In the theocracy of Iran, the morality police arrested a 22-year-old woman for not properly wearing her hijab (head covering). Three days later in a hospital while in police custody, the young woman died. Iranian citizens took to the streets to protest the death.

Protestors were arrested. One protestor has been sentenced to be executed for the crime of “enmity against God”.

Iran is a theocracy governed by Muslim fundamentalists. All religions have fundamentalists, including the US where they are generally known as white evangelicals.

This US group has made itself more prominent by engaging in politics where their platform is based on Christian Nationalism – the US becoming a Christian country in governance. Their chief mission is to prohibit abortion for any reason in the entire country.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy. This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

Words to the wise.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.


This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.Similarly untrue and ridiculously so. But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

This is a common strategy used on this site. It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true. There will be no support offered, and quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.

quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.Bingo.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.
A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.
Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works). We've seen what happens when the church gets political power. It was called the Inquisition, among other atrocities.


But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you said


It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.

Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.

Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works).My comment was directed at the statement by Athos concerning, "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. But at any rate, who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?


Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.


But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, Two comments. 1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?


Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you saidNot following you on that one.

You have accused certain unnamed evangelicals of supporting the execution of certain individuals. Now that you seem to be on record for supporting abortion which results in the mass killings of unborn human beings, in what way do you possess any moral high ground in the discussion?

Sincerely hope your daughter is doing better.

Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.

This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.

This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.Since no one here is advocating for Christian Nationalism, then your comment is...well.

Regardless, no one here has offered any argument based on science, so while that could be a valid approach elsewhere, it has no merit here until someone actually DOES offer something logical based on "science and/or rationality".

who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?


Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.


Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.

Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.


1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?

Once again this is circular reasoning. The question is when a fetus becomes a human being, but you assume the answer that you prefer and use it to judge everyone else. And my statement is a constitutional one as well as a biblical one. Read what Paul said about freedom. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.


Not following you on that one

I confess that genuinely surprises me. Let's try again. You told Athos


It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.

Then you turned around and did exactly that when you said


But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more. But you want us to believe the way you do simply because you believe it.
That's the same thing you said Athos was doing. I hope that clears it up.

And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.

Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.No, it was a reply to your contention that, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." So I'm asking you what science justifies laws against murder, rape, etc. Please stop dodging the question.


You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more.Science and rationality are on my side. 1. The fertilized egg has a completely unique DNA code that never changes throughout its life and is a completely human one. 2. That the fertilized egg is human is self-evident. To suggest it is "potentially human" has no standing at all. What does it mean to be "potentially" human? 3. The fertilized egg contains all of the attributes of living organisms. 4. The fertilized egg begins the process of growth and maturation that will go on for many years. 5. No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one. This line of faulty reasoning is used only of humans for an obvious reason. 6. The same argument has been used for centuries. Black africans were not really human, so it was OK to enslave them. Enemy troops were "Gooks", "Krauts", "Japs", and so forth to make it seem less dehumanizing to kill them. This is the same strategy.

What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?

Besides all of that, my complaint was that Athos, when challenged to support his beliefs, evidently could not do so. As you can see above, I am happy to engage in this discussion.


And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.You said my statements were religious, not me. I was asking Athos to justify phony statements he had made about "white" evangelicals believing it is right to execute people for enmity against God. It was a question based upon rational thinking.


Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.You do realize that Falwell is long dead and Bakker hasn't been listened to in three decades? Please don't employ the tired old strategy of asking me to look up your information. It certainly makes it appear that you want me to look for that which you cannot find. It just seems to be a dodge. I will flatly state that I don't believe you can find a single instance of a prominent evangelical leader calling for the execution of women caught in adultery but suggesting the men go free, and certainly no evangelical group does so. That was your contention.

If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.


Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.I agree with that. No woman has the right to do with her baby's body as she sees fit. Well said, though you likely did not mean it that way.

What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?.

Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.

Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.Read the discussion and you will see why the question is being asked. Good grief. My question is asked of DW who said, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." He then posted, " Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more." So I responded to that scientific remark. I note that you did not see fit to intervene about his comment. Wonder why? After all, wouldn't that "science has little to no bearing on the discussion," have been appropriate there?

No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one.
We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.


Genesis 2:7 -- “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.”

Only when the fetus is born and has taken its first breath is it considered a human being, a living soul.

We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.You do today since it is convenient.

As to the living breath argument, it has been refuted here many times. Adam was made of the dust of the ground and had no life of any kind until God breathed into him. That is not true of anyone else after him. You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive. Even pro-abortionists don't go that far since it is clearly ridiculous. And that is not meant in an ugly way. You are just making an argument that makes no sense when you contend that an unborn baby, one day prior to delivery, with a heartbeat, blood circulation, metabolism, brain waves, awareness of surroundings, and growing every minute is not actually alive.

Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive. That is, of course, not true. Otherwise, mouth to mouth rescutation would never be practiced.

People in surgery sometimes have their breathing stopped, sometimes for hours. Are they no longer alive?

You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive.
The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.


Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive.
Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory. Have been there myself in an ICU.

How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.

The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?

Well, at least you do agree it is a living human. That's progress.


Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory.So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.


How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.I don't eat unhatched chickens. If I did find such an egg, I doubt I would say, "Oh look! A potential chicken!!"

You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?
Who is it interacting with?


So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.
Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. (Gen. 2:7 -- breath of life = living soul) I was breathing.

I don't eat unhatched chickens.
That's exactly what you eat, according to your reasoning.

Who is it interacting with?You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.


Since the maternal voice is audible in utero, an infant starts to recognize their mother’s voice from the third trimester. The voice that they hear is muffled and low, and they can also hear their mother’s heartbeat. Soon after birth, studies have shown that a baby will recognize their mother’s voice and will expend great efforts to hear her voice better over unfamiliar female voices.

https://babyschool.yale.edu/does-my-baby-recognize-me/#:~:text=Since%20the%20maternal%20voice%20is%20aud ible%20in%20utero%2C,and%20they%20can%20also%20hea r%20their%20mother%E2%80%99s%20heartbeat.

Might add this.
The cerebrum will begin to develop grooves and ridges and separate into the left brain and right brain. The cerebellum is the fastest-growing part of the brain in the third trimester. This is the part responsible for motor control, so your baby will begin to move more, wiggling fingers and toes, stretching, and kicking. Just amazing you know so little about this and yet claim to be a counselor and well-educated. Have you been kidding about all of that?
Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???

https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development#:~:text=Ultrasounds%20can%20reveal%20t he%20embryo%20moving%20as%20early,makes%20up%20nea rly%20half%20of%20the%20fetus%E2%80%99s%20weight.


Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. I was breathing.So what was your point?

You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.
That's not considered interacting.

Sure it's not. You went from the unborn not even having a functional brain to not having interactions when, of course, the baby is in the womb. So hearing and recognizing voices is the result of a non-functional brain. Just amazing.

But even that retreat doesn't help you.


A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American.

https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20576329/twins-interact-with-each-other-as-early-as-14-weeks-in-the-womb

How do you crawdad out of this one?

You still continue to twist words and shout out nonsense. Like Athos has said more than once, you have trouble with reading comprehension -- which, btw, leads to cherry picking.

Anytime you have to appeal to the wisdom of Athos, you are done.

I'll post this again in the hope of a rational response as opposed to simple insults which you claim to oppose.

"But even that retreat doesn't help you.



A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American.


https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20...ks-in-the-womb (https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20576329/twins-interact-with-each-other-as-early-as-14-weeks-in-the-womb)

How do you crawdad out of this one?"

Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?

Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.


Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.

Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.


1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?

Once again this is circular reasoning. The question is when a fetus becomes a human being, but you assume the answer that you prefer and use it to judge everyone else. And my statement is a constitutional one as well as a biblical one. Read what Paul said about freedom. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.


Not following you on that one

I confess that genuinely surprises me. Let's try again. You told Athos


It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.

Then you turned around and did exactly that when you said


But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more. But you want us to believe the way you do simply because you believe it.
That's the same thing you said Athos was doing. I hope that clears it up.

And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.


I see that you're engaged in a discussion/debate with another AMHD member who shall be nameless here. Been there, done that. Now I generally have him blocked/ignored with the occasional exception since he has proven to be incapable of rational discussion when the discussion is contrary to his unexamined belief.

He has every right to his belief but when it leads him to deny truth, it's very much "sound and fury, signifying nothing". This is not atypical among a certain brand of Christian commonly known as white evangelicals who practice a bronze-age version of religion. More on this topic later as time allows.

Unfortunately, he has strong tendencies to dissemble, divert, deflect and be dishonest when he finds himself confronted by a rational approach opposing his beliefs. You have neatly confronted those tendencies with a sharp thrust into the heart of the falsehoods. Better than most I've seen on these pages.

His arguments ARE circular which has been pointed out to him many times by myself and others, but, based on his replies, he doesn't seem to understand what is meant. I've come to the conclusion that he has difficulty responding to what has been posted indicating a reading comprehension problem. More likely, his beliefs prevent him from an understanding.

Nice job with your reply. I hope to see more posts like that.

WG gives it up. Athos rambles, addresses nothing of substance, and fails. Now what?

His best attempt at Shakespearean writing. "You have neatly confronted those tendencies with a sharp thrust into the heart of the falsehoods." At least it is amusing.

What doest thou now?

This was a comment by the unnamed AMHD member we call "Athos" to Tom.

"You never replied to my comment:"

Hmm. I wonder if he sees it?

WG gives it up.
Nope. She is drinking hot cocoa. It's very cold up here in the north woods.

Sounds like a great idea. It's been unusually cold down here, but bear in mind that we think 20 is a great freeze.

Never ceases to interest me how people on this site get all wound up because you ask them a question. And rather than give an honest, rational answer to the question, people become angry and start making allegations of circular reasoning (in a question??) and "cherry picking", or simply resort to cheerleading. I thought it might prove interesting to post the unanswered questions just from this fairly short thread. Considering the post that, "You never replied to my comment," which was made earlier, I would have thought that answers were virtually mandatory.

1. No, it was a reply to your contention that, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." So I'm asking you what science justifies laws against murder, rape, etc. Please stop dodging the question.
2. Two comments. 1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?
3. You have accused certain unnamed evangelicals of supporting the execution of certain individuals. Now that you seem to be on record for supporting abortion which results in the mass killings of unborn human beings, in what way do you possess any moral high ground in the discussion?
4. What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity? (Asked because DW had posted, "Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more." If you know they "have more", then you must have some idea of what it is.
5. I was asking Athos to justify phony statements he had made about "white" evangelicals believing it is right to execute people for enmity against God.
6. If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.
7. I note that you did not see fit to intervene about his comment. Wonder why? After all, wouldn't that "science has little to no bearing on the discussion," have been appropriate there?
8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???
9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???
10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?
11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

Hmmmmmm..... Let's cherry-pick some more....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

You have refused to answer questions. That being the case, I really don't see any way to carry on any meaningful dialogue since you are, apparently, either too fearful or stubborn to do so. That's unfortunate since you do sometimes have some interesting observations.

You have refused to answer questions. That being the case, I really don't see any way to carry on any meaningful dialogue since you are, apparently, either too fearful or stubborn to do so. That's unfortunate since you do sometimes have some interesting observations.
Now you're judge and jury? I haven't refused! I want to discuss issues, not throw rocks. See my Post #28.

