This act of national treachery and international atrocity by "President" Obama is now done. Today, by executive order, our money is now being confiscated by federal tax and used to promote the killing of infants in the womb, throughout the world. Global socialist and eugenicist abortion pushers hide behind the fallacious "health of the mother" excuse, in citing this move as favorable to human rights, though it is all about killing humans. That posture is deceit, since discussing surgical assistance for mothers in jeopardy was never denied by the Mexico City protocol, now reversed by Obama (last known evidentiary name: Soetoro).
ChristianNewsWire quotes Roman Catholic clergyman, Frank Pavone, "When President Obama takes money out of taxpayers' pockets to abort children, he can no longer claim with any legitimacy that he wants to reduce the number of abortions performed here or abroad. Forcing Americans to pay for the killing of innocents will not 'bring us together;' there can be no common ground when the ground is soaked with innocent blood."
On the right we have the Nursery Rampage where a man stabs kids in a Belgian nursery. On the left we have the headline where Obama reverses the ban on funding oversees abortions. For the first there is outrage. For the second there is jubilation by the pro-aborts. Which kills more children?
And if that's not enough, there's the story about the start of a clinical trial that will use embryonic stem cells - just in case we're not killing enough babies through abortion.
- I.O. reader correspondent, Richard Wright
President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.The innocent infant's excruciating terror, of being gouged and torn limb from limb in the womb increases, while life gets easier for terrorists both abortionist and Islamist. May you be saddled with the judgment thereof, Barack -- the blood of "the least of these, MY brothers" be upon you and your conspirators in this.
//
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.Obama has spent his first days in office systematically signing executive orders reversing Bush administration policies on issues ranging from foreign policy to government operations. On Thursday, he signed three executive orders to rein in secretive U.S. counterterror policies and end harsh interrogations.
1/23/2009 pm - Arlen Williams
Arlen, I.O., Awakening in Twitter
Arlen, I.O., Awakening: Facebook
30 comments:
Obama's policies are truly DISGUSTINGLY AWFUL!! Obamination is already displaying all of the characteristics of a cruel and brutal dictator. The pre-born are his first and most vulnerable victims.
He makes me feel so sick to my stomach - I could literally throw up.
Jesus had harsh words for anyone who would harm a child:
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Be certain, Barry Soetoro/a.k.a Barack Hussein Obama - your sins will find you out.
Num 32:23 But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.
In Jesus' name, so be it.
Well now we know "but he's a CHRISTIAN" was one big lie.
Stop paying taxes is one thing you can do. You only have to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and innocent life is not Caesar's. Everytime you can lie, cheat and avoid paying anything, you can avoid being part of this.
What's that saying? There will be Hell to pay over this.
“Blistering Rant” or Prophetic Warning?
Several times on this forum I have made a point that is important to serious theologians but unfamiliar to most laymen. Most religious thinkers do not claim that God punishes nations. More commonly the thought is that God simply withdraws his protective hand from nations that violate his will.
Our nation has violated the will of God in so may ways during these modern times. But no where is sin more obvious and heinous than legalized abortion. Abortion is a crime against life. Scripture and most clergy see the wasting of male sperm as a violation of the sacredness of life.
Gen. 38 7 But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
Now, if life is so scred that spilling semen on the ground is "displeasing in the sight of the Lord", imagine who displeased the Lord is about the destruction of a potential human being. I fear the protective Hand of God is being removed from our nation at a time we are most in danger. Please pay heed to the Bishop's statement below.
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30665
Thank you for your comments, all above. Reader, I am confident that Mr. Sewell allows for interpretations of Onan's sin which are not highly inductive (expansive). The point: life is sacred and having children is blessed (see also Jesus' words of warning about the denial or reversal of acknowledgment of this blessing, even while carrying The Cross).
Very glad for that post. It is so ironic to see the (sorry, but...) ignorant ones become enraged at any who claim that God judges concerning nations, yet who are so naturally pleased to see the asking of the Lord's blessings. Why would one ask, if it were not His option, to give or withhold? Especially so, when God makes this matter abundantly clear in both Testaments.
Thank you to the latest poster. I have the note, but I want comments on this thread to be on this topic.
