses whom to bestow grace unto. So It would be like a talent scout and surgeon that comes and picks you out of a croud, old and average that you are, and fixes you up and trains you to be Michael Jordan. I know it's a long shot, but if it COULD happen, that would be the analogy. And it wouldn't be because of anything YOU had done, after all, you were vegitating in the stands – it was all because of some guy who made you better...
As soon as the potter shows up with clay on his hands I will readily accept him as my maker, until then keep your musings about what the potter wants to yourself and out of my government and legal system.
"You are appealing to an authority and the appeal depends ENTIRELY on acceptance of that authority"
-----–
Meh... call it what you will, I just explaining the only way that I know how. Take it for what it's worth, I'm just the messenger.
RB what you describe is the illusion of free will. If god knows what is going to happen and can't be wrong then you don't have free will, it may seem like you are making a choice, but in reality the choice was made by god before you were born. The only way to have free will is if you can make a choice that would prove god wrong.
"One more time, same as above, except I have a time machine. I go into the future and see you pick. How does my independent knowledge prevent you from choosing?"
You don't have a time machine. And, if you did, your foreknowledge of my action would prevent me a free choice
If you want to play, answer this
If you apparently have two choices, A or B, and god KNOWS you are going to choose B, and god CANNOT BE WRONG, what is the chance that you are going to choose A and prove god wrong?
Dr. Erwin Lutzer puts it this way:
"The best way to look at that question is by distinguishing between man’s “natural ability” and “moral ability.” Man has the natural ability to make righteous decisions because he has a mind, moral consciousness, and a will. What he lacks is the moral ability because his disposition is bent towards evil. It would be unjust for God to expect an elephant to fly since the animal doesn’t have wings. But man has wings – that is, he has the equipment to make right decisions – he merely lacks the disposition to use that equipment rightly."
Inherited sin is a hoax, an Iron Age guilt trip
Johnny and sam,
You will definitely have to explain that to me. Why would I have to prove God wrong to have freewill?
Speak for yourself Lawrence. The fact that you can't act morally without belief in god doesn't mean that someone else can't.
Observer is correct. Larry you ducked the question yesterday. If god allows miscarriages of "babies" is he not also a murderer? Try and answer.
When I say freewill, of course I mean limited freewill. God can and does intervene when his ultimate plan for the entirety of creation is involved. We have plenty of examples in the authority you don’t want to hear about.
Good News,
I said this earlier, God can and has chosen corporate capital punishment of wicked people to prove a point to the rest of the world – that God is serious about sin.
Those who are children in the womb that die as a result, die not because of any sin that they themselves have committed, but everyone dies because they are sinners from conception. No one is "innocent" in that sense. "In sin did my mother conceive me..." David speaks about men being sinners from the womb. We are not sinners because we sin, rather, we sin because we are sinners.
Furthermore, the Bible hints at a special grace that is bestowed upon those who are unable to discern right from wrong – children and the infirm of mind – that becomes active should they die. So even though the unborn children are killed, they are taken to heaven.
Well, gotta get back to work...
If anyone wants some good reading on the topic of "free will" try these books:
The Freedom of the Will – Jonothan Edwards
The Bondage of the Will – Martin Luther
The Insti.tutes of the Christian Religion – John Calvin
Quit ducking the question, RB.
If god knows what I am going to do before I do it, and god cannot be wrong, how does freewill exist?
"So even though the unborn children are killed, they are taken to heaven."
Then why the protests?
Should the christians not being joyful that the little buggers are with jeebus now?
Whether she "wants" to or not, an 11 year old is not psycholigically capable of motherhood.
And given her physiological development, forcing her to carry to term puts both mother and child at significant risk.
That's why there should be an allowance for those rare instances where the life of the mother is in significant danger.
I had quoted this before, but it's a good summation:
"No action should be legally permissible if its intent is to take the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is ent.itled to the protection of the law under all circ.umstances and at every stage of pregnancy. In those rare instances in which the pregnancy poses an immediate and life threatening risk to the mother, she should be allowed to direct her physician to perform any medical procedure that is necessary to save her life, provided that in that effort, the physician must always do whatever is possible to save the lives of both the mother and the baby. If, as an unintended consequence of saving the mother’s life, her unborn child loses its life, that should be viewed as a profoundly, deeply sad, and regrettable, but lawful outcome."
