How To Stump A Pro-abortionist With One Question

For the last two days WordPress has listed this post as it Hawt Post on its home page.  For any true pro-life person the question posed is no trouble to answer.

In a spirit of fun and fairness, I want to share with you the one question you can use to stump a pro-child sacrifice pro-murder pro-abortionist every time.  The question is:

When does life begin?

That is it.  When you ask them this they will begin the verbal dancing as they try to avoid answering the question.  Any answer they give, other than at conception,  will be arbitrary and will leave them open to follow up questions which they don’t want to answer.  The most notable recent example is when Obama tried to answer the question at Rick Warren’s candidate forum held during the presidential election last fall.

If you have asked this question to those who support murdering unborn babies, share their responses in the comment section.  If not, don’t forget the question so that you can ask it the next time you get a chance.

———————UPDATED ADDED1/23/09—————————

It seems that many in the comments have been trying to make the point that life begins at birth.  We are told that “everyone” believes that way and that it is just “common sense“.  You should know that not everyone believes this.  In fact, our own laws concerning murder show this.  In our country today, if a pregnant woman is murdered the person committing the murder is charged with two murders, not one.  If the unborn baby were simply a “clump of cells” then there would be no basis for this.  So it seems that even our government, through our law-makers, recognize that life begins before birth.  To my knowledge no stage of pregnancy is mention in these laws so it would seem that our law-makers believe that life begins at conception.  Sadly, this laws seems to exempt mothers and abortion doctors.  We need to correct that.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

137 Responses to How To Stump A Pro-abortionist With One Question

  1. notreallyalice says:

    At birth.

    Any other questions?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Two answers of “at birth”. Here are a couple followup questions.

      How do you come to that conclusion? What is the basis of believing that live begins at birth? Why is the unborn baby not alive while it is developing in the womb? What is that thing that appears on the ultrasound?

      Like

  2. Mr Bold says:

    At birth.

    Like

  3. Mr Bold says:

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    Short answer: I used my common sense.

    What is the basis of believing that live begins at birth?

    Because we don’t consider someone to be alive until they’re born. And honestly I think it would be pretty dumb to start a serious autobiography off with “I raced through the vaginal canal where I saw a beautiful egg…”

    Why is the unborn baby not alive while it is developing in the womb?

    It’s a fetus and a part of the woman.

    What is that thing that appears on the ultrasound?

    A fetus that’s a part of the woman. I view it in the same way we can take shots of a heart or bladder and say that’s not alive even though they seem to be moving on their own.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Mr. Bold,

      You said

      “Because we don’t consider someone to be alive until they’re born.”

      I appreciate you sharing your opinion but I am not interested in your opinion. I am looking for the foundation upon which you come to this opinion. So once again I ask for your basis of coming to this arbitrary time.

      You said

      “How do you come to that conclusion?

      Short answer: I used my common sense.

      What if my common sense brings be to a different conclusion than yours? Whose is right?

      You said:

      What is that thing that appears on the ultrasound?

      A fetus that’s a part of the woman. I view it in the same way we can take shots of a heart or bladder and say that’s not alive even though they seem to be moving on their own.

      The heart or bladder are a part of the woman’s body. They function together with the other organs to keep the woman alive. What function does the fetus serve in keeping the woman alive? Another flaw in your analogy is that the fetus will eventually leave the woman’s body and she will still be alive. If the heart, for example, is removed from the body the woman will cease to live. Therefore, your analogy fails.

      Now, we come back to the original question. What basis do you have for the conclusion that life begins birth?

      Like

    • Ann says:

      your still apart of your mother at birth because you are still attached in a way. what makes an underdeveloped child being a “fetus” not be considered an actual person?

      Like

  4. Mr Bold says:

    Here’s a question Mr. Shelton,

    When you say you’ve known someone their whole life, do you expect everyone around you to believe that includes from the day that you were conceived?

    Or do you take the commonly held view that we mean from birth to death?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Mr. Bold,

      Sorry but your question is non-sensical. The saying that we have known someone for their whole life has nothing to do with when life truly begins. It is simply a way we use our language. Again, I return to the main question: On what basis do you come to the conclusion that life begins at birth?

      Like

  5. Mr Bold says:

    Correction: “…do you expect everyone around you to believe that includes from the day that [person] was conceived?

    Like

  6. “for any true pro-life person”

    I found that amusing. It’s sort of like the “true Christian” tactic. So if they can’t answer this question, they’re not TRULY pro-life? I find that reasoning funny.

    Anyway, thanks for the link! BTW, I don’t like abortion and counsel against it. But I think it should be legal.

    Like

  7. Mr Bold says:

    Man I hope I didn’t stump the pro-Lifer.

    Like

  8. notreallyalice says:

    How do you come to that conclusion? That is the date on my birth certificate, and everyone else’s.

    What is the basis of believing that live begins at birth? I don’t understand. What are the other options? At conception, when the heart beats, when it’s viable, when it has fingernails? Conception is just as arbitrary as the other ideas. A screaming baby popping out of a woman is hard to argue with, however.

    Why is the unborn baby not alive while it is developing in the womb?

    Everything is alive, including the sperm and egg. I don’t call them “alive” any more than I’d call a foetus alive.

    What is that thing that appears on the ultrasound?

    A foetus.

    I wonder. What makes you say that life begins at conception?

    Also, what is the answer to the question, “What should become of a woman who has an illegal abortion?”

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      notreallyalice,

      Also, what is the answer to the question, “What should become of a woman who has an illegal abortion?”

      She should be prosecuted for murder.

      Like

  9. Mr Bold says:

    You say: “If the heart, for example, is removed from the body the woman will cease to live. Therefore, your analogy fails.”

    Nope. It could be transplanted to someone else and lives. Analogy succeeds.

    Like

  10. Mr Bold says:

    Can you answer my question Mr. Shelton?

    When you say to someone “I’ve known him/her their whole life, do you mean from birth til death? Or do you mean since conception?

    Like

  11. Dave Williams says:

    At birth.

    I want to make a bumper sticker- “It’s a clump of cells, not a baby”

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Dave,

      I see that you have a child with you in the picture that you use as an avatar. I have 3 daughters myself and the youngest is 19 months old. I remember well seeing them on the ultrasounds. I could see their face, arms, legs, hands, feet, etc. Have you seen an ultrasound before? Would you still consider what I was seeing “a clump of cells”?

      Like

  12. Mr Bold says:

    Shelton asks: On what basis do you come to the conclusion that life begins at birth?

    Well you’re question is nonsensical Mr. Shelton. Everyone knows you have to be born in order to be alive. I mean it really is just common sense.

    If life began prior to birth, we’d be issuing death certificates for miscarriages.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Well you’re question is nonsensical Mr. Shelton. Everyone knows you have to be born in order to be alive. I mean it really is just common sense.

      You are avoiding the question. Like I asked before, what is the basis for your opinion?

      Like

  13. George Jefferson says:

    It like begins at ‘conception’ then the whole birthday celebrating thing is all messed up.

    Like

    • Adam says:

      Ok. George I apologize but, your statement is completely ridiculous. A birthday is not an annual celebration of the day you became alive. It is an annual celebration of the day of your birth. Hence the term “birth”day. “The birthday celebrating thing” is not all messed up by the idea that life begins at conception.

      Like

  14. Dave Williams says:

    Seen thousands of CT’s, MRI’s, ultrasounds.

    I stand by my answer.

    Like

  15. AlanO says:

    Hey Dave, actually fully mature adults are, “groups” of cells. As a matter of fact all “living” things are groups of cooperative cells. Seems to me you provided good info against your argument.

    Like

  16. l3rucewayne says:

    I haven’t read all of the comments, just some, but here are my two cents:

    I think to say that a yet-to-be-born baby is not living is a bit silly as it is living using most any comprehensive or scientific definition of life you can think of. I think the issue is whether or not it is a human being. If it is, then killing it sounds like homicide to me. And so I guess people would claim that a baby is only a human being once it is born. To quote someone as a response to that: “I find it incredible to think that, say a baby at 8 months gestation, which if born premature would survive, is not a human being just because its geographicaly located inside the uturus instead of outside of it.” Also, the amount of DNA in a baby again say at 8 months gestation is quite astonishing when you think about it, and all of that DNA says that the baby is human. Worth considering it seems to me.

    Like

    • LikeABoss says:

      if its breathing, getting nutrition, and attached its not alive by a women, it can’t be alive. if that woman were not alive neither would the embryo. A living thing doesn’t really depend on someone else to make him or her breathe.

      Like

      • Tom Shelton says:

        Would you also say that someone who has to be hooked up to a life support system for some reason is also not alive? For example, someone in a coma or just having certain types of surgery.

        Like

  17. Mike says:

    Ok, for those who say life doesn’t begin till birth let me ask you a question. A little scenario here. You have a wife that’s pregnant or you are a pregnant female. You two have been trying to get pregnant and you are 8 months along. Driving home from a doctors visit you are in a horrible accident and the wife is kill but the baby is ok insider her womb. Do you let the doctors give her a c-section and save the baby who is ALIVE in her womb or do you tell them don’t do anything because (according to you) life doesn’t begin till birth so its just a lump of flesh? Remember this is a baby you two really want.

    Oh and Dave, cute clump of cells you have there. We are all clumps of cells.

    Like

    • LikeABoss says:

      uhh, really?! well technically a baby can be born at 8 months, so that doesn’t really count. its called a premature baby.

      Like

  18. thesoulofthecreator says:

    def. at birth, although I hope most are not pro-abortionists, they just believe the mother should make the decision. It is a tough one and I am strongly pro-life but that is with everthing from war, torture, health policy, poverty, capital punishment, the eniviroment, and of course abortion.

    Like

  19. thesoulofthecreator says:

    sorry conception, I didn’t mean to say birth, those crazies who say it isn’t a living being in the womb, got me all confused 🙂

    Like

  20. The Pilgrim says:

    I too have seen this post promoted by WordPress over the last couple days. I’ve been kind of disturbed by how much they keep shoving it in my face every time I log in to WordPress.

    I posted on this same video back in July and gave my answer then and I also gave my answer on the particular post in question, however, it is lost in a sea of comments.

    You can check out my original post on this “What is so hard about this question?” here:
    http://defendingcontending.com/2008/07/17/what-is-so-hard-about-this-question/

    – The Pilgrim

    P.S. Don’t expect your “when does life begin” question to be featured on Hawt Post.

    Like

  21. Tom Shelton says:

    I updated my original post to include the following. I would love to hear your responses to it.

    It seems that many in the comments have been trying to make the point that life begins at birth. We are told that “everyone” believes that way and that it is just “common sense”. You should know that not everyone believes this. In fact, our own laws concerning murder show this. In our country today, if a pregnant woman is murdered the person committing the murder is charged with two murders, not one. If the unborn baby were simply a “clump of cells” then there would be no basis for this. So it seems that even our government, through our law-makers, recognize that life begins before birth. To my knowledge no stage of pregnancy is mention in these laws so it would seem that our law-makers believe that life begins at conception. Sadly, this laws seems to exempt mothers and abortion doctors. We need to correct that.

    Like

  22. Dave Williams says:

    Tom, unless you have grown a uterus I don’t think you have any business telling a woman what she can do with hers.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Dave,

      You are right! But the problem is that we are not talking about what a woman does with her body. We are talking about what she does to another living person. The fact that this person has not yet been born does not remove its rights. Also, the fact that we have laws recognizing that murdering is pregnant woman results in two deaths, not one, illustrates this point.

      God will judge us for the way we treat our children, born and pre-born.

      Like

    • Adam says:

      Dave, no one is telling anyone what to do with their uterus. It is the baby inside and the responsibility that comes along with that that is in question.

      Like

  23. Brett says:

    Mr Bold, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm Said:
    You say: “If the heart, for example, is removed from the body the woman will cease to live. Therefore, your analogy fails.”
    Nope. It could be transplanted to someone else and lives. Analogy succeeds

    Nope. Analagy does not succeed. Take the heart out of a person, freeze it, put it back into another living person, it lives. Don’t freeze it…it dies. Don’t put it into another human, it dies. Take a baby in the third trimester out of the body, you don’t have to freeze it and put it into another human, just let it out and it lives.

    Let’s say Dave’s wife gets pregnant with a clump of cells. If his wife wants it (he can’t tell her what to do, it’s her body), it’s a potential baby and they nurture it and hope someday it will become a real person by making a short trip. If she doesn’t want it, it’s basically a tumor, an unwanted clump of cells that are growing in the body.

    So the cute child in Dave’s avatar was chosen to be a potential baby, but could just as easily have been considered an undesirable cancer and mutilated and sucked out with a suction. Sure glad they chose life, make that “she” chose to view a part of her body as potential life rather than a cancer.

    As a Christian, I believe that God declares every unborn child to be a real person, because He is the one who chose for that life to be made. It seems to me that those who want to decide whether a “clump of cells” is a “potential” person or an unwanted tumor is really saying, in effect, “I am god.”

    Scary.

    Here’s a dated but still interesting film produced by a former abortionist:

    And here is a face of abortion:

    BTW, it has been my experience that the people who are the most steadfastly adament that a preborn baby is not a real person have bloody hands. They either had an abortion, paid for an abortion, encouraged an abortion, or have someone close to them who did. Their abortion position is not as much “common sense” as it is personal.

    Speaking of personal, one final and important note: if the current laws about abortion had always been in place in this country, this post would never have been made…because I would not be alive.

    Like

  24. Mr Bold says:

    Brett: “Take a baby in the third trimester out of the body, you don’t have to freeze it and put it into another human, just let it out and it lives. ”

    Not if it’s in the beginning of the third trimester. Then you have to put it in an incubator and use medical devices to keep it alive.

    And it’s nice you think God tells you to adopt the position you take. I wonder which god you’re talking about Brett? I mean in the Old Testement causing an abortion is equivalent to a severe injury. So it’s certainly not murder according to any Judeo-Christian god.

    Brett if you think this: “Their abortion position is not as much “common sense” as it is personal.”

    Can you tell me what do you mean when you say “I’ve known someone their whole life.” Do you think we should creating death certificates for miscarriages? Do you think we should change the constitution to grant citizenship to a fetus? My common sense is telling me that granting citizenship and death certificates for miscarried fetus is kind of silly, but that is the logical conclusion of what fetus fetishists like you are talking about.

    And finally, I find people who think they know what “God declares” are generally psychotic.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Mr. Bold,

      You said:

      “Not if it’s in the beginning of the third trimester. Then you have to put it in an incubator and use medical devices to keep it alive.”

      How does this statement in any way negate that the unborn child is a human and deserves a chance to live. It actually seems to be an argument in favor of life beginning before birth. If it did not, then why would all these things be done to try to save a premature baby.

      You said:

      “And finally, I find people who think they know what “God declares” are generally psychotic.”