When we truly as a Nation turn from Our Creator , He will then turn from us. Let us all Stand and take this Nation Back. We are being set up to far outdo Hitlers atrocity of Genocide.
As a woman, I am indignant over your comments on the Global Gag Rule on abortion that our President repealed.
Although I believe that the abortion industry is a form of legalized rape against women - the right for a woman to choose must remain intact until women and men learn how to respect each other - and rape, incest, molestation and domestic violence cease. In addition, medically safe birth control methods must be developed. Education about women's values and choices must be included for adolescents in the school system. When all of these things are accomplished - then, and only then can we begin to discuss ways to rid our lives of this insidious industry that continues to denigrate women.
Anne Coulter had the best comment about Obama and abortion. When Obama retreated into the Constitution, declaring that the Constitution had nothing to say about abortion, she pointed out that the Constitution also had nothing to say about slavery. That should have set off alarm bells in the people who think Obama is on their side. A man who can use the Constitution against innocent children can use it against innocent slaves.
St. John of the Cross said "At the hour of death, we will be judged on our charity." Charity is the keeping of the Commandments. Without God, Obama can do nothing. Without God, Obama is just a lemon. Religion matters. Even Bush was not so daft to make a public mockery of religion.
Leslie said...
As a woman, I am indignant over your comments on the Global Gag Rule on abortion that our President repealed.
Although I believe that the abortion industry is a form of legalized rape against women - the right for a woman to choose must remain intact until women and men learn how to respect each other - and rape, incest, molestation and domestic violence cease. In addition, medically safe birth control methods must be developed. Education about women's values and choices must be included for adolescents in the school system. When all of these things are accomplished - then, and only then can we begin to discuss ways to rid our lives of this insidious industry that continues to denigrate women.
I 'bolded' the references to human beings in the above comment. Adults were mentioned seven times.
Adults: 7 Infants: 0
So abortion is a form of rape (which I believe too, just look at the definition and etymology of "rape") but our money should be confiscated and used, to promote it? So that women may make the choice to be raped and that will help to keep women from being abused?
Rapists and incestuous abusers take girls and women to abortionists, to "destroy the evidence."
Adults: 7 Children: 0
WADR, that is evil.
Direct your friends to this website that I found
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq
FAQ on Obama's birth
Because many of the mainstream media and the general public are generally unaware of what's really the issue behind Barack, the best thing for us to do is to educate them and the website above is the best primer.
Not subscribing to any religion I will give what I think is an objective answer to the question of abortion.
The taking of life is either right or wrong; there should be no middle ground to squirm around in trying to justify it one way or the the other.
Life is either good or it is not. Anyone who would say it is good and also thinks the taking of it is acceptable is in danger of going completely insane.
This world has had its share of insane leaders -- witness the "legal" taking of life down through the centuries by insane "leaders".
I happen to subscribe to life. But, what exactly is life?
To me, life means the potential for thinking, feeling, acting. Do the unborn have this potential? I think they do; therefore, abortion is an act of depriving an entity of exercising the potential for life.
Personally, I think I am a little saner for believing what I have just written.
For those who think the taking of life is "the right of choice" I ask this question: Is your sanity enhanced or diminished by acting on this "right of choice"?
Being a war veteran, I know what has happened to those who have killed and survived and went home and slowly died of insanity because they obeyed orders to kill unjustly.
There are times when the taking of life is the lesser of two evils; self defense is one of those times. Each individual must decide when to exercise "the lesser of two evils"; an unborn child should also have the right to exercise this option. --jws
I viewed the website that Anonymous posted above. It is really comprehensive and I think that we all need to spread the link around to all the blogs, websites, forums etc.
This may be a dumb question, so forgive me if it is, but it has been on my mind over the last day or so. Does anyone know and/or have statistics as to how many Muslim women get abortions?
Only a maniac would believe that the way to solve social problems is to exterminate the sufferers: King Obama believes in extermination to solve problems for women, minorities, and the "unwanted" unborn. Okay. Let's solve mental health problems by exterminating the retarded, disabled, and the demented; let's solve crime problems by exterminating recidivist inmates; let's solve health-care problems by exterminating the geriatric, terminal, and comatose. Each of those groups share "features" which make them prime targets for extermination: essentially parasites, with little or no personality, and nothing to contribute - they are a waste of time, food, and money: society won't miss 'em and their families can move on.