Larry, bull. That statement supports you opinion, but if a fetus isn't viable outside of the mothers womb, it cannot be given the same rights as a birthed child. This stance is ridiculous.
Poetry,
You're wrong.
Just because the child in the womb is completely dependant upon his mother for life doesn't mean that he isn't human. My dad is completely dependant on his heart stints to keep him alive, so is he less human than someone who isn't dependant on anyone or anything? Ridiculous.
And what of a mother's right to self-determination?
There are no laws stopping a pregnant woman from adversly affecting foetal development by smoking, drinking or poor diet. Should all pregnant women be required by law to do everything possible to encourage optimal foetal development?
Doc,
Unfortunately, we cannot legislate morality. (although we can punish immorality, such as the murder of children) I believe that every mother should do whatever they can to ensure the proper health of their children – at all stages of life... That's kind of a "no-duh" statement.
Are suirrels lumberjacks?
Digging up an acorn is not the same as felling an oak tree.
Blastocysticide is not infaticide.
The long and short of LoA's argument is that you and I and every person on the planet have no rights when it comes to what Larry thinks his God wants, so it doesn't matter that the 11 year old is a victim of abuse and will carry the emotional scars for a lifetime, Larrys God also wants her to carry her r a p i n g fathers child to term and give birth because any time an egg and a sperm meet it must be God ordained, right Larry? And that leads us to where we are now, with people like Larry demanding we hand over our personal freedoms to his invisible deity and the rest of us saying "Fvck you and the God you rode in on Larry, we do not care about what you or your God says about our bodies, they are not yours, so you worry about your life, and i'll worry about mine."
Happy Atheist,
My job is not to make you believe it. My job is to preach it.
"My job is not to make you believe it. My job is to preach it."
I understand that you believe Larry and that is your choice. Let other people live their lives as they wish and leave them in peace, this is the only life any of us get, there is no third option of some ethereal afterlife which is as unproveable and illusive as your imaginary God. Enjoy every moment and appreciate it for what it is. Don't believe some invented invisible universe that you deem more important than the actual real universe we find ourselves in, this one is quite amazing enough, at least for me it is.
Happy Atheist,
The last time I checked, the freedom of speech applies to me just as much as it does to you. After all, that's what the article is all about. And until my rights are revoked, I will continue to preach the word of God in any venue that the law approves.
posted in the wrong place. sorry
Here is my issue LoA. I don't mind you or other anti-abortion activists voicing your opinion. I do mind when anti-abortion activists hinder my and my wifes access to family planning and argue a case all the way to the supreme court taking up hundreds of thousands of dollars to claim they have the right to the tiny 35 ft that was one States attempt to give their citizens so they can access the family planning centers they choose free from obstructionists. It is not like they are not visible enough to present their message from 35 ft away, they are plenty visible and have plenty freedom to preach their message from a reasonable distance to allow for the rights of women and parents who have a different opinion on when a fertilized egg is a human.
So I am not telling you to shut up, i'm just telling you to get out of the way. Your right to say what you want should not infringe on anothers right to live as they like.
WOW, you are an ASS!! How pathetic of you to wish that upon an innocent child who did nothing to deserve what happened to her! Good thing your bible and your god have no say in the real world!
Well, the child in her womb didn't do anything to deserve being murdered for. And I'm a swear word for wanting to protect life?
Oh my, I call them as I see them and yes you are an ASS!! She didn't ask to be raped; she didn't ask to get pregnant. You can't get pregnant-you have no idea as to the toll that takes on a person's body-it's not your business!! You need to crawl back under your rock....you are a pathetic human!
I've been called a lot worse in my life, and by people a lot meaner than you... Some of them even brandishing weapons. But, that's the nature of truth, it makes people angry.
Here's the facts. Because wrong was done to one child, you sanction murder being done to another. It makes no sense.
LoA: The mother can't be charged criminally, therefore regardless of what you think, it is not murder. I don't condone murder but I also do not see abortion as murder....it is only in your small crazed mind and the minds of people like you who see it that way. You are not a professional; you can't get pregnant....you have no say.