      Count me among the psychotic then. God speaks to me on a regular basis. I have access to His revelation for me and the world any time I want it. All I have to do is open my Bible and begin to read. While reading it, God gives me information about who He is, what He is doing in the world, how I am to live my life, and what is sin and how I can avoid it. He has made his declarations available to us all. I think you might benefit from some time spent reading God’s declarations.

      Like

      • T MAC says:

        Mr. Bold – you’re an idiot. your comments and questions are conflicting and incongruous.
        Mr. Shelton – you are obviously, just from reading your comments, much more knowledgeable.

        BTW – Scientific definition of life: Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism.

        Like

  25. Dave Williams says:

    I guess the only one who’s spoken to me is Stephen King, Dean Koontz & Tom Clancey.

    And all this time I just thought it was known as reading.

    I wonder why the bible thumpers aren’t trying to shut down Red Lobster, Captain D’s & Long John Silvers, after all according to the ‘word of God’ eating shrimp is an abomination.

    Leviticus 11:9-12
    Deuteronomy 14:9-10

    Where’s the public outrage and demonstrations on this?

    http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

    Like

  26. Simpson J says:

    How do you stump a conservative?

    Ask him a question that requires critical thinking.

    (LOL)

    Here’s another one:

    How do you stump a conservative?

    Turn off the Fox News Channel. If he’s not being fed Fox/O’Reily dribble, he won’t be able to respond.

    Like

  27. Not an easy subject. In some Asian cultures, age is counted from conception rather than when exiting the womb. So not even date of birth is as “common sense” as we’d expect.

    When is the fetus alive? Eg, take a 7 month old fetus. If there’s a premature birth, there’s no question the baby would be considered alive. Why is it not alive while in the womb? Determining life based on mere location makes little sense.

    However, the earlier the development stage, the trickier it gets. When the fetus is at an 8-cell stage, it’s not alive in the same way it will be after 8 months.

    I’d propose the point at which the fetus becomes self-aware would be when it’s “alive”. Of course, it’s impossible to determine exactly when that happens, and it’s a compromise that satisfies very few.

    Like

  28. Angela S. says:

    First to answer the question: Life begins at conception. Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you . . . ” Psalm 139: 13-16 – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven toghether in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. ”
    Secondly, Mr. Bold, if you are going to cite scripture please get it right. You are showing us your ignorance too easily. Mr. Bold: ” I mean in the Old Testement causing an abortion is equivalent to a severe injury. ”
    The correct scripture reference is found in Exodus 21: 22-25 – ” If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth prematurely BUT if there is NO serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. BUT if there IS serious injury, you are to take LIFE FOR LIFE, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” So as you can see, our “Judeao-Christian God” takes the well-fare of the unborn very seriously. It is considered murder.
    When I say “I’ve known so-and-so their whole life”, I mean I’ve known them either since the day they were born or, if I know their parents, before they were born as well. It can also mean knowing someone for several years consecutively. You could ask that question and get any of those responses.
    And if creating death certificates for miscarriages and granting the unborn citizenship is what it takes to make people realize what is at stake, then, yeah let’s do it.
    And yes, I guess I’m definitely psychotic then.

    Like

  29. Angela S. says:

    Something else I was thinking about is this: We have numerous methods of birth control available in this country today, many of which can be obtained free of charge. So why, in such a developed country as we are, do we even need abortion?

    You can’t say it’s economics either. Here’s the numbers: Out of pocket costs, no insurance factored in. And in case you wonder where I got my numbers, I got them from links on a cost analysis website I found when searching for “how much does an abortion cost”.

    Birth Control Pills: $240 – 600 per year (a whole year)
    IUD: $210 – 800 (usually lasts up to 5 years)
    Morning After Pill: $70 – 840 per year (that’s if you choose to get pregnant once a month for a year . . . stupid) (and I’m not a fan of this option)
    Vasectomy: $250 – 1000 (lasts FOREVER if done correctly and the guy follows the post-op instructions)
    Condoms: $1 ea. (and in bulk, less than that; in many clinics, FREE)

    All of the above options are less expensive than an
    Abortion: $320 – 2000 (plus the life of the innocent child)

    I am convinced that we continue this barbaric ritual because we are a very selfish, impatient, and spoiled society. We sacrifice our children to the god of self . . . self-gratification without consequences.

    I know that there are times when circumstances make us feel like there is no other way out, no other solution to an unwanted pregnancy. But that is where we have failed as a society to learn and promote and teach better coping skills and methods. We are known as the Instant Gratification Generation. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

    Yes, as a Christian and a mother, I am passionate about the sanctity of life of the unborn. And sometimes I get very angry about the issue of abortion. But I am not without compassion for those who have chosen abortion; in a lot of cases, I’m sure they were pressured by people they love, by a society that says it’s OK, it’s just a clump of cells or by that inner Doomsayer, nagging about rejection, disapproval, not the right time, not enough money . . . I could go on and on.

    The point is, there are other options; but they do involve a little planning and some of them, discomfort and time. It IS truly a matter of choice.

    Like

  30. Angela: you forgot about rape. Sometimes birth control is not an option.

    Like

  31. Angela S. says:

    It always comes back to the rape/incest issue with pro-choice advocates.

    Government and independent studies have shown that the actual occurrance of pregnancy resulting from forced rape is well under 1% of total rapes reported.

    Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, reported that about 13,000 abortions per year were attributed to rape or incest which represented about 1% of all abortions. Now, that report was from 2004. But in 2004, that’s 13,000 out of 839,226 abortions.

    When you factor in tons of variables for the rape victim like age, sterility, method of BC used, where the female is in her menstrual cycle at the time of attack, was there actual penetration with sperm deposited, amount of trauma . . . you can see that the likelihood of a resultant pregnancy dwindles.

    Another report I saw stated that out of the women who reported pregnancy as a result of rape, only about 50% of them chose abortion. While the act of rape is truly horrific for the woman, if a pregnancy results, it’s not that poor child’s fault. And I would not dare say that it might be a blessing or God’s will, because the truth is people do horrible things to other people; we see it all the time. But I do know that my God is in the business of making lemonade out lemmons, using the unusable and loving the unlovable.

    Like

  32. Simpson J says:

    Aborted fetuses taste like chicken!

    Like

  33. Ryan says:

    Where does life begin? Really? This is the big one shot one kill? Give me a [edited by TOM] break.

    I have an answer to your obvious question (that you don’t even know the answer to) and a follow up question/statement for you anti-abortion Christians.

    A:Life begins when sperm is developed. Sperm is alive, it is a cellular organism with the instinct to fertilize the female egg. So life begins at the sperm stage. If you disagree with that, then explain to me why a sperm is not alive.

    Q:When you release sperm, only one of those thousands of sperm (if any) will survive. So what about the thousands of sperm that do not survive? That’s thousands of lives you have just disposed of. Therefore, applying this well known fact to the Christian logic, every time you ejaculate, you commit murder on the scale of Nazi Germany during WW2. So according to your doctrine, and argument-all of you who have ever ejaculated have committed mass murder and will endure torment in hell eternally.

    The fact is, the only reason you idiots get so upset about abortion is because the embryo is in a later phase of development and is slightly recognizable as a human baby. This is where your ridiculous “Where does life begin?” question comes from. I think what you really meant to ask was “When does the fetus start to resemble a human baby, therefore making our deprived, sheltered minds feel sympathy for it?”

    I’m interested to see what kind of side-stepping, word-bending, self contradictory [edited by TOM] you come up with.

    [Note from Tom: Ryan, if you can’t keep from using inappropriate language then I will block you from commenting here.]

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      First, you will notice that I edited your comment. If you can’t make your point without using bad language then that shows that your point is weak. In any future comments you post here, refrain from using that type of language or I will block you.

      Second, in your post you restate my question (twice) as “where does life beging” but that was not my question. My question was “WHEN does live begin”. I realize this was probable just a simple mistake but I want to make sure we are discussing the same thing. Now to your comments.

      You said:

      A:Life begins when sperm is developed. Sperm is alive, it is a cellular organism with the instinct to fertilize the female egg. So life begins at the sperm stage. If you disagree with that, then explain to me why a sperm is not alive.

      I would not say that “sperm is not alive”. I do have a hard time with your belief that life begins when sperm is developed. Sperm are basically an organ of the body and have a specific task to carry out. They contain only the DNA from the father. By themselves, sperm will never become anything else. They will always be sperm. While it is true that sperm are “alive” they are not a separate life as you suggest in your next paragraph.

      You said:

      Q:When you release sperm, only one of those thousands of sperm (if any) will survive. So what about the thousands of sperm that do not survive? That’s thousands of lives you have just disposed of. Therefore, applying this well known fact to the Christian logic, every time you ejaculate, you commit murder on the scale of Nazi Germany during WW2. So according to your doctrine, and argument-all of you who have ever ejaculated have committed mass murder and will endure torment in hell eternally.

      This is basically a stupid analogy. I see that it follows from your previous point that “life begins when sperm is developed” but since I reject that I also reject your analogy. As I said before, sperm are not a separate life so the analogy fails.

      You said:

      The fact is, the only reason you idiots get so upset about abortion is because the embryo is in a later phase of development and is slightly recognizable as a human baby.

      We get so upset because abortion murders a human baby. A baby is a result of a miracle that God does when a sperm and egg unite. Since it is God’s will to create the baby, what right do we have to murder it? Life is a gift from God and we should treat it as such. Anything less is sin.

      I am interested to hear your thoughts about my response but remember to keep it clean.

      Like

    • T MAC says:

      “Well, sperm don’t reproduce. That sounds odd, but sperm create humans, not other sperm. They can’t actually replicate their own genetic material, and they don’t actually eat. Nor, as far as I know, do they actually respond to their environments- they keep swimming, no matter what. So, no, they are not alive.”

      When thousands of sperm cells die, that is not thousands of lives you have just disposed of.

      Like

  34. Ryan says:

    First of all, using profanity in the right context adds to the expression of a statement, it does not make an argument weak. You saying that profanity makes an argument weak is just an attempt to debunk my argument using silly made-up grammar standards and actually indicates to me that you are not confident with the argument that you will follow up with.

    To your statement about me re-stating the question using where instead of when-in the context we’re using the two words in, where is relatively the same as when as I am using it to refer to “where” in time. Keep in mind that we’re not debating grammar here, try to stay on subject.

    You said:
    “I would not say that “sperm is not alive”. I do have a hard time with your belief that life begins when sperm is developed. Sperm are basically an organ of the body and have a specific task to carry out. They contain only the DNA from the father. By themselves, sperm will never become anything else. They will always be sperm. While it is true that sperm are “alive” they are not a separate life as you suggest in your next paragraph.”

    Sperm are basically an organ of the body? No, sperm are not “organs” and even if they were, are your organs not living? If organs are not living, then the person whom the organs belong to is not living. So even by your logic that “sperm are organs”, your argument is flawed.

    Your Next Statement:
    “This is basically a stupid analogy. I see that it follows from your previous point that “life begins when sperm is developed” but since I reject that I also reject your analogy. As I said before, sperm are not a separate life so the analogy fails.”

    If you will notice from my previous responses to your replies, I have stated my response in my own context AND also a response in your context to show that I UNDERSTAND your argument and why it is flawed. From this response from you, I see that you are just creating a separate context for my statements so that you can “prove them wrong” because you can’t develop a legitimate argument.

    The analogy is not stupid. The reason you say so, is because it is in fact an accurate analogy. If you’re just going to say that it’s stupid without explaining WHY it is stupid, then you are obviously unable to argue with it.

    I don’t know where you got the term “separate life” or what you mean by it. I know that I did not use it and that I did not suggest that sperm is separate from human life. What I am saying is that sperm IS human life at it’s earliest stage. Just because it does not look human, does not mean it is not human. And just because it has not become part of the female egg yet, does not mean it is not human life.

    You say you “reject” my statement, I already know you disagree. What you need to do is form a valid argument or just admit when you’ve been stumped. I don’t know why religious people have such a big problem with this.

    Your last statement:

    “We get so upset because abortion murders a human baby. A baby is a result of a miracle that God does when a sperm and egg unite. Since it is God’s will to create the baby, what right do we have to murder it? Life is a gift from God and we should treat it as such. Anything less is sin.”

    You get upset because abortion murders a human baby? A fetus is not a human baby. It is HUMAN, but it is not a baby-just as sperm is HUMAN, but not a baby. Both a fetus and sperm are human because they contain human DNA, they are part of the developmental stages of human life and they are produced by the human body. You can’t argue with that, it is FACT so just accept it and begin to think about your argument considering you now know when human life begins.

    It is not God’s will to create a baby. It is the innate instinct in humans to engage in sexual intercourse and reproduce. Millions of years of evolution have ingrained this instinct in the human brain as well as the brains of all animals with the sole purpose to insure that their species survives. All living beings evolve in order to develop ways to survive and to adapt to their environment in order to survive. And this is not the work of a mythical God.

    And if abortion is such a big deal to Christians, why doesn’t the Bible mention it? Wouldn’t an all-knowing God be able to foresee that the race he had created would eventually be concerned with abortion? And wouldn’t the Bible contain the answer to “when does life begin”?

    Well it doesn’t and this is because at the time the Bible was written by sheep farmers, there was no scientific or philosophical knowledge. Therefore all of the information in the Bible is outdated. We have progressed a great deal since then and religious doctrines have been proven wrong or impossible countless times.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      First of all, using profanity in the right context adds to the expression of a statement, it does not make an argument weak. You saying that profanity makes an argument weak is just an attempt to debunk my argument using silly made-up grammar standards and actually indicates to me that you are not confident with the argument that you will follow up with.

      The use of profanity is designed to make an argument seem stronger than it is. I did not say that using profanity makes your point weak, I said that using profanity proves that your point is weak. If your argument is strong then profanity is not needed. So, anytime someone uses profanity it is an indication that they are aware that their argument can’t stand on its own forcefulness.

      You said:

      To your statement about me re-stating the question using where instead of when-in the context we’re using the two words in, where is relatively the same as when as I am using it to refer to “where” in time. Keep in mind that we’re not debating grammar here, try to stay on subject.

      If, in your explanation, where and when are relatively the same, then why change the term? I understand that we are not debating grammar but you can’t simply redefine the terms in the middle of the discussion without reason. By redefining the terms you are able to move the discussion away from the primary point. I am not saying that you are trying to do that but you have to be careful with terms because many people do try to change the primary point by redefining terms.

      You said:

      Sperm are basically an organ of the body? No, sperm are not “organs” and even if they were, are your organs not living? If organs are not living, then the person whom the organs belong to is not living. So even by your logic that “sperm are organs”, your argument is flawed.

      I did not say sperm ARE organs, I said they are “basically” organs in the sense that they have a specific function they perform for the body. This is in the same sense that an body organ has a specific function it performs for the body. I think that you misread my comment because I did not say that sperm were not alive. I confirmed that they are alive in the same sense that our other organs are alive. So, your analysis of my statement is wrong because you have addressed something that I did not say.

      You said:

      The analogy is not stupid. The reason you say so, is because it is in fact an accurate analogy. If you’re just going to say that it’s stupid without explaining WHY it is stupid, then you are obviously unable to argue with it.