For two thousand years Christianity has led by proposing to help those who suffer by loving and caring for them, in emulation of the greatest man who ever lived. Thus: each person (even an enemy) is unique, dignified, irreducible, and exists in an eternal context that transcends society, nation, class, race or creed; no one can determine when another's existence and meaning begins or ends; and a fast slippery slope to horror and hell awaits any society or individual that think they have found a better way. Human experience and history do indeed confirm that any other approach is catastrophically destructive of life and morals. King Obama won't be the first tyrant to make death his solution to problems, but evil nations consume themselves in a downward spiral of decadence and hate. Abortion is a hateful dehumanization, subjecting mother and child to spiritual and physical deaths: why would King Obama be America's leading advocate of genocide ? The answer may be found at the following:
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer by Ali Sina at http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
The article describes King Obama's politics as being horribly influenced by his disordered narcissistic personality, characteristic of abused males seeking to compensate for chilhood trauma (eg Obama's multiple abandonments), acting out subconscious fantasies of superiority, power, and revenge. It's hard for us to see the cringing child inside the swaggering strong-man (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam, whoever) but such individuals have developed a finely tuned sense of collective vulnerabilities and will lie and manipulate to get the only thing that matters (for them !): power over life and death. I caution the reader with three observations: 1) we must not fall into the trap of demonizing any person, because we then become easily capable of the crimes we abhor; 2) there are and have been many other "Obamas" in American political life, from both parties, who should never have been permitted any authority - there are flaws in ourselves and our system that keeps on allowing them through; and 3) a pyschologizing explanation for political events is never sufficient: there was more to Germany's slide into murderous fascism (economic collapse, spiritual trauma of WW1, rapid social change etc) than Hitler being wicked and insane.
PdeB
Christine, good question. It would be a good idea to examine both Muslim belief(s) and practice(s) about abortion.
Thank you for the links. All pertinent and thoughtful things should be examined. Aiming to add to I.O. too, where fitting.
Oh dear, this is all very sad.
I can appreciate your indignance at the decisions our recently (and fairly) elected president has made, as they reverse edicts implemented by his predecessor, whom many of the people reading this blog evidently supported.
It would be purposeless for me to list the ways that everyone in their agreeable circle dissembles here, but I will say that we, as Americans, are not all Christians. Some Americans don't believe that Jesus Christ ever existed. Many believe in a God that never appeared in these Westernized iterations of a relatively young religion. Many don't believe in a God at all, but receive their solace from other venues.
Point is, what the Bible says is not universally accepted, and as long as any of you continue to live in a country that includes as one of its primary tenets the freedom to practice (or not) whatever religion its citizens choose, you'll have to accept that any argument about governance based on any religious reference is utterly invalid.
My best guess is that this statement will fall on deaf ears, and that does indeed sadden me. Just remember the rights you've tried to take away the next time someone wants to take away any right that you value.
Latest anon,
What rights would you have left, if you were murdered in your mother's womb?
If you are not a Christian, perhaps you still believe in fundamental epistemology and ontology:
Human is human. Life is life.
Human life is human life.
If your belief system allows the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human live, for the sake of convenience, your belief system is evil, whatever label you give it.
One may believe whatever one may and there are two categories from which to choose: 1. singular truth or 2. the many options of falsity.
Further, even if one chooses #2, one may not practice every belief, in a civilized world. Very bad, harmful behavior, such as killing an innocent human being, is not tolerated, if one truly cares for "people" (plural of "person").
And now, if you are paying attention, will you bring up, "What about war?" as a rationalization?
First, to dispose of the so-called Judeo/Christian belief in the same God: The J/C bible is full of stories where God commands that innocents be slain. (So much for 'thou shalt not kill'.)
When mankind finally gets rid of its religious crutch it will be easier to think of all life as worth the effort to preserve. Since everyone wants new 'toys' to play with, who's to say that the last partial birth aborted baby wouldn't have grown up and invented a pill that would provide eternal life? How many before that last aborted baby might have invented the same pill? --jws
Let's not bring up war; we all know the typical - if assumptive - retort.
Your first presumption (and one that is commonly skimmed past) is that life "begins" at conception. I won't even bother with that.
What I will address, however, is this red herring regarding the practicing of "every belief, in a civilized world". I don't think anyone has ever seriously approached the topic of abortion implying that it should be universal. Only that it should be universally available. In the same way that I'm not about to tell you what to do with your Sunday morning, or who to vote for (something with the potential to end many lives in its own right), the restrictions of the rights of the individual via the imposition of belief systems external to the matter at hand has no place in a modern society.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
And yes. Abortion isn't a good thing. I struggle to think of an instance wherein a pregnancy could be terminated without sadness and hard thought. The potential exists for a good life in that fetus. But it's potential. Potential also exists in every fertilized egg passed via menstruation. Is menstruation also evil? We have to make decisions every day about where the greater potential lies, and which path leads to the greater good for ourselves and our world.
And now, if you're paying attention, you will bring up "what about the decision of the fetus?" as a rationalisation.
P.S. - Singular truth? For that one requires singular proof, which is very rare in this world.
- Latest Anon
Anonymous said...
First, to dispose of the so-called Judeo/Christian belief in the same God: The J/C bible is full of stories where God commands that innocents be slain. (So much for 'thou shalt not kill'.)
God commands all to be killed. When and how is His business. What He says goes. Whatever anyone else says about it is inconsequential. No mere human is innocent compared to God, though "innocent" is used in a different context, to describe those who have not put their own lives in jeopardy by their own arrogance.
When mankind finally gets rid of its religious crutch it will be easier to think of all life as worth the effort to preserve. Since everyone wants new 'toys' to play with, who's to say that the last partial birth aborted baby wouldn't have grown up and invented a pill that would provide eternal life? How many before that last aborted baby might have invented the same pill? --jws
You appear to have by your own words, such a grudge against God and against the respect of God that it clouds your judgment. If you apply what you said, to yourself, you would require others to abandon God, in order for you to begin to be moral in your regards of others. That is not rational thought. If you believe innocent life is not for man to kill, believe it. If not, it is once again, your problem.
Anonymous said...
I don't think anyone has ever seriously approached the topic of abortion implying that it should be universal. Only that it should be universally available.
Substitute merely "murder" for abortion. "I don't think anyone has ever seriously approached the topic of murder implying that it should be universal. Only that it should be universally available."
The potential exists for a good life in that fetus. But it's potential. Potential also exists in every fertilized egg passed via menstruation. Is menstruation also evil? We have to make decisions every day about where the greater potential lies, and which path leads to the greater good for ourselves and our world.
You beg the question. A human life that by nature passes without attaching to the uterus is a naturally lost human life. I do not know if it is accredited with personhood or not; I would guess not. A human life that by nature attaches itself to the womb is a human life that nature causes to be dependent upon its mother. The intentional act of ending this is the intentional taking of a human life. It is dynamically growing human life. To say it is only "potential life" is to attempt to ignore what is self evident.
P.S. - Singular truth? For that one requires singular proof, which is very rare in this world.
Not hardly. Truth is not mutable by the observer of it, nor by one who fails to observe it. A tree that falls in the forest has truly fallen and there it lies. The singular truth is that it has fallen, whether or not anyone can prove it, or whether one might plausibly think it could have been been moved to where it is. No proof can ever generate truth. Proof is an epistemological assurance, not an ontological state. Truth is an ontological state
Hi Arlen,
I applaud your excellent responses to Anonymous.
Have you seen the following brief but VERY POWERFUL video?
Imagine the potential
Would love to hear what you think about it!
Anonymous said...
First, to dispose of the so-called Judeo/Christian belief in the same God: The J/C bible is full of stories where God commands that innocents be slain. (So much for 'thou shalt not kill'.)
Arlen Replies:
God commands all to be killed. When and how is His business. What He says goes. Whatever anyone else says about it is inconsequential. No mere human is innocent compared to God, though "innocent" is used in a different context, to describe those who have not put their own lives in jeopardy by their own arrogance.
Anonymous repiles:
Your logic is somewhat flawed; unless you consider dying of old age the same as being killed. Your logic also betrays your lack of regard for human life: If innocence doesn't matter then everything is "God's Will" and even a few thousand Jews murdered in the holocaust was justified because "...no mere human is innocent," (Your words) and, therefore, God intended for them to die. You also do not understand "free will"; you mistake it for arrogance. God speaks: "You lower than dust creatures I have endowed with free choice but you had damn well better not use it because I was lying about it being 'free', also, you ignorant humans had better make the right choice because you'll roast in hell, forever, otherwise."
Anonymous continues:
When mankind finally gets rid of its religious crutch it will be easier to think of all life as worth the effort to preserve. Since everyone wants new 'toys' to play with, who's to say that the last partial birth aborted baby wouldn't have grown up and invented a pill that would provide eternal life? How many before that last aborted baby might have invented the same pill? --jws
Arlen replies:
You appear to have by your own words, such a grudge against God and against the respect of God that it clouds your judgment. If you apply what you said, to yourself, you would require others to abandon God, in order for you to begin to be moral in your regards of others. That is not rational thought.
Anonymous replies:
I respect all life, not just 'God fearing' human life. I have never demanded anyone abandon their religious belief systems; especially in today's world where most people think of life as you do; expendable. But then, according to your God, there are no innocents, therefore, life is cheap. With your reasoning I cannot help but wonder what you have against abortion: after all, that child has nothing to look forward to but being 'killed' by your God. I have no grudge against 'God', any more than I would hold a grudge against unicorns as being evil creatures. As I ststed, I respect all life, I have no respect for myths.
Arlen continues:
If you believe innocent life is not for man to kill, believe it. If not, it is once again, your problem.
Anonymous replies:
Yes, I shall continue to believe innocent life is not to be killed, by your God or the designs of evil men. I have no problem with life, my friend; my argument is two-fold: 1) That so many people take on faith alone that some God will make everything all better some day and 2) that if there is actually some anthromorphic 'higher' being who created this world that it is also a 'good' being. Even a slight review of history suggests that, without exception, all so-called Gods were nothing but blood-thirsty monsters hell bent on subjugating humanity. And, one more thing in passing: Your God never intended for human beings to be intelligent creatures; remember, it was the 'serpent' Satan who convinced Eve and Adam to eat of the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Without that knowledge we humans would be exactly what you seem to advocate; ignorant cattle. Btw, do you really believe babies and small children are not innocent, but merely arragantly puting their lives in jeopardy? --jws
Hi Arlen,
To continue:
A:
Substitute merely "murder" for abortion. "I don't think anyone has ever seriously approached the topic of murder implying that it should be universal. Only that it should be universally available."
LA:
This arbitrary substitution is yours, and only serves to insert inflammatory language intended to provoke an emotional response. As well replace “murder” with “dental surgery”. Or, to be similarly inflammatory, “personal freedom”. My response is not intended to minimize the seriousness of abortion as a procedure, but this is pure rhetoric.
A:
You beg the question. A human life that by nature passes without attaching to the uterus is a naturally lost human life. I do not know if it is accredited with personhood or not; I would guess not. A human life that by nature attaches itself to the womb is a human life that nature causes to be dependent upon its mother. The intentional act of ending this is the intentional taking of a human life. It is dynamically growing human life. To say it is only "potential life" is to attempt to ignore what is self evident.
LA:
This is incomplete logic. There is little about your above statement that is “self evident”. “A human life that by nature attaches itself to the womb is a human life…” – so was it a human life before it attached itself to the uterine lining? Or was it an egg? And in either case, wasn’t it dependent on the mother for its existence prior to the act of leaving the ovary? What sets its attachment to the uterine lining as the standard by which personhood is confirmed? This is arbitrary, rather than self-evident. Why not the moment the sperm cell fertilizes the egg? Why not the first cellular division? Why not fingers or toes?