It doesn't matter what you say or think in the end, it is a legal procedure.
truthprevails: Just curious, at what point in a pregnancy do you think abortion should NOT be allowed?
Darius: Viability is somewhere around the 24 week point, up until then the fetus could not survive outside of the mother.
I've heard of Lewis Black, but where can I see more of this St. Lawrence of Arabia dude – on HBO? He's hilarious.
Saints are not special people who have been “canonized” by the Catholic Church, rather, “Saint” is just another word for one who believes in Christ; the ones faithful to God.
1 Corinthians 1:2 – To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours…
Wow, another appeal to authority. Who could have see THAT coming?
"You will definitely have to explain that to me. Why would I have to prove God wrong to have freewill?"
Answer my question. In the scenario I described, if god KNOWS I am going to choose B, and god cannot be wrong, what are the chances that I am going to choose A?
"So even though the unborn children are killed, they are taken to heaven."
Are you kidding? How can you make sense of such an unfair system? Don't get born and get a free pass to heaven, get born and risk eternal torment?
This may very well kill her...I'd like to see Live4Him answer this one.
My take? No. It isn't right. And it is sick to think that it is.
A woman in Ireland died because abortion was illegal even though her baby was already dead, or nearly dead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/savita-halappanavar-report-ireland-abortion_n_3434769.html
This was sick, as well.
Yes. Now they have.
Then you are as sick as the stepfather.
Tell that to the child when he/she is 16.
I never understand the position of people who are against abortion–except in the case of r.ape or incest. Presumably they are against abortion because they feel it is murder, but it seems they must think it's OK to murder children who are the result of r.ape or incest. Makes no sense to me.
Yeah, you're right, funny thing. Not even the pro-life folks want to protect them. So I guess if you murder an adult who was conceived from rap.e or incest you could just say "Hey, their dad was a rapist" and the response would be "Oh, OK then, on your way."
Are you sure that's not a Monty Python skit???
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html
Week 1-2: The egg gets implanted
Week 3: The baby's brain begins development
Week 5: The baby's heart begins beating
Week 6: The baby's brain wave activity begins
Week 7: The baby's brain is growing rapidly.
Week 8: The baby's head enlarges due to the brain size
Week 9: The baby's nervous sysem is functioning properly
Week 10: The baby's brain is forming 250,000 neurons per minute
Week 11: The baby's spinal cord is clearly defined
Week 12: The baby's taste buds and vocal cords are developed
Almost all abortions occur after week 7. Some occur much later (even into the thrird trimester.
<><
Week ? Brain activity allows self-awareness, and hence a self.
How does one determine self-awareness?
So basically you stopped at week two.
I see what you did there.
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise)
@ME II : But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin?
You seem to be arguing the case that we're not a person once we lose consciousness. And that is patently false.
<><
A Candid Conversation between Two Species
The Man: I am the predilect object of Creation, the centre of all that exists…
The Tapeworm: You are exalting yourself a little. If you consider yourself the lord of Creation, what can I be, who feed upon you and am ruler in your entrails?
The Man: You lack reason and an immortal soul.
The Tapeworm: And since it is an established fact that the concentration and complexity of the nervous system appear in the animal scale as an uninterrupted series of graduations, where are we cut off? How many neurons must be possessed in order to have a soul and a little rationality?
– Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Recollections of My Life
That is not what he said at all. Your statement is patently false.
@Live4Him,
I'm saying that prior to ~24 weeks a fetus is not even capable of consciousness and therefore self-awareness since the structures of the brain necessary are not yet formed.
Someone who is asleep, or otherwise unconscious, obviously has the capability to be conscious, but is not at that point. Additionally, a fetus has never been conscious, so no person, or personality, has formed, unlike a person is currently unconscious.
@ME II : I'm saying that prior to ~24 weeks a fetus is not even capable of consciousness and therefore self-awareness since the structures of the brain necessary are not yet formed.