      Your analogy was not an accurate analogy. You have equated each individual sperm to a complete and separate person. That is what I called stupid. I still think it is stupid. Sperm are produced by a man’s body in order to perform a specific task….that being procreation. They are not what you have equated them to.

      This same argument can be used of the egg produced by the female body. Do you also equate it to a complete and separate person while it is just an egg? If so, then you fail in that also.

      You said:

      I don’t know where you got the term “separate life” or what you mean by it. I know that I did not use it and that I did not suggest that sperm is separate from human life. What I am saying is that sperm IS human life at it’s earliest stage. Just because it does not look human, does not mean it is not human. And just because it has not become part of the female egg yet, does not mean it is not human life.

      Again, you have equated each individual sperm to that of a complete and separate person. That is what I meant by the term “separate life”. As I have said, this is not a valid argument. You also set up another straw man. I have never claimed that sperm are not human, only that they are not a separate and complete human in waiting as you seem to be arguing.

      You said:

      You get upset because abortion murders a human baby? A fetus is not a human baby. It is HUMAN, but it is not a baby-just as sperm is HUMAN, but not a baby. Both a fetus and sperm are human because they contain human DNA, they are part of the developmental stages of human life and they are produced by the human body. You can’t argue with that, it is FACT so just accept it and begin to think about your argument considering you now know when human life begins.

      I can’t understand how you can claim that a fetus is not a human baby. True, it has not developed to what we recognize as a baby but that does not mean that it is not a baby. A fetus is not “produced” by the human body. It is created only when a sperm and egg are united. To claim otherwise is nonsensical. I am curious as to what is your source for this claim. Where have you learned this from?

      Lastly, you said:

      And if abortion is such a big deal to Christians, why doesn’t the Bible mention it? Wouldn’t an all-knowing God be able to foresee that the race he had created would eventually be concerned with abortion? And wouldn’t the Bible contain the answer to “when does life begin”?

      Well it doesn’t and this is because at the time the Bible was written by sheep farmers, there was no scientific or philosophical knowledge. Therefore all of the information in the Bible is outdated. We have progressed a great deal since then and religious doctrines have been proven wrong or impossible countless times.

      It is true that the word “abortion” does not appear in the bible but it is addressed in the bible. The bible calls it child sacrifice and it is such a big deal that God destroys the individuals and nations that practice it. Leviticus 20:1-5 says “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, 5 then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.” You can see from these verse how seriously God takes this issue.

      Like

  35. Brett says:

    The “God Hates Shrimp” website is hilarious to anyone who has even basic Hermeneutics 101 skills. It reminds me of the stereotypical “geek” in the teen movie who thinks he’s come up with a really good cut-down, but all the cool kids just roll their eyes. People who know how to interpret the Scriptures are rolling their eyes at this absurdity. Please, please, please keep posting links like this. It makes your side look so intelligent and witty.

    Like

  36. notreallyalice says:

    I don’t know if this conversation is still active, but I have a few questions for the blog’s author. Perhaps they could be addressed in a separate post. Please understand that these are not rhetorical questions or attempts to stump you; I really am curious about your answers.

    If abortion is murder, what is spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is that manslaughter? Will each instance of spontaneous abortion require an investigation to be sure that the woman has been observing her doctor’s instructions? Will a failure to quit smoking or abstain from alcohol, for example, be reckless endangerment? Furthermore, if the investigation proves the woman not guilty of attempting to harm her foetus in any way, does that mean we have to assume God ended the pregnancy? How are we going to litigate against God?

    Also, how is the government going to pay for the increased law enforcement and litigation costs? Are you proposing a tax increase, perhaps? Will there be a special police force keeping an eye on all sexually active women? Will there be government-required checkups? How will that be paid for and enforced?

    Will there be legal requirements for the fathers, as well? (You better say yes 🙂

    And where will all the children go when the parents are unable or unwilling to care for them? (Is “unwilling” to care for your child also a crime?) How will we pay for the orphanages and how will the government fund child support? (For the record, I am not arguing that abortion should be legal because we need to save money. I just wonder where the money for your proposal would come from.)

    And, you may want to leave out any talk about God when you propose your litigation. If a legislative history shows a religious intent in the crafting of a law, then it will overturned due to 1st amendment protections from state-sponsored religion.

    Finally, a legal recognition of two murders in the case of a pregnant woman’s murder is not the same thing as a medical or biological definition of life. The law exists to punish criminals and provide compensation to victims. The law SHOULD recognize the additional damages involved in the loss of a pregnant woman. But that has little to do with the question of when life begins.

    You’ve provided a good forum for discussion here and you’ve caused me to think more critically about the issue. Thanks, and I am looking forward to hearing your response.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      notreallyalice,

      I will try to answer your questions. But please understand that I can only speak for myself.

      You said:

      If abortion is murder, what is spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is that manslaughter? Will each instance of spontaneous abortion require an investigation to be sure that the woman has been observing her doctor’s instructions? Will a failure to quit smoking or abstain from alcohol, for example, be reckless endangerment? Furthermore, if the investigation proves the woman not guilty of attempting to harm her foetus in any way, does that mean we have to assume God ended the pregnancy? How are we going to litigate against God?

      Assuming there is no harm to the mother or no neglect by the mother, then a miscarriage is God’s will. He determines when and how we die. God is sovereign in all things. We must trust Him to do what is best for us. If a woman is neglectful and causes the miscarriage then I have no problem with her being prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, or whatever the law determines the correct charge.

      You said:

      And where will all the children go when the parents are unable or unwilling to care for them? (Is “unwilling” to care for your child also a crime?) How will we pay for the orphanages and how will the government fund child support? (For the record, I am not arguing that abortion should be legal because we need to save money. I just wonder where the money for your proposal would come from.)

      Adoption. The laws need to be changed to make adoption a viable option for people who want children but can’t have any of their own. As of now, it is so cost prohibitive to adopt that many who are willing and wanting to adopt can’t. Many even opt to adopt foreign children because it is easier. The adoption laws need to be changed and this would fix the problem you describe.

      You said:

      Finally, a legal recognition of two murders in the case of a pregnant woman’s murder is not the same thing as a medical or biological definition of life. The law exists to punish criminals and provide compensation to victims. The law SHOULD recognize the additional damages involved in the loss of a pregnant woman. But that has little to do with the question of when life begins.

      True, the laws do not address when life begins. My point in bringing it up was that the laws recognize that life begins at some point before birth. Many in this discussion have tried to make the point that life begins at birth and have said that “everybody agrees” with that position. My point was to show that even our laws don’t agree with that assertion.

      Thanks for visiting my blog and participating in the discussion. Feel free to come back often and comment on anything that you like.

      Like

  37. Angela: Thanks for assuming I’m pro-choice.

    I merely was pointing out that not all unwanted pregnancies are the woman’s fault. Too many pro-lifers ignore this when assigning blame.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      LEP,

      It is true that not all unwanted pregnancies are the woman’s fault. But the reality is that the pregnancies that result from rape and incest are a very small percentage. As a pro-life advocate, I see all the time how pro-child sacrifice advocates use the rape and incest issue as a “trump card” when in actuality it does not carry the weight that they assign to it. I in no way want to downplay the tragedy of rape and incest because they are terrible things. My point is that if a baby results from rape or incest what justice is there in imposing the death penalty on the innocent baby. It has no responsibility for the circumstances under which it was conceived. Pro-child sacrifice advocates always overlook that fact.

      Like

  38. Angela: By the way, I didn’t bring up the rape to validate abortion. It’s just that the blame-the-woman thing is offensive to the thousands of women who did not become pregnant through any fault of their own.

    Like

  39. notreallyalice says:

    Brett: People who know how to interpret the Scriptures are rolling their eyes at this absurdity.

    Umm… what makes your interpretation more valid than someone else’s? I could just as easily say, “People who read the scriptures and don’t believe a word of it roll their eyes at the absurdity.” Right?

    Like

  40. allendale2 says:

    When does life begin?. I think this questions has two possible answers: The first one acording to you. And the second acording to what you beleive as a Christian. The first one, you chose. The second one ask The Virgin Mary when she started believing she was pregnant with child (“Here’s The Lord’s Slave, do onto Me as thy will”) that is right now and not until I get a second opinion. This possibility, though some may not agree seemed to be the one that pleased God.

    Like

  41. Brett says:

    Someone named something besides alice :-),

    It’s true, you are right, people could indeed just as easily read the Scriptures and not believe it and roll their eyes. In fact, I expect people to do just exactly that if they love sin and aren’t interested in following Jesus. The Gospel is foolish to those who don’t believe (1 Corinthians 1.18). Without the Spirit of God, the wisdom of God’s Word is folly (1 Corinthians 2.14).

    As for what makes my interpretation more valid than someone else’s? Hopefully, diligent study (1 Timothy 2.15). But even then, I’m sure I’m wrong in some areas. But in the big areas of interpretation, Christians are at agreement. And regarding the issue at hand, the bulk of scholars throughout Christian history have been in agreement about what Old Testament regulations for Israel are no longer relevant under the New Covenant. There are some disagreements about how that all works out (Covenant theolgy vs. dispensational theology), but you’d have to search long and hard to find Christians who think wouldn’t roll their eyes at the aforementioned absurdity. Again, that’s Biblical Studies 101 stuff. Anyone who has an interpretation that is different is really not very familiar with God’s Word or historical theology.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Brett said

      Anyone who has an interpretation that is different is really not very familiar with God’s Word or historical theology.

      I have to agree with this statement 100%.

      Like

  42. Ryan says:

    You guys are way off subject. As my attempt to get back on subject, I will restate myself from my earlier post (Which Mr. Tom Shelton didn’t have a response for).

    For those that read this, I want you to really pay attention, re-read parts if you have to and have a full understanding of my statements before you try to argue.

    Ok before I explain the answer to this question to everyone, I want to first state my observation of the pre-determined dispositions that both sides of the argument have, and why until you break free of them, you will never find a resolution to this argument. It seems everyone arguing this issue is doing so within certain “moral” boundaries. What I mean is, both sides disregard true logic and instead shape their arguments to fit their moral lifestyles. When death is involved, it seems people try to find ways around admitting that the world is imperfect and that things can’t be “morally” pleasing all of the time; and the abortion issue is a perfect example.

    Now I will give you an unbiased, REALISTIC approach to this argument:

    The answer to “when does life begin” is an inconvenient one for both sides of the argument. The answer doesn’t fit the pre-dispositions of Christians and some Pro-Lifers.

    Life begins at sperm. SPERM. Think about it, before you were a baby, a fetus or an embryo, you were a sperm. You can’t remember being a sperm, you didn’t look human, but that was you in your earliest form. And by chance, you were the one out of hundreds of thousands of sperm which survived. What happened to all the others? Dead. That’s hundreds of thousands of possible lives disposed of.

    And this is the part you people have trouble with, the part that doesn’t fit nicely into your illusory world of pure morals: Killing sperm is no different than killing a fetus. Now just for a minute, put aside your dispositions (whatever they may be) and think about this rationally. And don’t try to find a morally safe way out of this scenario, because there isn’t one.

    In other words, we all (well technically males) kill millions of possible humans when we ejaculate. There’s no way around it, it is inevitable. Hundreds of thousands of sperm are released and only one (if any) will survive. In order to create one life, we must dispose of many. This must happen, and this DOES happen.

    And this is why abortion should not be prohibited. Just because the fetus is a little further in the developmental stage than a sperm MEANS NOTHING. The sperm is just as much human as it is when it develops into a fetus.

    So, my point is: All of you need to accept the fact that unborn (including sperm to fetus) human life is inevitably lost. Accept it and get over it. Step out of your naive safety bubbles and realize that the world isn’t always happy drum circles, peace and flourishing life. I think it would do everyone some good if they adopted a little cynicism.

    Now of course none of which I have said fits the rules of Christianity. Simply because when the Bible was written, they had no knowledge of microscopic organisms such as sperm. They didn’t really know anything, which is why they just made up their own rules for everything (and then of course declared that it was the word of God so they could persuade people to adopt their beliefs easily.).

    My point being, my statements on abortion completely cripple the Christian argument because: Sperm is REAL>Sperm is human life>the Bible prohibits taking human life>Taking human life is inevitable>Therefore everyone who abides by Christian beliefs are immoral, baby-killing sinners by their own standards.

    Now if any of you Christians are worried for your soul after reading this, look on the bright side: You can always “change the rules” of Christianity just a little bit so that killing sperm is not a sin, that’s what you guys have done every other time the rules of the Bible didn’t quite fit your lifestyles.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You have no understanding for what Christianity is or what it teaches. Your posts show this to be true. I do not say this to be rude or mean. I would truly like to help you understand. The problem is that until God allows it you will not understand Christianity or its teachings. Still, I am willing to explain it to you should you be interested.

      Now to your post. Please provide your sources for believing that life begins at the sperm level. You obviously believe this strongly so I would like to see where you were taught this form. Do scientists actually say this? Are there books or papers written on this subject? I would appreciate any information you can give so I can check the sources.

      Like

  43. Robert says:

    Ryan Wrote: “And wouldn’t the Bible contain the answer to “when does life begin”? Well it doesn’t and this is because at the time the Bible was written by sheep farmers, there was no scientific or philosophical knowledge. Therefore all of the information in the Bible is outdated. We have progressed a great deal since then and religious doctrines have been proven wrong or impossible countless times.”

    I’m surprised that Tom didn’t pounce on this, but I know he had plenty else to which to respond. The writers of the bible were of many different occupations: military leaders, kings, priest, farmers, tax collector, fishermen, tent maker, medical doctor, prophets, and yes, even shepherds. Many of them had the finest educations available. The Bible consists of a number of different literary forms. It is a collection of letters, sermons, law, love songs, poetry, history, prayer, praise, practical sayings, and the warnings of the prophets. The books of the Bible were composed on three different continents – Africa, Asia, and Europe. The authors of Scripture wrote in three different languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Because the Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years most of the writers did not personally know the other writers of Scripture. In addition, the Old Testament authors would have been unfamiliar with the New Testament writings. Despite all this, scripture is consistent with itself, ultimately pointing toward Jesus, our savior if we will accept God’s gift of salvation. The bible (God’s message to us) is as relevant today as ever.

    Like

  44. notreallyalice says:

    Brett, you say: “It’s true, you are right, people could indeed just as easily read the Scriptures and not believe it and roll their eyes. In fact, I expect people to do just exactly that if they love sin and aren’t interested in following Jesus.”

    This is very curious. Not only do you know the motivation for every person who is not a Christian, you know their sins, and you know they love to sin. You sure know a lot. Tell me, what are my sins? And just what is so great about them that makes them better than God?

    You know what else is interesting? You ideas about interpreting scripture. It sounds like you are saying that a person can only interpret the Bible CORRECTLY if she already knows what it means. Am I getting that right?