A:
Not hardly. Truth is not mutable by the observer of it, nor by one who fails to observe it. A tree that falls in the forest has truly fallen and there it lies. The singular truth is that it has fallen, whether or not anyone can prove it, or whether one might plausibly think it could have been been moved to where it is. No proof can ever generate truth. Proof is an epistemological assurance, not an ontological state. Truth is an ontological state
LA:
My post-script was not intended to debate the immutability of truth, and I think you can recognize that. With that being said, in order for something to be recognized as true by the observer (this should include us both), it must in fact be observed. Until that point, it is merely a theory or belief, regardless of the fervor it arrives with. Further, it is patently absurd to place epistemology and ontology in opposition. Epistemology asks, “what is knowledge?” Ontology asks, “what is life?” It should be clear that one has to go through the former to get to the latter. Just ask Descartes.
- Latest Anon
Anon:
1. Dental surgery is fine. Murder is not. Unwarrantedly taking an innocent human life is murder. Therefore, I substituted "murder" in your sentence for "abortion," to show how absurd it is to be relativistic about it or tolerant of it. This is not difficult.
2. You are missing the word nature or naturally. There are many who argue that such things as sentience and intelligence are mere products of complexity, too. Yet we have laws against murder.
3. A theory or belief which is true is truth. Whether or not our finite minds stumble upon it has nothing to do with it.
This is getting to the point where I am having to repeat my points, though you beat around them with distortions. That is not a sign that a discussion is worth continuing.
Prior anon., I don't know whether I should untangle what you purport, or not bother.
Briefly, you pose anthropomorphism as straw man upon which you hang your idea of God. That is your contention, not mine. Then you would think that all of God's plan for mankind rests upon his commandments to Adam and Eve (who were highly intelligent creatures, if one can say we are). As you might see in Christ and the projections about those in Christ given by Himself and his apostles, God had further plans from before the beginning.
The word "knowledge" is key here, too. Think of the word in "knowledge of good and evil," as "relationship with not only good, but also evil."
Then you claim I said the opposite of what I have consistently said, about the innocence of unborn children on a human plane.
But, this thread is about human beings condoning and promoting the killing of other, innocent human beings, for the sake of a fallacious ideal of sex without consequences and the fatal rationalization that sex outside of marriage is "okay."
But if you want to go back to the Bible, you could consider the worshippers of Molech and the Baals, the "fertility gods" who were worshiped in orgies and fed by the blood of infants. Behind every worthwhile idol are the demons involved.
Christine, thanks, I'm sure we both have some reflections about that video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
Maybe I should fit some into I.O. Not completely sure right now.
Arlen said:
Prior anon., I don't know whether I should untangle what you purport, or not bother.
Anonymous replied:
What I wrote was not a tangle -- perhaps you won't bother because you have no reasonable rebuttal.
Arlen said:
Briefly, you pose anthropomorphism as straw man upon which you hang your idea of God.
Anonymous replied:
No, it is not a straw man: If you take the time to read your bible you will find that your God "created man in His image and likeness"; that, my friend, makes your God a flesh and blood creature (anthropomorphic)-- unless you now claim man is not a flesh and blood creature -- which is it?
Arlen Said:
That is your contention, not mine. Then you would think that all of God's plan for mankind rests upon his commandments to Adam and Eve (who were highly intelligent creatures, if one can say we are). As you might see in Christ and the projections about those in Christ given by Himself and his apostles, God had further plans from before the beginning.
Anonymous replied:
No, they were not "highly intelligent creatures" until AFTER the "knowledge of good and evil" affair. They didn't even "know" there was a difference between male and female before their eyes were "opened"; they could not procreate until after Satan convinced them to open their eyes -- there is suspicion that Adam and Eve's anatomical structures were changed by the "eating" of that forbidden fruit as well as the ability to discern right from wrong.
Arlen said:
The word "knowledge" is key here, too. Think of the word in "knowledge of good and evil," as "relationship with not only good, but also evil."
Anonymous replied:
Wrong again, unless you want to re-write the bible: Read Genesis, chapter 3 -- they (Adam and Eve) had no "relationship" with either GOOD or EVIL; in other words, they could not differentiate between the two concepts. You can squirm all you want but short of re-writing the bible you are dead wrong in this regard.
Arlen Said:
Then you claim I said the opposite of what I have consistently said, about the innocence of unborn children on a human plane.