4 unanswered questions posed to you.

8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???
9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???
10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?
11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

Making a claim of "cherry-picking" is not answering,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thanks for posting this. It made me read a bit further into the exchange to see where it occurred.

The source of rights in US law is the consent of the governed, not the God of the Bible. This is most obvious when considering the Ten Commandments as being the source of law. Most of them would actually be illegal today or certainly not backed by the force of law.

Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is NOT the law. The Constitution is the law. To say the laws are "unchangeable" is to fly in the face of the Amendments to the Constitution.

The phrase "... all men are created equal..." does not deserve a comment since it comes from the pen of a slaveholder.

Thanks for posting this, WG.

The cheerleader strikes again.

Now if WG will just answer some questions.

8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???
What's it doing? How is it functioning? There are no stimuli in the womb, no sensory enticements.

9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???
See my reply above, #8.

10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?Socially? Card parties? Dancing? Board games? Duets? Vacation planning?

11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?
Functioning to what end, for what purpose? How?
Making a claim of "cherry-picking" is not answering,
Neither is your cherry picking.

What's it doing? How is it functioning? There are no stimuli in the womb, no sensory enticements.No stimuli? Then how does it recognize its mother's voice immediately after birth? Come on. It functions like yours does. The baby hears, moves, responds to pain, and has brain waves that can be measured and analyzed just like an adult's brain. Those brain waves can be measured months before birth. https://heimduo.org/what-trimester-does-the-fetus-develop-brain-waves/



Socially? Card parties? Dancing? Board games? Duets? Vacation planning?Please read the article I linked for you. https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20...ks-in-the-womb (https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20576329/twins-interact-with-each-other-as-early-as-14-weeks-in-the-womb) Babies in the womb do far less interacting than adults. So do two day olds. Would you kill them because they aren't planning a vacation or playing board games? How about the first grader who isn't yet dancing or playing duets? Kill them, too???


Functioning to what end, for what purpose? How?
About the same as a 2 day old. Should we kill them too since their brain does not function at the same level as an adult? It's amazing how far those who want to kill unborn babies will go to try and justify their beliefs.

I do commend you for taking a shot at it. It's more than your buddies have done.

The cheerleader strikes again.

If this is a reference to me, this cheerleader has just demolished your argument referenced by WG. As usual, your comment has nothing to do with supporting your position. You're a one-note Charlie.

This is plainly not true. "The source of rights in US law is the consent of the governed, not the God of the Bible." While the D of I is not itself law, it describes the foundation of law and the source of rights (a "Creator"), and the men who signed it did not agree with your idea of what the source of rights is and would have been horrified to read your view as everyone else should be. If our rights are dependent on the views of the majority (consent of the governed), which fluctuates as the wind on the seashore, then we are in big trouble.

Now I would agree with you that the Bible itself is not the source of law. Yes, the Constitution is the bedrock of our laws. No one has suggested the law is unchangeable so I don't know where that came from.

You do realize that the expression "consent of the governed" is found in the Declaration, a document which you said has no force of law? If that's the case, then why did you appeal to it?

The primary disagreement was with DW's assertion that science determines law. That is nonsense. It's why I asked him the question I did, and I suspect why he has avoided answering it. And I say that as an admirer of DW. Perhaps he expressed himself awkwardly.

Sorry, but you demolished nothing. At least you engaged, and perhaps have shed your "cheerleader" designation.

This is the "consent of the governed" passage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness).--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Had nothing to do with rights.

Had nothing to do with rights.
Women's rights? "All MEN are created equal"? I.e. all WHITE MEN are created equal.

Two possible answers.

1. "Men" was meant in the generic sense as of "mankind". It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning.
2. It's also possible that it was an unfortunate sign of the times and had to be corrected, as it was, as time went by.

What do you think?

1. It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning.
And those were? Cooking meals? Caring for the home? Being impregnated? Caring for the children?

Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.

Still waiting to see any documentation for this material.


This US group (white evangelicals) has made itself more prominent by engaging in politics where their platform is based on Christian Nationalism – the US becoming a Christian country in governance.

Their chief mission is to prohibit abortion for any reason in the entire country.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy.

This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.
Not when those words were first written. What changed?

Not when those words were first writtenYes. From the very beginning.

Yes. From the very beginning.
Why then was the 19th Amendment needed?

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. You will note that I mentioned nothing about voting. Most of what I mentioned was in state laws. Single women had advantages over married women depending on where they lived. I thought it was understood from the beginning of our discussion that women did not initially have the right to vote. Remember this? "It's also possible that it was an unfortunate sign of the times and had to be corrected, as it was, as time went by."
Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.

Thus, American women have always been equal to men (or even more advantaged in some areas) except as voters.

I wouldn't say that. This is how I characterized it. "It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning."

This is the "consent of the governed" passage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness).--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Had nothing to do with rights.

I will reply to your posts as noted by post number. I have read yours carefully. I trust you will do the same for mine.

Post # 38 (quoted immediately above).

Your conclusion is wrong. I.e., that the passage has nothing to do with rights. It has EVERYTHING to do with rights. When Jefferson writes that government derives its just POWERS from the consent of the governed, of course it includes its ability to make law. POWERS is a collective term referring to any and all government powers which certainly includes the rights encased in law.

When Jefferson writes of the "Creator", he is speaking as a Deist, not as a Christian. In fact, he said Paul was a corrupter of Jesus' message, declared the Book of Revelation was nonsense, and the Trinity was false. He was a non-Church-going Unitarian, primarily because Virginia had no Unitarian churches in his day. He even wrote a Gospel eliminating the miracles and admiring Jesus for his admonition to moral behavior.

Post # 27. I will reply to those comments you made in post # 27 to DW that you challenged. I will do it by numbered point by point so as not to take up so much space. Those interested can refer back to your post.

Point # 3. You called DW's evangelicals "unnamed". Not true. He named Bakker and Falwell.
Point # 4. You are asking for the specific science DW is referring to. You missed his point. He is referring to the general take from most scientists - not the technical aspects of the position. You can verify this yourself by a wide search on the internet using key words.
Point # 5. That seems to be directed at me. I refer you to my post #1 where I explain my reasoning based on white evangelicals attitude toward those who express enmity toward God. Hell is the analogy.
Point # 6. You are reading your reply literally without recourse to the people involved. For example, do you honestly believe Thomas Jefferson supported "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to those people he enslaved? Do you really think those rights were unchangeable for his slaves? In fact, they weren't unchangeable at all, seeing that they were denied to millions.
Point #s 8,9,10, and 11. DW will have to answer these for himself (functioning brain of the fetus). I don't know what his reasoning is for this.

Finally, your post # 37.

You wrote: "If our rights are dependent on the views of the majority (consent of the governed), which fluctuates as the wind on the seashore, then we are in big trouble." That is precisely what a democracy depends on. Churchill said it was the worst from of government - except tor all the others. It has always relied on cooler and wiser heads prevailing. The electoral college is the prime example. However, this failed in 2015 by electing the worst demagogue in American history - it guaranteed the very thing it was designed to avoid. The nation isn't over it yet.

You further wrote: "No one has suggested the law is unchangeable so I don't know where that came from." It came from your very own comment. See point #6 in your post #37.

Next: "You do realize that the expression "consent of the governed" is found in the Declaration, a document which you said has no force of law? If that's the case, then why did you appeal to it?" Simple enough - because the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government. The social contract assumes/requires the consent be informed. Otherwise, bad government, bad law.

"Sorry, but you demolished nothing." Wrong. I continued to demolish your positions because, where possible, I based my positions on facts. When not possible, on rational grounds.

Words and phrases have nuanced meanings depending on context. This seems to be a difficulty with your understanding - both with the documents discussed and especially with your reading of the Bible. When you read so much on the surface or in a shallow fashion, you miss much of what is intended.

Post 38. No, powers are the ability to govern and exercise authority. Rights refer to what inherently, in legal and moral power, rests with citizens. And since, as you now agree Jefferson said, they come from God, be that deist or whatever, they are not subject to the whims of the majority. The Creator does not have to be Deist. Might have been to Jefferson, but not to many of the other signatories. The concept was a brilliant retort to the proposition of the Divine Right of Kings, now replaced, according to the Declaration, by the divinely granted rights of individuals.

Post 27. Not a single evangelical leader has been named of whom it is documented that he supports the death penalty for "enmity against God" or death for adulteresses but not adulterers. It is an absurd allegation. Just throwing out names accomplishes nothing, and especially two people who have not exercised influence in 30 years. What you need is quotes from these people, and you have nothing to offer there. You have also just made broad claims about what scientists supposedly believe. DW claimed laws were based on science. Neither of you has offered even a whisper about how that might work. It's nonsense.

Post 37. "See point #6 in your post #37." Huh? That must have been a typo. Nothing of relevance in post 37. I think you are referring to this statement in post 9. "The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable." It is a clear reference to rights (not laws) being unchangeable, which is to say "certain unalienable rights." You failed to understand the point.

"the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government." Except that the very Declaration you are appealing to declared the exact opposite, saying that our rights come from a Creator and have not been simply "granted by government". It's why we are not a pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, and in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. There is a painstaking process which must be gone through, at least if the rule of law is still prevailing. It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.

Now you are right in the sense that, in practical terms, our government passes and abolishes laws routinely, and even the Constitution was a work of man including the Bill of Rights. But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.

Sorry, but you have demolished nothing. It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth. The weakness of your arguments reinforce what you are trying to oppose.

"the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government." Except that the very Declaration you are appealing to declared the exact opposite, saying that our rights come from a Creator and have not been simply "granted by government"

You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?


in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. ... It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.

Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public? Maybe informed, maybe a whim. We are certainly experiencing a public whim with Trump. The Trump public whim led directly to the reversal of Roe v Wade. I trust I don't have to connect the dots for you.



But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.

You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.


It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth.

You've got that exactly backwards. I rely on facts and rational discourse. You rely on magical thinking.

Your argument boils down to two "proofs". Jefferson, who was a smart man, but not infallible and whose words are tainted with the enormous fact of his being a slaveholder. The second is basing your position on religious faith without a scintilla of proof. You dissed the Divine Right of Kings, yet you are also claiming a religious support for yourself.

You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?You also cited Jefferson. Did you make the reconcilement? Why would we? I'm not advocating for him.


Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public?Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.


You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government. I'm sure they were all imperfect men as are you and I.

The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that. It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments. I have claimed no "religious support for myself". I am not arguing for myself in any way. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts. If you still claim that to be the case, then this is your opportunity to provide quotes from these people to that effect. If you can't, and you can't, then at least admit to it.

You also cited Jefferson. Did you make the reconcilement?

You cited him as proof of God instituting rights. I cited him as proof of rights being derived from the consent of the governed. HUGE difference.


Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.

Congress and the states are made up from the public.


I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government.

That is NOT a proof. That is a religious argument for which you have not the slightest idea what all 56 signers of the document believed. Many of them, like Jefferson, did NOT believe in the God of the Bible. Even if all 56 WERE Bible-totin' believers, that would still NOT constitute proof that rights are instituted by God.


The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that.