    Like

  45. Brett says:

    notreallyalice,

    Regarding you frustration with me assuming I know the motives of non-Christians, this is not something I dreamed up or concluded based upon my observations. I said it because that’s what Jesus said. Read John 3, especially verses 19-21. Jesus says that if you do not come to the light (Him), it’s because you love sin.

    Where did I claim to know your sins? I am not sure that I claimed that? But if you want me to try, it’s not that hard. You are guilty of these sins: idolatry, taking the Lord’s name in vain, stealing, adultery, murder, and pride, to name a few.

    Finally, it seems that you are accusing me of circular reasoning, am I correct? Like I’m begging the question.

    I guess from your perspective I am begging the question. But actually there is a difference between what you heard and what I said. You say I’m saying, “a person can only interpret the Bible CORRECTLY if she already knows what it means.” No, that’s not what I am saying. Let me be more specific, a person can only interpret the Bible correctly if they have experienced the new birth. The new birth enables them to begin to understand the Scriptures.

    That being said, I do think that in some cases, there are non-Christian people who can get a basic grasp of certain, even most, Bible doctrines and understand them on an intellectual level, yet still regard them as foolish. But the vast majority of non-Christians are not going to “waste” their time trying to get their minds around Scripture.

    Like

  46. Tom: I did not see where you personally have downplayed or mitigated raped women, and I agree it’s irrelevant to abortion’s morality. But it is too common for those in pro-life circles to be indifferent or even hostile to them. Very offputting.

    (For equal-time, William Saletan, who is pro-choice, wrote an excellent article about some offputting aspects of some pro-choicers).

    Like

  47. Ryan says:

    Robert says: [QUOTE]I’m surprised that Tom didn’t pounce on this, but I know he had plenty else to which to respond. The writers of the bible were of many different occupations: military leaders, kings, priest, farmers, tax collector, fishermen, tent maker, medical doctor, prophets, and yes, even shepherds. Many of them had the finest educations available. The Bible consists of a number of different literary forms. It is a collection of letters, sermons, law, love songs, poetry, history, prayer, praise, practical sayings, and the warnings of the prophets. The books of the Bible were composed on three different continents – Africa, Asia, and Europe. The authors of Scripture wrote in three different languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Because the Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years most of the writers did not personally know the other writers of Scripture. In addition, the Old Testament authors would have been unfamiliar with the New Testament writings. Despite all this, scripture is consistent with itself, ultimately pointing toward Jesus, our savior if we will accept God’s gift of salvation. The bible (God’s message to us) is as relevant today as ever.[/QUOTE]

    You say “I’m surprised Tom didn’t pounce on this” as if you’re about to make a point.

    “The writers of the bible were of many different occupations: military leaders, kings, priest, farmers, tax collector, fishermen, tent maker, medical doctor, prophets, and yes, even shepherds. [b]Many of them had the finest educations available”[/b]

    Finest educations available. By what we know today (well some of us who do not refuse to think) compared to what collective knowledge humanity possessed 2000 or so years ago, none of those of which you mentioned are respectable titles. What I’m saying is, the bible was written before man had the intelligence for Science and Philosophy. Why people still choose the obviously outdated and unmistakably false “teachings” of religion is baffling.

    Robert says:
    “Because the Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years most of the writers did not personally know the other writers of Scripture. In addition, the Old Testament authors would have been unfamiliar with the New Testament writings. Despite all this, scripture is consistent with itself, ultimately pointing toward Jesus, our savior if we will accept God’s gift of salvation. The bible (God’s message to us) is as relevant today as ever.”

    What you mean to say is the bible has been altered over a period of 15 hundred years. It has been altered by every ruler that has embraced it in order to fit their needs as a ruler and to provide them with a persuasive tool of social control.

    And the bible is so ridiculously vague, it could be relevant to any time period. And you Christians know that the bible is vague because you use it’s vagueness as a crutch in your arguments. It’s always the same tactic, when you’ve been discovered to be contradicting yourself in an argument (which always happens unless you cover your ears or leave the room first) you suddenly put a new spin on whatever vague passage of the bible you were referring to in order to “correct” yourself.

    Religion is a child’s game, grow up.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      “What you mean to say is the bible has been altered over a period of 15 hundred years. It has been altered by every ruler that has embraced it in order to fit their needs as a ruler and to provide them with a persuasive tool of social control.”

      You are good at making claims but you have yet to share one source for your claims. Is this because you don’t have any sources and are just stating you opinion. I have no problem with you stating your opinion but would prefer that you make it clear that it is your opinion.

      Robert was not saying the bible had been altered. He was simply stating the facts about how the bible came to be. All that he said is correct. If you wish to dispute his comment then do so with sources and reason….not your arbitrary opinion.

      You said:

      “And the bible is so ridiculously vague, it could be relevant to any time period.”

      You demonstrate that you have no understanding of the purpose of the Bible. The Bible does not claim to be an all-knowing, all-encompassing book that contains every answer to every question that anyone at any point in history may have. God has those attributes. His word has a different purpose. The Bible is sufficient for its intended purpose. That is, to tell us who God is, let us know of our need for a Savior, and tell us who that Savior is. The Bible is sufficient in that where a specific situation is not addressed we are given general principles to live by. You can call that vague if you want. I am thankful for God’s mercy in providing us enough so that we could come to a knowledge of Him.

      Like

  48. Ryan says:

    In reply to Brett’s comment:”notreallyalice,

    Regarding you frustration with me assuming I know the motives of non-Christians, this is not something I dreamed up or concluded based upon my observations. I said it because that’s what Jesus said. Read John 3, especially verses 19-21. Jesus says that if you do not come to the light (Him), it’s because you love sin.

    Where did I claim to know your sins? I am not sure that I claimed that? But if you want me to try, it’s not that hard. You are guilty of these sins: idolatry, taking the Lord’s name in vain, stealing, adultery, murder, and pride, to name a few. ”

    And you are guilty of assuming the role of God and passing judgement. Now you have hell to look forward too.

    Like

  49. Brett says:

    No, Ryan, I’m not assuming the role of God. I’m simply stating what the BIble says are sins that are common to us all, including me. I have run to Christ for forgiveness of those sins and I hope you will to. As well as “notreallyalice.”

    I’m going to assume that you are not really so cruel as to wish that I would go to Hell (according to your closing remarks.) And that you are just being sarcastic, because you don’t believe in Hell, do you? Because IF you are not really being sarcastic but are actually cursing me, then you are revealing that you really do embrace religion when it suits you for the moment.

    Like

  50. Ryan says:

    Reply to Tom:

    Your analogy was not an accurate analogy. You have equated each individual sperm to a complete and separate person. That is what I called stupid. I still think it is stupid. Sperm are produced by a man’s body in order to perform a specific task….that being procreation. They are not what you have equated them to.

    This same argument can be used of the egg produced by the female body. Do you also equate it to a complete and separate person while it is just an egg? If so, then you fail in that also.

    Each sperm IS equal to a separate person. They are each unique, they carry unique DNA, no sperm is the same as another. This is un-alterable, solid, Scientific FACT. (And yes, this goes for the female egg and the menstrual cycle as well.).

    The reason you refuse to accept this is because it contradicts the rules of your religion, that’s it, no need to continue arguing that point. Since each sperm IS a unique human life form, then it is INEVITABLE that we destroy human life, THEREFORE: According to the Bible, we are all murderers and will be damned to hell.

    So really what is going on here is that you may want to agree, but you’re not allowed because “God will be angry”

    Can’t you see what you’re doing to yourself?

    It’s amazing how religious people deprive themselves of rational thought out of fear and foolish pride.

    And this goes for everyone who tries to find a moral “finish line” when arguing abortion:Give it up! There is no moral solution to abortion, for either side of the argument. It’s over before it begins.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan

      You said:

      Each sperm IS equal to a separate person. They are each unique, they carry unique DNA, no sperm is the same as another. This is un-alterable, solid, Scientific FACT. (And yes, this goes for the female egg and the menstrual cycle as well.).

      Again, I ask you for your source for making such a claim. I am not a biologist but I would have to point out that each of my sperm do not carry unique DNA, they each carry my DNA. Even so, having my DNA does not make them a separate person….it makes them a potential separate person only in that each may one day combine with an egg and then become a separate person. A potential separate person is NOT a separate person. I am at a loss as to why this is so hard to understand.

      You said:

      So really what is going on here is that you may want to agree, but you’re not allowed because “God will be angry”

      You are trying to speak for me the same way you tried to speak for Robert in your earlier comment. The problem is that I don’t agree with what you have said (I am certain that Robert would not agree either). I want to search God’s word for what He says about every situation and then I want adopt His teachings. Where the specific question is not addressed, I want to search God’s word for the general principles and apply those. That is what I want to do. God, and His Word, are my ultimate authority. Your ultimate authority seems to be your intellect (as best as I can tell since you have yet to provide any sources to the things you are claiming). God should be your ultimate authority as well. He is the Creator of all things, including science and your intellect. He is greater than both. Repent, trust Him and be saved.

      You said:

      And this goes for everyone who tries to find a moral “finish line” when arguing abortion:Give it up! There is no moral solution to abortion, for either side of the argument. It’s over before it begins.

      I agree, it is over before it begins. It is over because God is the ultimate authority and it is His word that must serve as the “finish line”. Anything else is false and untrustworthy. I call upon you to REPENT, and trust God. He will do the rest.

      Like

  51. Ryan says:

    Reply to Tom:

    Ryan,

    You have no understanding for what Christianity is or what it teaches. Your posts show this to be true. I do not say this to be rude or mean. I would truly like to help you understand. The problem is that until God allows it you will not understand Christianity or its teachings. Still, I am willing to explain it to you should you be interested.

    Why is it that Christians are always willing to explain their beliefs, but never willing to listen consider other’s beliefs?

    I understand it better than you which is why I don’t follow it. If you opened your mind and learned what I have learned, you wouldn’t follow it either.

    You cannot learn the true essence of Christianity from the text of the Bible, they are only there to make you deaf and blind to the harsh realities of religion.

    Religion was created by early man to give himself some sort of pseudo-understanding of life, death and origin. It was based on the sun and astrology, every deity in every religion is somehow related to the sun and astrology. (For example, the “Jesus Fish” symbol is actually the Pagan symbol for “Pisces” which is symbolic for the corresponding beginnings of Jesus’s life and The Age of Pisces”).

    Religion went from a simple way of thinking for primitive man, to a means to justify hate and slaugher (for a few examples, read about The Crusades, The Inquisition, Herald Bluetooth, The Salem Witch Trials, Jonestown, September 11th…if you need more ask.)

    Now religion is the main cause of war and hate crimes. Did you know that the KKK began as Protestant religious group?

    Tell me, how many wars have been fought over Science, Philosophy or Atheism?

    Oh and don’t forget one of religion’s strongest uses: Social Control. Religion is used by the upper class to control the working class. Society and Religion have combined to form the most intricate, well-disguised system of slavery humanity has ever seen. It’s brilliant really, what better way to keep the slaves in order than to make them think that they aren’t really slaves at all?

    Karl Marx says it best”
    Religious distress is at the same time an expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people

    Now to your post. Please provide your sources for believing that life begins at the sperm level. You obviously believe this strongly so I would like to see where you were taught this form. Do scientists actually say this? Are there books or papers written on this subject? I would appreciate any information you can give so I can check the sources.

    Ok here are some interesting Sperm Facts for you from an Oakland University Professor:
    -An average human ejaculate contains about 180 million sperm (66 million/ml), but some ejaculates contain as many as 400 million sperm.
    -Both quantity and quality of the sperm are important determinants of fertility. A man is considered clinically infertile if his sperm concentration falls below 20 million/ml semen. # (Just remember though- it only takes ONE to make a baby)
    -The average sperm count fell from 113 million sperm/ml of semen in 1940 to 66 million/ml in 1990. The volume of a single ejaculate has declined from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml. This means that men on average are now ejaculating less than half the number of sperm as men did 50 yrs ago. A drop from more than 380 million sperm to about 180 million sperm per ejaculate. Furthermore, the number of motile sperm has also dipped. Importantly, the sperm count has not declined in the less polluted areas of the world during the same time period.
    -The QUESTION most frequently asked to Dr. Lindemann via e-mail: How long can sperm live on environmental surfaces? ANSWER: They die as they dry out, so it depends on how quickly they dry. They also are killed by fresh water due to osmotic shock. Soap and detergents such as those used for laundering and hand washing also kill them, as these substances strip off the cell membrane of the sperm. Something to consider: They are the haploid half of your life cycle so be careful where you leave them.

    http://www2.oakland.edu/biology/lindemann/spermfacts.htm

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      I appreciate the information but none of this tells us why sperm should be designated as a separate person.

      I also really don’t believe that you understand Christianity better than I do. Your posts definitely have not shown that to be the case. You are welcome to elaborate some more and keep trying if you like.

      Like

  52. Ryan says:

    Reply to Tom:

    Again, I ask you for your source for making such a claim. I am not a biologist but I would have to point out that each of my sperm do not carry unique DNA, they each carry my DNA. Even so, having my DNA does not make them a separate person….it makes them a potential separate person only in that each may one day combine with an egg and then become a separate person. A potential separate person is NOT a separate person. I am at a loss as to why this is so hard to understand.

    I posted a response with sourced information a few minutes ago, you may have missed it, scroll up.

    That is what I want to do. God, and His Word, are my ultimate authority. Your ultimate authority seems to be your intellect (as best as I can tell since you have yet to provide any sources to the things you are claiming). God should be your ultimate authority as well. He is the Creator of all things, including science and your intellect. He is greater than both. Repent, trust Him and be saved.

    Explain what you mean by my”Ultimate authority” seems to be my intellect. If you are implying that I regard my intellect the same way you regard your god, as an authority figure then you have a misunderstanding.

    And you have it backwards. God did not create science nor intellect. Primitive intellect created God whom was replaced by science.

    I will keep this post short so you will have time to respond to my previous post that you missed.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      By “Ultimate Authority” I mean that one and final thing that we turn to for what is right and true. There must be an ultimate authority in all things. Our goal should be to find what it is and follow it.

      You said:

      And you have it backwards. God did not create science nor intellect. Primitive intellect created God whom was replaced by science.

      In your understanding of things, what created science and intellect? The fact that they now exist is proof that they were created by something so what was that thing? Would that thing be the final authority? If not, then there must be something greater than it. Is the greater thing the ultimate authority? As you can see we can keep this up until we find the real ultimate authority.

      My purpose in this is to show you that your rejection of God is a rejection of the TRUE final authority of all things. Think about that for a while.

      Like

  53. Ryan says:

    You are good at making claims but you have yet to share one source for your claims. Is this because you don’t have any sources and are just stating you opinion. I have no problem with you stating your opinion but would prefer that you make it clear that it is your opinion.

    Robert was not saying the bible had been altered. He was simply stating the facts about how the bible came to be. All that he said is correct. If you wish to dispute his comment then do so with sources and reason….not your arbitrary opinion.