Anonymous replied:
Wrong again: What you stated was this: "No mere human is innocent compared to God, though "innocent" is used in a different context, to describe those who have not put their own lives in jeopardy by their own arrogance." This means exactly what you meant it to mean; that according to your God, the babies He commanded King Saul to kill were arrogant (your word) and, therefore, the command to kill them was legitimate and right in God's eyes.
Arlen said:
But, this thread is about human beings condoning and promoting the killing of other, innocent human beings, for the sake of a fallacious ideal of sex without consequences and the fatal rationalization that sex outside of marriage is "okay."
Anonymous replied:
I totally agree: killing (murdering) is wrong; but I extend that wrongness to your God also. If God cannot obey His own commandments how can He expect man to obey them? And, by the way, God and Mary were not married (to my knowledge) yet they had sex (outside of marriage) albeit while Mary was sleeping, and produced the ONE, of whom a major religion was named. (Yes, it was and "over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit" -- but we all know it was sex outside of marriage, don't we?)
Arlen said:
But if you want to go back to the Bible, you could consider the worshippers of Molech and the Baals, the "fertility gods" who were worshiped in orgies and fed by the blood of infants. Behind every worthwhile idol are the demons involved.
Anonymous replied:
Yes, as I stated, all of the Gods (during and before biblical days) were nothing but evil monsters; the God of the J/C bible not excluded. What in the heck is the difference between commanding the murdering of innocent babies and the feeding of their blood to this God or that God; the baby is still dead, no? You have abundantly made my case for the abolishment of religion: once the God Myth is dissolved human beings might come to a RATIONAL conclusion that killing innocent babies is wrong not a RELIGIOUS conclusion that killing innocent babies is wrong. --jws
Hi Arlen,
Far from asking you to repeat your points, what I’ve been hoping for is that you would substantiate them. It’s clear you’ve done your logic homework, as all the classic appellations make appearances in your writing; my concern is that it seems you’re applying the tenets of classic logic to you opponents’ points, without first doing so with your apparently flawed syllogisms.
My best assessment is that your logical appeal is based on the dual premises that a) murder of humans is “evil” (we’ll excuse the unqualified terminology), and b) the moment a fertilized egg implants itself into the uterine wall, it becomes “human”.
I can accept the first of these premises (though I’m not a fan of the wording you’ve selected), however your substituting the word “abortion” with the word “murder” falls apart in the second half of this syllogism. This is where we see presumption on your part, as there is no evidence to support this second premise. Rather than illustrating the absurdity of relative differences between murder and abortion, you show us the absurdity of this attempt to equalize the two terms.
The sad part here is that it appears that your writing is riddled with fallacies and unsubstantiated, inflammatory terms. Look up “eugenics”. The implication in your post is that there is somehow an organized conspiracy to regulate the genetic makeup of the human race. You should really take a moment to substantiate such apparently spurious claims if you’re going to make them. And no; it is not eugenics simply because one ethnicity might have a statistically greater quantity of terminated pregnancies.
You also (in response to another comment) try to relate “abortion” and “rape”… well, to be frank I’m struggling with the coherence of this passage: “So abortion is a form of rape (which I believe too, just look at the definition and etymology of "rape") but our money should be confiscated and used, to promote it? So that women may make the choice to be raped and that will help to keep women from being abused?” The very definition of “rape” is that it is a sexual act performed upon another person without their consent. You’re saying, then, that women “choose” to have this done “without their consent”. Even the Latin verb, rapere, which is the etymological root, is defined as “to seize or take by force”. Perhaps the root of your larger position lies in some unusual opinion of what “consent” means.
It’s also worth pointing out that Mr. Obama’s policy isn’t, by definition, “treachery”. There was never any question as to his position, and as such his policies can’t be considered an act of betrayal.
In any case, perhaps the dissection of your article is moot. Unless you are capable of a reasoned response exclusive of conjecture, I’m not sure what business you have blogging to a wider audience without a disclaimer to the effect of your inanity.
And yes; I recognize my own tribute to character assassination. This is simply because you believe that abortion is murder, and I believe in a woman's right to choose the use of her own body. As a result, I have no choice but to take a broader view of your character as it’s been made available to me in order to ferret out your merits. You write very articulately; it’s just that it’s an excess of vitriol, while remaining light on facts.
Cheers,
Latest Anon
Post a Comment