So, according to your argument (and the scientific data below), abortions even after birth are permissible since baby's aren't necessarily capable of consciousness? Absurd! The level of consciousness is subjective. To measure it requires some method of feedback, which must be learned by the baby prior to giving that feedback. However, more basic measurements (i.e. pain) can be done much simpler – without a complicated feedback mechanism. If the individual shies away from the pain, it is aware of the pain. And babies do that in the womb.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
How do we know that a newly born and healthy infant is conscious? There is no question that the baby is awake. Its eyes are wide open, it wriggles and grimaces, and, most important, it cries. But all that is not the same as being conscious, of experiencing pain, seeing red or smelling Mom’s milk.
It is well recognized that infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations.
@ME II : Someone who is asleep, or otherwise unconscious, obviously has the capability to be conscious, but is not at that point.
This IS the point. You're using a subjective measurement to justify you posit. You need an objective measurement – one that is NOT tied to that which you're trying to prove.
@ME II : Additionally, a fetus has never been conscious, so no person, or personality, has formed, unlike a person is currently unconscious.
Circular logic : consciousness is required to be a person, fetuses have never been conscious, therefore fetuses are never people. If an unconscious person is still a person, then a 'never conscious person' can still be a person. You need an objective measurement that leaves out the development cycle prior to applying it to the development cycle.
Heartbeat: check, check (in a fetus and child)
brain waves : check, check
Unique DNA : check, check
All criteria recognized by the court to identify an individual and if that individual is alive. Why should the unborn be treated differently?
<><
@Live4Him,
"So, according to your argument (and the scientific data below), abortions even after birth are permissible since baby's aren't necessarily capable of consciousness? Absurd!"
It IS absurd... that you would claim that I said that.
Pain response does not have to be indicative of any level of consciousness, just stimulus / response.
"This IS the point."
I did't say that it wasn't. To be fair I also misread it, in your response. For clarification it should read "... has the capability to be conscious, but is not [conscious] at that point [in time]."
"Circular logic..."
Incorrect. I was positing that a partial, although perhaps not complete, criteria for person-hood is the current or prior capability to be conscious. If a fetus is demonstrably incapable of consciousness, due to the objective lack of physical brain structures, as the article suggests, then it could be argued that this is an negative-only indicator, i.e. not conscious.
In other words, if there is not, nor ever been, the capability of consciousness then we can be certain that the fetus has never been conscious. That being said, however, after those structures exist, such a statement is no longer certain and cannot be used, which is the case after birth and in various states of consciousness.
To clarify, I'm not saying that one must demonstrate consciousness, positive-indicator, to claim person-hood, but simply that evidence of non-consciousness and never-have-been-consciousness, as in the lack of brain structures to support it, may be sufficient to deny person-hood, negative-indicator.
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life.
In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking.
If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed...
And why would I think that you don't?
Because you don't want any tax money to go there.
That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.
We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of what pro-life is."
– Sister Joan Chittister
Sister Joan is awesome, and neatly sums up the problem with wanting to regulate forced births.
" It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
– Mother Teresa
"Terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus."
– Mother Theresa
"Charles Keating is a good guy, and I'm not giving the money back to the people he robbed." Mother Theresa
"You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" – Mother Teresa
@ Doc: very true... and yet who would propose that the best solution for not feeding the children is simply to kill them? Jonathan Swift, maybe?
Children are not killed. Nothing that is aware that it is alive is killed.
@ TTTOO: that is begging the question.
You should correct your fallacy of relevance, Russ. Abortion is preventing a child, not killing one.
@ TTTOO: again, that is begging the question – since the entire argument of the pro-life advocates is precisely THAT it is killing an (already!) unborn child. your comment assumes the opposite, but that is the central point of the debate. again, that's the definition of begging the question. you don't have to agree with your opponents to understand why that's a fallacy.
Swift had a modest and very soylent proposition.
lol, nice
"Suffering, pain, humiliation—this is the kiss of Jesus."
-Mother Teresa
She was a bit sick
To every believer on this blog:
Let's start acting like atheists do and slap the "I can't prove a negative" onto anything we believe. Eventually they will leave as they will see how stupid and childish they are for using that excuse but except us to prove what we believe to them and they don't have to prove what they believe. We can do this! Stand strong! 😊
"Let's start acting like atheists do and slap the 'I can't prove a negative' onto anything we believe."
