| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2005 04:43:20 PM |
| Object: |
ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
are also against artificial birth control, which would
PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
(Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore, if an aborted
fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
fetus is biologically terminated IN-side the womb, then that
abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery
but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called an
"AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist Gordon-
Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar
Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around people. The
Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed a way to locate
the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA becomes
weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering drugs,
alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes invade and
cause insanity, possession, multiple personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this world
KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be aborted before
birth or terminated immediately after birth, and will simply
STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the United
States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and prevent
it from being violated by others, NOT to stifle it in the
name of power, control, exploitation, ORTHODOX RELIGION, or
the money-god. Any man-made law which fails that test is
automatically and immediately UN-Constitutional, null and
void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to control
her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for ALL
People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before birth, the
world could rapidly become a decent place to live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want to
create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE their self-
righteous religious values against the rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:25:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:46:00 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form.
That's the claim any time you can't answer a question.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:16:48 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:46:00 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form.
That's the claim any time you can't answer a question.
Dave, let's compare who has the better record at dodging questions. I'll
bet $20 you'll win out in terms of both numbers and quality of points
avoided.
When you rephrase "So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?" in a non-loaded format,
I'll be more than happy to discuss it. As is, quit being such a sheisty
little ***** and try to say something intelligent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 08:37:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:16:48 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:46:00 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form.
That's the claim any time you can't answer a question.
Dave, let's compare who has the better record at dodging questions. I'll
bet $20 you'll win out in terms of both numbers and quality of points
avoided.
When you rephrase "So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?" in a non-loaded format,
I'll be more than happy to discuss it. As is, quit being such a sheisty
little ***** and try to say something intelligent.
It was a valid response. If morality evolved, then why
is there so much immorality? Thus, evolution does not
explain it, since some people are moral and others
aren't. And the fact is, that evolution preaches
survival of the fittest. The "fittest" in this
situation, would be those who have no problem taking
out those who oppose them. I.e., it is the immoral
that would survive and this runs counter to your claim.
A look around, is all one needs to dismiss your
argument.
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:20:01 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:16:48 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:46:00 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form.
That's the claim any time you can't answer a question.
Dave, let's compare who has the better record at dodging questions. I'll
bet $20 you'll win out in terms of both numbers and quality of points
avoided.
When you rephrase "So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?" in a non-loaded format,
I'll be more than happy to discuss it. As is, quit being such a sheisty
little ***** and try to say something intelligent.
It was a valid response.
Responses can not be valid, Dave, only deductive arguments can be valid.
You response was inductive, and committed a fallacy of logic. How long
is it going to be before you understand this?
If morality evolved, then why
is there so much immorality? Thus, evolution does not
explain it, since some people are moral and others
aren't. And the fact is, that evolution preaches
survival of the fittest. The "fittest" in this
situation, would be those who have no problem taking
out those who oppose them. I.e., it is the immoral
that would survive and this runs counter to your claim.
A look around, is all one needs to dismiss your
argument.
Again, MY argument was in terms of logic. I have not gotten into moral
evolution. But the funniest part is that your entire bit about "There's
immorality, so morality can't have evolved" only works if their is one
form of morality, i.e. yours. You fail to realize that by saying "Hey
look, there's all kinds of different beliefs in the world that are
different" would actually be pretty good support for moral evolution,
based on region, environment, standards of living, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:20:01 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
It was a valid response.
Responses can not be valid, Dave, only deductive arguments can be valid.
Uh... right.
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 01:25:44 AM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:20:01 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
It was a valid response.
Responses can not be valid, Dave, only deductive arguments can be valid.
Uh... right.
val·id Audio pronunciation of "valid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vld)
adj.
Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically
be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid
conclusion.
Care to show your lack of knowledge on this subject further?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 02:17:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:25:44 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:20:01 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
It was a valid response.
Responses can not be valid, Dave, only deductive arguments can be valid.
Uh... right.
val·id Audio pronunciation of "valid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vld)
adj.
Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically
be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid
conclusion.
Care to show your lack of knowledge on this subject further?
What I care to show, is your ignorance. A response can
include these things. Duh!
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 11:25:56 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:25:44 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:20:01 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
It was a valid response.
Responses can not be valid, Dave, only deductive arguments can be valid.
Uh... right.
val·id Audio pronunciation of "valid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vld)
adj.
Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically
be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid
conclusion.
Care to show your lack of knowledge on this subject further?
What I care to show, is your ignorance. A response can
include these things. Duh!
No, a response would be a response, not an argument or a conclusion in
the logical sense. More over, they tend to be inductive in narture,
while only a deductive argument can be valid.
Wanna try that again?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:27:55 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 09:52:25 PM |
|
|
AntiSocial showered this wisdom of the ages upon us:
<snip>
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
I know of exactly one in my age group (21 yrs), myself, and it's no
longer out of any ethical consideration, but rather because of simple
lack of interest.
--
Christopher Nelson - Chris AT cavein DOT org
Knight Errant of the Most Radiant Order of the Shield
Mencken and Nathan's Fifteenth Law of The Average American:
The worst actress in the company is always the manager's wife.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:51:43 PM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
- hth -
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 08:16:25 PM |
|
|
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Unless you can define "morals of decency" in terms everyone can accept,
then those so-called morals you have are yours and yours alone.
My morals of decency include not lying to my children.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 06:28:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:51:43 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <425DBE9F.4C69E40C@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 08:27:49 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
am I the exception to almost or everybody?
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
God loves you now.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 12:56:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:27:49 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <425F1895.B7CED06A@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
am I the exception to almost or everybody?
To those who mean what you think everyone should do.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 05:29:42 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
am I the exception to almost or everybody?
To those who mean what you think everyone should do.
recently an eye opening experience has produced a
separation between myself and those who would seek
to demand any type of behavior from you and your kind.
the damage to the good seed in the field shall be
reduced by NOT attempting to remove the tares from
among the good seed which actually produce the fruit.
for this reason you and yours are to do as you choose
or as you see fit. caesar's law is your governor of
your earthly existence and your worldly view. do you
remember telling me how abortion is not against the law
and therefore abortion is not murder? see, that's your
worldly view on this one matter of choice.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
I would never say you were irrelevant since each
has their own place in the over all scheme of reality.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
God loves you now. God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never. you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
your choice, your life, your day, your hour.
your minute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 12:53:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:29:42 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <425F9796.DA24CB3E@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
am I the exception to almost or everybody?
To those who mean what you think everyone should do.
recently an eye opening experience has produced a
separation between myself and those who would seek
to demand any type of behavior from you and your kind.
the damage to the good seed in the field shall be
reduced by NOT attempting to remove the tares from
among the good seed which actually produce the fruit.
Can you speak English?
for this reason you and yours are to do as you choose
or as you see fit. caesar's law is your governor of
your earthly existence and your worldly view.
No, the US Constitution. There is no Caesar where I live.
do you
remember telling me how abortion is not against the law
and therefore abortion is not murder? see, that's your
worldly view on this one matter of choice.
That is the only view.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
I would never say you were irrelevant since each
has their own place in the over all scheme of reality.
Your opinion of what I think is irrelevant as well as your opinion of
a 'worldly view' whatever that is.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
No it is not. You asserted a god exists. Prove it or retract it.
God loves you now.
Prove it.
God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never. you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
Prove any of that. Prove any god exists.
your choice, your life, your day, your hour.
your minute.
And until someone proves a god exists my position is that they are all
a product of fear and ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the Danimal" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 03:29:03 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:29:42 -0400, Jim Ledford
<jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <425F9796.DA24CB3E@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
recently an eye opening experience has produced a
separation between myself and those who would seek
to demand any type of behavior from you and your kind.
the damage to the good seed in the field shall be
reduced by NOT attempting to remove the tares from
among the good seed which actually produce the fruit.
Can you speak English?
The gibbering result when Jim alludes to Bible verses
instead of pasting them into his articles illustrates
how religions (and languages, and clothing fashions,
and other artifacts of culture) evolve. When humans
copy information, they tend to introduce errors. After
information passes through a few layers of Ledfords,
it might end up being something very different than the
original.
Like the way the four gospels disagree with each other
on important details of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.
Did the ***** crow once, or twice, and was this before
or after Peter denied Christ? And how many people visited
the tomb, and what did they find there? Just an empty tomb,
or did it have one angel, or two angels, or Jesus himself?
for this reason you and yours are to do as you choose
or as you see fit. caesar's law is your governor of
your earthly existence and your worldly view.
No, the US Constitution. There is no Caesar where I live.
The Bible has no concept of democracy. The proper form
of government in the Bible is theocratic monarchy, with
something like a King David and the high priests calling
the shots based on what "God" is "telling" them, sometimes
drawing lots just to be sure.
And yet modern Christians have basically prostituted
themselves to the modern evolution of government,
generally ignoring what the Bible tells them about
theocratic monarchy and becoming the great ***** of
democracy because it is expedient.
do you
remember telling me how abortion is not against the law
and therefore abortion is not murder? see, that's your
worldly view on this one matter of choice.
That is the only view.
It's not murder if you accidentally run over someone in
your motorcar, even if you had no good reason to be out
driving just then. It's not murder because your local
government does not define it to be murder.
What is "murder"? Whatever Lawyer Guy says it is.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
I would never say you were irrelevant since each
has their own place in the over all scheme of reality.
Your opinion of what I think is irrelevant as well as your opinion of
a 'worldly view' whatever that is.
Irrelevant to what?
Jim's views may be highly relevant to the extent that
high-ranking members of the U.S. government share his
views.
If President Bush does not believe humans evolved from
monkeys, that is likely to have far-reaching consequences,
especially if he starts telling scientists what they are
supposed to discover.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
No it is not. You asserted a god exists. Prove it or retract it.
Jim cannot prove. Jim merely chants.
God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never.
Why is God forcing Jim Ledford on us?
And why do people who claim to speak for God routinely
force their beliefs on others? For example, why do they
hire Lawyer Guy to prevent gay people from marrying each
other? Why do they hire Lawyer Guy to stop Mr. Schiavo from
pulling the feeding tube of godless science out of the
semi-animate corpse of his wife?
For such a non-forceful God, he certainly attracts some
forceful followers.
you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
What if I want to believe, but it's just too crazy for
any rational person?
How could I turn off my brain's ability to reason, selectively
enough so I could still function in the world?
Why would God condemn me to hell simply because I can think
logically, and spot the numerous logical contradictions in
the stuff he demands that I believe on pain of eternal
damnation?
It's not fair that only stupid people can go to heaven.
Why would God want to surround himself with stupid people
anyway?
Prove any of that. Prove any god exists.
I'd also like to understand this definition of "love" that has
God throwing people into eternal torment if they guessed wrong
when trying to choose between 20,000 religions equally devoid
of any sort of objective evidence for their supernatural claims.
If you loved someone, would you condemn him or her to endless
torture for making a well-meaning mistake? For example, guessing
the wrong lottery number?
Not even "Caesar" does that. For example, if you run over your
neighbor with your motorcar, you don't go to jail for "murder"
if the police rule it was an accident (that is, you did not
intend to kill your neighbor).
your choice, your life, your day, your hour.
your minute.
And until someone proves a god exists my position is that they are
all
a product of fear and ignorance.
The challenge is not only proving that a god exists, but proving
that all the other gods of all the rival contradictory religions
do not exist.
Jim Ledford, how do you know the Hindus are wrong?
What makes your endless chanting more accurate than theirs?
-- the Danimal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 07:00:00 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2005 13:29:03 -0700, "the Danimal" <dmocsny@mfm.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113596943.569664.244720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:29:42 -0400, Jim Ledford
<jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <425F9796.DA24CB3E@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
recently an eye opening experience has produced a
separation between myself and those who would seek
to demand any type of behavior from you and your kind.
the damage to the good seed in the field shall be
reduced by NOT attempting to remove the tares from
among the good seed which actually produce the fruit.
Can you speak English?
The gibbering result when Jim alludes to Bible verses
instead of pasting them into his articles illustrates
how religions (and languages, and clothing fashions,
and other artifacts of culture) evolve. When humans
copy information, they tend to introduce errors. After
information passes through a few layers of Ledfords,
it might end up being something very different than the
original.
Like the way the four gospels disagree with each other
on important details of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.
Did the ***** crow once, or twice, and was this before
or after Peter denied Christ? And how many people visited
the tomb, and what did they find there? Just an empty tomb,
or did it have one angel, or two angels, or Jesus himself?
Since the origional has not been verified what difference does the
detail make?
for this reason you and yours are to do as you choose
or as you see fit. caesar's law is your governor of
your earthly existence and your worldly view.
No, the US Constitution. There is no Caesar where I live.
The Bible has no concept of democracy. The proper form
of government in the Bible is theocratic monarchy, with
something like a King David and the high priests calling
the shots based on what "God" is "telling" them, sometimes
drawing lots just to be sure.
And yet modern Christians have basically prostituted
themselves to the modern evolution of government,
generally ignoring what the Bible tells them about
theocratic monarchy and becoming the great ***** of
democracy because it is expedient.
do you
remember telling me how abortion is not against the law
and therefore abortion is not murder? see, that's your
worldly view on this one matter of choice.
That is the only view.
It's not murder if you accidentally run over someone in
your motorcar, even if you had no good reason to be out
driving just then. It's not murder because your local
government does not define it to be murder.
What is "murder"? Whatever Lawyer Guy says it is.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
I would never say you were irrelevant since each
has their own place in the over all scheme of reality.
Your opinion of what I think is irrelevant as well as your opinion of
a 'worldly view' whatever that is.
Irrelevant to what?
Jim's views may be highly relevant to the extent that
high-ranking members of the U.S. government share his
views.
If President Bush does not believe humans evolved from
monkeys, that is likely to have far-reaching consequences,
especially if he starts telling scientists what they are
supposed to discover.
But he will only be in office for a limited time. Hopefully the next
one will be sane.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
No it is not. You asserted a god exists. Prove it or retract it.
Jim cannot prove. Jim merely chants.
Since no one has ever proven any god exists I don;t expect anything
beyond an evasion.
God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never.
Why is God forcing Jim Ledford on us?
And why do people who claim to speak for God routinely
force their beliefs on others? For example, why do they
hire Lawyer Guy to prevent gay people from marrying each
other? Why do they hire Lawyer Guy to stop Mr. Schiavo from
pulling the feeding tube of godless science out of the
semi-animate corpse of his wife?
For such a non-forceful God, he certainly attracts some
forceful followers.
you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
What if I want to believe, but it's just too crazy for
any rational person?
How could I turn off my brain's ability to reason, selectively
enough so I could still function in the world?
Why would God condemn me to hell simply because I can think
logically, and spot the numerous logical contradictions in
the stuff he demands that I believe on pain of eternal
damnation?
It's not fair that only stupid people can go to heaven.
Why would God want to surround himself with stupid people
anyway?
Prove any of that. Prove any god exists.
I'd also like to understand this definition of "love" that has
God throwing people into eternal torment if they guessed wrong
when trying to choose between 20,000 religions equally devoid
of any sort of objective evidence for their supernatural claims.
If you loved someone, would you condemn him or her to endless
torture for making a well-meaning mistake? For example, guessing
the wrong lottery number?
Not even "Caesar" does that. For example, if you run over your
neighbor with your motorcar, you don't go to jail for "murder"
if the police rule it was an accident (that is, you did not
intend to kill your neighbor).
your choice, your life, your day, your hour.
your minute.
And until someone proves a god exists my position is that they are
all
a product of fear and ignorance.
The challenge is not only proving that a god exists, but proving
that all the other gods of all the rival contradictory religions
do not exist.
Jim Ledford, how do you know the Hindus are wrong?
What makes your endless chanting more accurate than theirs?
-- the Danimal
.
|
|
|
| User: "the Danimal" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 09:12:44 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 15 Apr 2005 13:29:03 -0700, "the Danimal" <dmocsny@mfm.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
Like the way the four gospels disagree with each other
on important details of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.
Did the ***** crow once, or twice, and was this before
or after Peter denied Christ? And how many people visited
the tomb, and what did they find there? Just an empty tomb,
or did it have one angel, or two angels, or Jesus himself?
Since the origional has not been verified what difference does the
detail make?
When investigators evaluate eyewitness claims, or in this
case hearsay claims, they consider the degree of differences
in detail to be inversely proportional to the quality of
the eyewitness/hearsay evidence. Lots of variation = low
quality.
It's peculiar that an all-powerful God would have arranged
for the most important event in history to have such low quality
evidence.
If the details in the surviving descriptions differ, then we
cannot be sure what "the" original even was.
Also, people such as Jim Ledford claim the Bible contains no
errors; and unlike claims of the resurrection, that claim is
directly testable. We simply note the various places where
one book in the Bible-assembled-by-man's-committee contradicts
another of its books.
Your opinion of what I think is irrelevant as well as your opinion
of
a 'worldly view' whatever that is.
Irrelevant to what?
Jim's views may be highly relevant to the extent that
high-ranking members of the U.S. government share his
views.
If President Bush does not believe humans evolved from
monkeys, that is likely to have far-reaching consequences,
especially if he starts telling scientists what they are
supposed to discover.
But he will only be in office for a limited time. Hopefully the next
one will be sane.
While you are hoping, every Sunday thousands of professional
liars with no scientific training indoctrinate their millions
of dupes to reject the overwhelming evidence and believe humans
did not descend from monkeys. They succeed in this largely by
speciously conflating discoveries of science with liberal social
trends such as gay marriage. Gay marriage offends the red staters;
therefore Darwin must be wrong. That's not much of a leap for
people who have been indoctrinated since birth to reject
logic. (One wonders: would the people who oppose gay marriage
on the basis of what the Bible says, similarly support the stoning
of gay people to death as the Bible commands? The Bible hardly
stops at "Don't let them marry" when describing the appropriate
treatment for gay people.)
Eventually sanity might become a job requirement for the
President of the U.S., but I don't see any social trends that
suggest it will be as soon as 2008. First it will probably be
necessary for science to discover the exact molecular causes
of stupidity and cure them.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
No it is not. You asserted a god exists. Prove it or retract it.
Jim cannot prove. Jim merely chants.
Since no one has ever proven any god exists I don;t expect anything
beyond an evasion.
True, but why leave them relaxing in their natural habitat,
the False Dichotomy? Don't forget to remind them of
the tens of thousands of alternative gods whose existence
they doubt just as much as you do.
To a first approximation, everyone is filled with unbelief.
We are all more than 99.9% atheistic, except perhaps for some
very broad-minded polytheists, when considering the fraction of
all imagined gods we believe in, let alone the fraction of all
imaginable gods.
Christians need to debunk all the competing religions, and if
they do this by studying the facts and evaluating other religions
objectively, they might become aware that their own religion
is no more compatible with the facts.
-- the Danimal
.
|
|
|
| User: "cbianco" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 09:48:51 PM |
|
|
d:
It's peculiar that an all-powerful God would have arranged
for the most important event in history to have such low quality
evidence.
"the better to test your faith with"
http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/myth_stories/red_riding.html
While you are hoping, every Sunday thousands of professional
liars with no scientific training indoctrinate their millions
of dupes to reject the overwhelming evidence and believe humans
did not descend from monkeys.
BEIJING — In one Chinese province, monkeys show an “intimate” way of
relating to each other, zoologists said, Gay.com UK reported last
week. Across the Baihe Protection Area, the Sichuan Golden Monkeys
puzzled U.S. and Chinese experts by having gay sex, media reports
indicate. In field research on the monkeys, which live across four
Chinese provinces, zoologists found that “strong” males were most
likely to have sex with each other, news outlets reported. Scientists
have discovered gay animals in other species, such as gay penguins Roy
and Silo in New York, and lesbian and bisexual monkeys observed in
Japan
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2004/6-25/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm
Eventually sanity might become a job requirement for the
President of the U.S.,
yo dan didnt you vote for gwb last time out?
Christians need to debunk all the competing religions, and if
they do this by studying the facts and evaluating other religions
objectively, they might become aware that their own religion
is no more compatible with the facts.
i suspect it wont happen any time soon.
religion is a cross between fast food and sports.
... with all the sugared salty grease of the former and the tribal
beerbelly-transcendence of the latter.
cbianco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 10:37:50 PM |
|
|
cbianco wrote:
[....]
i suspect it wont happen any time soon.
religion is a cross between fast food and sports.
100%
man must have something to believe in and in order for man to
have something he can believe in he must make it himself. all
religions are man made and about the elevating of one man over
another man by deeds.
God is not a man.
Christ is not a religion.
heard HIS voice in you.
.. with all the sugared salty grease of the former and the tribal
beerbelly-transcendence of the latter.
cbianco
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 01:36:19 AM |
|
|
Jim Ledford wrote:
cbianco wrote:
[....]
i suspect it wont happen any time soon.
religion is a cross between fast food and sports.
100%
man must have something to believe in
Why? Not all men need something to believe in. Since belief implies,
at least to me, having faith in that which is unprovable and
extraordinary, belief is unnecessary to me.
People say "I believe in aliens", but then again, there is no proof of
this, but the claim is not extraordinary. Therefore, the aliens-belief
has more credibility than a god-belief.
There are 10^28 billion stars in the Universe (or something). We can't
be the only one. Yes, that's an argument from ignorance, I know, which
is why it's not valid proof, yet I do believe in aliens. I'm not about
to say that I _KNOW_ they exist; I'm not going to try to convert anyone
to my aliens-belief, and I'm more than willing to accept that I'm
probably wrong.
and in order for man to
have something he can believe in he must make it himself. all
religions are man made and about the elevating of one man over
another man by deeds.
Yes. As I've said in the past, "Man made God in his own image."
God is not a man.
Yes, he isn't. He's a conjecture and an invention.
Christ is not a religion.
Christ is a title. It's translated from the Hebrew for "Messiah".
Jesus, AFAIK, didn't have a last name, and was simply known as either
"Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus, son of Joseph".
heard HIS voice in you.
If you're hearing what you believe to be Jesus' voice in your head, this
is probably the result of an overactive conscience; that is, that
"little voice in the back of your head" is really loud and actually
becomes a "voice". It is not "Jesus", "God", "Allah" or anyone else.
It's your own mind telling you what is right and wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cbianco" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 12:29:39 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:37:50 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
cbianco wrote:
[....]
i suspect it wont happen any time soon.
religion is a cross between fast food and sports.
100%
man must have something to believe in and in order for man to
have something he can believe in he must make it himself.
were all those omelettes just hallucinations?
all religions are man made and about the elevating of one man over
another man by deeds.
i disagree with you there, jim. to my eye all name-brand religions
are basically just a direct-marketed corporate Metaphysic -- wherein
belief with a capital B is the ultra low monthly minimum payment price
you pay for the fireside cognac-warmth of a top-down certified cosmic
pension plan.
humans are suckers for cheap insurance, and 8 to 50 thousand years of
sales-pitch practice (ever since the invention of Blame) has made an
art out of making sure that no sucker is left behind.
God is not a man.
if there is a god he is probably a chemist/computer the size of a
jupiter moon.
Christ is not a religion.
heard HIS voice in you.
if my voice had christ's market value, george bush would be in
litigation, a center-liberal economist would be prez, i would be
making the kind of money i made in the late 90's, and karl rove would
be sucking mike given's ***** on national television.
and of course -- all filet-o-fish sandwiches would be infinitely,
freakishly, and o so loave-o-fishingly free.
.. with all the sugared salty grease of the former and the tribal
beerbelly-transcendence of the latter.
yo !! cool sentence who wrote this?
cbianco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 05:44:09 AM |
|
|
cbianco wrote:
[....]
cbianco wrote:
[....]
.. with all the sugared salty grease of the former and the tribal
beerbelly-transcendence of the latter.
yo !! cool sentence who wrote this?
with the LedCo. arm extender you can do a proper job of
patting yourself on your back. $19.95 plus shipping and
handling. offer void where self serving back patting prohibited.
cbianco
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 08:40:44 PM |
|
|
in article 425F9796.DA24CB3E@bellsouth.net, Jim Ledford at
jimled@bellsouth.net wrote on 4/15/05 6:29 AM:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
[....]
Hell, every person goes through their own moral evolution within their
lifetime. How many people do you know that at age 10 were going to "save
themselves for marriage"? How long did that last once puberty hit?
when you are immersed in a culture of flesh worshiping sodomites
morals of decency can't develop.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
You are no exception.
am I the exception to almost or everybody?
To those who mean what you think everyone should do.
recently an eye opening experience has produced a
separation between myself and those who would seek
to demand any type of behavior from you and your kind.
the damage to the good seed in the field shall be
reduced by NOT attempting to remove the tares from
among the good seed which actually produce the fruit.
for this reason you and yours are to do as you choose
or as you see fit. caesar's law is your governor of
your earthly existence and your worldly view. do you
remember telling me how abortion is not against the law
and therefore abortion is not murder? see, that's your
worldly view on this one matter of choice.
actually, your worldly view has no meaning towards LIFE.
Irrelevant.
I would never say you were irrelevant since each
has their own place in the over all scheme of reality.
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
God loves you now. God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never. you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
Isn't that how He justifies not doing anything for you?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 10:24:45 PM |
|
|
Paul Duca wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
[....]
God loves you now.
Prove any god exists.
You just made an assertion - prove it.
it's a self proving proof. in time you'll learn of
how you and many others like you were turned over to
a reprobate mind to do as you choose or as you see fit.
God loves you now. God loves you so very much He will
not force Himself on you, never. you by faith must ask
Him to enter into your life.
Isn't that how He justifies not doing anything for you?
Paul
Paul, sometimes you have questions and then other times you only
remark with you opinion. when you going to get into some name
calling for the purpose of having some fun for yourself, or do
you not engage in such behavior?
just asking
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:22:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 08:14:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations.&qu | | |