    You ask what the source of my claims are? THINK for yourself, read something other than the bible and you will discover the source of my claims.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Are you saying that you have no source other than your opinion? Or are you refusing to tell me who your sources are?

      Thinking for ourselves sounds good until we realize how flawed we are. In order for thinking for ourselves to really be the answer we would have to have all possible knowledge. We would have to be able to reason perfectly. We would have to a complete understanding of all possible circumstances. Get the picture? I don’t fit that description. Do you? If you hesitate to answer NO then we have a bigger problem.

      You need to find the one who does fit this description. That one is God. He is the one who you need to trust to lead you. Turn to Him and experience true knowledge and freedom.

      Like

  54. Ryan says:

    I appreciate the information but none of this tells us why sperm should be designated as a separate person.

    Good, I have an endless source of information at my disposal (internet) and I will find some articles for you.

    I also really don’t believe that you understand Christianity better than I do. Your posts definitely have not shown that to be the case. You are welcome to elaborate some more and keep trying if you like.

    Now did you actually look into anything I said about Christianity? Did you explore my reasoning or look at what I said outside of your own perspective? Did you attempt to look up any of the things I mentioned and read about them?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      Now did you actually look into anything I said about Christianity? Did you explore my reasoning or look at what I said outside of your own perspective? Did you attempt to look up any of the things I mentioned and read about them?

      I have seen and heard all those type claims before. I have listened to lectures and read articles about them before. I don’t spend very much time with them anymore. I know the TRUTH (Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life) and when compared to the TRUTH, claims like the ones you have made fall way short.

      Like

  55. Ryan says:

    Reply to Tom

    Are you saying that you have no source other than your opinion? Or are you refusing to tell me who your sources are?

    No I am not saying that. I am using historical events that are not claims as you like to call them, they happened. It is not my opinion that millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity, it is HISTORY and it is REAL TRUTH.

    I have seen and heard all those type claims before. I have listened to lectures and read articles about them before. I don’t spend very much time with them anymore. I know the TRUTH (Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life) and when compared to the TRUTH, claims like the ones you have made fall way short.

    How is this statement relevant at all regarding what I said about the history of Christianity?

    And what were you thinking when you said that? You must be an egocentric maniac to claim that a two-bit quote from Jesus justifies hundreds of thousands of people being viciously tortured, burned alive, impaled, eviscrated, raped and murdered in the name of your Religion of “moral lessons and values“.

    Know when to bear shame. You, like all other followers of Christianity have hundreds of years of unjust blood on your hands. Don’t disrespect me or yourself by ignoring the history of your own religion or by pretending that certain parts of it didn’t happen.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      How is this statement relevant at all regarding what I said about the history of Christianity?

      And what were you thinking when you said that? You must be an egocentric maniac to claim that a two-bit quote from Jesus justifies hundreds of thousands of people being viciously tortured, burned alive, impaled, eviscrated, raped and murdered in the name of your Religion of “moral lessons and values“.

      Know when to bear shame. You, like all other followers of Christianity have hundreds of years of unjust blood on your hands. Don’t disrespect me or yourself by ignoring the history of your own religion or by pretending that certain parts of it didn’t happen.

      Sadly, you again demonstrate that you know nothing of Christianity. There is no shame for me, or any Christian, to bear. Bad things have been done in the name of Christianity but that does not mean that it is what Christianity teaches. It does not mean that those bad people, who claimed to be Christians, were really Christians just because they claimed to be. You can’t lay guilt on Christianity for these things unless Christianity teaches it followers to do these things. It does not. You need to read your Bible and pray God would give you wisdom and discernment while you do it.

      Like

  56. Ryan says:

    note about the last post I made:

    If it starts to sound schizophrenic after the first quote, that’s because the 2nd paragraph after the quote was supposed to be quoted as well but I forgot to do that.

    The 2nd paragraph belongs to Tom Shelton, the rest is my response to it.

    Like

  57. Ryan says:

    Sadly, you again demonstrate that you know nothing of Christianity. There is no shame for me, or any Christian, to bear. Bad things have been done in the name of Christianity but that does not mean that it is what Christianity teaches. It does not mean that those bad people, who claimed to be Christians, were really Christians just because they claimed to be. You can’t lay guilt on Christianity for these things unless Christianity teaches it followers to do these things. It does not. You need to read your Bible and pray God would give you wisdom and discernment while you do it.

    Have you never read the old testament?

    You keep telling me I know nothing of Christianity. What I think you mean is that you know nothing of (or refuse to acknowledge) the parts of Christianity that I have mentioned. You’re in a naive safety bubble and you won’t dare step out because you’re afraid that you might question God.

    Why would you deliberately deprive yourself of enlightenment?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      There you go again. Changing what I said and responding to that instead of what I actually said. Why do you keep doing that? I once heard a story of how Bill Clinton conducted press conferences. I don’t know if it was true but it sure was interesting. Clinton was asked by someone how he answered tough questions. He said that he would answer the question he wished he had been asked instead of the actual question. You seem to be using that principle some.

      What is the source of enlightenment? Where does it come from? If you will allow me to propose an answer, it would be this. Enlightenment comes from the One who created all things. He alone is the true source of enlightenment. Any other source is lacking because only He has all knowledge. So, you see, I am not depriving myself of enlightenment. I am actually pursuing it but I pursue it where it can actually be found. I encourage you to do the same.

      Like

  58. Ryan says:

    There you go again. Changing what I said and responding to that instead of what I actually said. Why do you keep doing that?

    I didn’t change what you said at all. Describe specifically how I changed what you said. I stumped you on the cruelty of religion and you could not admit it so you went on a ridiculous rant about Bill Clinton instead.

    And only an idiot thinks enlightenment can be found in religion. Religion is the opposite of enlightenment. It is a shroud of ignorance. It cripples the minds of millions of people with fear and does nothing but keep mankind in the dark.

    He alone is the true source of enlightenment. Any other source is lacking because only He has all knowledge.

    How can any source be as lacking as religion? Religion has never offered any sort of proof of it’s validity, not even a trace. The closest thing religion has to tangible evidence are some of the false relics floating around generating revenue from idiots who pay to look at them.

    I think what is really lacking is your argument. You have not said anything that does not equate to “God is great, I trust God”. Meaning your argument has no substance, no reasoning, you just keep restating the same thing over and over and what does your statement say other than “I am a slave to my fear of a mythical god”?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      I stumped you on the cruelty of religion and you could not admit it

      You have done no such thing. I have answered this claim a couple times but you have ignored it. Just because you don’t want to hear the answer does not mean that I have not given it. If you do not want to address the answer I have given at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that I have given an answer. You seem only to want to claim victory (even when you have not achieved it…as in this case) instead of discussing the issue.

      In order to be fair, I will give my answer again. I will quote it from an earlier comment that I posted.

      There is no shame for me, or any Christian, to bear. Bad things have been done in the name of Christianity but that does not mean that it is what Christianity teaches. It does not mean that those bad people, who claimed to be Christians, were really Christians just because they claimed to be. You can’t lay guilt on Christianity for these things unless Christianity teaches it followers to do these things. It does not. You need to read your Bible and pray God would give you wisdom and discernment while you do it.

      Please explain how Christianity can be held responsible for things it does not teach. You do understand that people can claim to be something they are not? You do understand that people can claim Christianity teaches things that it does not actually teach? Bad people do bad things because of the sinful nature that we all have and they often seek to blame it on something or someone other than themselves. You know this, right? Christianity is not to blame if some bad sinful person does something in the name of Christianity which Christianity does not teach. Think of identity theft: someone claims to be you, opens a credit card account, spends up to the limit, then disappears. You are not responsible for paying those bills just because someone claiming to be you incurrred them. Same concept here.

      You still have not shared the source (or any source I have requested) of your “enlightenment”. Why is that? You did make a valid statement in your last post when you summarized my arguments as “God is great, I trust God”. God is the Creator of all things so therefore He is the logical place to start when it comes to the pursuit of “enlightenment”. Proverbs 1:7 says “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction“.

      You said:

      Religion has never offered any sort of proof of it’s validity, not even a trace. The closest thing religion has to tangible evidence are some of the false relics floating around generating revenue from idiots who pay to look at them.

      For most religions, I would completely agree with you on this but not with Christianity. Not a single thing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong. As new discoveries are made, we find that they always agree with what the Bible has said. To claim otherwise is ignorance of the facts or intentional untruthfulness. If it were true that there was “no trace” of evidence for Christianity, it would have failed long ago. Your, and other atheists, rejection of the evidence is sad but does not invalidate it.

      I pray God would change your heart so that you would seek Him. He can be your guide. Call out to Him and He will answer. God is the answer to the enlightenment that you seek. John 1:1-9 says

      1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

      This passage is speaking of Jesus. I ask you to think about the source of your enlightenment. There are only two sources…God and Satan. If you are not a child of God your enlightenment comes from Satan and I assure you that is not a good thing.

      Like

  59. Ryan says:

    This passage is speaking of Jesus. I ask you to think about the source of your enlightenment. There are only two sources…God and Satan. If you are not a child of God your enlightenment comes from Satan and I assure you that is not a good thing.

    This surprised me actually, judging from your previous post I didn’t expect you to say something like this.

    So you’re saying that there are only two possible affiliations being Christian and Satanist. You also imply by this statement that I am inspired by Satan which is absurd. I assure you that my inspiration isn’t subconsciously fed to my by a mythical God.

    Not a single thing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong.

    Very bold claim, do you really think this?

    Well I disagree and here’s why:

    There are many things I can refer to in history and science that prove many of the aspects in the bible as incorrect or impossible. But I’m going to pick a different source for my argument and use the Bible itself, because it’s full of so many contradictions that it proves itself wrong. And feel free to look these quotes up in your own bible, maybe you are unaware that they are in there.

    n Matthew 1:616 and Luke 3:23-31 of the new testament, they decribe Jesus as a descendant of David (in two different ways, one starting Jesus’ ancestral line from Abraham and the other Adam). We’ll ignore the contradiction of Jesus being a descendant of Adam or Abraham for now and focus on the link from Jesus to David.

    But isn’t there something wrong with this? Because most Christians believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, which the Bible also supports:
    Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that the fruit of his loins
    according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” -ACT 2:30

    …but then it says-
    “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” -MAT 1:18

    In Genesis when God created everything, he didn’t create the Sun until the 4th day-While the Bible uses the terms “days”, “evenings” and “mornings”
    Everyone knows that without the sun you can’t have days, evenings or mornings.

    And what about the belief that the world is flat? The bible implies this several times, such as in Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

    You know as well as I do, that due to the earths spherical shape, you cannot stand on any mountain and see the whole world.

    He is the logical place to start when it comes to the pursuit of “enlightenment”. Proverbs 1:7 says “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction“.

    That’s odd considering in Ecclesiastes 1:18 it says:
    For in much wisdom is grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow

    and Corinthians 1:19 says:

    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent

    These are just some of the reasons why I can’t take your arguments seriously when you use the bible as your source.

    Like

  60. PJ says:

    Anyone who answers “birth” is truly narrow-minded and/or simply forgot to consider such things as. . .

    – Induced labor.

    – C-sections.

    – Preemies.

    The latter does not count as a full-term delivery.

    Therefore, if you answer “birth” then you have failed miserably.

    Like

  61. PJ says:

    [quote]Why would you deliberately deprive yourself of enlightenment?[/quote]

    Ryan, because I’ve actually read the enlightenment philosophers. David Hume was in error when he attempted to undercut the rationalists like Descartes, who did come up with a math-based logical proof for God.

    Is it emprical proof? No. But that’s where empiricists like yourself feel safest, within their little box of sense-perception, completely ignorant of the laws that govern the material.

    You say “proof” when you mean “empirical evidence only” <– With no witnesses, no testimony, and no courtroom.

    What you (rather irrationally) demand is a material-based miracle that resists decay over 2000 years. When Christ returns, you will see it. But by then it will be too late, because you were without excuse even before your first post.

    Just because you cannot empirically see the law of causation, does not mean that we cannot argue from it.

    Stop lying to yourself about being enlightened. We see you there in your empiricist bunker, defending yourself with induction-only arguments. You can come out anytime and honestly face us.

    -PJ

    Like

  62. Ryan says:

    Ryan, because I’ve actually read the enlightenment philosophers. David Hume was in error when he attempted to undercut the rationalists like Descartes, who did come up with a math-based logical proof for God.

    Is it emprical proof? No. But that’s where empiricists like yourself feel safest, within their little box of sense-perception, completely ignorant of the laws that govern the material.

    You say “proof” when you mean “empirical evidence only” <– With no witnesses, no testimony, and no courtroom.

    What you (rather irrationally) demand is a material-based miracle that resists decay over 2000 years. When Christ returns, you will see it. But by then it will be too late, because you were without excuse even before your first post.

    Just because you cannot empirically see the law of causation, does not mean that we cannot argue from it.

    Stop lying to yourself about being enlightened. We see you there in your empiricist bunker, defending yourself with induction-only arguments. You can come out anytime and honestly face us.

    -PJ

    Interesting post PJ. Your outburst towards me is a sign that you are upset about my last post containing several Bible contradictions.

    I would be upset too if I devoted my life to something that turned out to be just a myth.

    Like

  63. PJ says:

    Ryan, your outburst towards me is a sign that (a.) you really like to fling the motive fallacies, and (b.) you chose to completely ignore what I wrote.

    Your alleged Bible contradictions are creations of your own eisegesis. <– A classic error that can be made with any written text, not just the Bible.

    For example, you argue against light preceding the sun in Genesis, but it’s within the context of the existence of God. Even you yourself stated so.

    So, no contradictions are present if a God is assumed at the outset (within the context), Who would be perfectly capable of providing His own light to work by.

    But you don’t believe in God. Therefore, you see a contradiction through the lens of your own eisegesis. That’s all it is.

    Matt 4:8 assumes a devil brought Him there. You don’t believe in a mountain that could be so high as to view all of ancient civilization. . .but do you believe in a devil? No? Well, then who’s fault is that? Why yours, of course. For the same reason as above.

    You don’t even understand the Jewish heritage customs given in Deuteronomy, where women aren’t always exempt from the lineage. You also pre-suppose that the seed of David cannot be a woman within the same tribe as her husband.

    Why? Again, your eisegetical interpretation.

    You can do this all day long. Someone else will clean up your mess, and then you move on to another.

    I call it the “Wile E. Coyote style of atheistic interpretation.”

    Some babies like to fling their food around while in their high-chair. Are they having a hard time getting the food in. . .or are they just having fun?

    It’s a book. You must present a valid contradiction without reading your own bias into and upon the text.

    But that was just a distraction. The real problem is in the total side-stepping of my own statements.

    You are an empiricist and you fudge the definition of “proof” so as not to include a testimony or witnesses, which even material evidence requires.

    The trial is not held in the police property room, but rather in the courtroom.

    Get it?

    Probably not.

    Even matter itself requires rational arguments to constitute proof.