Your argument is ridiculous because you are not making a negative claim.
" Eventually they will leave ..."
Why are you so afraid of defending your position ?
Fear? No. Imitating atheists? Yes. It will show you how childish you are if you use the excuse of "I can't prove a negative" onto things you are too lazy to prove.
You honestly think that you are intimidating atheists by trolling nonsense? My 3 year old wouldn't be intimidated by you...
Your obsession is nonsense.
Your obsession to deny what you don't want to see is stupid is nonsense.
Your obsession has led you to repeatedly change names, thinking that each one is more clever than the last. You've been wrong each time. And you have yet to make a valid point. Do try harder.
Nope. Giving atheists a taste of their own medicine is why I'm here. It's to show how stupid and childish you really are and how lazy you are to prove your position but think other people have to. That's called denial and pure ignorance. You're wrong every time. Give it up mate😊
" Giving atheists a taste of their own medicine is why I'm here "
When are you going to start ?
I'm sorry. I can't provide evidence for a negative.
" I'm sorry. "
First honest response today. Thank you.
Oh my god, they killed Kenny! Those bastards!
I'd like to see some believers defend strong positions with evidence and rational arguments, but people willing to do so are rather thin on the ground.
But the bible said so. We all know it has to be right because the bible said it is always right.
It is true that Apple Bush has been boring lately, perhaps he has always been boring. But there is a very good reason for that. Apple Bush was NOT aborted and that is the entire point of the conversation.
Actually, the entire purpose of this story is the free speech issue outlined in the story, not abortion itself.
You've seen Apple Bush/Ungodly Discipline/Alien Orifice on here lately? Really? Some folks have been asking about him recently... haven't seen him in weeks.
What's the matter with you anyway?
Tea party patriots are racing to bookstores everywhere to pick up a copy of Sarah Palin's new book, "Cooking With Headlice. 101 OF MY Favorite Recipes".
MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!
if anyone can't understand that abortion terminates a FETUS and not a BABY, then there are lovely books with pictures that can show you what YOU looked like at any point during your development inside the human female that bore you.
an early term abortion is no different than when the females body aborts the fetus itself; what are you freaks going to do? chain a female to a wall to ensure her body doesn't abort the thing? XD good luck with that one.
not to mention the fact if you aren't having an abortion, then why the frack should you even give two sh_ts what another human female does with her body?
if she has an abortion SHE, not you has to live with that choice the rest of her life; the same as if she gives birth but can barely afford to provide for the child and it ends up struggling and doing without, both choices and consequences are her's alone.
what should be illegal is having religious freaks outside these places making these women feel even worse than they already do.....................if not trying to lob rocks and weapons at the clinics that provide these services.
murder is illegal; yet you religious freaks don't say a thing when one of your clan kills people in cold blood just for working in these clinics.
this is why religious people are disgusting to me, you all thump your buybulls yet do nothing to help these women;
do you give them jobs?...............NO
do you offer to help them babysit?...........NO
do you offer to take her in and make certain she will be safe?.................NO
do you throw obscine words and your fairytale bs at them?,.....................OH HELL YES YOU DO.
get off your high horses and help these women if you want these clinics to close, otherwise STFU.
Hear hear!
Damn straight. Kill them and get on with the good life. Nothing to feel bad about, this is about you.
I have yet to see one of these people offer to take a pregnant woman home, support them during gestation, pay all their bills for the birth, and adopt the baby. There may be one, idk, but I have yet to see it.
They are not pro life; they are pro forced birth. For the most part, they seem genuinely uninterested in the child's life afterward, evidenced by their continuation to vote for legislators who would git every program aimed at helping these children.
A Respect-for-Lifer and an atheist supports all human life from conception to death. One way you can all help is by sending your donations to the Mothers Home, http://www.mothershome.org/
Did you take one of these women home and adopt the child?
If you don't like abortion...don't have one
We had three children using natural family planning. My brother and his wife could not have children. They adopted four special needs children. My son adopted a boy from Guatemala. Many of my friends have also adopted children.
And once again, starting at the beginning to eradicate the horrors of abortions and STDs: Go to page one and read again, "The Brutal Effects of Stupidity".
Regarding our growing womb babies:
Hmmm, so a growing womb baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for human life!!!!!
And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rationale for killing the unborn or those suffering from de-mentia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???
We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succ-umb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!
–
@#2: these "womb babies" as you like to call them, can they survive outside the mother's body?
NO OFCOURSE A FETUS CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THE FRACKING MOTHER!
how about the next time your wife "mis-carries" your offspring, you blow her up. her body just had an abortion ordained by your fracking weak god.
it's not a baby until it is born; i should know my son was born at 5 months, YOUR god tried to murder MY SON! guess what he failed!
science saved my son's life and now he is running around like any normal child, so STFU and stop messing with people. serious just allow one day of open season on religio-nutts that's all i need.
My god?
Obviously, you missed my favorite Creed:
The Apostles'/ Atheists' Creed 2014: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
Just do it, have fun. Kill it. Do it again and have more fun.
Pretending that this is somehow not a gut wrenching decision (for most women) and is instead somehow "fun", only serves to marginalize your opposition.
Do not feed the trolls.
Wait are you fasting or something?
Women have sex. Then they kill the baby growing inside them. Then they have more sex. It's ok.
On that we can agree.
Lately? Apple was born boring.
Harsh man.
So you're OK with school shootings too?
No, I am in favor only of killing unborn babies. And only if you want to.
It is obvious that inte-rcourse and other se-xual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of S-TDs per year in the USA alone.
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (S-TDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with S-TDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the s-ex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills). And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of se-xual activity and that oral s-ex, birth control pills, co-ndoms (in the pocket) and chast-ity belts are no protection against S-TDs. Might a list of those having a S-TD posted on the Internet help?-Said names would remain until the S-TD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of s-exual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a ST-D having s-exual relations while infected???
Oh look! It's the pussy police back to bore us again!
Thinking of a new handle suddenly too difficult?
Many of you have missed the point of this article or did not read it at all! We should kill babies to maintain our uniquely American lifestyle. On this point there can be no argument. What does the age of the Earth have to do with it?
The article is about free speech and really has nothing to do with killing babies, or for that matter abortions either.
Joey, you smack of an un-American agenda. Of course it is about abortion and everyone is doing it. This is important.
@shut the fuck up apple (I added the fuck)
I was an exciting baby. You don't know. Then, well things started to happen.
@ME II : That's ridiculous, Dendrochonology goes back further than 6000 years.
Continuous dendrochonology only goes back ~5200 years ago. To go beyond the continuous requires a leap of faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMZhjAvs4k
Isn't that living trees?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_dendrochronology_timestamp_events
Correct
Not to mention the are other forms of dating the earth ....
Ever look at how uncalibrated these methods are?
The methods are still much more accurate than the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the dinosaur bones were out here as a test for Christians.
If this brings you comfort, fine.
Some of the methods used to determine the age of the planet include:
Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic, Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.
Evidence for the Genesis Creation account comes from The Bible and... nothing else, I'm afraid.
Religious nuts don't like having to read more than one book to get all their answers, it's too difficult for them.
@Live4Him,
"The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC). "
(https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/4172)
@ME II : The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology
What is meant by 'absolutely dated'? Oh, it means taking a living tree ring sample and juxtaposing with one on the ground and, taking a fantastic leap of faith, assume that they overlap somehow and thus extend the age back beyond the living tree.
<><
Go outside tonight and look up. See all those stars? On a clear night away from city lights you can see for at least 2 million light-years(Andromeda galaxy) with the naked eye. Go ahead, question the constant known as the speed of light. Prove Einstein wrong, win a Nobel prize. You're seeing 2 million years into the past, unless you're going to deny the very science that allows you to have electricity, the internet, your cell phone, refrigerator, air conditioning, car, etc. Young Creationism is just Old Ignorance with a different spin.
"There are people who believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, that they roamed the Earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to, in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone-cold-fvck nuts. I can't be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary."
One man's opinion... And not a very nice man either...
Niceness is not a requirement to be correct.
That's all any of us do, Larry, is speak our opinions. Some just to dress up theirs as the Word Of God (TM)
LoA, LB is a comedian. Take him seriously at your own risk ...
He is really hilarious, though.
LOA
If you came hear for nice people my friend, you will be sorely disappointed.
True for both sides, most likely.
And how is this related to the topic?
Guilty as charged. The spirit of Live4Him temporarily possessed me to respond to "The earth is 6,000 years old. No proof needed." this way; lol.
Dead babies = freedom
Make a baby, kill a baby.
Many of you have missed the point of this article or did not read it at all. We should kill babies to maintain our uniquely American lifestyle. On this point there can be no argument.
Actually, the point of the article is free speech.
Yep.
lol; a bit early in the day for e.a. POE, isn't it?
with a blue link ?
Good point, Science. But sometimes the link goes nowhere. If it's serious, then it's still Sorry!
Yeah and all of a sudden the blue atheists guy has flow the coop ?
What nonsense are you talking about?
If you are that young prune juice might help to get it flowing ?
He was talking about Edgar Allen Poe... Although I don't get the parallel.
lol – clueless Larry.
Then maybe you could enlighten me... I tend to not read the works of chronically depressed people, so I'm not familiar with much of his works...
just drop the "e.a." and read it again, Larry.
search for Poe's Law
I still don't see what it is that you're trying to say. Why don't you just write it out? Don't as.sume that everyone knows your acronym.
Larry,
Look up Poe's Law.
Nathan Poe... INTERNET adage... Well, now I KNOW why I didn't get it. I'm not a dork.
@Lawrence of Arabia
"Nathan Poe... INTERNET adage... Well, now I KNOW why I didn't get it. I'm not a dork."
tsk, tsk, can't make a comment without backhanded insults?
No... I just don't get the mentality that places internet and computer culture on a pedestal. When I get home from work, the last thing that I want to so is get on a computer... UNFORTUNATELY, I'm surrounded by them here in the office though.
We had another term for that colloquialism when I was growing up, non sequitur.
Fear not Lawrence anyone obsessed as you are with the bible is indeed a dork.
Joey,
True... But there are many species within dorkdom. My particular branch includes those who enjoy listening to and teaching lengthy lectures on topics such as infralapsarianism vs supralapsarianism... (If you didn't have to look up either of those two words, you just might be a dork too!)
Don't underestimate yourself, Larry. You are truly a dork, just a biblical one rather than a technology one
I am not even going to bother looking them up.
lol... good one!
(it was a joke, right?)
It's no joke.
That's ridiculous, Dendrochonology goes back further than 6000 years. Not to mention the mountains (literally and figuratively) of evidence for ~4 billion years.
That's nonsense and lies.
Explain why it's lies.
The Biblical response to dendrochronological dating is that things were originally created mature. This actually answers geological formations as well in that everything was created mature, therefore it is impossible to nail down the age of the universe or things in it based on observation alone.
Sorry. I can't prove a negative.
In other words, you're just throwing out baseless assertions, 6000. Gotcha.
The declarative statement "The earth is 6,000 years old" is a positive assertion requiring proof.
Wrong. It's a negative claim thus I don't need proof since I can't prove a negative.
OK, thank you for confirming that you are merely trolling for reaction. Next.
Trolling? Wrong.
Not trolling? If you are claiming the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then present your evidence of that claim, or move along.
Why must I? This is the internet. I can claim anything I want. It's you atheists who think you can control what happens here. Next.
@ME II : Not trolling?
S/he's trolling. It's best to ignore these people.
<><
"Why must I?"
Then we are free to dismiss your claim as unfounded speculation. Thanks.
@Live4Him,
You're right. A little embarrassed that I got hooked.
Not trolling. Showing how stupid atheists are with the "I can't prove a negative" nonsense.
It's that asshole who started of posting as 'L' and moved on to another 2000 names bashing atheists. Ignore.
Then iIt appears you don't know the difference between a positive and a negative.
It's fun acting like atheists. Just slap the "I can't prove a negative" onto anything I believe so I don't have to do anything! I should do this more often!😉
"It's fun acting like atheists. Just slap the "I can't prove a negative" onto anything I believe so I don't have to do anything! I should do this more often!"
Your argument is idiotic, because you didn't start with a negative claim.
Is that from Ussher's Chronology?
No proof needed? Lmao