My "silly" assertions are self-evident. The basis is your assertion that Hell exists. That's another discussion. You may state your position in another thread if you wish.


It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments.

Nonsense. Nothing "inarguable" about it. As stated above, you have no idea what they all thought. When Jefferson said "Creator", and you say "God", they are not the same. Jefferson didn't believe in your "God". This is a striking example of your demonstrated difficulty in understanding the nuances of similar words based on context.


I have claimed no "religious support for myself".

Of course, you have! Your entire argument is based on God granting rights - not the consent of the governed.


I am not arguing for myself in any way.

You are arguing for your position. Please stop playing word games.


I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts.

My white evangelical points are from their stated Bible beliefs. They make no attempt to hide those beliefs. Believing in Hell in the afterlife is not opposed to believing punishment in this life for different beliefs. Examples abound in the Old Testament of your God doing exactly that.

Christian Nationalists are defined by wanting this nation to be a "Christian" nation. That leads to certain primitive mindsets as we are witnessing in another nation undergoing the throes of theocratic Islam.


If you still claim that to be the case, (claims not based on facts)

Exactly what claims have I made that are not based on facts?

You cited him as proof of God instituting rights.I did not. I cited a document agreed to by 56 founders as evidence. It does not "prove" that the idea is true, but it does "prove" that 56 founders agreed with it since they all signed it, and it "proves" that they believed religion has a place in the formulation of law. They put their lives on the line and several suffered terrible loss. It is not true to simply contend that Jefferson "wrote" that document. He did write it, but then it was subject to extensive review which continued until all 56 signers could agree with it. To suggest they blindly signed is just inaccurate. Might add that at the time of the signing of the Declaration, Jefferson was a self-confessed Christian.

Let's make this simple. You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. DW added that they want to execute adulteresses but not adulterers. I say that is nonsense and have challenged you to show documentation for it. You have not even attempted to do so since you know you can't. Citing names or claiming it is "self evident" because they believe in the Bible is just silliness. If you can ever show any serious evidence that it's true, then we can continue. You can't, so that's basically that. You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed," or words to that effect from prominent evangelical leaders or better yet, from leading evangelical groups. You can't present anything of the sort, so that's done.

The other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science and that religion has no place in that process. To refute that I appealed to the Declaration. It plainly shows that 56 Founders agreed that our rights come from God with no mention of science. Neither of you has offered a scintilla of evidence to support your idea, nor any explanation of how science can show us that laws against rape, murder, theft, and so forth should be enacted. It just strikes me as a silly argument that the Declaration itself illustrates as wrong.

So show us the evidence. Show quotes from prominent evangelicals showing they want to see what you claim, or explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.

My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.

Lots to go through here, but I couldn't let this go by.


If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.

Your simplistic approach to these things doesn't get you to the truth.

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word.

Your simplistic approach to these things doesn't get you to the truth.

You made two of the same points I made, only your "Creator" lines were far better than mine. Thank you.

Your second thought about his "simplistic approach" has been a problem for a very long time here.

I will now decide whether to reply to the rest of his post - time permitting.

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.First of all, that is flatly untrue. Not even Jefferson was a Deist at the time of the writing of the Declaration. Many of the signers were Congregationalists (a Protestant denomination) while most were Episcopalians. Neither group is Deist.

But even if that was true, it is still an appeal to religion in the declaration of rights, and that is the beginning of all law. It completely refutes your contention.

You have yet to explain your idea that science can mandate passing laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. This has to be the fourth or fifth time I've asked this. Why the dodge?

I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.

This is the text of the Congressional Prayer Proclamation of 1779, just three years after the Declaration. It is definitely not a Deist prayer (then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does).


THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased to avert those impending Calamities which we have but too well deserved: That he will grant us his Grace to repent of our Sins, and amend our Lives according to his Holy Word: That he will continue that wonderful Protection which hath led us through the Paths of Danger and Distress: That he will be a Husband to the Widow, and a Father to the fatherless Children, who weep over the Barbarities of a Savage Enemy: That he will grant us Patience in Suffering, and Fortitude in Adversity: That he will inspire us with Humility, Moderation, and Gratitude in prosperous Circumstances: That he will give Wisdom to our Councils, Firmness to our Resolutions, and Victory to our Arms: That he will bless the Labours of the Husbandman, and pour forth Abundance, so that we may enjoy the Fruits of the Earth in due Season: That he will cause Union, Harmony, and mutual Confidence to prevail throughout these States: That he will bestow on our great Ally all those Blessings which may enable him to be gloriously instrumental in protecting the Rights of Mankind, and promoting the Happiness of his Subjects: That he will bountifully continue his paternal Care to the Commander in Chief, and the Officers and Soldiers of the United States: That he will grant the Blessings of Peace to all contending Nations, Freedom to those who are in Bondage, and Comfort to the Afflicted: That he will diffuse Useful Knowledge, extend the Influence of True Religion, and give us that Peace of Mind which the World cannot give: That he will be our Shield in the Day of Battle, our Comforter in the Hour of Death, and our kind Parent and merciful Judge through Time and through Eternity.

The Virginia Declaration, which predated the Declaration, identified the "Creator".


That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.Strange words for Deists. What duty could be owed to an impersonal God who neither knows nor cares what we do? Why would they have had a duty to practice Christian virtues?

I've been on this site long enough to know these questions, as well as several others that have been posed, will not be addressed. There will only be vague appeals to "simplistic" thinking or supposedly "self-evident" truths. Too bad.

Athos
You cited him (Jefferson) as proof of God instituting rights.

JL
I did not.

Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.


I cited a document agreed to by 56 founders as evidence. It does not "prove" that the idea is true, but it does "prove" that 56 founders agreed with it since they all signed it, and it "proves" that they believed religion has a place in the formulation of law.

Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.


You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”.

Here's what I wrote: More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy. This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

My support is a prediction if and when Christian Nationalists create a theocratic nation as Iran has done. Context. Context. Context.


You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed,"

Then how do you explain HELL for those who show enmity against God? Your OT God is the role model for execution in this life for those who show enmity against God.


The other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science

He defined science as rational inquiry. That is exactly what laws are based on.


To refute that I appealed to the Declaration. It plainly shows that 56 Founders agreed that our rights come from God with no mention of science. Neither of you has offered a scintilla of evidence to support your idea, nor any explanation of how science can show us that laws against rape, murder, theft, and so forth should be enacted. It just strikes me as a silly argument that the Declaration itself illustrates as wrong.

DW's explanation was clearly laid out for you. Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.

I will add that an appeal to the Declaration is a gross misreading. Of course they don't mention science. They don't mention rational analysis either, but that is the basis of what is written in the Declaration. You're tripping on "literal" again.


explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.

It's been explained three times now. Please do not fault others for your lack of comprehension.


My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.

If this comment weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. Your arguments are based on an emotional attachment to a literal reading of a 2,500 year old collection of books written by dozens of authors over several centuries. The OT God you revere so much is why you are so far from a rational understanding and why you are mired in personal feelings.

You're not being asked to discard Christianity or God, rather you are invited to dig deeper into a faith that has meant a great deal to so many people over the years.

Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.You're not listening. I haven't said that. I have said that the signers clearly believed that God instituted rights.


Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.From DW's post 4. "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." But I'm glad that you now seem to be agreeing that religion DOES have a place in the formulation of law.

From DW. "Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works)." You said, "More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show "enmity against God'". I have asked for documentation of those statements and received zip. That statement is not a prediction but rather describes a present situation.


Then how do you explain HELL for those who show enmity against God? Your OT God is the role model for execution in this life for those who show enmity against God.A topic worth discussing, but that is not what you are being asked to defend. The topic of hell has been discussed thoroughly here on a number of occasions. If you'd like, I'll post my list of Bible references that refer to hell and a coming judgment. Still, that is off topic for this discussion.


You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. The "thing we're talking about" is two-fold. 1. The involvement of religion in the formulation of law. 2. Your completely wrong statements about what "white evangelicals" believe. I have not suggested either of those is a crime nor equated them with crimes, so you have made yet another false statement.


I will add that an appeal to the Declaration is a gross misreading. Of course they don't mention science. They don't mention rational analysis either, but that is the basis of what is written in the Declaration. You're tripping on "literal" again.They DID appeal to a "Creator". That was the point. You're tripping on wishful thinking.


It's been explained three times now.Such a blatantly false statement that I feel sorry for you having made it. But you can easily put that to rest. Post the quotes. And lest you forget, here is the question. "Explain how science can give us laws."


Your arguments are based on an emotional attachment to a literal reading of a 2,500 year old collection of books written by dozens of authors over several centuries. The OT God you revere so much is why you are so far from a rational understanding and why you are mired in personal feelings.My arguments are based on what you claim to believe in which is rational thinking. You should try it!

I'll add that while science employs rational thinking, the terms "science" and "rational thinking" are not synonymous. If you want to say that we base our laws on rational thinking, then I could agree with that since it is very rational to believe, as the signers did, that God has instituted human rights. Science is much more aptly defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is therefore rational to understand that true science is of no use in making moral judgments from which laws could be based.

Neither you nor DW can document your false statements about what "white evangelicals" believe, so at least we can move on from that now. And you now seem to agree that religion can have a place in law making, so perhaps we have resolved these two issues.

First of all, that is flatly untrue. Not even Jefferson was a Deist at the time of the writing of the Declaration. Many of the signers were Congregationalists (a Protestant denomination) while most were Episcopalians. Neither group is Deist.


They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.



But even if that was true, it is still an appeal to religion in the declaration of rights, and that is the beginning of all law. It completely refutes your contention.
[Quote]

Hardly. It was a common rhetorical device of the time that really means nothing. And again, "creator" means something very different than you claim.

[Quote]
You have yet to explain your idea that science can mandate passing laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. This has to be the fourth or fifth time I've asked this. Why the dodge?


Did you see the part where I said I haven't caught up with the thread yet? Patience, little one. I'm getting there.



I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.

What party would that be? I'm looking at history. I'm too old to party.


Neither you nor DW can document your false statements about what "white evangelicals" believe,

I can "document" it from recent experience. It's documented by every politician who claims to be a Christian but calls for suppression of certain people's rights. Read anything from Bobo or MTG. Both say they're Christians but preach total hate against anybody who isn't exactly like them. And the white evangelicals are the ones sending them to Congress.

I've paid my dues when it comes to white evangelicals, dude. I grew up in it, lived in it, and have been betrayed by it many times. You don't want to go head to head with me on this, trust me.

They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.One out of 56. They were predominately Christian. And even at that, Jefferson's Bible was done at the age of 77, several decades after penning the Declaration.


Hardly. It was a common rhetorical device of the time that really means nothing. And again, "creator" means something very different than you claim.I understand you believe that. To suggest it meant nothing is foolishness. It's yet another claim that cannot be documented.

I asked for documentation for your absurd claim that prominent evangelical leaders wanted death for adulteresses but not for adulterers. This is your reply, meaning you have nothing. The individuals you named, who are politicians for goodness sake and certainly not evangelical leaders, have never suggested what you have claimed.


I can "document" it from recent experience. It's documented by every politician who claims to be a Christian but calls for suppression of certain people's rights. Read anything from Bobo or MTG. Both say they're Christians but preach total hate against anybody who isn't exactly like them. And the white evangelicals are the ones sending them to Congress.

I've paid my dues when it comes to white evangelicals, dude. I grew up in it, lived in it, and have been betrayed by it many times. You don't want to go head to head with me on this, trust me.

I don't fear going head to head with a man who says things that are outrageous and then, rather than admit that he way overdid it, wants to sound threatening. Sorry, but you don't have the ability to do that. Your contention was ridiculous.

This has been disappointing. I really expected a reasoned, fact-based dialogue. Instead I just get generalities and insulting comments more fitting for a ninth grader. I have also lived around evangelicals all my life. I don't base my beliefs on evangelicals or on you. No matter what they have done to you, it does not justify your outrageous, false claims. Be responsible for yourself.

You still need to explain how science can justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth.

I asked for documentation for your absurd claim that prominent evangelical leaders wanted death for adulteresses but not for adulterers.

Not the topic we were currently working on.


You still need to explain how science can justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth.

Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.


You are a disappointment. I really expected a reasoned, fact-based dialogue. Instead I just get generalities and insulting comments more fitting for a ninth grader.

The one who makes insulting comments such as "disappointment" and "ninth grader" decries me making insulting comments.
That's evangelical behavior all the way. I will go to the stake for Jesus, but evangelicals can go jump. They are wrong about everything. In particular, they have no clue what their role in the world is supposed to be. Hint: it ain't political.

And thank you for dodging the examples I gave. It proves my point.
Evangelicals started losing their way when Jerry Falwell created the Moral Majority. He decided that legislating morality is our mission, and millions of evangelicals followed his lead. As far as I'm concerned they followed him straight into hell. Christians can't learn from history, especially their own. Every time the church gets involved in politics, politics wins and the church is corrupted. Every. Time. Yet they keep doing it. It plays right into the enemy's hands. Claws. Whatever he has. Mittens. I don't know. But you get the point. Those "Christians" I mentioned are an embarrassment, and people like them are the reason we can't bring Jesus to a hurting, dying world, and it infuriates me.

And by the way, I know Falwell is dead. Falwell Junior is not. Duh.

Not the topic we were currently working on.A dodge. Has been asked and dodged many times.


Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.Science cannot determine the common good. It does not fall within the realm of scientific claims. Rational discussions about the social good can help with that, but that's not really science. Religion can be helpful as well. Perhaps your faith does not address the common good. Mine does.

And then there is individual freedom to be considered.


And thank you for dodging the examples I gave.You are again mistaken. I addressed Falwell and Baker TWICE. Look in post 9. And even at that, you have posted no evidence at all that they called for death for adulteresses only or for death for "enmity against God". So you are still in the wilderness.

If you want to discuss Christians in politics, then we can do that. I did enjoy reading your next to last paragraph and think that could be a good discussion, but I'll ask you to document your contentions then just as I am doing now. I hope you meet with more success should that happen.

Your "duh" comments are childish and generally follow statements by you which are not correct to begin with. Falwell Jr., for instance, never had anything close to the clout of his dad and was forced to resign in disgrace in 2020. And so far as anyone here knows, he NEVER said what you and Athos claimed evangelicals said. Since neither of you can document those wild claims, which I have no doubt are untrue to begin with, then I think I can drop that until you at least attempt to do so.

You are again mistaken. I addressed Falwell and Baker TWICE. Look in post 9. And even at that, you have posted no evidence at all that they called for death for adulteresses only or for death for "enmity against God". So you are still in the wilderness.


You have been given sufficient examples for just about anyone. But no amount of evidence will be enough for you because you're determined to deny the truth. Both called for stoning of gays, adulteresses and sex workers. Nothing about johns. The list goes on and on. Documenting all of them would take several pages and you know it.


Science cannot determine the common good. It does not fall within the realm of scientific claims. Rational discussions about the social good can help with that, but that's not really science. Religion can be helpful as well. Perhaps your faith does not address the common good. Mine does.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've come up with yet. What are vaccines? Antibiotics? Advanced surgeries? Prosthetics? Insulated homes? Clean water? Clean air standards? All are aspects of the common good as determined by science.
If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.

I'm done with your double standard. Have the last word, we all know you will anyway.

You have been given sufficient examples for just about anyone. But no amount of evidence will be enough for you because you're determined to deny the truth. Both called for stoning of gays, adulteresses and sex workers. Nothing about johns. The list goes on and on. Documenting all of them would take several pages and you know it.Nonsense. If you had evidence of this you would link it. But even if it was true, it would be meaningless. The great, overwhelming bulk of evangelical leadership does not agree, and so your remarks were ridiculous. I don't know of a single prominent evangelical leader who calls for such things, and evidently neither do you.


That is the most ridiculous thing you've come up with yet. What are vaccines? Antibiotics? Advanced surgeries? Prosthetics? Insulated homes? Clean water? Clean air standards? All are aspects of the common good as determined by science.
If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.Complain, complain. I did not say science could not provide important advances, but science cannot choose between competing claims. Should assault weapons be banned? Should alcohol be illegal? Should marijuana be legal? What should divorce laws allow? Should a woman be allowed to have her unborn child killed? Should freedom of religion and speech be allowed? How large should welfare programs be? Is gay marriage a good idea? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? Those are choices which impact the common good, and science has no ability to decide them. It's why you have proven unable to answer this question. "Can science justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth."


But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.I did. It is full of Christian concepts such as a personal God and prayer, neither of which is a Deist concept.

science cannot choose between competing claims.
Neither can religion.

Should assault weapons be banned? Should alcohol be illegal? Should marijuana be legal? What should divorce laws allow? Should a woman be allowed to have her unborn child killed? Should freedom of religion and speech be allowed? How large should welfare programs be? Is gay marriage a good idea? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? Those are choices which impact the common good, and science has no ability to decide them.
Neither does religion.

Neither does religion.That's not what the founding fathers believed.

That's not what the founding fathers believed.
"For most of America’s Founding [Fathers], their religious writings support two primary positions: (1) The God of the Bible governs the affairs of mankind, and (2) each person should have the freedom to worship Him as he or she sees fit. Although these beliefs are more than deism, they are not, by themselves, sufficient for Christianity. Theistic rationalism is a reasonable description of the Founders' beliefs."
https://greatamericanhistory.net/blog/the-religious-beliefs-of-americas-founding-fathers-christians-or-deists/

their religious writings support two primary positions: (1) The God of the Bible governs the affairs of mankind, and (2) each person should have the freedom to worship Him as he or she sees fit. Although these beliefs are more than deism,Thank you for supporting my position. The founding fathers were largely not deists and attributed rights to a Creator God. Well documented!! No one has argued they were a bunch of evangelical Christians, but it is simply true that the "Creator" prominently mentioned is a personal God.

And guns should be muskets only.

Yes, and vacuum cleaners and washing machines should be outlawed. And CARS! Think of home many people cars kill every year.

Yes! Methinks you're on to something! And we should all become vegetarians like Adam and Eve were in the beginning! Roasted Brussels sprouts instead of roasted turkey for Thanksgiving!

Uhm...you lost me on that one.

Uhm...you lost me on that one.
No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.

And no roasted or grilled meat in heaven, right? No death.

No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.

And no roasted or grilled meat in heaven, right? No death.

What happens to a carrot when you pull it up and eat it? Or a turnip? What happens to the grain plants when you harvest the seeds?

They die. "No death" is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12. Even though "death came to all MEN" makes it clear he's only talking about human death, there are those who think it's talking about every living thing.

They all forget that plants are living things, too.

Plants leave seeds for the next generation. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies from God's Garden. No roasted rib eye steaks or grilled burgers.

But the seeds are also alive. When you eat them, they die. Shame!!

How do you know they did not eat meat?

But the seeds are also alive. When you eat them, they die. Shame!!
No, the seeds that are eaten travel thru the digestive system and are eventually expelled to take root. Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit seeds; they were thrown away and became the beginnings of new plants.

Do you eat a seed-filled apple core, watermelon seeds, the mesh full of seeds in the middle of a squash?

How do you know they did not eat meat?
Because, before the Fall, there was no death.

No, the seeds that are eaten travel thru the digestive system and are eventually expelled to take root.Good grief I am so glad I don't live in your neighborhood. I can only imagine. Peas, carrots, and beans are chewed up and swallowed except, I guess, at your house.


Because, before the Fall, there was no death.Why do you say that?

WG: Because, before the Fall, there was no death.

Why do you say that?
You're being silly, right?

No. Why do you say that?

No. Why do you say that?
That was the punishment of the Fall, Death. Before the Fall, everything was wonderful, perfect.

The death spoken of was only for man and was spiritual death.

The death spoken of was only for man and was spiritual death.
You're kidding, right? Why then have living things, in particular humans, died since the Fall?

Why is there physical death?

I thought this reply by DW was good.


What happens to a carrot when you pull it up and eat it? Or a turnip? What happens to the grain plants when you harvest the seeds?

They die. "No death" is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12. Even though "death came to all MEN" makes it clear he's only talking about human death, there are those who think it's talking about every living thing.

They all forget that plants are living things, too.


You're kidding, right? Why then have living things, in particular humans, died since the Fall?How do you know they did not die before the fall? Plants, for instance, died upon being eaten. The living cells of tree limbs died and decomposed when they fell off of trees. There was plenty of death.

How do you know they did not die before the fall? Plants, for instance, died upon being eaten. The living cells of tree limbs died and decomposed when they fell off of trees. There was plenty of death.
I have NEVER been taught that EVER!!!

Both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam’s fall.

You’ve never been taught that eating an organism causes its death?

I don’t know of any reason to agree with your second statement.

You’ve never been taught that eating an organism causes its death?
There ya go, twisting what I said.

I said --
There. Was. No. Death. Before. The. Fall.

Regarding plants --
Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described in the.Bible as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).

I don’t know of any reason to agree with your second statement.
It's an allegory anyway. Go back to whatever you were doing before posting here.

Why is it you so easily get angry when your statements are questioned? So sensitive!

Come to think of it, that seems true of all the liberals on this site.

Why is it you so easily get angry when your statements are questioned? So sensitive!

Come to think of it, that seems true of all the liberals on this site.
I'm laughing! I do not get angry at ANYone. Bring angry isn't in my genes.

If I disagree with you, I must be angry. I get it.

If you say this (Go back to whatever you were doing before posting here.) when you are happy, then I'd hate to see you when you are mad! Have you always had problems with simply being honest?


If I disagree with you, I must be angry. I get it.Nah. When you just make it up as you go along, as you do, you never really get it.


Regarding plants --
Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described in the.Bible as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).First you say it is mere allegory, and then you want to get into details. At any rate, plants are unquestionably living organisms, so there you are. There was death before the fall.

Go back to what DW said earlier. Read it until you understand it, then come back.

She laughed hysterically. It certainly (again) didn't take much to propel you into sarcasm, nastiness, and going off topic. Dwashbur was right in Post 67.

Strange how you so eagerly (and no doubt hysterically and non-angrily) support DW's similarly non-angry post 67, and yet ran past his very valid observation in post 78. Rather selective.

At any rate, have it your way.

Plants leave seeds for the next generation. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies from God's Garden. No roasted rib eye steaks or grilled burgers.

Humans and cows and ducks leave seeds behind, too, they just look like calves, children, and eggs.
There are lots of plants that don't leave seeds, and there are lots of seeds that we chew up and consume so they can't pass through our digestive systems unchanged. Do we really suppose Adam and Eve hadn't discovered bread?
We know plants are a live and the ancients knew it as well. If there was no death before the Fall then every carrot Adam ate continued to live in multiple masticated pieces somehow.
Come on, WG. I expect better from you.

If there was no death before the Fall then every carrot Adam ate continued to live in multiple masticated pieces somehow.
Come on, WG. I expect better from you.
Dwashbur, you know me better than that!

Here's a thought-provoking article:

Could There Have Been Any Death Before the Fall?

https://apologeticspress.org/could-there-have-been-any-death-before-the-fall-5321/#:~:text=First%2C%20we%20know%20that%20plants%20we re%20certainly%20able,be%20“alive”%20in%20the%20sa me%20sense%20as%20animals.

Here's another one:

Genesis 2:17—“You Shall Surely Die”https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die/

This is from your first link.
"First, we know that plants were certainly able to die before the Fall, because they were to serve as food for humans and animals throughout the Earth (Genesis 1:30). Nobody seems to dispute that truth."

Isn't that exactly what you are disputing???

Isn't that exactly what you are disputing???
I didn't say yay or nay to either link I posted. I said they are thought-provoking.

I didn't say yay or nay to either link I posted.That's quite a strategy. Never say anything definite.

That's quite a strategy. Never say anything definite.
I have been told to post links to articles that will stimulate thinking!

Who asked you to do that?

That's how discussion is created and stimulated!

Discussion only exists when people have sufficient courage to post their ideas and subject them to scrutiny. Otherwise, it's just polite conversation. That's fine and useful, but not really discussion. Or at least that's my view.

Yes! Discussion -- the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas (not insults).

" the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas..." I'm all for it.


to exchange ideas (not insults).
Insults? You mean like this?


She laughed hysterically. It certainly (again) didn't take much to propel you into sarcasm, nastiness, and going off topic. Dwashbur was right in Post 67.

Or this?


If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.

I'm done with your double standard. Have the last word, we all know you will anyway.
The biggest aggravation I have here is an absolute refusal to answer any question deemed a little dangerous to one's position. For instance, there was the member who steadfastly refused to simply say whether or not he believed in the resurrection, a question which remains unanswered to this day. Really hard to "exchange ideas" with someone who won't do any exchanging.

Would you be satisfied with a maybe?

And the "refusal to answer" has nothing to do with being "dangerous" to one's position or belief.

Would you be satisfied with a maybe?Sure, as long as it's an honest "maybe".


And the "refusal to answer" has nothing to do with being "dangerous" to one's position or belief.Then what is the reason?

How will you know if it's an honest maybe?

The reason could be NOYB.

How will you know if it's an honest maybe?
Can't generally tell.


The reason could be NOYB.Then the person should say that. But it's hard to imagine entering into a discussion with someone but then refusing to answer a serious question because of that.

Interesting articles. The first one makes my point for me then backpedals a little. I would quibble with the subject of footnote 6 because nothing in Gen 1:29-30 requires that all the creatures be herbivores. No animal death also requires a world without any cliffs to fall off of, ponds to fall in, rocks to trip over and break one's neck, the entire idea creates an impossibly complex scenario that frankly can't stand up to reality. And I like the way he demonstrated that Romans 5 is talking about HUMAN death and nothing else.
The second article is on a slightly different topic, and this author betrays a very cursory knowledge of Hebrew. Specifically he fails to understand the nature of the definite article when used with the construct state. If that means nothing to you, I'm sad to say it probably means nothing to this author, as well. And therein lies the problem. He's way over his head trying to talk about Hebrew grammar. His conclusion is reasonably solid, but that's not necessarily because he knew what he was talking about.
I have no use for Answers in Genesis, and stuff like that is a big reason why. They take a little of this and a little of that and think they know something.

I'm thinking Heaven will be like the Garden of Eden. Will the heavenly feast include veggie dishes, platters of grilled prime rib, bbq chicken, and meatloaf? No cliffs to fall off, lakes to drown in?

I'm thinking it'll be way better than that. The end of the book shows us Earth 2.0 and it looks a lot more interesting than a garden.
As for prime rib, I'll say the same thing that Billy Graham said when asked if there will be sex in heaven: if God can't come up with something better, it'll be there.

Great answer, dwashbur! Since I'm nearly there, I am eagerly looking forward to this next adventure!

I'd start the description off with God himself. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all there and accessible to us. What could compare with that? It's impossible to describe.

As for prime rib, I'll say the same thing that Billy Graham said when asked if there will be sex in heaven: if God can't come up with something better, it'll be there.

Nice to see the great Billy Graham had a sense of humor about the afterlife. As he aged, he morphed from strict fundamentalism to being more and more open ecumenically.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
As for prime rib, I'll say the same thing that Billy Graham said when asked if there will be sex in heaven: if God can't come up with something better, it'll be there.
Nice to see the great Billy Graham had a sense of humor about the afterlife. As he aged, he morphed from strict fundamentalism to being more and more open ecumenically.

It came up while he was doing a Q&A in the late 60's at the height of the sexual revolution. The questioner's tone made it clear he was expecting some sort of rigid, prudish answer about the evils of sex. I don't think he was prepared for the answer, or the boisterous laughter that followed.
It's a shame his son has taken such a massive kerplop on the man's legacy. It makes me sad.

It's a shame his son has taken such a massive kerplop on the man's legacy. It makes me sad. So running a charity that annually reaches out to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from natural disasters is a kerplop?

So running a charity that annually reaches out to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from natural disasters is a kerplop?
Yeah, what a giving guy. "Franklin Graham drew scrutiny in 2009 for drawing a full-time salary from Samaritan's Purse, while simultaneously receiving a full-time salary from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (https://www.bing.com/search?q=Billy+Graham+Evangelistic+Association&filters=sid%3a%223a3d66bc-9fe9-a209-bd82-2e310f0998b2%22&FORM=SNAPST) (BGEA).

According to 2014 data, Graham is the highest paid Samaritan's Purse employee at $622,252 annually and leads other charities in compensation.[28] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham#cite_note-28) The preacher gave up a salary at the evangelistic association during the late economic downturn,[29] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham#cite_note-29) but the leaders urged him to accept compensation again and he now receives increased retirement contributions as well as a regular salary.[30] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham#cite_note-30) The evangelistic association reported 2013 revenues as $106.5 million and 2014 as $112,893,788.[31] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham#cite_note-31)[32] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham#cite_note-32)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham

The evangelistic association reported 2013 revenues as $106.5 million and 2014 as $112,893,788.I think there is a general problem with salaries in charitable organizations including one you have never objected to known as the Clinton Foundation. Even at that, Samaritan's Purse gives out several hundred million dollars a year to a number of different causes. I just don't see that as a "kerplop". He has also taken a principled stand against abortion in the same manner that his father worked against racial discrimination. And he is a consistent preacher of the Gospel, so what's the problem?

And he is a consistent preacher of the Gospel, so what's the problem?
And his Gospel says what???

John 3:16.

John 3:16.
And if a person hasn't heard that Gospel or doesn't believe, then what does Franklin say?

I have no idea.

I have no idea.
Franklin Graham ... says Hell isn't a concept but a "reality." He says it's important not to doubt it because it's the reason Jesus died on a cross to save us from our sins.

"Jesus spoke about it a great deal. The Bible describes it as a 'blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' It will not change with the maturing of human culture, or anything else we might dream up. Hell is a very real place that will be the eternal destination of souls who reject the forgiveness and salvation that a loving God offers us through His Son, Jesus Christ," Graham writes in a Facebook post. (from an article on 09/23/2018)
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/september/hell-yes-or-no-why-franklin-graham-is-suddenly-tackling-this-eternal-debate

So he disagrees with you and agrees with the Bible.

So he disagrees with you and agrees with the Bible.
That's not what Jesus was talking about.

And you know this how? How is it that you somehow magically know that Jesus did not mean what he plainly said a number of times?

And you know this how? How is it that you somehow magically know that Jesus did not mean what he plainly said a number of times?
Read ALL of what Jesus said IN CONTEXT without twisting and shouting.

Wonderful, generalized, non-specific answer that is actually not an answer at all. It basically amounts to saying that it is so because you say it is. And then there is the utterly predictable, hysterical reference to "twisting and shouting".

Are Muslims and Hindus and Jews and Native Americans who believed in the Great Spirit and Sikhs and Buddhists and Roman Catholics saved?

And now the answer is a question. Great. But I knew already you would not provide an answer. It is your usual practice.

Ah! You don't know the answer to my question! I suspected you wouldn't. Or don't dare answer.

I'm just copying you.
don't dare answer. The WG theme song.

The answer is LOVE.

jlisenbe
It's a shame his son has taken such a massive kerplop on the man's legacy. It makes me sad.
So running a charity that annually reaches out to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from natural disasters is a kerplop?

He has told LGBTQ people that they don't have a right to exist. His charitable giving is to a very narrow range of recipients, only those he deems worthy and that won't upset his sexual apple cart. He has been very clear about that.

Being anti-abortion is hardly the same thing as being anti-racism. We know racism is evil, but you have never been able to prove biblically or otherwise that abortion is. You assume it and manipulate the evidence to fit your assumption. We've all seen you do it and you're still wrong. Franky Graham is not anti-abortion. He is anti-woman. He wants women to be second-class citizens, to not hold jobs, to not speak for themselves, to be subservient to their husbands to the point of accepting abuse, and if a woman dies for lack of an abortion, well, that's a shame. He gets zero respect from me, and his charity is a joke. Look into Samaritan Purse's finances. You'll be appalled if you look with an unjaundiced eye. Look into Franky's personal life. Ditto. He's not a good person.

You complained about the Clinton Foundation. They don't claim to represent Jesus and hold the cornered market on truth. Franky does.


Wondergirl
Ah! You don't know the answer to my question! I suspected you wouldn't. Or don't dare answer.

To be fair, he asked you first, and your answer was kinda lame.

The answer is LOVE.What does John 3:16 say the love of God did?

What does John 3:16 say the love of God did?
What do WE do in joyful response to that love? What do we do in His name when we see someone who is in need of love?

To dwashbur: I was going to bring up Frankie's "Christian" hatred of the LGBTQ community, but decided not to overwhelm JL.

He has told LGBTQ people that they don't have a right to exist. His charitable giving is to a very narrow range of recipients, only those he deems worthy and that won't upset his sexual apple cart. He has been very clear about that.That's not true. When SP does disaster relief, they don't exclude gay individuals. I think you are guilty of hyperbole on a grand scale.


Being anti-abortion is hardly the same thing as being anti-racism. We know racism is evil, but you have never been able to prove biblically or otherwise that abortion is. You assume it and manipulate the evidence to fit your assumption.The abortion industry in America was founded by the ultimate racist, Margaret Sanger. Even worse, racism does not usually involve the loss of life, while abortion always does, and the loss of an innocent human life at that. It is not an assumption. It is an easily demonstrable fact.


Franky Graham is not anti-abortion. He is anti-woman. He wants women to be second-class citizens, to not hold jobs, to not speak for themselves, to be subservient to their husbands to the point of accepting abuse, and if a woman dies for lack of an abortion, well, that's a shame.I don't think that's true. At any rate, you seem upset at the prospect of a mother dying, and yet have no concern for the death of her unborn child. That's puzzling to say the least.


He gets zero respect from me, and his charity is a joke. Look into Samaritan Purse's finances. You'll be appalled if you look with an unjaundiced eye. Look into Franky's personal life. Ditto. He's not a good person.I wish I had a dollar for every time on this site a person with no specifics asked me to look it up for them.


To be fair, he asked you first, and your answer was kinda lame.Thank you for that.


What do WE do in joyful response to that love? What do we do in His name when we see someone who is in need of love?And once again you refuse to answer a question. Note DW's comment above.


To dwashbur: I was going to bring up Frankie's "Christian" hatred of the LGBTQ community, but decided not to overwhelm JL.Provide a quote showing that. It is just so much nonsense. If a person says the Bible provides no support for a gay lifestyle, it magically becomes a shrill accusation of "hatred"!!

That's not true. When SP does disaster relief, they don't exclude gay individuals. I think you are guilty of hyperbole on a grand scale.
He said it's sin. Hellfire awaits them.

That was not DW's accusation. However, he certainly seems to say what the Bible says about it. Now you can disagree with him if you'd like, but to say that he hates gays because he agrees with the Bible is really extreme. It's actually hatred itself.

That's not true. When SP does disaster relief, they don't exclude gay individuals. I think you are guilty of hyperbole on a grand scale.

That's NOT what DW wrote. Read it again re FG's comment on the LGBTQ community.


The abortion industry in America was founded by the ultimate racist, Margaret Sanger.


That's ridiculous. Abortion has been around for thousands of years!


Even worse, racism does not usually involve the loss of life, while abortion always does, and the loss of an innocent human life at that.

Good Lord. Racism is about losing the freedom to live. Actual loss of life is common in racism. Ever read a history book? When racism destroys a life, is that not an innocent life?

I couldn't help jumping in to confront your nonsense. The others can finish up as they see fit.

What DW wrote. "He has told LGBTQ people that they don't have a right to exist. His charitable giving is to a very narrow range of recipients, only those he deems worthy and that won't upset his sexual apple cart. He has been very clear about that." You can draw your own conclusions. I've already answered WG's post.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the beginning of the mulit-hundreds of thousands of lives a year, billion-dollar abortion industry of today. She was a blatant racist. Do your homework.


Good Lord. Racism is about losing the freedom to live. Actual loss of life is common in racism. Ever read a history book? When racism destroys a life, is that not an innocent life?My comment was, "racism does not usually involve the loss of life." It is an indisputably true statement. The comparison was racism (rarely results in loss of life) to abortion (always results in loss of life). Learn to be more careful with your reading.

It's interesting how you make an appeal to the importance of "innocent life" when it suits your purpose, and yet completely ignore it in the issue of abortion. Selective moral outrage, anyone?

Jump in any time you want.

Franky Graham is not anti-abortion. He is anti-woman. He wants women to be second-class citizens, to not hold jobs, to not speak for themselves, to be subservient to their husbands to the point of accepting abuse, and if a woman dies for lack of an abortion, well, that's a shame.
I don't think that's true. At any rate, you seem upset at the prospect of a mother dying, and yet have no concern for the death of her unborn child. That's puzzling to say the least.

I already addressed this. There is no proof that abortion destroys a full human. The Bible says God puts a soul in that body at the first breath, not before. So you are still assuming what you want to prove, and it's not working. You have not made your case.

And Margaret Sanger doesn't matter. Once again, you're trying to compare secular organizations with one that claims to represent Jesus. That's nothing but dodging, so please stop it and stay on the topic.


My comment was, "racism does not usually involve the loss of life." It is an indisputably true statement. The comparison was racism (rarely results in loss of life) to abortion (always results in loss of life). Learn to be more careful with your reading.


Indeed that was your comment. And neither part of it is correct.


What DW wrote. "He has told LGBTQ people that they don't have a right to exist. His charitable giving is to a very narrow range of recipients, only those he deems worthy and that won't upset his sexual apple cart. He has been very clear about that." You can draw your own conclusions. I've already answered WG's post.

No, you didn't. And what I wrote is accurate. He refuses to give to organizations that support LGBTQ youth, for example, only those with "traditional values" get any of his money. I don't care what you think the Bible says about being gay (you're wrong), withholding help because you don't like someone's lifestyle is not Christlike or biblical.

Franky is a fake. I don't believe he's even a Christian. We know what his earlier years were like and I don't think he ever got over it. I think he took over for the money. He has done nothing in his entire life to make me think differently.

. The Bible says God puts a soul in that body at the first breath,I'm a little surprised at your carelessness. The first body (Adam's) was not born. It was made from dust and had no life in it at all. That is radically different from a woman giving birth to a baby with a beating heart, functioning brain, and all body systems in place and working. The Bible in several places speaks of the preborn child as already known by God with plans in place. There is, for instance, Luke 1:41-44 where the unborn John is said to have "leaped with joy" when in the presence of the also unborn Jesus. And there are, as you well know, other examples of the same thing. There is Jer. 1:4 where God speaks of knowing Jeremiah prior to his development in his mother when, you say, he was not even human.

As to the unborn child being human, it's really remarkable that you try to deny it. The word "human" is a species word. Dogs carry dogs to delivery, cats carry cats, and humans carry humans. If the unborn child is not human, then what species do you think it is?


And neither part of it is correct.Really? In what way?


He refuses to give to organizations that support LGBTQ youth, for example, only those with "traditional values" get any of his money. I don't care what you think the Bible says about being gay (you're wrong), withholding help because you don't like someone's lifestyle is not Christlike or biblical.That is far removed from refusing to help people who are gay. When SP does disaster relief, they don't require some sort of confession of sexual purity for a person to qualify.

Might add that they also don't give money to groups that support racism or wife abuse. Why? Because, as with gay lifestyles, it is unbiblical.


Franky is a fake. I don't believe he's even a Christian. We know what his earlier years were like and I don't think he ever got over it. I think he took over for the money. He has done nothing in his entire life to make me think differently.Hard to imagine a more hate-filled, judgmental observation. You "think" he took over for the money? To make accusations like that, you need a good deal more than what you "think". You are really treading on dangerous ground when speaking that way.

Don't forget, JL. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory.

This is an unborn child at 18 weeks, about halfway to birth. It's just stunning to me that you support a doctor dismembering and removing the various appendages in the process of abortion. Sorry for the size of the image. I wish this site would allow some control over that. Sure looks human, doesn't it? 49424










Don't forget, JL. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory.In which case you have destroyed your own argument about the breathing being necessary to be human. As an allegory, that breath, in reality, would never have taken place. Do bear in mind, however, that it can be allegorical and yet still be historically accurate. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of?

In which case you have destroyed your own argument about the breathing being necessary to be human. As an allegory, that breath, in reality, would never have taken place.
In the Adam and Eve allegory, there's no mention of breath. You are confusing the allegory with the reality of human birth.

And during sn abortion, a doctor doesn't dismember and remove various appendages. When most abortions take place, the fetus is less than six inches long.

In the Adam and Eve allegory, there's no mention of breath. You are confusing the allegory with the reality of human birth.Huh??? It's surprising you would say that since you have quoted this text repeatedly in the past. It's the basis of your argument that the baby is not really a living human until it takes a breath.

7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-38f)]being.




And during sn abortion, a doctor doesn't dismember and remove various appendages.


I have repeatedly had to correct you on that. Here, yet again, is the truth that I'm sure you will continue to ignore since it makes you uncomfortable. Your willful, intentional ignorance is really sad.

"If the woman is less than 16 weeks along, the abortion doctor may be able to suction out the fetal parts like in a vacuum abortion. Once the fetus is older than 16 weeks, though, forceps are required. Forceps are grasping instruments used to grasp, crush, twist, and pull fetal body parts such as arms and legs or pieces of arms and leg out. The fetal head and spinal column often have to be crushed before they can be removed, especially the farther along the woman is. After the body parts are removed, the placenta is suctioned or scraped out, usually with the abortion doctor placing his hand on the woman’s stomach to help feel for it in the uterus."

Abortion Methods: Dilation & Evacuation (D&E Abortion) – Springfield Right to Life (springfieldrtl.org) (https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abortion-methods-dilation-evacuation-de-abortion/)

Another site. "The doctor uses a speculum to open the woman's vagina, making her cervix visible. A tube is inserted into her uterus, by which all amniotic fluid is suctioned out. Using forceps, the fetus is then dismembered and extracted in pieces. After the extraction, suction and curettage ensure that the uterus is completely emptied. An ultrasound is commonly used to confirm that the abortion is complete.

D&E Abortion | profemina (https://www.profemina.org/en-us/abortion/dilation-and-evacuation)

Huh??? It's surprising you would say that since you have quoted this text repeatedly in the past. It's the basis of your argument that the baby is not really a living human until it takes a breath.
The fetus, when born, does NOT breathe. Then what is it?

Oh. So it IS a part of the Adam and Eve narrative? How about that?

If you want to continue this, then begin by admitting you were flat wrong about D&E abortions. If you can't do that, then I don't want to continue this with a person who doesn't care about the truth.

I don't want to continue this with a person who doesn't care about the truth.
Talk with a few medical professionals about abortions.

As usual, too proud to admit to being wrong. Sad. But for everyone else reading this, this statement by WG was laughably yet tragically incorrect. "And during an abortion, a doctor doesn't dismember and remove various appendages," and now she cannot bring herself to admit it. In my experience with dealing with the pro-abortion crowd, that is common. They scarcely ever know what they are talking about. If they did, they likely would not be pro-abortion.

Don't be too surprised to see that all too predictable, "Oh yeah! Well you are ignorant too!" reply.

And then this is left. "Talk with a few medical professionals about abortions." It's another tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. If they have no information to support their argument, then it's always a suggestion for the other guy to go out and look it up. It is a completely pathetic suggestion since the web, as I showed her, is full of information about D&E abortions, and on many sites supported by medical clinics.

As usual, too proud to admit to being wrong. Sad. But for everyone else reading this, this statement by WG was laughably yet tragically incorrect. "And during an abortion, a doctor doesn't dismember and remove various appendages," and now she cannot bring herself to admit it.
Most abortions take place early on (as in a normal but very early delivery) before slicing and dicing are necessary to remove the fetus.

before slicing and dicing are necessary to remove the fetus.Wow. Talk about cold hearted. You're just fine with "slicing and dicing" an unborn child as in the image above. Stunning. I guess it's at least something that you now acknowledge such procedures do take place.


as in a normal but very early deliveryAbortions are absolutely nothing like an "early delivery". They are bloody, destructive ordeals.

Wow. Talk about cold hearted. You're just fine with "slicing and dicing" an unborn child as in the image above. Stunning.

It rarely has to be done. Only as an emergency procedure.

Abortions are absolutely nothing like an "early delivery". They are bloody, destructive ordeals.
Please educate yourself. Was the live birth I underwent (after 12 hours of labor) "bloody"? Was the c-section I had four years later "bloody"?

Only as an emergency procedure Completely wrong. Please read the lit. The sad thing is that the info is available on the internet for anyone who, unlike you, has any real interest in the truth of this matter. Took all of two minutes to find this. I'll post it, but I know you won't bother to read it.

Abortion Methods: Dilation & Evacuation (D&E Abortion) – Springfield Right to Life (springfieldrtl.org) (https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abortion-methods-dilation-evacuation-de-abortion/)

Oh stop. You know full well what I meant. Your ridiculous comment about abortions being like "a normal but very early delivery," was the topic. It was a totally absurd comment. And the key word, which you managed to ignore, was "destructive".

Articles from obviously biased websites don't prove anything, and neither do pictures. There is no information at all in that photo, its total intent is to stir the emotions, not convey something that can be checked. It's a cop-out. And if there's no soul in it, it really doesn't matter what it looks like, now does it? That's the whole question and you're dodging it.


I'm a little surprised at your carelessness. The first body (Adam's) was not born. It was made from dust and had no life in it at all. That is radically different from a woman giving birth to a baby with a beating heart, functioning brain, and all body systems in place and working.

How is it different? A body is formed, God breathes a soul into it. This is another cop-out.
And by the way, Job 33:4 says the same thing. Job was born the usual way. So you're still wrong.

jlisenbe
He has told LGBTQ people that they don't have a right to exist. His charitable giving is to a very narrow range of recipients, only those he deems worthy and that won't upset his sexual apple cart. He has been very clear about that.
That's not true. When SP does disaster relief, they don't exclude gay individuals. I think you are guilty of hyperbole on a grand scale.

What does he tell the transgender teenager who lives on the street because her good Christian parents kicked her out? He tells her she's going to hell, and she won't get anything from him unless she conforms to his notions of sexuality.



Being anti-abortion is hardly the same thing as being anti-racism. We know racism is evil, but you have never been able to prove biblically or otherwise that abortion is. You assume it and manipulate the evidence to fit your assumption.
The abortion industry in America was founded by the ultimate racist, Margaret Sanger. Even worse, racism does not usually involve the loss of life, while abortion always does, and the loss of an innocent human life at that. It is not an assumption. It is an easily demonstrable fact.

Irrelevant. She wasn't claiming to represent God's truth. He is. And if you think racism doesn't usually involve loss of innocent life, you know nothing of American history or recent events. That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen all year.



Franky Graham is not anti-abortion. He is anti-woman. He wants women to be second-class citizens, to not hold jobs, to not speak for themselves, to be subservient to their husbands to the point of accepting abuse, and if a woman dies for lack of an abortion, well, that's a shame.
I don't think that's true. At any rate, you seem upset at the prospect of a mother dying, and yet have no concern for the death of her unborn child. That's puzzling to say the least.

More of your circular reasoning. You assume the fetus is human, when that's the whole question. I don't know what makes you think you get to get away with that stuff. It's manipulation and shading the truth. And I do have more concern for a living breathing woman than I have for a fetus. That's just common sense, and the Bible supports it. We've been over that many times, so I'm not going to repeat myself. The fact that you refuse to look at the biblical material honestly is your problem, not mine.



He gets zero respect from me, and his charity is a joke. Look into Samaritan Purse's finances. You'll be appalled if you look with an unjaundiced eye. Look into Franky's personal life. Ditto. He's not a good person.
I wish I had a dollar for every time on this site a person with no specifics asked me to look it up for them.


Another cop-out. I'm telling you to do your homework before you try to defend the indefensible. If you're too afraid of the truth to do that, once again, that's your problem.

Articles from obviously biased websites don't prove anything, and neither do pictures. There is no information at all in that photo, its total intent is to stir the emotions, not convey something that can be checked. It's a cop-out. And if there's no soul in it, it really doesn't matter what it looks like, now does it? That's the whole question and you're dodging it.OK. You post your non-biased site. Let's see what it says. I can hardly believe you want to argue about how D&E procedures are done, or how offended you seem to be when forced to look at a pic of an 18 week fetus which you can have killed and feel no remorse over it. That's sad.

And how do you know there is no soul in the unborn child? What is your source for that?


How is it different?1. Was not formed in a mother. 2. Was not born. 3. Had no functioning organs at all. 4. Had no functional brain. 5. Had no mother/father. 6. Did not begin as a fertilized egg. 7. Was made from inorganic dust. 8. Was as dead as a doornail until God breathed life into him. 9. Was the only human being in history that started off utterly lifeless.

Want more??? And when did God breathe life into Eve?


And by the way, Job 33:4 says the same thing. Job was born the usual way. So you're still wrong.If you had bothered to read the passage, you would know that it was not Job who was speaking, it was Elihu. Do you agree with everything he said? For instance, do you agree that Elihu was, "pinched off from a piece of clay"?


What does he tell the transgender teenager who lives on the street because her good Christian parents kicked her out? He tells her she's going to hell, and she won't get anything from him unless she conforms to his notions of sexuality. Except that you don't know what he would say. It's just hateful speculation on your part.


Irrelevant. She wasn't claiming to represent God's truth. He is. And if you think racism doesn't usually involve loss of innocent life, you know nothing of American history or recent events. That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen all year.Why do you dismiss the racist beginnings of PP? And sorry, but your comment about racism is just stupid. The vast majority of racist acts do not result in the loss of life. Abortion, which you support, ALWAYS does.

I'm surprised at your hateful, angry response. You make a lot of comments and provide no support for any of them. When pressed, you want me to do your homework for you. I'll leave that for you. I assure you I've done mine.

But I do have a question. If the unborn child is not of the human species, then what species is it?

jlisenbe
Articles from obviously biased websites don't prove anything, and neither do pictures. There is no information at all in that photo, its total intent is to stir the emotions, not convey something that can be checked. It's a cop-out. And if there's no soul in it, it really doesn't matter what it looks like, now does it? That's the whole question and you're dodging it.
OK. You post your non-biased site. Let's see what it says. I can hardly believe you want to argue about how D&E procedures are done, or how offended you seem to be when forced to look at a pic of an 18 week fetus which you can have killed and feel no remorse over it. That's sad.


Who's offended? I pointed out that it's meaningless for intellectual discussion. You are the only one talking about D&E, the rest of us are talking about the general field. You keep trying to redirect the discussion in ways that you think are amenable to your position, and you think we don't see what you're doing. And thank you for acknowledging that it's a fetus and not a human being. No, I have no remorse. I don't second-guess the woman who had to make the choice. Apparently, that makes you better than me.


And how do you know there is no soul in the unborn child? What is your source for that?

*sigh* we've been over that many times. You're not listening.


1. Was not formed in a mother. 2. Was not born. 3. Had no functioning organs at all. 4. Had no functional brain. 5. Had no mother/father. 6. Did not begin as a fertilized egg. 7. Was made from inorganic dust. 8. Was as dead as a doornail until God breathed life into him. 9. Was the only human being in history that started off utterly lifeless.

1. Meaningless. Was formed. 2. Meaningless. Was a life that came into being just like the rest of us. 3. You don't know that. 4. You don't know that. 5. Meaningless. God was both. 6. You don't know that. 7. Chapter and verse on "inorganic" please. 8. You don't know that. 9. Meaningless. Was a human being just like us.

You are assuming things not in evidence. We don't know how long it took God to create him. For all we know he grew Adam and Eve just like he grew you and me. It doesn't say HOW God did it. You assume one thing but you can't prove it. You have no idea what Adam's formation was like, you read your own ideas into the text and preach it as equal to the Scripture itself.
Nothing you claimed can be proven. There is no difference between Adam and the rest of us. We become living souls at first breath. Genesis and Job both confirm it. If that offends you, that's your problem. It's the truth.


What does he tell the transgender teenager who lives on the street because her good Christian parents kicked her out? He tells her she's going to hell, and she won't get anything from him unless she conforms to his notions of sexuality.
Except that you don't know what he would say. It's just hateful speculation on your part.

He has said these things publicly. Please do your homework for a change instead of just spouting off.


Why do you dismiss the racist beginnings of PP?

Why do you keep asking the same questions when I've already answered them? GO READ MY POST.

You are assuming things not in evidence. We don't know how long it took God to create himAssuming things not in evidence? He was made from dust and was utterly lifeless. I think you are ignoring the plain evidence. God made him, so he had no mother or father, was never a fetus, and was never born since, as said, he had no mother. Pretty plain evidence.

We were all talking about D&E procedures. Me, you, WG, all of us. Now for some reason you want to move on. Why? Perhaps it is because you realize that you are supporting a practice that results in the violent dismembering of unborn children like the one in the pic. Like it or not, that is what a D&E is all about. Get your head out of the sand.


And thank you for acknowledging that it's a fetus and not a human being.
Rather plainly they are not mutually exclusive. It's a completely erroneous comparison, much like saying that "child" and "human" cannot be true at the same time. "Fetus" is simply a developmental term, like "infant", "newborn", "child", "adolescent", "adult", and so forth. They are all human.


We become living souls at first breath. Genesis and Job both confirm it. If that offends you, that's your problem. It's the truth.Job, as has been shown to you, does not confirm it at all, and Adam is a unique situation, so I think you have nothing there.


He has said these things publicly. Please do your homework for a change instead of just spouting off.You are the one spouting off hateful comments about Graham with nothing at all to back them up and evidently very little ability to find your own support, so you are reduced to asking me to do it for you. I've done my work. Time for you to stop complaining and do yours. And to be clear, you might have something in your complaint. I don't know, but your comments are too hate-filled to take seriously without some supporting quotes.

I do wish you would answer these questions. They have been asked previously but not answered.

1. If the unborn child is not of the human species, then what species is it?
2. Do you agree with everything he said? For instance, do you agree that Elihu was, "pinched off from a piece of clay"?
3. And when did God breathe life into Eve?
4. And how do you know there is no soul in the unborn child? What is your source for that? You have made one, very mistaken appeal to Adam, an appeal that has been disproven since Adam was not living prior to receiving the breath of God whereas unborn children are. So what is your support to say that unborn children have no souls? That's a very bold statement that should have pretty obvious Biblical support.

He has said these things publicly. Please do your homework for a change instead of just spouting off.
You are the one spouting off hateful comments about Graham with nothing at all to back them up and evidently very little ability to find your own support, so you are reduced to asking me to do it for you. I've done my work. Time for you to stop complaining and do yours. And to be clear, you might have something in your complaint. I don't know, but your comments are too hate-filled to take seriously without some supporting quotes.


You don't have the high ground that you think you do. Every "answer" you've given is nothing but a cop-out with no actual information, you engage in circular reasoning, and when pressed, you accuse like this.
For the record, I've said these things to Franky's face on Twitter and challenged him to prove me wrong. He hasn't responded. And I'm not the only one, there are millions who understand the same things about him that I do. It's sad that you're not one of them. You're so blinded by your evangelical loyalty you refuse to see what's right in front of you, no matter how ugly and unChristian it is.

And nobody's telling you do support our view. We're telling you to support YOURS, which you have consistently failed to do. Example:


Assuming things not in evidence? He was made from dust and was utterly lifeless. I think you are ignoring the plain evidence. God made him, so he had no mother or father, was never a fetus, and was never born since, as said, he had no mother. Pretty plain evidence.

You were formed from dust, too. The only difference is, first some small critters ate it, then larger animals ate it, then eventually we ate it in the form of those animals and plants.
You are getting nowhere. You have not proven any of the things you claimed. You failed to answer my questions about how long it took, what the process was, and all the rest. You ASSUME that he made a mannequin of some kind and then brought it to life. The text never said that. So stop assuming things beyond the text, because all that process does is prove your arrogance.


And thank you for acknowledging that it's a fetus and not a human being.
Rather plainly they are not mutually exclusive. It's a completely erroneous comparison, much like saying that "child" and "human" cannot be true at the same time. "Fetus" is simply a developmental term, like "infant", "newborn", "child", "adolescent", "adult", and so forth. They are all human.


I want to be there when you tell that to a biologist. They will turn you inside out and leave you staggering away from the encounter in your shredded underwear. This is the most absurd statement I have seen yet. You know NOTHING of the science of human biology. You really need better sources, but you'll never consult them because they don't say what you want to hear, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to change your view in the face of contrary evidence. That's what all this has been about when we get right down to it.

You haven't gotten anywhere or proven anything, except that your mind is closed and there's no point trying to talk to you. So I'm done.
Have the last word, you won't be able to stand yourself if you don't.

For the record, I've said these things to Franky's face on Twitter and challenged him to prove me wrong. He hasn't responded. And I'm not the only one, there are millions who understand the same things about him that I do. It's sad that you're not one of them. You're so blinded by your evangelical loyalty you refuse to see what's right in front of you, no matter how ugly and unChristian it is.Documentation. You need documentation. Hateful comments accomplish nothing. That Franklin Graham would not reply to your angry comments is not surprising. Why would he reply to you? Are you someone significant?


You were formed from dust, too. The only difference is, first some small critters ate it, then larger animals ate it, then eventually we ate it in the form of those animals and plants.Complete nonsense. Animals grow by eating organic matter which dust is not. It's a basic staple of biology. Next time you sit down to a nice meal of dust, let me know.

You are getting nowhere. You have not proven any of the things you claimed. You failed to answer my questions about how long it took, what the process was, and all the rest. You ASSUME that he made a mannequin of some kind and then brought it to life. The text never said that. So stop assuming things beyond the text, because all that process does is prove your arrogance. You haven't asked how long it took or what the process was, so that has not been addressed. The text says, "then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. " You want to accept the "breathed into his nostrils" part while ignoring the "formed man of the dust of the ground" part.


I want to be there when you tell that to a biologist. They will turn you inside out and leave you staggering away from the encounter in your shredded underwear. This is the most absurd statement I have seen yet. You know NOTHING of the science of human biology. You really need better sources, but you'll never consult them because they don't say what you want to hear, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to change your view in the face of contrary evidence. That's what all this has been about when we get right down to it.Wow. What an angry man you have become. Well, your reply is just a litany of hateful comments. For the record, I am a licensed biology teacher. I know this science. If you cannot accept that "fetus" is just a developmental term, which it definitely is, then it's hard to know how to help you. It's kindergarten material to anyone familiar with the science. I'm sorry that is not you.

I'm glad you're done. I've been surprised at your anger and hatefulness, and it's been rather shocking to see to be honest. It's what often happens, however, when pro-abortionists are confronted with the truth. I'm accustomed to it, but didn't expect it from you. It's just a real struggle on this site. Rather than having a respectful, serious discussion, it nearly always devolves into nasty sniping.

You really need better sources, but you'll never consult them because they don't say what you want to hear, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to change your view in the face of contrary evidence. That's what all this has been about when we get right down to it.

That has always been the root of the problem with JL.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
You really need better sources, but you'll never consult them because they don't say what you want to hear, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to change your view in the face of contrary evidence. That's what all this has been about when we get right down to it.
That has always been the root of the problem with JL.

Agreed. Such as demanding "documentation" but refusing to provide any of his own beyond ultra-right-wing web sites that don't care about science, and emotion-stirring photos that convey no information.
Gotta love double standards.

The disappearing man appears again!!

It's interesting that you chose a comment where DW claims I do not consult these alleged "better sources", and yet neither of you can point to which "better sources" you are referring to. Truth is, I was the only one who had sources at all. You don't supply them because you don't have any.

It's always comes down to the same thing with both of you. "Believe it because I say so."


Agreed. Such as demanding "documentation" but refusing to provide any of his own beyond ultra-right-wing web sites that don't care about science, and emotion-stirring photos that convey no information.
Gotta love double standards.There are two ways to address problems with documentation. One is to whine and complain like a spoiled child. The other is to provide better documentation. You have chosen the former. That's too bad. Like Athos, I think you do so in order to hide the fact that you have nothing better.

I would suggest that rather than running off and hiding, you instead use better arguments in a calm and intelligent manner.

ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν

ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν

Hey, I wuz just gonna say that myself!!

DW speaks to himself. Hopefully the healing for him will take place. And he should consider...

Ὅστις δὲ ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται

I'm sure Athos will say he was about to say that as well. Of course he was.

jlisenbe
DW speaks to himself. Hopefully the healing for him will take place. And he should consider...

Ὅστις δὲ ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται

I'm sure Athos will say he was about to say that as well. Of course he was.

Athos, isn't it fun trying to have a dialogue with a petulant ten-year-old?

Sad to see a supposed scholar reduced to smart-axx comments. Makes me wonder about a number of things now. I had seen hints of this before, but today it has broken out of the cage. Most interesting, perhaps, is your fear of speaking directly to me. Perhaps someday you will come out of your safe space.

Athos, isn't it fun trying to have a dialogue with a petulant ten-year-old?

Si, Senor !!

DW speaks to himself.

Translation: I know you are, but what am I?

Ten-year-old. Too immature even to realize it.

Syadiloh Yppah, everyone.

Yep. That's a real intellectual at work there, for sure. It's just what happens when a supposed scholar is exposed as being completely ignorant about the topic under discussion. You end up with these childish displays, and in two languages to boot! Wow! Realllllyyy impressive! Still too fearful to speak directly, but perhaps it will come with time.

You were at least able to make the disappearing man reappear briefly. Two words!

Uh oh. Mirriam Webster's medical definition of fetus. "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Well by golly it is, as it turns out, a HUMAN in a stage of development. But I'm sure that's just one of those ultra-right-wing websites.

Felix navidaddy!!!

Felix navidaddy!!!

Beldissimo elpitassimo totantibus!

Fraylicky Vienactin!

And now we're appealing to the dictionary for scientific definitions. Lame, lame, lame. Again, a ten-year-old. Can only try to support their points by attacking others, calling them names, writing off any evidence they don't like, and playing "I know you are but what am I?" games. Childish, petulant, evasive, spiteful, filled with hate and insecurity, a pathetic figure who desperately wants to be relevant but can't seem to find the key to it.
And can't even see it. More's the pity.
If it becomes impossible to even post a question or comment without this individual attacking me at every turn, I may leave the board. I'm tired of this. I have spent 50 years in this, and dude who thinks they know something is constantly in my face.
I don't have to put up with that. It's the definition of abuse, and I've had enough.

Syadiloh yppah, everyone.

Syadiloh yppah to you too, dwashbur! Maybe you and Athos and I can form a united front. :-) We'd certainly miss your erudite comments if you leave us.

And now we're appealing to the dictionary for scientific definitions. Lame, lame, lame. Again, a ten-year-old. Can only try to support their points by attacking others, calling them names, writing off any evidence they don't like, and playing "I know you are but what am I?" games. Childish, petulant, evasive, spiteful, filled with hate and insecurity, a pathetic figure who desperately wants to be relevant but can't seem to find the key to it.
And can't even see it. More's the pity.Good grief. A self proclaimed scholar who cannot put forward even a semi-decent defense of his positions. It's just hateful comments followed by more hateful comments, and yet he wants to whine and complain. Please grow up.


If it becomes impossible to even post a question or comment without this individual attacking me at every turn, I may leave the board. I'm tired of this. I have spent 50 years in this, and dude who thinks they know something is constantly in my face.
I don't have to put up with that. It's the definition of abuse, and I've had enough.Your arguments boil down to, "I've been doing this for fifty years, and I know so much that no one can question me." Well, if you want to have a discussion with me, get ready to be questioned. If you can't handle that, and it seems you can't, then you can talk to others. Rather than defend your positions, you are reduced to, " Childish, petulant, evasive, spiteful, filled with hate and insecurity, a pathetic figure who desperately wants to be relevant..." So you make comments like those, and yet want to complain about abuse? It's the most unscholarly, childish display I can imagine. I will say it again. Your problem is that you don't have the goods, and it has become obvious, so you're angry about it. Why not calm down and respond sensibly?

Might add that you are hardly an expert in the area of pregnancy and abortion. You have no idea what a D&E abortion is, and no idea what the term "fetus" really refers to. I would not consider you even to be an amateur.

jlisenbe
And now we're appealing to the dictionary for scientific definitions. Lame, lame, lame. Again, a ten-year-old. Can only try to support their points by attacking others, calling them names, writing off any evidence they don't like, and playing "I know you are but what am I?" games. Childish, petulant, evasive, spiteful, filled with hate and insecurity, a pathetic figure who desperately wants to be relevant but can't seem to find the key to it.
And can't even see it. More's the pity.
Good grief. A self proclaimed scholar who cannot put forward even a semi-decent defense of his positions. It's just hateful comments followed by more hateful comments, and yet he wants to whine and complain. Please grow up.

I and many others have already given you tons of evidence, but it doesn't say what you want to hear so you just ignore all of it. Trying to present evidence to you is like spinning one's wheels, because you refuse to be teachable.


Your arguments boil down to, "I've been doing this for fifty years, and I know so much that no one can question me."

I said nothing of the kind and you are a LIAR. That's it, I'm out of here. I cannot tolerate being lied about every day, the arrogance that says "no amount of your learning can compare to my perfect knowledge". You know, we ALL know that's your attitude. You think you're so superior you don't have to learn from anyone who disagrees with you. You are pompous, egotistical, and a chronic LIAR. You do not represent Jesus in any way, in fact people like you do more damage to the cause of Christ than anything else in history. You are the opposite of everything He stood for, and you don't have a blasted clue. You are too arrogant to question yourself.

I learn something new every day and adjust my views accordingly. You have shown me NOTHING to make me do that in this instance. All you have done is attack me with hateful garbage while accusing me of the thing you are doing. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a fake Christian.

I'm sorry, friends, but if this is how it's going to be, I'm out of here. See you in the funny papers.

And jlisenbe, I hope someday you understand who Jesus really is, because you have no clue. You're just a sad little person trying to be important. I pity you, but I will not tolerate you any more. Take your egotistical, asinine comments somewhere else, because I don't have time for your BS any more.

Goodbye, everyone.

I said nothing of the kind and you are a LIAR. That's it, I'm out of hereGood bye. I wish you the best, but I have become weary of you and your hateful words.


I and many others have already given you tons of evidenceHe must have different ideas of what "tons" and "evidence" mean. There has basically been nothing but glorified opinions. What little evidence that was offered was all addressed.