    This goes double for science. I like to cite “Aliens Cause Global Warming” by Dr. Michael Crichton, and “Cargo Cult Science” by Richard Feynman, as examples of how science is being abused. Both speeches are great examples of hypocrisy in the modern scientific community.

    Almost all pop-atheists deify science to some extent; even going so far as to speak of science as an entity outside of man.

    Ryan, you are nothing more than one of millions of lazy skeptics. You take your skepticism only as far as it is safe to do so. You have never actually taken skepticism to the point of your very own existence (as Descartes does).

    You have even hypocritically accused theists of following deceivers without even skeptically testing the very priests of the sacred “ism” that you yourself follow.

    Sad and truly narrow-minded. Time to get the log out of your own eye.

    tinyurl[dot]com/cm2seu

    -PJ

    Like

  64. Ryan says:

    Ryan, your outburst towards me is a sign that (a.) you really like to fling the motive fallacies, and (b.) you chose to completely ignore what I wrote.

    What you wrote was nothing more than an outburst towards me where you labeled me as an “empiricist”. If we’re going to fling labels at one another, I would say that you are a Helgianist Christian. Are you familiar with Helgianism?

    Probably not.

    Basically you as a Christian try to find ways to rationalize your faith and use science to prove the existence of god. And this is where you (and many other Christians) contradict yourself.

    You take real science and use it to invent your own ‘pseudo-science’ that complies with the “word of god”.

    The conflict between religion and science will continue until eventually humans become independent of the need to attribute life’s larger aspects to a mythical, supernatural force. But as long as the conflict continues, Christians like yourself will perpetuate it by taking scientific discoveries and misconstruing them in order to give their credit to god rather than the exceptional minds of the human scientist which made the discoveries.

    Now back to the subject of faith. You I am sure proclaim to have faith in god like all Christians. But what you have exhibited in your post so far presents a great flaw in your faith. You are attempting to rationalize the existence of god through science and “mathematical based logic”.

    So if you really had faith, you would not have need to rationalize god through science, or try to prove his existence. You would make the “leap of faith” -Kierkegaard and truly believe that god is beyond reason. But instead you try to use science to prove god’s existence and this is why you do not have true faith.

    Through your efforts to find logical reasoning to prove god’s existence, you deny your own faith in god. Therefore you are not a Christian.

    Have you heard of Kierkegaard? He was one of the greatest philosophers of all time and happened to be Christian.

    Read this for an assertion of your lack of faith.

    “The idea that a God could be transformed into a man, more specifically Jesus, is a paradox. “Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”

    -Kierkegaard

    Like

  65. PJ says:

    Yes Ryan, I am familiar with Hegelianism.

    But the Hegelian dialectic is itself fallacious within its own system. Instead of “turtles all the way down” the dialectic is more “turtles all the way up” in order to keep truth statements up in the air indefinitely.

    Even though certain leaders in both the Emergent Church and Church Growth Movement have both utilized Hegelian models, I am not one of those.

    So your guess is way off.

    I don’t rely on science to prove the existence of God. Science answers “how” questions only, and not the “why.” Science does not conclusively determine what is “good” or “bad.” Feynman would argue that must be brought in from outside the lab.

    Therefore, no contradiction. And you were accusing me of being a Hegelian, remember? Pick one accusation (science or philosophy) and remain consistent please. You cannot make an accusation to pseudo-science, because I haven’t cited any.

    For if Paul asserts that, “God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen,” then why would I need to force natural science to comply with scripture? No, you’ve got it completely backwards.

    So put down the Bible and we can do this. RC Sproul can do it. Dougpowell[dot]com is doing it. Any Christian can. . .as long as you’re running around trolling, all you do is make the rest of us stronger.

    This is far from a real fight, but rather more of a learning opportunity on your part.

    And also note that in your post, you deify science by referring to it as “real science” and putting scientists on a mystical level with their “exceptional minds.”

    “Exceptional” compared to who? Again, I appeal to the secular Feynman. Their experiments are only valid if they can be replicated by someone else from the ground up. The language and the formulas must remain consistent apart from the experimenter. Ryan, you make a grave error when you personify scientists themselves as some form of super-being. Your pop-atheism is showing again.

    Yet not one scientist has proven for certain the universe’s necessary antecedent cause.

    Stephen Hawking appeals to an eternal universe that collapses and then begins again (turtles all the way down). Carl Sagan loved the alien seeding concept for life in the universe (Contact).*

    These are examples of pure speculation and not science. But you take their word on it because you elevate these with your own authority fallacy. You find safety in inductive reasoning alone.

    You also define faith incorrectly. But then many Christians do the same. Faith is not mysticism. Faith is not Kierkegaard’s leap into the irrational. The word faith came long before existentialism ever began.

    Faith, by definition, requires an object. You cannot have faith in faith. “Blind faith” or “Empty faith” is no faith at all. Faith must be consistent with its wider definition in order to be valid.

    You exercise faith in others that you have invested your trust. Marital fidelity by definition is a form of literal faith. You enter into fiduciary trusts. You exercise faith in the very chair you trust in to hold your weight. Therefore, faith requires an object.

    The argument then is not to the act of faith, but rather the object that faith requires.

    Kierkegaard was an existentialist. The existentialists emerged after Kant attempted to “rescue God” from David Hume, who in turn himself assumed that he had sucessfully argued against Descartes’ ontological argument for God. But where did he actually do that?

    Such a feat is taken for granted. The so-called skeptic finds a convenient exception here, and thus shows his own hypocrisy.

    Logic and the laws that govern matter precede the existence of matter. Whatever their source is also capable of reason that is far beyond what we ourselves are capable of.

    Sure, this is an example of the “philosopher’s God” and can even fall into classical deism. But it’s still more rational that accusing man of inventing logic, reason, and math.

    Plus, this philosopher’s God can only exist possessing the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Only One with those qualities can create a universe. And there is only one doctrine that claims to reveal such a One with all of those qualities.

    “The idea that a God could be transformed into a man, more specifically Jesus, is a paradox. “

    But not a contradiction. It is possible that Kierkegaard’s God is not omnipotent. He may have simply had a faulty theology. A paradox is not a formal contradiction.

    Per wiki: According to absurdism, humans historically attempt to find meaning in their lives. For some, traditionally, this search follows one of two paths: either concluding that life is meaningless, and that what we have is the here-and-now; or alternatively, filling the void with a purpose set forth by a higher power, often a belief in God or adherence to a religion. However, even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question is posed: What is the purpose of God?

    This was the existentialist’s loophole. But it merely betrays a faulty theology. Because if God requires a purpose, then He is found to be wanting for something, and then by definition ceases to be God.

    For God by definition is self-sufficient. Thus, many are fudging the very definition of God in order to make Him fit in their little box.

    Conclusion? Ryan completely missed. Try again.

    -PJ

    *Or, the church of SETI. Pure hypocrisy.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      GO PJ!!

      Like

      • Ryan says:

        But the Hegelian dialectic is itself fallacious within its own system. Instead of “turtles all the way down” the dialectic is more “turtles all the way up” in order to keep truth statements up in the air indefinitely.

        Even though certain leaders in both the Emergent Church and Church Growth Movement have both utilized Hegelian models, I am not one of those.

        So your guess is way off.

        I don’t rely on science to prove the existence of God. Science answers “how” questions only, and not the “why.” Science does not conclusively determine what is “good” or “bad.” Feynman would argue that must be brought in from outside the lab.

        Therefore, no contradiction. And you were accusing me of being a Hegelian, remember? Pick one accusation (science or philosophy) and remain consistent please. You cannot make an accusation to pseudo-science, because I haven’t cited any.

        and then two sites pertaining to pseudo-science…

        Ryan, because I’ve actually read the enlightenment philosophers. David Hume was in error when he attempted to undercut the rationalists like Descartes, who did come up with a math-based logical proof for God.

        A math-based logical proof for god=pseudo-science

        But you don’t believe in God. Therefore, you see a contradiction through the lens of your own eisegesis. That’s all it is.

        Matt 4:8 assumes a devil brought Him there. You don’t believe in a mountain that could be so high as to view all of ancient civilization. . .but do you believe in a devil? No? Well, then who’s fault is that? Why yours, of course. For the same reason as above.

        So what your saying is that I should have assumed that the earth was flat? The earth is a sphere, you can not stand on any mountain, or the moon for that matter and see all of the world’s kingdoms.

        Faith, by definition, requires an object. You cannot have faith in faith. “Blind faith” or “Empty faith” is no faith at all. Faith must be consistent with its wider definition in order to be valid.

        Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The way Christians use faith is in the context of an idea, however they place their faith in this idea that in their minds is real. So from the perspective of a Christian, it is not blind faith, but from the perspective of anyone else, it is blind faith since the idea that the faith is based on does not exist.

        Then somewhere in there you stated that “this is a learning experience” for me. You’re right. What kind of person would I be if I entered any experience without the mentality to learn from it? I like that you have sited some of the literature that you derive your arguments from, I would like to read them.

        And I would like to encourage you to learn about where religion really came from. Learn about the true origins of Christianity. Because you obviously don’t know or you would not be a Christian now.

        I guess it’s different when you’re trying to defend Christianity, you have to be really careful about the information that you obtain because you don’t want to read anything that debunks your religion (such as the origins of Christianity).

        Me on the other hand, I already know that there is no god, so I’m willing to read any piece of literature that argues that there is a god. Because it’s interesting to see how complex some of these arguments to convince people that a mythical being is real can be.

        It seems to me that you grew up Christian, and then you were educated on evolution and theories of galactic origin, but you never shed the dependence to religion. So now you try to find ways to fit god into scientific theories. Why can’t you be content with nature? Why do you have to attribute these events to a mythical being?

        Unfortunately I do not have the amount of free time you do to type such a lengthy post. I would like to respond to all of your points in this post but the rest will have to wait. I have things to do.

        Like

        • Tom Shelton says:

          Ryan,

          You said:

          Me on the other hand, I already know that there is no god, so I’m willing to read any piece of literature that argues that there is a god.

          How do you know that there is no god? In order to know that, you would have to possess all possible knowledge. Do you? If you do, then you are god. If you don’t then there is no way that you could have certainty that there is no god. Therefore, you would have to leave open the possibility that there is a god and you would not be an atheist. If there is a god then we are subject to His authority in our lives.

          To summarize, you would have to be god in order to know that there is no god. That does not work logically. So, since it is possible that God exists we must find out and if He does then we must submit to Him.

          We can then argue that God must exist using the Law of Causality. If you are not familiar with that argument I can explain it to you. So again I must ask, How do you know (with certainty) that there is no God?

          Like

  66. Ryan says:

    GO PJ!!

    awwww

    Like

  67. PJ says:

    One site that I pasted up was to a vid arguing the transcendental argument for God. That’s philosophy and mathematical logic. Not pseudoscience.

    The other site was both a name and a face to selflessdefense[dot]com. So, it was the same person as above.

    Therefore, these accused links were to only one source. One that you chose to pre-judge out of hand according to a presupposition of “pseudoscience.”

    That’s prejudice on your part, and not an argument to actual content.

    Science depends on both logic and math. This is why sometimes you can substitute logic for a math credit in college.

    Therefore, your own definition of science is a bunch of question-begging nonsense. You’re shoving it into the realm of mysticism just to play keep-away with the theists, but it won’t work.

    A math-based logical proof for God is not pseudo-science. It is merely you saying that there is no logical formula to explain God. I say that there is, raise the bet, and you simply pretend to be ignorant of it.

    My arguments are built upon the law of non-contradiction and the law of causation (<– Yes Virginia, there is an absolute!).

    I cannot force you to actually read such arguments. But then again, it is not my fault you’re choosing to cower away from them.

    “Interesting” is code for “I’ll just superficially read other arguments, but I won’t actually test the logic behind any of them. . .because I feel safest within my own presuppositions.”

    I am not saying that you should have assumed that the earth was flat.

    I am telling you that the source you’re arguing to assumes both a God and a devil that are capable of doing what you reject at the outset through your pre-supposition.

    In this case, it is a question of exactly how the devil “showed” Christ all the kingdoms. You forget both perspective from such a height and the fact that the text says “in their glory.”

    You therefore cannot cherry-pick parts to accuse the whole of contradiction. You cannot accuse a humbug mythical non-existent devil of an inability to do X feat. You cannot bring in “Jesus, devil, and mountain,” and then argue against mountain only. That’s patently absurd.

    Therefore, you must reject the whole thing based on your presupposition that there is no God/Devil that can order such events. Anything other than that is bad theology on your part. So put the Bible down, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    Re: Faith. Agreed. Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. This is progress!

    However, you are completely wrong in your charge that the way Christians use faith is in the context of an idea only. That’s your bias kicking in.

    Just because you subjectively presume that there is no valid argument that proves the objective historical person of the resurrected Jesus Christ, or even the idea of an objectively real God, it doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

    It simply means you’re refusing to actually look where I’ve referred you. Sure, you can say you looked, but what will you return with? You willing to take a pop-quiz based on the homework you claim to have done? Probably not.

    And there are ideas out there that are just as real, if not more real, than the objective keys you type on. An engineering blueprint is an idea that is still as yet intangible, but the inventor has the objective faith to go ahead and build it anyway.

    I do not argue that God is real because I can concieve of Him in my mind. I argue because of (a.) historical proof that He has already intervened and left enough rational proof of it*, as well as (b.) the concept that mankind is itself an effect of an antecedent and rational cause. <—If not, then ultimately you have no point in even attempting to reason with me, because nihilism and absurdism would rightly rule the day.

    Statements like, “So from the perspective of a Christian, it is not blind faith, but from the perspective of anyone else, it is blind faith since the idea that the faith is based on does not exist..” is an appeal to two opposing “truths.” Both perspectives cannot both be right.

    But then how is a non-theistic argument authoritative at all, when it depends on begging the question, inductive reasoning as the ends (rather than the means), and various “nuh-uh” statements?

    Your inference to the “true origins of Christianity” is also purely inductively based, and founded on an a priori rejection of the Bible as historically valid. You and yours then pad this with page after page of perhaps/possibly/maybe statements, and then present them in a “just so” format.

    For example, why do we accept pagan Greek philosophers and their amanuenses as historically valid when Jesus had the same in Matthew the tax collector as well as possibly others?

    This is a historical double standard on your part. You raise the bar on one because you’re simply more afraid of it. See Doug Powell for more on this.

    Statements that begin with, “I already know that there is no god,” is a certainty statement.

    You are saying you know this for certain, with no doubt whatsoever. And that IS delusional, because you would either have to be omniscient yourself to actually claim this, or you don’t really understand the claim you’re making at the outset.

    How can you have the utter gall to front-load so much confidence in such statements without anything to actually show for it?

    I am a lapsed Southern Baptist. I rejected Christianity at a young age and embraced nihilism for a time after no one was able to answer my questions about God.

    Therefore, I assumed that since my church community dropped the ball, then no one was able to pick it up. Then I discovered the Founders and a Reformed Pastor. All of my questions were then answered and I made a second go of it.

