[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.

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?

[dwashbur]

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.

[jlisenbe]

You are assuming things not in evidence. We don't know how long it took God to create him

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.

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[dwashbur]

ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν

[Athos]

ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν

Hey, I wuz just gonna say that myself!!

[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.

[dwashbur]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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]

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

Si, Senor !!

[dwashbur]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

Felix navidaddy!!!

[Athos]

Felix navidaddy!!!

Beldissimo elpitassimo totantibus!

[Wondergirl]

Fraylicky Vienactin!

[dwashbur]

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.