 |
As opposed to your idea of just killing them? You don't want to be bothered with them, so you just want them killed? How sad.
Relatively few babies are born to a woman not wanting to raise the child. Those children go into the foster care system, not a perfect system but far better than most of the rest of the world.
Love that foster-care system! And the absence of love that unwanted baby grows up in. I personally would rather be dead.
You would rather be dead, so you think that justifies the killing of innocent, unborn children? Are you then in favor of finding foster kids in unloving homes and killing them as well? Where does your desire for death end? Please help me understand your point of view.
No, you're the one who wants born kids dead because there will be no good and helpful offering of financial or family support.
No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.
So should we go into the orphanages and foster homes, pull those kids out, and kill them? After all, what real difference is there other than age?Quote:
No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.
Oh please. That's a preposterous lie and you know it, spoken by the one who actually DOES advocate for killing. Please learn to be honest.Quote:
No, you're the one who wants born kids dead because there will be no good and helpful offering of financial or family support.
Jesus said, "let the little children come unto Me, not "let the little fetuses come unto Me". Then also, the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7, KJV). The word soul in Hebrew is nephesh, meaning “an animated, breathing, conscious, and living being.” Man did not become a living soul until God breathed life into him. As a physical, animate, rational, and spiritual being, man is unique among all living things upon the earth. A fetus is not that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
1. Jesus did not suggest the unborn come to him since...they can't. But that unborn children are living souls is plainly obvious from a number of passages. Luke 1:43 for instance says, "43 Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? 44 When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy." Note that Jesus is already referred to as "Lord", and the baby John "jumped for joy" in his mother's womb as he somehow recognized the holy presence of Jesus. That would certainly not be the behavior of dead, soulless bodies.
2. Your handling of the Genesis quote is in error. Most translations render it as "living being". In other words, he was dead dust. He was not breathing, he had no heartbeat, no brainwaves, and no ability to move, but then the "breath of life" gave him life. That is, of course, not true of the unborn. Even worse for your cause, Adam was never a fetus, never in his mother's womb, and was a fully grown adult his first second of life. So do you also take that any person prior to adulthood is not a living soul?
Why are you dodging this question? "So should we go into the orphanages and foster homes, pull those kids out, and kill them? After all, what real difference is there other than age?"
You've never been pregnant, have you. Fetuses jump for joy often, especially by the fourth month of pregnancy and until birth. It's called quickening. And we pregnant moms and our sisters and cousins will talk to the fetus and even call it by the name the parents have possibly already picked out.
Adam was a handful of dirt before God gave him the breath of life.
Unborns don't breathe and don't become a living soul until they're born.
My handling of the Genesis verse is just fine. I was quoting my very with-it pastor from a two-year special Bible study program with him.
Prior to birth and a first breath, the fetus is not a living soul, not cognitive and not able to survive in the world without breathing.
What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.
You've not read the passage, have you? The baby jumped for "joy" when in the presence of Jesus. He wasn't just kicking. He was aware in some way of the presence of Christ and experienced "joy" because of it. You are greatly mistaken.Quote:
You've never been pregnant, have you. Fetuses jump for joy often, especially by the fourth month of pregnancy and until birth. It's called quickening.
You are also mistaken in suggesting that unborn children do not have cognitive functioning. That has been shown to you before, but your ideology of death keeps you from acknowledging it.
Yes! You finally have it. He was lifeless dust. A fetus is neither lifeless nor dust. It is exactly why the rest of your comments are wrong. It is also why you NEVER read in the Bible, "And so and so was born and became a living soul." It is an idea foreign to the Bible.Quote:
Adam was a handful of dirt before God gave him the breath of life.
You can be certain that I will hold on to that quote. I'm sure you already regret posting it.
But that's what I'm asking you. Why not go ahead and kill them now?Quote:
What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.
Do you go to foster homes and orphanages and make your case that those kids should be dead??? Have you stood on a street corner and "preached" that message? Have you told any of those children, "You would be better off if we ended your miserable life right now."
Oh c'mon! You know all that description was written much later, a visual for the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Deliver that fetus during pregnancy and tell me about cognitive functioning and cost of keeping the unfinished baby alive.Quote:
You are also mistaken in suggesting that unborn children do not have cognitive functioning. That has been shown to you before, but your ideology of death keeps you from acknowledging it.
I don't have to. They've told me.Quote:
Do you go to foster homes and orphanages and make your case that those kids should be dead??? Have you stood on a street corner and "preached" that message? Have you told any of those children, "You would be better off if we ended your miserable life right now."
I guess if that passage worked against my point of view, then I might be tempted to go that direction as well. It's just a foolish argument.Quote:
Oh c'mon! You know all that description was written much later, a visual for the reader.
.This is what people say when they have nothing rational to post. "Unfinished baby"?? Wow. What an attitude. "Hey everyone. I want to show you pictures of my unfinished son!! Come and look. We think we will keep him, but since he's unfinished, then we might decide to do away with him." Good grief.Quote:
Deliver that fetus during pregnancy and tell me about cognitive functioning and cost of keeping the unfinished baby alive
As a school principal, I dealt with many foster/adopted children, but I had a different approach from you. I felt they were all valuable and treated them in that way. It never occurred to me to suggest that they go out and kill themselves since their life was not worth living. I didn't believe that, and I don't think they did either.Quote:
I don't have to. They've told me.
Of course it's foolish because you didn't think of it and it's the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, doing away with it after it's born is murder.Quote:
This is what people say when they have nothing rational to post. "Unfinished baby"?? Wow. What an attitude. "Hey everyone. I want to show you pictures of my unfinished son!! Come and look. We think we will keep him, but since he's unfinished, then we might decide to do away with him." Good grief.
No, you aren't comprehending. The topic is the feelings of kids housed in orphanages and in foster care.Quote:
As a school principal, I dealt with many foster/adopted children, but I had a different approach from you. I felt they were all valuable and treated them in that way. It never occurred to me to suggest that they go out and kill themselves since their life was not worth living. I didn't believe that, and I don't think they did either.
I didn't think of it because it's absurd. It's basically saying, "It can't possibly mean what it says since that would not agree with my statements, so it would just have to be incorrectly transmitted."Quote:
Of course it's foolish because you didn't think of it and it's the truth.
Ahh, but according to you it is "unfinished". I'm just going along with your twisted belief.Quote:
No, doing away with it after it's born is murder.
I was referring to these comments of yours.Quote:
No, you aren't comprehending. The topic is the feelings of kids housed in orphanages and in foster care.
You're about as pro-death as anyone I've ever met, and I've met some real whoppers. You have flatly stated that those kids should have been killed long ago.Quote:
What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.
No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.
You're a little kid in an orphanage or foster care. And if no one loves you or wants you? How would you feel? What would you do?
There are many children in foster care who feel loved. There are many adopted children who feel loved. There are many kids from two parent families who do not feel loved. So I don't really know what your point is. Is it bad to feel unloved? Yes, but does that mean we should kill those children? Good grief no. It is always wrong to take an innocent human life.
Then let's ban guns of all kinds.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You can't make any ground in what we were talking about, so you just change the subject. Why am I not surprised?
At any rate, cars kill people, so let's ban cars. Doctors kill people, so let's ban doctors. Knives kill people, so let's ban knives. Alcohol kills people, so let's ban alcohol. And on and on it goes. It's just senseless and ridiculous.
This is a discussion which I enlarged, not changed the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Now you're being silly.Quote:
At any rate, cars kill people, so let's ban cars. Doctors kill people, so let's ban doctors. Knives kill people, so let's ban knives. Alcohol kills people, so let's ban alcohol. And on and on it goes. It's just senseless and ridiculous.
How's that? You want to ban guns because a small, small sliver of people misuse them. You would punish the law-abiding in order to deal with the law breakers. Why not do the same thing with cars, alcohol, etc.?Quote:
Now you're being silly.
Guns would be the start. When your child misused a tool, you taught him the correct use. You didn't allow him to continue the misuse. Same with guns. When a car pulls into the wrong driveway and the driver is in the process of backing out, why does the homeowner let loose and shoot (and kill!) one of the four passengers? When a teen goes to the wrong address to pick up his two younger brothers, why does the homeowner open the door and shoot him without even asking what he wants? No reason to shoot, no threat. No guns, no problem. And no, the Second Amendment doesn't give individual citizens the right to own a gun.
Yep. And those cars have to go as well. Same principle.
The principal with a principle.
Guns kill far more people than cars do. Get rid of food too since it can poison us.
That's not entirely true. Gun homicides are at about twenty thou a year. Car accidents are closer to forty thousand.Quote:
Guns kill far more people than cars do.
"The principal with a principle". Very clever!
You cannot have a militia without an armed citizenry. To suggest otherwise is to display a lack of knowledge as to what a "militia" is.
Miitia -- (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
That sure eliminates a lot of people! Are YOU willing to be called on to fight for your country?
Even using that definition, which was not the meaning of "militia" in colonial days, it would still allow everyone from 17 to 45 to own a firearm.Quote:
Miitia -- (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
Me? Would I fight? You better believe it, but it would have to be a local defense effort. At 70, I'm not physically fit enough to walk the mountains of Afghanistan.
We still need an answer to this question. What has changed over the past sixty years to account for the amazing increase in mass shootings? It's not the availability of guns since that has changed but little. What has changed? You mentioned several days ago a mental health crisis aggravated by the decline of healthy families. I'd agree with that. Anything else?
And what was the meaning in colonial times?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Not Afghanistan. A militia is local. You'd grab your musket, load it, and trot over to the VFW Hall for orders for defending your town.Quote:
Me? Would I fight? You better believe it, but it would have to be a local defense effort. At 70, I'm not physically fit enough to walk the mountains of Afghanistan.
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net...Nw&oe=6445E1A7
C'mon! THINK!!! What has changed our lives in incredibly wonderful -- and also in horrible -- ways in this century?Quote:
We still need an answer to this question. What has changed over the past sixty years to account for the amazing increase in mass shootings? It's not the availability of guns since that has changed but little. What has changed? You mentioned several days ago a mental health crisis aggravated by the decline of healthy families. I'd agree with that. Anything else?
(P.S. The guns available to the public now are NOT what has been available in the past. Gunowners now are twitchy. And be careful not to drive up the wrong driveway or ring the doorbell at the wrong house....)
You didn't ask if I was wiling to join a militia. You asked if I was willing to fight for my country.Quote:
Not Afghanistan. A militia is local.
I've already given you three good ones. You have yet to come up with one aside from the mental illness/family connection I noted earlier.Quote:
C'mon! THINK!!! What has changed our lives in incredibly wonderful -- and also in horrible -- ways in this century?
Don't be ridiculous. ANYONE could get his hands on an M-1 in the sixties as they were available in large numbers due to being military surplus. It is a semi-auto rifle in the same sense as an AR-15, but the M-1 fires a much more powerful bullet.Quote:
(P.S. The guns available to the public now are NOT what has been available in the past. Gunowners now are twitchy. And be careful not to drive up the wrong driveway or ring the doorbell at the wrong house....)
It would help if you knew the subject better.
Nooooo, I said "supplementary to the regular armed forces". That could be local.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The internet -- websites, email, Facebook, AND social media, the death of us all.Quote:
I've already given you three good ones. You have yet to come up with one aside from the mental illness/family connection I noted earlier.
Dear Christian, I thank you so much for that wonderfully encouraging and loving comment!Quote:
It would help if you knew the subject better.
Nope. This was your question. "Are YOU willing to be called on to fight for your country?"
I don't think the internet is a major contributor. These mass shootings started before the internet was a huge deal like it is now. However, I think these insane "shoot em up" video games are a really bad idea, and I think you would agree with that.
You mean I should make encouraging and loving comments like this one? "C'mon! THINK!!!" Hmmm. Physician heal thyself???
Back when the Second Amendment was written, "your country" was your immediate environs, most likely on the East Coast and probably what we now call New England.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course the internet has been a huge influence! Back when I was a kid, I played in the treehouse my brother and I had built in the cherry tree, read Uncle Scrooge comics (I still have them!), played with my stuffed animals and dolls, and built a ranch with Lincoln Logs, added plastic cowboys and cowgirls and horses, combined that with a Playskool farm set (with fences and plastic cattle!). That kept my brother and me busy for hours. Now it's Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, youtube videos from which kids can learn and see all sorts of things -- and so much more.Quote:
I don't think the internet is a major contributor. These mass shootings started before the internet was a huge deal like it is now. However, I think these insane "shoot em up" video games are a really bad idea, and I think you would agree with that.
That was very appropriate. Sure. You know how much I care about you! Hope it's mutual.Quote:
You mean I should make encouraging and loving comments like this one? "C'mon! THINK!!!" Hmmm. Physician heal thyself???
Where are the words "your country" found in the second amendment?Quote:
Back when the Second Amendment was written, "your country" was your immediate environs, most likely on the East Coast and probably what we now call New England.
As to the internet, you did not read my comment carefully enough. I will simply encourage you to read it again, a little more slowly.
Why is it always "appropriate" when it comes from you? Prejudiced, perhaps?
I do care for you. I pray for you regularly.
Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I had written, "Are YOU willing to be called on to fight for your country?" Now it's a country. Back then, it wasn't.
It was very much a country, even prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Remember the Articles of confederation?
Thirteen states.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And your point is???
Very small area, no hardship to travel to locations where militiamen were needed with their muskets.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is for the defense of the country, not for the purpose of killing each other.
Self-defense is a perfectly legit use of guns.
And self-defense is rare. Most of the time it's aggression, kill them before they kill me. Or because of mental illness. Or unresolved anger.
Sorry how can he effectively represent the people of PA ? He has not recovered and his being in Senate is a disservice to the people of his state and to himself.
'Hunger Is Not A Republican Or Democrat Issue': John Fetterman Gives Opening Statement At Ag Cmte - YouTube
Democrats can't wait to be rid of Dianne Feinstein, who is also incapable of performing her duties. They know that in California, her replacement will be farther to the left. There is no such guarantee in Pennsylvania and that is why they tolerate this charade .
Was he reading that statement?
Is he receiving ongoing treatment?
What about Mitch?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 AM. |