    I’ve been kicking the tires of atheism and watching the bumpers fall off ever since then. The kids in the science building really need to explore the rest of the campus. It’s hubris to assume there’s no need to.

    “Why can’t you be content with nature?”

    Because you asked a why argument. Hehe, get it?

    “Why do you have to attribute these events to a mythical being?”

    Loaded fallacy. Have you stopped beating your wife? Plus, you asked another why question. Get it?

    You’re also not drawing any logical conclusions from your own worldview. You’re arguing to “just be content” with nature. But you’re essentially saying that this is our true purpose. How do we be content with nature, without more of your fallacious “just so” arguments? In addition, you don’t even realize that you’re actually arguing for Social Darwinism and the Will to Power.

    As to the question of free time, I’m an independent contractor. I have a job and I’m actually losing money taking time out like this. For me, this isn’t some game or hobby. . .unlike your pseudo-intellectual posturing.

    If you have a passion for something, you’ll make the time for it.

    If not, then why are you wasting time here to begin with?

    If you embrace total secular relativism/postmodern absurdism, then why are you reasoning or even using words to begin with?

    Words are meaningless and talk is cheap until the chart your doctor refers to becomes worth your very life.

    Words are all we have. Reason is all we have. Your very life can and will someday depend on both.

    It’s time you got serious and started to assess these issues seriously. All I am arguing is to an unbroken daisy chain of logic and definition of being, and there are only two directions this can go. Trust me on one thing when I say this whole time you’ve been lied to.

    -PJ

    *Rational, as opposed to empirical, where the atheist demands tangible proof that outlasts 2000 years of natural decay. You’ll surely see that alright, but by then it will be too late. Because you rejected the testimony that performed the very same feat.

    Like

  68. Ryan says:

    How do you know that there is no god? In order to know that, you would have to possess all possible knowledge. Do you? If you do, then you are god. If you don’t then there is no way that you could have certainty that there is no god. Therefore, you would have to leave open the possibility that there is a god and you would not be an atheist. If there is a god then we are subject to His authority in our lives.

    Your argument is an oxymoron. Me saying that there is no god is the same as you saying their a god. Do you possess all possible knowledge? No.

    Then how do you know there is a god?

    When I say there is no god, I refer to the concept of god that Christians created. A being that created everything, then spoke to some prophets who then wrote down everything he said. And the concept of afterlife that goes with it.

    It’s all nonsense. Man created the Christian God, he is a mythical, fictional character and does not exist.

    I do not claim to know how the universe began BUT to say that the Christian God did it is just stupid.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You said:

      Your argument is an oxymoron. Me saying that there is no god is the same as you saying their a god. Do you possess all possible knowledge? No.

      Then how do you know there is a god?

      Not the same at all. I will explain how I know there is a God using the Law of Causation.

      The Law of Causation states that every effect must have a prior cause. Since this is the case, we can theoretically trace back to the initial cause of any effect. You can agree on that I think.

      Lets define the creation of the universe as an effect because something had to cause it to come into existence. We know this because it does exist today. Theoretically, we could then begin to trace back to the initial cause that set the creation of the universe in motion. No matter how many links exist in this chain of cause and effect we can steadily make our way back until we find the initial link or the first cause. Still with me?

      Once we get to the first cause, we have to answer the question “What caused the first cause?” Sounds like we are stuck but that is not the case. The first cause, by definition, has to be un-caused. If is in caused, then it is not the first cause. That means it has to have the means to sustain itself. We also know that this un-caused, first cause has to have existed eternally. If at anytime nothing existed, then nothing would ever exist because something cannot come from nothing.

      So, we have come to the fact that we have an un-caused first cause that has eternally existed. It has the power to sustain itself and to set the events in motion that caused the universe to be created. Seems like a very powerful entity to me. Now, you are probably thinking that this does not prove that there is a god and I would agree with you. But, it has proved that there is some all powerful, self-sustaining, creating “force” that does exist. Christians call this “force” God. For a more thorough explanation of this refer to RC Sproul. He explained this in one of his book…if forget which one at the moment. If you want to know which book, I will find which one and give page references when I get home tonight.

      So you see, I can prove that there is a god, and not just a god, but the One True God and that God created the universe. Now please share your proof that there is no god.

      Like

  69. Ryan says:

    A math-based logical proof for God is not pseudo-science. It is merely you saying that there is no logical formula to explain God. I say that there is, raise the bet, and you simply pretend to be ignorant of it.

    Give me a link to this.

    And as for the rest of your post, you can spare the petty insults such as “have you stopped beating your wife?”. They make your post more lengthy that they should be.

    You have done a lot of judging thus far, you don’t know me. All you have are a few post.

    As for your argument, it is detailed but it seems to go in circles while flinging presumptions of what area of philosophy I may fall into.

    You failed to address my statements of the origins of Christianity. It wasn’t God who enlightened a few sheep farmers. It evolved out of astrology and Greek mythology (among many other forms of folk myths). Are you unaware of this? Because you seem to be a logical thinker and it wouldn’t make sense if you did know the truth about the origins of Christianity and continued to follow it.

    Therefore, you must reject the whole thing based on your presupposition that there is no God/Devil that can order such events. Anything other than that is bad theology on your part. So put the Bible down, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    Embarrassing myself? I’m not the one who thinks the bible is historical fact. No history book would contain so many contradictions or claim proof of events based on eye-witness testimonies alone.

    And your argument is hypocritical when you say:”Therefore, you must reject the whole thing based on your presupposition that there is no God/Devil that can order such events”

    How is your presumption that there is a god right while my presumption that there is no god wrong?

    You attack my bias in your arguments as if you have no bias. Try to be less hypocritical.

    *Rational, as opposed to empirical, where the atheist demands tangible proof that outlasts 2000 years of natural decay. You’ll surely see that alright, but by then it will be too late. Because you rejected the testimony that performed the very same feat.

    Are you saying there are no artifacts older that 2000 years old?

    They have uncovered fossils to prove the existence of dinosaurs (and crush the creationist myth of the earth only being 6000 years old) and they have exhumed all kinds of ancient Pharaohs (most of them predating Jesus). But there has never been a single artifact (other than meaningless scripture) that proves the existence of God.

    So for you to say that there is proof of God’s existence is absurd. There is no Christian God, but I know you will never be able to accept this because it has become your identity, your source of self-respect and self-righteousness and a crutch for your weaknesses.

    “Why can’t you be content with nature?”

    Because you asked a why argument. Hehe, get it?

    So answer it. Why do you dismiss the idea of our natural state being the result of billions of years of coincidental events? And don’t look at this question as part of an argument but rather a sincere question.

    You’re also not drawing any logical conclusions from your own worldview. You’re arguing to “just be content” with nature. But you’re essentially saying that this is our true purpose. How do we be content with nature, without more of your fallacious “just so” arguments? In addition, you don’t even realize that you’re actually arguing for Social Darwinism and the Will to Power.

    My argument can not be summarized with “just be content with nature”. What “logical conclusions” are you looking for? I could type a few pages and outline my worldview, but I don’t want to spend that much time so you will have to be specific.

    You are saying you know this for certain, with no doubt whatsoever. And that IS delusional, because you would either have to be omniscient yourself to actually claim this, or you don’t really understand the claim you’re making at the outset.

    I just had this argument with Tom Shelton. This is another hypocritical statement, with saying that, I’m sure yo know where I’m going but just in case you don’t:

    If my belief that there is no God is delusional, then how is your belief that there is a God anything less that delusional?

    You say that I would have to be omniscient myself to make such a claim, which I understand this from your perspective. But from my perspective it’s the same as if you said “You know that there is no Santa Claus, you would have to be omniscient”. This argument is just an example of how Christianity is designed to trap it’s believers into following without question.

    It seems in both our efforts, we are trying to convince each other of the existence or non-existence of God. And I assume we are talking about the Christian God so correct me if I’m wrong.

    Like

    • JJ says:

      You said that there is no artifact that proves God. Look around you. Every plant and tree is proof, as well as humans and animals. Many things are so complex that scientists can’t explain them. To say random chance created the world is as absurd as saying the twin towers simply rose out of the ground.

      Like

      • Ryan says:

        This is a terrible argument. It is based on a logical fallacy, which means that it is incorrect. You put forth the conclusion that God exists. To “prove” this, you use a Reductio argument as follows:

        You assert that God exists.

        To prove this, you assume the opposite: God does not exists.

        From this you conclude that if God did not exists, then everything would have been “created by random chance” which is of course absurd.

        Therefore “God exists. ”

        There are two big problems with this argument. The first one, being an intrinsic trait of a Reductio argument is this:

        You offer only 2 possibilities -either God exists, or everything was created by “random chance”. The latter is absurd, so the one whom you are arguing against is tricked into accepting the former.

        Though, in truth, the possibilities range much further than only 2.

        The second way that this argument fails is that you use an Argumentum Ad Ignorantuim (argument from ignorance). This type of argument is in the same form as: “Ghost must exist because no one has ever proven that there aren’t any” or “I have not seen China, therefore China does not exists”.

        In your case, the argument is as follows:

        “I do not know how evolution works, and I am not aware of the many theories of the origins of the universe. Therefore, they are incorrect.”

        Your argument “Every plant and tree is proof, as well as humans and animals.” is a False Cause fallacy and is due to your lack of scientific knowledge.

        It is likely that you have only read Straw Man accounts of evolution or any other scientific discovery. I’m assuming that most likely the only things you “know” about evolution are what you have heard through word of mouth, and most likely from staunchly Christian sources (which means that they are intentionally obscured). Or you have read a few pamphlets published by some Christian organization depicting Evolution as some kind of “lie”. therefore, you are arguing from incorrect knowledge.

        I know you have never read The Origin of Species (or if you have, you had your mind made up before you began reading). You have never checked any scientific journals on the subject. You have never read about any of the real evidence for evolution. You have no idea how it really works. My point is, the evolution you are arguing against is not evolution. Go learn about what it really is. (I recommend “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins. It is specifically geared toward those like yourself who have horrible misconceptions about evolution.)

        I do not care whether or not you reply to this. However, I do hope that you are honest with yourself and seek to understand science – I mean really understand it by reading from unbiased sources – before you continue to spout anymore nonsensical arguments.

        Thanks.

        Like

  70. Ryan says:

    Note to the moderator (if there is one)

    I realize that this discussion has strayed far from the subject of abortion, so maybe you should consider moving some of the recent post to a separate area.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      You are correct and it is a good suggestion to move these comments to another post. I have done a quick search of the WP support pages and it appears that the only way to move these comments is to do it manually by copying and pasting. I don’t have the time to do that. I can, if you all (you and PJ) are interested, create a new post and we can continue the discussion there.

      Like

  71. PJ says:

    The argument is not an oxymoron. It hinges on the honest understanding of your limits + the honest definition of the word “God.” It doesn’t matter if you believe in the existence of said God or not.

    God necessarily requires the following basic attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Anything less makes God some parahuman reflection; akin to the Greek pantheon.

    Even certain groups who call themselves Christians fail in regards to this most basic theology.

    Therefore, in order to confirm knowledge that there is no God, you must necessarily possess an equivalent knowledge of the entire universe. You cannot argue from the limits of your single pale blue dot.

    However, it is possible to know for certain if there is a God, if said God were not the God of deism. This is where, as but one example, Doug Powell’s presentation of the math-based Kalam argument comes in. Actual infinite numbers do not truly exist.

    No single argument for the revelation of God to man is meant to be considered at your option. They are all there; all at once.

    If even a few of these arguments have merit (either all or nothing) then only your will to resist is the only thing holding you back. So, this is not about any lack of evidence on the part of the Christian. That’s a mere smokescreen on your part, because you will not willingly set the bar still for the circumstantial evidence to jump over.

    You’re not really asking for proof, but rather you’re playing a game of keep-away. You are a sophomoric tease with a cheap argument. So please, stop doing that.

    To say that you do not claim to know how the universe began, but to immediately rule out the Christian God is simply to favor another god of a lesser kind. I contend that no other god or concept of god will fully possess the 3 attributes I listed above. Period.

    You cannot prove that man created the Christian God. This is an oxymoron of your own making. You cannot say the Roman Catholic Church was somehow always in a position to dominate and abuse others in an attempt to hang man’s failure upon God Himself. Again, man sometimes betrays the badge he wears. That’s not God’s fault, nor is it the fault of the Bible. This is an eisegesis that jumped to the wrong conclusions, and nothing more.

    You cannot say on the one hand that it’s arrogance to assume that we are the only life form that exists in the entire universe, while at the same time assert that other life in the universe must absolutely fit the arbitrary attributes that you set for it. What if extraterrestrial life was literally extraterrestrial, needing no planet, and at the same time self-sustaining? What if that life had omnipotence? But no, that’s not an acceptable hypothesis, because it makes you subjectively uncomfortable.

    You cannot accuse another of embracing fantasy fairy-tale fiction, while at the same time placing hope in your science fiction. The speculations of Sagan, Hawking, and Kurzweil are nothing more than a form of cleverly packaged techno-paganism. It’s no wonder Feynman calls it “Cargo Cult Science.” The irony in this is overwhelming.

    Ryan, you’ve done nothing more than telegraph to everyone your simple bias and hostility towards Jesus Christ and none other. Why?

    Because His followers are sinners?

    Because He’s not your personal cosmic bellhop?

    Because you have problems reading books exegetically?

    Because the rhetorical scientific authorities told you? You’re supposed to be open-minded, right?

    So why this one God in particular?

    -PJ

    Like

  72. PJ says:

    Ryan, I already gave you many links to one of the best collections of arguments to the existence of God. So stop playing games.

    The “have you stopped beating your wife” is an example of the loaded fallacy that you posted. Your own errors are stretching this out, not petty insults. I have valid complaints against your tactics here. Nothing petty about that.

    For example, I have to extend my post even longer to remind you there are two definitions of the verb “judge.”

    I am not condemning you and you are perfectly safe. If you feel intimidated, you can always walk away. But if you wish to stay, you cannot play the victim card here. Thus, your accusations of “judging” are pretty fake.

    You cannot actually prove that Christianity evolved out of astrology and Greek mythology (among many other forms of folk myths). If you are making a vague reference to Zeitgeist the Movie, then that has been already thoroughly debunked (even among secularists), and you’re the one who’s got some catching up to do. This is a debate where you’re merely flailing for the last word on this, so give up.

    And your accusation to Biblical contradictions has also been debunked. You can bring some more to the table any time, but do your really think for a minute that we are fearful of such empty threats?

    You must reject the entirety of the Bible based on your own purely subjective self-contradiction that there is no God, because that’s the Bible’s central theme! No miracle exists in that book without testimony to or against the God of Isreal and His Messiah.

    So toss it all out. Your own presuppositions are an attempt to swallow the whole thing at once, and as a result, you’re choking on it.

    You require many fossils to build a logical chain of visible transformation over millions of years. The separate parts of the fossil record are visible, but the actual chain of transformation is continually broken.

    As Dawkins said in a recent TV interview, “We’re working on it.” Learn to recognize your own irrational leaps of faith before you accuse others. You take one fossil and leap to another. You really do have an evolution of the gaps that you fail to account for. It crushes nothing, because the holes are so big that you can walk in-between them.

    LOL, yes. Many Pharaohs pre-date Jesus. Do you even read your own material?

    I love this quote: “There is no Christian God, but I know you will never be able to accept this because it has become your identity, your source of self-respect and self-righteousness and a crutch for your weaknesses.”

    The apostle Paul beat you to it a long time ago in 1 Corinthians 15 when he states, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

    That’s all there is to it. So, your challenge is very simple. Find the body; kill the faith. Do it Ryan. I dare you. I double-dare you!

    I accept your question in your previous post as sincere, and my answer is this. I dismiss the idea of our natural state being the result of billions of years of coincidental events because of the existentialist conclusions that naturally result from such a naturalist position. Nihilism and absurdism is a logical conclusion to the death of God.

    If what you say is true, then there is only Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Also as a result, you also have no true moral code, because whatever morality you determine for yourself, you can erase at whim. Under your worldview, mankind can change the moral rules whenever and however they wish.

    Therefore, you reduce yourself to a non-entity. A flesh machine. Nothing but fodder for a new Alexander.

    Therefore, this is proof-positive that regardless of anything else, and without even meeting him, I value Ryan more than Ryan values himself. Stern rebuke is not hatred, but rather guidance.

    Quote: “If my belief that there is no God is delusional, then how is your belief that there is a God anything less that delusional?” <– This question fallaciously assumes that this is an equal argument.

    You see it only as an argument between religious man and secular man. That’s not what we’re saying. You’re forgetting the honest attributes of even a secular idea of God. God is capable of reaching the other life form, where the other is incapable.

    That’s the difference. It doesn’t matter if you choose to believe in a God or not. You must be honest with at least the definition of the God you choose to reject, or else you are not engaging in a fair argument to begin with.

    -PJ

    Like

  73. PJ says:

    Tom, I cannot continue this discussion, since I keep getting kicked out of the blog with the window shutting down.

    I’ll send an error report if that will do any good, but I can’t stay while fighting the page.

    Take care you two.

    -PJ

    Like

  74. Ryan says:

    Ryan,

    You are correct and it is a good suggestion to move these comments to another post. I have done a quick search of the WP support pages and it appears that the only way to move these comments is to do it manually by copying and pasting. I don’t have the time to do that. I can, if you all (you and PJ) are interested, create a new post and we can continue the discussion there.

    Yea I think that’s a good idea. Post a link in this discussion when you’ve created the new post.

    Like

  75. Ryan says:

    Tom, I cannot continue this discussion, since I keep getting kicked out of the blog with the window shutting down.

    I’ll send an error report if that will do any good, but I can’t stay while fighting the page.

    Take care you two.

    -PJ

    Well that sucks, I was enjoying this discussion. Tom, maybe you can pick up where PJ left off, that is if you agree with his post.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Ryan,

      I am okay with continuing the discussion but I can only continue in areas that I am knowledgeable. Much of what you and PJ have been discussing in beyond my current knowledge.

      Like

  76. rogeriopfm says:

    It makes no sense to give rights to a group of cells while they are no different from a pig, chimp, dog, dolphin, etc at that time of development. I think it is not by chance that there is normally a time limit before it is not anymore legal to interrupt the pregnancy: the developing being has exclusive human characteristics. The time limit is usually before this.
    Even though you can try to illegalize it you will never have abortions ceasing to be done, laws do not solve problems, they just give us a false sense of resolution. The only true laws are the laws of the natural world.
    To justify abortion in grounds of religious doctrine is utter provincialism as no one has the authority to say he’s religion is right over all the others on that matter. And in case you try to justify by saying it is the “word of god” you are just trying to divinize the word of men…
    Anyone who is a scientist should try to make people know better.

    Like

  77. Tom Shelton says:

    rogeriopfm,

    You said:

    It makes no sense to give rights to a group of cells while they are no different from a pig, chimp, dog, dolphin, etc at that time of development.

    Please explain how and at what time the “group of cells” that are a developing human being are the same as a pig, chimp, dog, dolphin, or any other you want to mention. On what are you basing the assumption that they are the same. I think you may want to rethink this line of reasoning because it fails badly.

    Even though you can try to illegalize it you will never have abortions ceasing to be done, laws do not solve problems, they just give us a false sense of resolution.

    Yes, you are right. Evil people will always do evil things. But this is no reason to not do everything we can to stop the evil. If you follow your logic out to it ultimate conclusion, you could not justify having any laws whatsoever and our society would be utter chaos.

    To justify abortion in grounds of religious doctrine is utter provincialism as no one has the authority to say he’s religion is right over all the others on that matter. And in case you try to justify by saying it is the “word of god” you are just trying to divinize the word of men…

    I think you need to clarify this point a bit. First, abortion is wrong because it devalues life. Our Creator placed a high value on life (read His word if you doubt this) and particularly on a child’s life. He brought destruction on entire nations because the participated in religions which demanded child sacrifice. The sanctity of human life is something that is very important to our Creator. We have no right to devalue something He placed a high value on.

    Like

    • rogeriopfm says:

      I cannot argue with the last point as you cannot explain what is “gods word” and never prove what it is. You can point at the bible but it is again extreme provincialism to say that “holy” book is holier than any other “holy” book. Again other provincialism. As for the other questions I could show you hundreds or thousands of articles about the subject but I might as well try to explain the cell cycle or apoptosis or cancer or virus or evolution that it would result in the same. Indiference, obliviousness, rejection and saying the bible’s word is superor/more relevant/more validated.
      One cannot argue with one that does not want to know more

      Like

  78. rogeriopfm says:

    I am just banging a tennis ball on a wall.
    I haven’t even answered to your main question and you didn’t seem to mind. It is also too straightforward.
    Life begun when inanimate matter began animate matter, whenever that was, it was not in a woman’s womb.
    I am not a blind defendant of abortion like: “hey the movies are all full, what else is there to do. Oh right lets perform an abortion…”
    I just stand up to it because it is the lesser harm in many cases. Sometimes it just does not make sense forcefully subjecting a child to grow without a solid family, proper education, basic needs like food and shelter.
    People who grow up in scarcity are victims of bigotry, fundamentalism, disease, hunger and law.
    My discussion with you is as dear to me as possibly the bible is to you because it exercises my critical thinking. You’re adamant mindset provides a wall which will always return the ball. Even though we cannot hope to defeat the wall, we always win something as well by banging a ball against it.
    No hard feelings I hope.

    Like

  79. Tom Shelton says:

    rogeriopfm,

    I just stand up to it because it is the lesser harm in many cases. Sometimes it just does not make sense forcefully subjecting a child to grow without a solid family, proper education, basic needs like food and shelter.

    The lesser harm to everyone but the baby….which is murdered simply because it is more convenient for those responsible for it. There are other alternatives for these unwanted, inconvenient children if only the people involved would exercise them.

    People who grow up in scarcity are victims of bigotry, fundamentalism, disease, hunger and law.

    It does not have to be this way. It is a failure our our churches and our society which allow this. If we would return to the principles taught in the Bible these things can all be fixed because God will be being glorified again.

    I have no hard feelings toward you personally. I think anyone who advocated child sacrifice for the convenience of those involved are wrong and I will passionately oppose them at every opportunity. My purpose in these types of discussions is not necessarily to change your mind, although I hope to do that, but to influence those who might be “on the fence” on the issue. If I can do that, then this is time well spent.

    Like

    • rogeriopfm says:

      “It does not have to be this way. It is a failure our our churches and our society which allow this. If we would return to the principles taught in the Bible these things can all be fixed because God will be being glorified again.”

      Churches have had thousands of years and they have not solved this problem.
      The true expressions of indoctrination from “holy” books like the bible provided us with “cheerful” historical moments such inquisition and the crusades along with a big share of responsibility for the darkest of ages from the fall of the Roman Empire until the renaissance.
      With only 150 years of Evolutionary Biology in along with 400 years since Galileo we have proven religion wrong in so many aspects (the earth moves around the sun, it is way older than we thought, the sheer complexity of life is explainable by simpler concepts). Since science had some freedom we have cured polio and eradicated malaria from most of the world (unfortunately because of economic imperatives not in poor countries as well).
      Religion might be attributed to good things but the look at the sheer numbers is not so conforting (80.000 pilgrims to Lourdes per year for decades and only 66 “official” miracles. Its insane. I recomend you to watch these documentaries with open mindedness and critical thought: http://plusdemain.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/challengingestablishement-is-it-unnatural/
      The world is not only queerer than we think, it is also queerer than we can think.
      Tom I won’t lie, I wish I would live in a world where abortion needn’t be done, where everyone has their needs taken care of, no wars, no extremism. It just isn’t so.
      The best thing we can do is create better and equal conditions for everyone.

      Like

  80. Ryan says:

    . I recomend you to watch these documentaries with open mindedness and critical thought: http://plusdemain.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/challengingestablishement-is-it-unnatural/

    Zeitgeist is full of half-truths. I’m not saying this with any bias, frankly I’m Atheist and I don’t like the United States. However, the religion section of Zeitgeist is probably the most accurate part of the documentary. It covers how all religions were derived from astronomy and how the stories of the bible (especially the life of Jesus) were derived of pre-existing stories from other cultures (especially Greece).

    But another documentary in that blog covers most of the same things and (unlike Zeitgeist) was fact checked. I’m referring to “The God Who Wasn’t There”. Those two are the ones I’m most familiar with.

    An additional documentary that I didn’t see on that page pertaining to religion is one that the History Channel produced (which says a lot for it’s credibility). It covers the origins specific to Christianity. You could call it the “true history of Christianity”. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

    And here’s one that covers the history of the Bible and contains a whole lot of books that were taken out of the Bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EPOsTVjWlE

    I’m not sure if those are the videos I was looking for, I can’t remember the exact titles because it’s been a while since I watched them.

    However I think Tom should watch them and learn some things about Christianity that he probably didn’t know. Keep in mind Tom that this isn’t part of an argument or an effort to drive you away from Christianity, it’s an opportunity to learn some new things. After you watch them maybe we can discuss them because I’m curious to hear your thoughts on them.

    Like

  81. Sarah says:

    I have a faith in Jesus Christ, and I am pro-life, always have been. I believe its wrong because I’ve read all about it. I’ve seen the awful ways they kill babies, and I’ve cried over it many times. My question for those who share my faith is, when does life begin? This is a legitimate question, because I honestly have no idea. I believe it does happen before they are born, but when? When their hearts start beating?
    p.s. Please don’t yell at me or get all worked up. I’m just a kid, who wants to do what she feels is right. Thanks(:

    Like

  82. Tom Shelton says:

    Sarah,

    Thanks for visiting my blog.

    Life begins at conception. The Bible teaches us that God knew us before He formed us in our mothers womb. That means that at the moment of conception who we are becomes a reality of what God already knew.

    Like

  83. John says:

    well, I might be wrong, but aren’t sperm cells and eggs technically alive? And how is this supposed to stump me? I am still prochoice. Saying that life begins at conception doesn’t really change anything.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      John,

      It actually changes everything. You are correct in saying that the sperm cells and eggs are technically alive…they are live cells in the bodies of the men and women but they are only cells. At the point of fertilization they sperm cell and egg cease to be individual cells and become a human being. That is the difference. That is what should change you from pro child sacrifice to pro life.

      Like

  84. Eli says:

    The question of when someone is truly alive may be as disputed among moral beliefs and ideas as much as that of the origin of the universe and/or God. We cannot provide a clear distinct answer that ‘life’ truly begins at birth, or at conception. When the egg has fertilized, the process of cell division and production begins, yet can this newly fertilized egg be considered a human being? If this egg is considered a human being an ‘alive’, how do we go about determining the extent of this unborn person’s rights as a human being?

    If the act of abortion is the murder of an unborn fetus, a potential life, is the use of contraceptives such as condoms or birth control also preventing that same potential life? If someone is tried for homicide, be it murder or manslaughter, is that same person also tried for the murder of each egg that may have been fertilized resulting in a potential life?

    While some regard it a logical declaration that ‘life’ begins at conception and the human being is then ‘alive’, by law the mother has the choice to do with that unborn child as she pleases until the day of birth. The mother may or may not have had a choice in the act of conception, there are many factors which can be taken into account.

    If abortion is made illegal, or the profession of an abortion doctor is made illegal, how far must the punishment go? Should the mother be tried and punished? Should the father be tried and punished? Should the doctor be tried and punished? If so, is that unborn life worth the same prison sentence as the homicide of a fully grown adult? And if the doctor must be punished, is it better that the mother goes to an abortion clinic rather than perform the infamous ‘homemade abortions’? And of course there are always the extreme cases of conception, such as if the mother was raped. Many would not consider this to fall under the same ‘choice’ which they accuse the mothers of making when they chose to engage in sex.

    The fact is that although many would believe their answer to this question is morally right, morals can prove to be less than clear once they enter the process of being worked into a law. The topic of abortion can be very subjective and often based upon personal beliefs or ideals. A topic such as this is so morally controversial that both sides tend to attack the other side without answering the questions addressed to themselves. Pro-lifers tend to pose questions such as this, when life actually starts. Pro-choice advocates may also try to promote cognitive dissonance when they ask about the prosecution of the mother who has committed the ‘illegal murder of an unborn fetus’ in the event that abortion is made illegal. What it boils down to is that a topic such as this may be argued and debated until the end of time, and no progress may be made.

    Like

  85. Tom Shelton says:

    Eli said

    If the act of abortion is the murder of an unborn fetus, a potential life, is the use of contraceptives such as condoms or birth control also preventing that same potential life? If someone is tried for homicide, be it murder or manslaughter, is that same person also tried for the murder of each egg that may have been fertilized resulting in a potential life?

    Many states have laws on the books that do charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with the deaths of the mother and the unborn child. This is a good law in my opinion.

    Like

  86. Hey, dummies! Some questions don’t have definitive answers. Asking one does not equal stumping someone; it equals you asking a dumbass question. But the answer to the question is most definitely NOT conception, no matter how many stupid games you play to try to suggest that that is the case.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Jeremy,

      Fine….since we are dummies and you are not (at least that is what you are implying)….please tell us when life begins. You can’t just say that it is “definitely NOT conception” without telling us the answer. Since you are certain when it does not begin I assume you definitely know when it starts. Please tell us…..we all need to know the answer.

      Like

  87. Eric says:

    When people say at birth then how come when someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with 2 counts of murder? I thought that to Pro-Abortionists a fetus was a non-living thing? Also when something is dividing and multiplying does that not mean it is a living thing? Is a tree not considered a living thing? What is it about birth that makes it when life begind?

    MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL IT IS WRONG AND A SIN AGAINST HUMAN LIFE!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: