Saturday, February 11, 2017

And Then, Of Course, There's Dan

A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion.  This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic. 

The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue:  is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother?  Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question.  He believes...scratch that...claims that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward.  It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.

Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes.  It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me.  I love red meat!).  It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins.  (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)

In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human.  From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being."  A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't.   It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent.  (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event)  I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings.  As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise. 

Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven.  Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking.  This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being.  Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence.  Hair continues to grow.  Cells are replaced.  Damaged parts are as restored.  More importantly, when the child emerges from the oven (Momma's womb), it is not "fully baked" as it were, but still developing for a good 18 years or more.  The pie isn't fully formed until it is done baking.  The child in the womb is fully formed at whatever stage of development it happens to be at.  Again, the distinction is between fully human and a fully developed human being.  Dan conflates the two without any evidence in support of the argument that his arbitrary line of demarcation is worthy of respect by honest people of character and virtue. 

Then comes the punchline.  After all these and other arguments defending the unborn...arguments that actually relate to available scientific facts and data that undergird our pro-life position, Dan then goes on to suggest that our arguments have led him to reverse his belief that abortion is immoral.  That is, he no longer believes it is because of our arguments that fully support the premise that it is!  It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.  The truth that is more likely is that he couldn't find a way to actually justify his support for abortion for any reason.  His former claim that he would not have one himself were hollow at best, if not an outright lie.

I have to think that his defense of infanticide is similar to his defense of homosexuality.  He knows people who have had abortions and, by golly, they're just such nice people and wonderful, loving Christians.  This is, for Dan, what passes for "embracing grace".  While actual Christians try to appeal to the sexually immoral, with love and understanding, to seek forgiveness of God for their immorality and repent of it, Dan chooses instead to enable it.  That's not a Christian response to immoral behavior.  It is complicity...aiding and abetting.  He may as well be aborting those defenseless children himself. 

153 comments:

Craig said...

I've tried this twice already, so maybe this will work.

Clearly the only difference between Dan and Peter Singer in that Singer has the conviction and guts to take the same view Dan has and advocate for it's logical conclusion.

However, I saw something today that is right up the alley for folks like that. It seems that there is a push to eradicate Down's Syndrome in Iceland, by eradicating the unborn who test positive for Down's. This is appalling in so many ways.

1. There is about a 2% false positive rate for the test, which means that there are a number of human babies killed that are essentially collateral damage.
2. There are a number of people who have chosen to carry babies who tested positive for Down's to term and those families have been blessed raising those children.
3. The fact that some people have decided that it's a positive thing for society to eliminate those they have determined to be undesirables.
4. The fact that these children are being killed because they don't "look like" what someones idea of a human is.

This is exactly the kind of things that Dan's philosophy leads to. Of course if you're going to stand idly by while this particular group of undesirables are eradicated, then how can you protest if at some point science finds the elusive (nonexistent) "gay gene" and parents decide to abort the babies with that particular genetic abnormality.

Once you cast aside the humanity of a human being at any stage of development and allow them to be killed because of their looks, or stage of development you've pretty much opened up Pandora's box.

Marshall Art said...

I have a granddaughter with Down Syndrome, as well as a second cousin with Down Syndrome. A friend of my wife has a son with Down Syndrome. While they can be a handful when they're small, like my granddaughter, the thought that anyone would screen them for the condition and then have them whacked is heinous and appalling to the extreme. Yet, Dan simply believes abortion in general is not immoral. It really wouldn't matter to him why a woman offed her own kid. To Dan there's nothing wrong with it. His rationalization now includes some nonsense about how we drove him to it. Now THAT'S conviction, for you! THAT'S a man who lives his faith, who "embraces grace", who cares about "the least of these".

Craig said...

I think the two scariest things about the Downs Syndrome thing are; 1. The blasé acceptance that roughly 2% of those aborted will not actually have Downs. 2. The fact that this logic can be applied to any child or person deemed undesirable regardless of stage of development or physical location.

If you have a chance check out Matt Walsh's latest about the adoration heaped on Beyoncé's unborn babies. He makes the point (among others) that a significant part of the difference between baby and clump of parasitical cells is the perceived lifestyle the child will have when born.

It's funny that someone as odious as Singer is probably the most consistent and honest about his approach to this issue, yet the Dan's of the world just equivocate.

Also, the new round of videos out that Demonstrates that Planned Parenthood doesn't even believe the lies about them doing "pre natal care".

Feodor said...

Here are a couple reasons to pass human life laws: outlaw homeless and poverty.

"About 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, a measurement that has been shown to underestimate the needs of families. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses."

"A staggering 2.5 million children are now homeless each year in America. This historic high represents one in every 30 children in the United States."

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

I was going to respond the the off topic comment, but changed my mind.

Feodor said...

The topic is human life. But you make it up as you go along.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The topic is abortion and the lying needed to support it.

Craig said...

It would appear that the topic is the inconsistency of people like Dan when it comes to human life. More precisely his insistence that humanity is defined by "looks like", not by things like DNA ang genetic makeup.

As for your off topic aside, given the fact that I've spent the last 20 plus years engaging full time in working to mitigate the plight of the poor, I feel confident in suggesting that simplistic platitudes aren't necessarily helpful.

It seems as though you are advocating for abortion as a means tu alleviate poverty, which seems a bit much. But maybe that's not the case.

Feodor said...

One man's simplistic avoidance is another's simple leaps toward a solution.

"Salt Lake City crunched the numbers. And the prescription was clear. The city was spending $20,000 per homeless resident per year—funding for policing, arrests, jail time, shelter and emergency services. Homelessness was not going down. Instead, for $7,800 a year through a new program called Housing First, the city could provide a person with an apartment and case management services.

And more importantly, chronic homelessness has dropped 72 percent."

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Condoms and birth control help alleviate poverty. So does Planned Parenthood.

But you guys make it up as you go along. Like how Glenn says ����In the name of Jesus to poor and homeless children.

Craig said...

Your first comment points out the obvious that there are multiple ways of dealing with these issues, some of which are more effective than others. The problem is that to simplistically assume that what works in one place will work elsewhere is not necessarily a reasonable assumption.

As to your second comment. I guess if you think that abortion is birth control, I can't stop you. I'm sure that the millions of primarily children of color terminated by PP might have some small effect of reducing the increase of poverty. Of course, if you are consistent then you'd apply the same logic to every person in poverty regardless of their developmental state. Perhaps we could implement laws to rid society of those undesirables, and maybe make foreign aid contingent on similar measures. Or how about just establishing arbitrary limits on who can have children and how many they can have.

It's possible that you may be ignoring how cultural differences play into this as well. The last 8-10 families I've worked with had 5 plus children and were steadily working their way out of poverty and up the economic ladder. While I wouldn't have made the choice to have that many kids in those circumstances, I certainly don't think I (or anyone else) should be imposing limits on these families.

Feodor said...

Educate yourself first, cowering Craig:

"Birth control: Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Craig said...

Educate yourself,the PP statistics have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, Perhaps you'd trouble yourself to watch the recentl documentation of the fact that "pre natal services" provided by PP are pretty non existent.

If you want to lump the dismemberment of a viable infant in with using condoms feel free. But why not take your philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You've bought into the Planned Parenthood propaganda. 3% is bogus.

Try looking at facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/01/amazing-infographic-exposes-planned-parenthoods-big-fat-3-lie/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIOBOFaVYs&list=UUfkzsfj7Go1Q_kRFZmJptsw
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/planned-parenthoods-most-misleading-statistic

Feodor said...

I believe I listed the facts, Glenn. Put down your Trumpist "alternate facts" and propaganda and put on your glasses on.

And read above.

Feodor said...

No cowering Craig. They have not been debunked. In fact, they have been verified. It is true that these numbers are not to the advantage of brutalizing wishes on the part of those who care not for the poor (anti Christians like you and Glenn) and dontou'd rather count something else. Like money instead of services to persons. 3% of PP services are abortion related. A big reason - birth control and prevention being a much larger part of what they do - as to why abortions are at record lows.

But you guys make it up as you go along. You didn't read where birth control does not include abortion, did you, cowering Craig. Pretty horrible researcher.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo can't handle the facts; truth has no place in his brain.

The facts we presented are the true facts in the case. Over 95% of PP services are abortion and your self-deception won't change that.

Whether your tirade included abortion as birth control is irrelevant -- Abortion is use ONLY for preventing birth, i.e. BIRTH CONTROL. (when applied to birth control pills and condoms and other contraceptives, "birth control" is a misnomer; these are conception controls. There is only one birth control and that is abortion)

Feodor said...

If you guys insist on ignoring numbers, you vacate an ability to make an reasonable argument.

Craig said...

And FEO has spoken. The matter is settled for all time. It doesn't matter if anyone might have evidence to the contrary. It's easier to just go nasty.

Feodor said...

Control your idiocy, Glenn. The medical definition of Birth Control: "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus."

Abortion is not birth control.

Get a grip, child.

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.


I see how compassionate you guys are toward poverty and homelessness, too.

All you want is to take down an organization that provides healthcare to women.

How anti-Christ like of you both.

Craig said...

Yes, I've spent the last 20 plus years of my life working in the areas of ameliorating poverty and providing affordable housing, but all of a sudden some internet schmuck hiding behind an alias, decides that he's qualified to pass judgement on whether I meet his arbitrary compassion threshold. What a freaking joke.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

I didn't deny any definition of "birth control," rather I pointed out that it is a misnomer. Abortion certainly prevents a birth, and that by definition is birth control.

Abortion is not health care, and PP provides MINIMAL health care, if at all. That has been proven time and time again, but you are too stupid to accept the factual evidence because it would upset your worship of abortion and PP.

There is nothing in the article or in the comment string that has says anything about how uncompassionate we are in regards to poverty and homelessness. You have no idea about our views on the matter based on anything here other than what Craig has stated. You just make things up as you go along -- bearing false witness. That is what is truly un-Christ-like.

Craig said...

Knowing what Christ said about both little children and the least of these, I'd question how Christlike anyone could be who advocates abortion as a means of attempting to control poverty and Downs Syndrome. Again, what's a few dead false positives.

Lack of compassion indeed.

Marshall Art said...

feo satisfies himself with pro-abortion numbers used to mitigate the charge that outfits like PP are solely in the business of abortion, with all other "non-abortion" services actually that which is tied to the inevitable abortion they hope to perform.

I agree with Craig (and I'm sure Glenn as well) that killing one's offspring to resolve issues of poverty is, to say the least, less than Christian and in no way a sign of compassion. The logical extension of that heinous position is to whack those who have been born as well, given the expense of raising children.

As this and all other abortion related discussions generally highlight, there is a distinct attempt on the part of those defending the practice to rationalize, rather than to accept the realities. Those realities include the fact that the real issue is the corrupt nature of human kind and the willingness by pro-abortion supporters, such as Dan and feo, to enable that corruption by pretending a human being isn't a human being, or not human enough to enjoy the protections those of us who have been born insist is our right. This from a guy who pretends others are "brutalizing".

Childbirth has never been the cause of poverty. Engaging in the behavior designed by nature to bring about pregnancy during a time when the economic situation of the participants does not provide for the possibility is. Dan and feo never seem to address that at all, given as how supportive of sexual immorality they are. That makes it a fairly simple proposition: If one is not financially set, one ought not engage in any activity that will worsen one's economic situation. feo finds abstaining from sexual activity a far worse concept than killing one's own children. That is brutal, devoid of compassion and morally bankrupt. That is feo.

Craig said...

It's naive and simplistic to suggest that aborting children will significantly reduce poverty. There is plenty of evidence that certain behaviors do reduce the chances of living in poverty. But abortion isn't one.

I find the use of the words "control" and "planning" ironic when it comes to this discussion. Because even a modicum of control would eliminate the need for abortion, and anyone who waits until their pregnant or practice "birth control" certainly hasn't engaged in any planning.

Marshal Art said...

Of course. And without a doubt, their position requires and depends upon dismissing the humanity of the unborn; choosing an arbitrary point of development to subjectively assert that the unborn at that arbitrarily decided point is not "fully" human, simply because it is not fully developed.

Craig said...

And the "Russian spy", is related to this topic how?

Craig said...

Since you rarely answer questions, I can't believe you'd start now.

No, making up childish names, going off topic, and making unfounded judgments are much more your speed.

Craig said...

This is what happens when you feed trolls. The thread goes way off topic and they pretend manage to ignore anything that proved inconvenient for their agenda.

Craig said...

I would have thought that your earlier epic failure would have taught you a lesson about making assumptions, I guess not. But the continued childish insults and name calling makes me wonder if your a middle school student, not a teacher.

Craig said...

Yup. When you continued to assert the accuracy of your assumptions despite reality I'd say that epic failure.

Of course since I'm no Trump supporter, I'm satisfied to watch what happens and allow the investigation to reach its conclusion. Not being blinded by hatred, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

Now, I guess you can continue this fixation, or get back to the topic of the post.

I see no reading to indulge your folly.

Marshall Art said...

Some small children, and feo, can't seem to abide rules. These small children, and particularly feo, insist on misbehaving or, more likely, are somehow mentally/emotionally incapable of doing so.

If I had young people under my tutelage, there is no way I would want them to see me act like feo does here. It's no wonder he hides behind a fake name. Someone who can actually rise above the type of behavior so typical of him, someone who can actually best those to whom he dares condescend and do so with actual Christian kindness and respect...such a person would never need to hide behind a false name. But I guess when one is a false priest like feo, a false name is only natural.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You are being intentionally STUPID.

Terminating a pregnancy is controlling birth, preventing it from happening. THAT by definition is birth control.

Pregnancy prevention is contraception -- preventing conceiving. Once the baby has conceived all you can do is control whether it is born. THAT is real world.

You prefer to go with 1984 definitions made up by people who want to sanitize what is really happening. Which only proves how stupid you really are.

Anonymous said...

It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.

It takes a lot of gall to admit reality? The fact is, Marshall, when I began my blog over a decade ago, I was probably every bit as pro-life as you are. Over the years, seeing you all make the same arguments I had made at different times in my life, I could see that those arguments continually begged the question, committed ad hom attacks and generally contained logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Watching you all (and others) argue against abortion over the last ~decade or two has caused me to virtually flip my position. That is what has happened in the real world.

It's not galling to admit reality. What is galling is trying to bully someone into agreement by suggesting it's galling to disagree or calling reality an absurd notion. That only further pushes people away.

The reality is, I have rarely looked at "pro-choice" arguments over the years. Oh sure, I've given them a passing listen, but always from the starting place that they were wrong.

The reality is, it is primarily seeing the lack of reason and the presence of arrogance and presumption that has pushed me away from the pro-life position that we once shared.

Pro-life arguments (and their lack of consistency and reason, as well as the arrogance and bullying with which they are put forth) are what caused me to change my position. In the real world.

There is nothing galling about reality. It's just how things happen.

So again, I'd argue that, at least with folk like me, the number one thing you could do to support the "pro-life poisition" is stop arguing in favor of your position.

It drove me away.

Reality is reality.

~Dan

Craig said...

If facts and evidence drove you away, then one must wonder how committed you were in the first place. Given your past ambivalence toward abortion, and your current arbitrary standard, I'm not sure.

You titled your post " Resist", and as "proof" of your standard you offered a video of a human at one stage of development and declared that since it didn't look like humans at later stage of development it wasn't "fully human". I wonder if you've ever bothered to look at humans in later stages of development who are in the midst of being aborted and watched as they try to resist being dismembered. I guess that kind of resistance doesn't move you very much.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The actual "health care" PP provides is minuscule, and not needed at all due to the very many real women's health care clinics.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/28/fact-check-yes-women-can-go-elsewhere-if-planned-parenthood-closes/

PP does not offer pre-natal care:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/planned-parenthood-expos-we-dont-offer-prenatal-care
https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/this-video-shows-exactly-why-we-dont-need-planned-parenthood

Craig said...

I guess all the recent video of PP chapters denying the fact that they provide pre natal care is all fake, the fact that they don't do mammograms is all faked.

If ignoring anything that does fit your narrative and making up stupid names is all you have to offer, then why even bother.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo loves the lying propaganda from PP regardless of how much proof has been exposed against such lying propaganda.

There is absolutely NO need for PP except to provide child murder.

Craig said...

Of course none of this is directly related to the topic of the post. Why not just write your own posts at your own blog instead of trying to drive threads at other blogs.

Craig said...

A quick check reveals that the Washington Post fact checkers give the 3% claim 3 Pinocchio's. A rating which equates to mostly false.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"The fact is, Marshall, when I began my blog over a decade ago, I was probably every bit as pro-life as you are."

Sorry, Dan, but I find this hard to believe. Perhaps I'll check your archives when my weekend arrives to see how you commented on the practice. In the meantime, considering you say the same thing about having once been conservative, while never providing any evidence that you understand what that means, similar claims about a pro-life position have no value.

"...I could see that those arguments continually begged the question, committed ad hom attacks and generally contained logical fallacy after logical fallacy..."

While you may have done so, I still don't believe you have explained what you mean by "begged the question". Here would be a great place to do so, as well as to provide the question you believe needs answering. I'm betting you've been given all the answer you need, except that it doesn't reflect what you wish reality was. In addition, you might want to provide an example of any "logical fallacy" you think has been put forth, much less "logical fallacy after logical fallacy".

"Watching you all (and others) argue against abortion over the last ~decade or two has caused me to virtually flip my position. That is what has happened in the real world."

But not to real people. Not really honest people, anyway. What we've put forth in our arguments are nothing short of factual scientific data that supports the pro-life position with regards to the humanity, or as you put it, being "fully human". Conversely, you've put forward absolutely nothing, save an Oxford English Dictionary definition that doesn't serve the purpose as you think it does. To be given truth and insist having received it is what has changed your position is more than a little mental. What normal, honest person is convinced of a notion 180 degrees opposite what the data suggests?

"What is galling is trying to bully someone into agreement by suggesting it's galling to disagree or calling reality an absurd notion."

Galling is ignoring the facts of science that support the pro-life position and insisting that repeatedly putting forth those facts is somehow, in Gentle Leftist Snowflake World, tantamount to bullying. Bullying is ripping a defenseless child from its mother's womb and killing it. The truth pushes you away like light drives away cockroaches.

"The reality is, I have rarely looked at "pro-choice" arguments over the years. Oh sure, I've given them a passing listen, but always from the starting place that they were wrong."

And yet you consistently fail to provide any supporting evidence that such is true.

"The reality is, it is primarily seeing the lack of reason and the presence of arrogance and presumption that has pushed me away from the pro-life position that we once shared."

"Lack of reason"?? How so? The pro-life position is more than merely reasonable. It's moral and in line with the basic tenets of Christianity with regard to the value of human life.

"Arrogance"??? You continue to level this charge for the crime of telling the truth and standing by it. That's far more a sign of arrogance, that YOU dismiss the truth in favor of your unsupported alternatives, than is telling the truth.

"Pro-life arguments (and their lack of consistency and reason, as well as the arrogance and bullying with which they are put forth) are what caused me to change my position. In the real world."

And yet you consistently fail to provide any supporting evidence that such is true.

The reality, Dan, is that you're a liar who now supports another lie. To rebut that charge, you'll actually have to defend any of the charges you've leveled against us.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You're the troll. You are a text-book example of a troll. You are a troll who lacks the character to act maturely, and jumps topics when your lack of intelligence is again made plain.

You wish to consider me a troll because I publish a post about something Dan wrote or said? That would be true of every reporter, journalist or commentator. That's a great part of what they do. Instead of acknowledging this simple fact (not simple enough for your simple mind evidently), you try to create another way to disparage someone who's consistently ruled your sorry ass.

Later, I'll get to some of your other more recent falsehoods and debunk them as well.

Feodor said...

Blogger Feodor said...
I believe I listed the facts, Glenn. Put down your Trumpist "alternate facts" and propaganda and put on your glasses on.

And read above.


February 14, 2017 at 3:06 PM Delete
Blogger Feodor said...
No cowering Craig. They have not been debunked. In fact, they have been verified. It is true that these numbers are not to the advantage of brutalizing wishes on the part of those who care not for the poor (anti Christians like you and Glenn) and dontou'd rather count something else. Like money instead of services to persons. 3% of PP services are abortion related. A big reason - birth control and prevention being a much larger part of what they do - as to why abortions are at record lows.

But you guys make it up as you go along. You didn't read where birth control does not include abortion, did you, cowering Craig. Pretty horrible researcher.

February 14, 2017 at 3:12 PM Delete
Blogger Glenn E. Chatfield said...
Feo can't handle the facts; truth has no place in his brain.

The facts we presented are the true facts in the case. Over 95% of PP services are abortion and your self-deception won't change that.

Whether your tirade included abortion as birth control is irrelevant -- Abortion is use ONLY for preventing birth, i.e. BIRTH CONTROL. (when applied to birth control pills and condoms and other contraceptives, "birth control" is a misnomer; these are conception controls. There is only one birth control and that is abortion)

February 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
If you guys insist on ignoring numbers, you vacate an ability to make an reasonable argument.

February 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM Delete
Blogger Craig said...
And FEO has spoken. The matter is settled for all time. It doesn't matter if anyone might have evidence to the contrary. It's easier to just go nasty.

February 14, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
Control your idiocy, Glenn. The medical definition of Birth Control: "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus."

Abortion is not birth control.

Get a grip, child.

February 14, 2017 at 3:23 PM Delete
Blogger Feodor said...
For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.


I see how compassionate you guys are toward poverty and homelessness, too.

All you want is to take down an organization that provides healthcare to women.

How anti-Christ like of you both.

Feodor said...

By the way, epitome of a troll would be a blogger who has to import another blogger's post and piss out simply because he misses the other blogger coming around and giving him attention. (See above post.)

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.

Anonymous said...

One last time. A one week old human fetus looks like and IS a human fetus.

It does not look, in any way, like a human.

The question then, is, Is a fully human fetus the same thing as a born human being? Does it deserve the same rights as a born human?

These are questions you ignore and presume that "fully human fetus" = born human in your responses.

This is begging the question and a logical fallacy.

Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk. Ignore the question and attempt to browbeat people into agreeing with your unproven suggestion and you ignore reason, debase science and drive people further away.

Your call.

Dan

Feodor said...

Craig, your WaPo article confirms that the above stat is true. It also disprovesves Glenn's silt argument. WaLo does want to make an alternate rhetorical argument based only in nominclatute: labels. Which I find unconvincing and contradictory. The data I list is based on discrete billable events. 3% of which are abortions.

Craig said...

The WaPo article makes it quite clear that PP obfuscates the numbers to the point that it's impossible to prove the accuracy of the 3% number.

Once again, you make false claims about "how we are", regarding poverty and homelessness. You have absolutely no objective evidence to back up your assumption, except evidence that contradicts your claim.

Your track record of making unsupported claims is not impressive, yet you keep doing so.

BTW, if you're going to slam MA for writing a post after Dan closed comments on the referenced post, then I'm sure you're going to be consistent and slam Dan who does the same thing regularly.

You should, but I doubt you will.

Craig said...

I just noticed Dan's "arrogant bullying " quote. I think he's been reading himself and Feo a little too much.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"One last time. A one week old human fetus looks like and IS a human fetus.

It does not look, in any way, like a human."


Say it a few hundred more times and it still comes out the same. It's a most inane, deceitful and unChristian example of your typical equivocation. If it's a "human fetus", it is a human. It looks exactly what a human is supposed to look like at that stage of human development, just as one's five year old looks just as human at that stage of development is supposed to look. Like the Klan, or the islamist or the Nazi, you're simply choosing to regard the way a human being looks to determine what is or isn't "fully human". You provide nothing but subjectivity to hold your position. No science, no data, no evidence...only the personal preference to allow you the liberty to abort...that is, unjustifiably kill...another human being.

"The question then, is, Is a fully human fetus the same thing as a born human being?"

This has not only been answered, but answered with the weight of science behind the "YES!" that we've put forth. This is not to say that "science says a fetus is a person worthy of the same right to life as someone so loathsome as a Dan Trabue who is willing to have that fetus killed on a whim". It is that science makes no case that there is a distinction between one human at the earliest stage of human development and that same human at any later stage of development. It is a person from the start, because it can be nothing else.

Thus, why would it not "deserve the same rights as a born human?" The only truthful answer that could come from your "tribe" is that it is convenient for you to deny such people those same rights. You don't have to worry about having murdered a most defenseless and helpless child if you choose to regard it as not yet "fully human". How despicable you are to pretend that pointing out these facts are what drove you to support abortion and deny its immorality!!

"These are questions you ignore and presume that "fully human fetus" = born human in your responses"

We've clearly NOT ignored the question, nor have we "presumed" anything at all. The science drives our conclusions as one cannot honestly conclude otherwise in the face of what the science of embryology and human development teaches. At the same time, however, YOU ignore the question, what evidence can you offer to presume that such a person is NOT worthy of the same respect you insist upon for yourself? We've been given none to date from you, other than a dictionary definition that doesn't do the job.

Marshall Art said...

"Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk."

The problem is that you have no standing to make such a demand. All the science weighs in the favor of the innocent, not in favor of the spineless parent who refuses to face the consequences of his/her actions. It is YOU who must prove that a human fetus does NOT equal a born human. This is true considering that:

1. No human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant can exist without a man and woman engaging in the very act designed to produce another person.

2. A human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant has distinct DNA that distinguishes it from its mother.

3. Barring defect or outside interference, what was conceived by the procreative act of a man and a woman will grow to become a stage of human development that even Dan Trabue couldn't disregard as human. But until Dan can provide evidence to the contrary, its looks doesn't have to meet Dan's standards for what a "fully human person" looks like in order to be one.

"Ignore the question and attempt to browbeat people into agreeing with your unproven suggestion and you ignore reason, debase science and drive people further away."

Bullshit. We aren't "suggesting" anything. We're stating scientific fact. If doing so amounts to "browbeating" in your sorry world, that's only because you hate the truth, not because of anything we're doing wrong. You are ignoring the science, and thus debasing it by rejecting reason to hold your position that there is some dividing line that separates one stage of human development from the rest with regards a person's God-given right to life. Don't give me crap about "browbeating" when you're supporting the unjust horrific killing of millions of innocents per year. Shame on you.

Craig said...

"Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk."

There is so much that is wrong embodied in this one statement.

On the one hand if Marshall and Mrs. Art conceive a child, the fetus that exists 1 week after conception is clearly and unarguably the same genetically as it is after it's born. It's also the same as it will be at 5, or 25, or 85. This is biology 101 and the fact that Dan chooses to be obtuse simply highlights the fault of his position.

On the other hand, the 1 week old fetus is clearly not in the same state of development or location as in the born human, the 5 year old, the 25 year old, or the 85 year old. But the stage of development doesn't diminish the fact that a genetically unique human being comes into existence at conception. The genetic material present from conception is all the genetic material anyone gets.

Where Dan (and the much more forthright and courageous Singer) fails, is that he is attempting to draw an arbitrary line so the he can decide at what point it's ok to terminate this human being. Now, if Dan had the courage of his convictions he'd actually take a stand, and articulate that one singular point where he believes one achieves "full humanity". Further, he would need to provide some sort of evidence that his one point is the most logical point. I'd be impressed if he would do so. Clearly it's possible, Singer has done so why can't Dan.

If he does so, the problem he needs to surmount is to explain why his point should be given more weight than scientific literature and US law. Of course, if he disagrees with Singer, he'd need to explain why he's right and Singer is wrong.

But we all know what's going to happen, he's going to trot out the whole "It's just my opinion" canard and try to convince himself that scientific texts and US law are just someones opinion and that they don't carry any more weight than his.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I certainly hope so.

Marshall Art said...

I doubt you will, Craig. Worse, I think what is likely is that he'll not respond at all since he's clearly driven himself into a corner. There's really no way to support a pro-abortion position and maintain one's integrity as a Christian. At least not without the typical equivocation when it comes to what any particular relevant Scriptural passage he believes is relevant to the issue might say. Slinking away is all he really has. He can't defend his position through science, as he has stated that science doesn't tell us when one is "fully human". And he can't really argue from a position of Christianity without first being able to explain why, at the very least, he thinks his arbitrary point of "full humanity" is valid.

And in a sense, he has long ago dodged the issue anyway, since his position had been to allow that others might feel differently, so by golly, they should have the right to kill their own children. Yet, some might feel exactly the same way about killing their four year old child and Dan wouldn't be down with that. He'd actually insist that justice for the four year old be served. Any way one looks at it, Dan is in a fix. Indeed, all arguments are against him. To claim we have driven him to now believe abortion is not immoral is more of the same dodging. It's merely a new way to continue the dodging he's been doing for years.

The fact is that he was never opposed to abortion in any way. He may have assumed that posture in order to portray himself as Christian, as he now does with so many goofy positions he holds. Personally, I think it's as I said earlier...that he must know people who have aborted their children who otherwise appear to be "Christian", just a he does with the homosexuality issue. He can't bear the thought of those "nice" people being at risk spiritually and eternally. OR, he doesn't want his "progressive" friends to look at him poorly for not towing the progressive position.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, that last paragraph is what a "hunch" actually looks like. I hope Dan will take note.

Craig said...

It might be labeled a hunch, but you've at least got some good reasons why you've reached it.

Personally I suspect that it's more that folks convince themselves that as long as they personally wouldn't have an abortion that they are pro life. When in reality they are supporting candidates who are working to expand access to abortion and women who have them. Or they claim to be "pro choice" yet never seem to advocate for any choice other than abortion.

It's one more instance of intellectual inconsistency that you see from those on the left.

Craig said...

I'm curious why the end of life is determined by the absence of a heartbeat why the beginning of life isn't as well?

Feodor said...

The end of life is not determined by the absence of a heartbeat. We revive those whose hearts have stopped. We replace the hearts of those whose hearts are dying - sometimes with something that is a machine, not even a heart at all.

Death is the irrecoverable loss of the brain on which is written what is indeed life: thoughts, feelings, relationships, memories.

When a life is irrecoverable we know it's time to stop the heart and the lungs ourselves. And we do that thousands of times a day I imagine. We can even self choose beforehand to keep others from keeping our heart and lungs going big our life is irrecoverable from our brains.

The very reason that, by reflection upon medical ethics and humane ethics, we save the mother in situations where either the fetus or the mother will die: we choose to save the existing life already and still being written on the mother's brain over the brain that has yet to have accomplished life over writing potential life.

Gone for Lent now gents. Got to shrive myself of egregious sins and hanging out here is a mistake of character. ✋🏽

Craig said...

Ok, then why not apply the same standard to beginning of life as end of life.

Anonymous said...

Brain waves don't begin until 24 weeks, I'm told. Are you suggesting that this is where you're comfortable drawing the line?

Dan

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Trying to be technical doesn't mitigate Craig's point in the least.

"When a life is irrecoverable we know it's time to stop the heart and the lungs ourselves."

There's absolutely no Biblical support for this position in any way.

"The very reason that, by reflection upon medical ethics and humane ethics, we save the mother in situations where either the fetus or the mother will die"

This assumes one can determine with exactitude that only one or the other will survive the birth. I grant that the decision in such a case should be the mother's alone, because it is she whose life is on the line. Where the birth would kill her, abortion then becomes a self-defense situation and is not relevant to any discussion with regard to abortion on demand. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there was ever a time in this country where choosing to abort in such a situation was illegal.

There is a special place in Heaven, I would wager, for mothers who take the risk that their child will survive or that their child's "potential" life is of greater value than her own, and thus proceed with giving birth. False priests might not agree.

Hanging out here isn't a mistake of character. Your character, however, is indeed a mistake and for you, Lent should be year 'round. Said another way, you bring a wholly unChristian character to this blog with your every visit. And that last line of your last comment is simply one more piece of evidence that proves the point.

Marshall Art said...

"Brain waves don't begin until 24 weeks, I'm told. Are you suggesting that this is where you're comfortable drawing the line?"

Craig may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the point is to try and get those like yourself to find where YOU draw the line, and then explain why you are justified in doing so. Craig has already affirmed his position as to when life begins and how that is no different than when one's right to life begins as well.

Craig said...

Heartbeat starts at around 18 days, are you comfortable with drawing the line there? At this point, most Dr's agree that about 20 weeks is viable. Are you willing to draw the line there?

At this point you've not shown a willingness to draw a line anywhere. None of your arguments indicate any logical point to draw a line. And somehow you've been unwilling to do so.

As a political matter, I could live with drawing a hard line at fetal viability, with exceptions for rape and life of the mother. Along with eliminating federal funding for PP, the same regulations on abortion clinics as on vets, and the same parental notification as school nurses need.

See, that's much more specific and reasonable that "It doesn't look like...".

Since science continues to support the pro life position, I'd be willing to support a political compromise and wait for advances in science. But where's the compromise from unlimited free abortion? Or where's the compromise with the Singer's of the world. At this point, you and Singer are making the same argument.

Anonymous said...

I've been quite clear. IlThe fact is that we don't have a definitive answer, so I prefer to let Marshall be entirely free to decide for himself and other people have the right to decide for themselves.

You helped me see that your side hasno authoritative, definitive answer, so thanks for that.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The authoritative, definitive answer is that science says life begins at conception. Ergo, abortion kills a human life. Ergo, it is murder.

Anonymous said...

And if that is yourhunch, I fully support you deciding to not have abortion. The problem is, you don't want to extend the same Grace to others.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,
I just stated a FACT, not a hunch.

But just because you don't want a slave, you should extend grace to those who want slaves.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Glenn, Craig, myself and others on this side of the divide extend Christian grace to those who are at risk of being murdered by their own mothers. As Glenn says, it is no hunch what science says about when new human life begins. It takes a special kind of non-Christian corruption to choose against giving the benefit of the doubt to those at risk on the weak grounds that "we don't know". If you wish to insist that we do not have any way of determining when one possesses the right to life, actual Christian grace would demand that you err on the side of life, not on the whimsical and cheap rationalizations of those who simply do not wish to fulfill their Christian obligations with regard to sexual behavior and their consequences. In doing so, you could then wear your Christian facade with a bit more credibility.

Craig said...

And Dan isn't willing to step up and compromise at all on his unrestricted abortion for anyone for any reason, based only on his opinion that they look different. Hell, he won't even repudiate Singer.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Craig. Like all leftists, Dan abhors absolutes. In doing so, it is hard for him to be willing to be pinned down. There's too much risk in being specific. It doesn't matter to him the actual risk to those who must suffer the consequences of such a spineless attitude. What's important is how he is perceived by the world.

Anonymous said...

I am absolutely opposed to you deciding for everyone else, Marshall. Or others deciding for you.

As always, I fully support you clinging to whatever opinions you have. Too bad y'all can't do the same.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I am not opposed to one person (God) deciding for everyone else that murder is wrong.

Anonymous said...

I'm fine with that, too, Glenn. But you ain't God.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

"I am absolutely opposed to you deciding for everyone else, Marshall. Or others deciding for you."

That's lovely, but not at issue here.

"I fully support you clinging to whatever opinions you have. Too bad y'all can't do the same."

Two problems here:

1. No one is denying you the "right" or ability to cling to whatever goofy and baseless position floats your leaky boat. The issue here, as always, continues to be trying to get you to provide anything that supports your position as even remotely, possibly true or valid. If only you'd stop tap dancing long enough to do so.

Craig said...

Dan, appears to be wholly in support of terminating the existence of viable humans who don't look like he thinks they should look. No limits, no regulation, no charge.

If that's "grace", I'll pass.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

I never, ever even intimated that I considered myself on any level even remotely similar to God. But there you go with your usual asinine statements.

BUT, science and God calls human life beginning at conception, and when you abort that life you are guilty of murder. And you support the murder of the unborn.

But, then again, as has been demonstrated so very often, you couldn't care less what the real God of the Bible has to say because you worship a God of your own making, one that approves of abortion and homosexual behavior, etc.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For Trabue:

Here is REAL science about the unborn, IF you choose to enlighten yourself.
http://crossexamined.org/what-is-the-unborn/

Marshall Art said...

https://patriotpost.us/articles/47749

Anonymous said...

Presenting the "real science," you're offering some guy who advocates for conservative positions, with no real background in science that I can find. Is that what constitutes "real science" to you, Glenn?

Beyond that, you all repeatedly are demonstrating an inability to understand what I'm saying and that gives me no confidence that you are able to understand, you know, science and all that. Or God.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but we all could embrace a bit of humility when offering our opinions, eh?

Peace.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

The political views of people presenting actual facts has no bearing on the facts. Unless a liberal like you wants to push an agenda but it is obvious because they say "science" is 2+2=5.

You just deny what every single scientist in the world can't deny; from conception a human life has begun.

Marshall Art said...

Aside from presenting a few arguments (pro AND con) that haven't been addressed in these discussions, the article to which Glenn linked absolutely provided scientific facts by citing the science books from which those facts are taken. Thus, Dan lies once again by pretending Glenn presented no "real science". He most certainly did.

Humility is not an issue here because it isn't lacking in the presenting of that real science and the just conclusions to which an honest person must come with regard to whether or not the unborn, at every stage of its development, is possessed of the same right to life as we are. Indeed, the pro-abortion position is inherently the arrogant position, as well as the condescending nature of Dan's rebuffs. It is arrogant to suggest that we are failing in any way in understanding either science or God, particularly when we bring such solid evidence to bear. Dan, on the other hand, continues to fail in presenting anything more than unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion as to why he now holds that abortion is not immoral. Such a position is clearly contrary to reason and all scientific understanding...not to mention Scriptural teaching.

Craig said...

Art, as long as you humbly decide to terminate the existence of your viable unborn child it's fine. But if you lack humility, then....

You realize your talking to someone who uncritically buys "science" when it suits him. Someone who's elevated "peer reviewed studies" to the level of some sort of Delphic oracle. Despite the documented problems with the entire peer review system.

But who's perfectly willing to ignore biology/embryology 101 when it gets in the way.

Perri Nelson said...

Art,

I would like to suggest two things for your edification. Titus 3:1-11 and 2 Timothy 2:14. After reading those, tell me whether this has been worth it?

Marshall Art said...

Yes, Perri. I would say that it is always worth it to match misinformation (to be gracious) with truthful information whenever the former rises from the muck. I have no delusions about the size of my readership, but as this is out there on the world wide web, it stands as either a defense of truth or a rejection of it. Despite the personal enjoyment I derive from these encounters, they also happen to provide for whomever stumbles upon them responses to fallacious and detrimental positions common to the "progressive" left. Indeed, all of us who post our opinions do this simply by posting our opinions. Mine simply go further by inviting and responding to whatever objections, comments or critiques the posting of my opinion might provoke. We live in a time where we suffer from a period when little was said or done to counter the loud and obnoxious assertion of falsehood. I believe we must meet every new or ongoing perpetuation of such with firm resistance.

Perri Nelson said...

OK Art, I can respect your reasoning. May the Lord grant you grace and strength in your efforts. Personally I don't think that philosophical arguments, or any argument based on anything less than the word of God will settle the issues.

I think though that willful rejection, and outright denial of the possibility even, of objective truth leaves a man's soul in mortal danger, especially when the objective truth in question has to do with claiming grace while bearing fruits of wickedness in our lives. A man who denies the possibility of objective truth demonstrates an apparent lack of faith, or at best a dead, ineffectual belief.

See Jeremiah 7:8-16, 1 John 5:16-17, and Matthew 12:24-37.

He may be saved, but he teaches a false, unbiblical message, and I for one am through trying to reach him.

Feodor said...

There is only one truth and he is a subject not an object and do cannot be fully known by any creation. Oops. You're already living in mystery but kick against God trying to deny it.

Marshall Art said...

There's nothing of God that I deny, sadly pathetic false priest. I only deny people like you for whom truth and honesty are strangers. Someday, when you have a spine surgically implanted into your body, perhaps you can offer an actual case for all the accusations against me that you've made over the years. The laughter it would provoke would be therapeutic at the very least.

Feodor said...

It's noticeable how you cannot deal with Jesus' own words... and cannot recognize it when Mr Nelson replaces the horse with the cart and calls it a horse. Hate doesn't get you anywhere.

Marshall Art said...

I deal with Christ's words just fine, thank you very much. You, however, don't understand them very well, so I can see how you'd make that mistake.

And since I don't hate, except for hating how people like you distort the truth and continually accuse me without basis, I'm at a loss for knowing about what you speak. You, however, seem very hateful for constantly accusing me without basis. As such, I pity you greatly. Seek help.

Feodor said...

You seem confused; ignorant as to where to turn. Let me help.

"Jesus the Way to the Father “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe[a] in God, believe also in me.In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life."

Feodor said...

Notice, no need for a book.

Marshall Art said...

No confusion here, sad and pathetic false priest. Quite a bit on your end, however. You're totally confused as to who I am, what I believe and positions I hold. You're totally confused as to your own ability to discern such things. You're confused about a host of things, evidently, as evidenced by your unwillingness to engage in discourse in an honest and forthright manner.

You are, however, amusing...in a sad and pathetic way. All that education...all those books...and you have not a shred of wisdom and understanding. So very sad and pathetic.

Erik said...

Honest question for all those here who believe in God/Heaven/etc. What happens to the souls of aborted fetuses? Do they automatically go to Heaven?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Erik,

I certainly believe so. I also believe young children who have not come to understand right from wrong also go to heaven. I wrote an article addressing this very topic:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-about-babies-and-salvation.html

Erik said...

An admittedy extreme hypothetical for you to consider then. Hear me out...

If all aborted fetuses go to Heaven, that's a 100% salvation rate. Let's say only a quarter of people who live lives make righteous choices and go to Heaven. That's only a 25% salvation rate. An odd conundrum for the theist pro-lifer, I've always thought.

Marshall Art said...

I don't know if it matters one way or the other with regard to those of us who have been allowed by our mothers to live being pro-life or not. It's of no consequence to me why God would allow any person, born or otherwise, to live eternally with Him. My job is simply to live in a manner pleasing to Him. I think that includes opposing abortion for any reason not including a legitimate threat on the life of a pregnant woman should her pregnancy be allowed to go full term.

However, with that said, it's a not an unworthy exercise in speculation. For my part, I believe God could accommodate in His eternal presence as many people as He feels are qualified to do so, regardless of one's stage of human development, from conception onward. It's all based on His own standards for qualification, whatever those standards may be. It would seem to me that given our understanding of what justice is, it is likely that God would not hold accountable those who were given no chance to make any decisions regarding Him, who have not been given a chance to learn that there even is a Creator and thus would, or at least could, count them among the elect.


That's my "off the top of my head" response.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I agree with Art. The point is, God designed people to LIVE. If babies' lives are cut short, I'd think a God of mercy and Justice would save them, since, as Art noted, they've never had the opportunity to decide right from wrong.

As for "speculation," I think the Bible passages I used bring about more than just "speculation."

Erik said...

"The point is, God designed people to LIVE..."

But wouldn't you agree living eternally is more ideal than the blink of an eye that is a standard human lifetime? If so, shouldn't theist pro-lifers be happy that all those aborted souls - every single one of them, without a single soul lost to eternal hellfire - made it to Heaven? I know it's a bizarre thought, but worth pondering, I think.

Feodor said...

Marshall just can't get Christ into his heart. Being a Judaizer he tries to live to a holy standard as if Christ was not needed,

"It's all based on His own standards for qualification, whatever those standards may be."

Jesus came so you would know the standard, Marshall. Can't even read your own bible. No matter. Christ lives. And loves you. If you love others, that's all you need. That's all the standard you need. Tried to tell you but you're blind to your deep, angry confusion. But the Bible tells you so:

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him... In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me... As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"But wouldn't you agree living eternally is more ideal than the blink of an eye that is a standard human lifetime?"

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should approve or enable the unjust taking of human life. The same standard would apply to any born person...should we rejoice that their lives were unjustly cut short, even enable that taking of life, because we are confident they will live eternally in God's presence?

But of course, this also has nothing to do with your original question, which was whether or not aborted children automatically go to heaven. I believe they do, but I have no real basis for believing that it is automatic. It just seems logical if we're talking about a just God. The real question is, whether or not our concept of justice is identical to God's. We're taught that we can't know His mind, despite what feo likes to believe in his baseless assaults on my character and beliefs. Thus, while we can take some cues from Scripture, some details can only be assumed.

Erik said...

The entire first paragraph of your response is precisely the conundrum I mentioned. And you're right - it doesn't necessarily apply exclusively to the unborn. If the numbers show a greater rate of salvation for aborted fetuses, then aren't abortion doctors the most efficient soulwinners of all time?

Erik said...

And, for the record, I completely agree that the fact that many belief in an afterlife should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the taking of human life should be embraced by any society.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"If the numbers show a greater rate of salvation for aborted fetuses, then aren't abortion doctors the most efficient soulwinners of all time?"

I think you're confusing murder with winning souls. Again, consider any born person that at least hypothetically, is saved and headed for heaven. Whoever murdered such a person, or even killed him accidentally, had no role in the person's salvation. That's already a done deal with such a person.

In a similar fashion, if my belief is correct, no abortion doctor has "won souls" by murdering the unborn. Their acceptance by God is already decided. The doctors are no more than hired killers, like any other hit man.

Erik said...

You're right. The math doesn't speak for itself. I was clearly wrong.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

Your response seems a bit sarcastic. Perhaps you could elaborate on the point you're trying to make. In the meantime, it seems as if you're trying to make the case that because aborted children are likely going to heaven, that abortion is then somehow justified or worthwhile for the kids' sake? Is that your point?

If it is, then we can make the same argument for most any murder of any post birth human being. A child living in extreme poverty is better off dead, so let's kill the child. Is that not akin to your logic? I ask because your point isn't clear enough to think otherwise. Please elaborate.

Erik said...

Just a mathematical observation. If 100 abortions happen, then Heaven gets 100 souls. If those abortions don't happen, Heaven gets maybe 25 souls, in the end. No point being attempted here. Simply crunching numbers.

Marshall Art said...

Be honest now. It's not as if the math alone needed to be pointed out. As such, it's a great "Captain Obvious" exercise of no value whatsoever. So why bother?

Feodor said...

Marshall can't deal with the Gospel of John.

Or math.

Erik said...

Here's what should've happened:

Marshall: "What about the descendants of the unaborted? At some point, their generational offspring would've accounted for those who would've been lost?"

C'mon, man. Get your game on.

Feodor said...

"At some point, their generational offspring would've accounted for those who would've been lost?"

Meanwhile sacrifice even more to hell due to your 75% loss rate.

Erik said...

Well, who's counting?

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"Just a mathematical observation. If 100 abortions happen, then Heaven gets 100 souls. If those abortions don't happen, Heaven gets maybe 25 souls, in the end. No point being attempted here."

No point? You said...

"An odd conundrum for the theist pro-lifer, I've always thought."

Sounds like a point to me. Or at least something implied. But there's no conundrum at all for the pro-lifer since our hope for saving lives is not predicated on whether or not the potential for that life is realized. The point is saving lives from being unjustly taken. Even your final "what should've happened" fails to accept the real issue, which is preventing the unjustified taking of innocent life.

In addition, you're making a suggestion based upon what is only speculation regarding the eternal destination of the aborted. What's more, it doesn't account for pro-lifers who are not religious and don't believe in an afterlife.

You also make some assumptions about the nature of God for which you have no supporting evidence. That is, what makes you think that God would not be more concerned with our response to the abortion issue than numbers of souls passing through the Pearly Gates? What makes you think He's pleased that we murder millions of innocents simply because He gets to have more souls in heaven as a result? Do you actually believe it's all about numbers for Him as it is for you? Or that He should be, perhaps?

And what of the souls of those who abort? Should we ignore that as we enable them in their sex-centered lives that led to their bad decision with regard to the lives of their unborn children? Many women never get over their decision to kill their children. Guilt sometimes drives people further into sinfulness and away from God.

(How's my game now?)

So again, Erik...what's your point?

Marshall Art said...

feo,

I have no problem with the Gospel of John, or any other part of the Bible for that matter.

YOU, however, clearly can't deal with the fact that you've been exposed for the fraud you are.

Is there any chance at all that you will someday support any of your accusations with something in the way of substantive evidence? Just wondering.

Erik said...

"What's more, it doesn't account for pro-lifers who are not religious and don't believe in an afterlife."

No s--t. I said that. Pay attention.

"(How's my game now?)"

Sloppy. See above.

"You also make some assumptions about the nature of God..."

No s--t. It's just a hypothetical situation. Or, "...not an unworthy exercise in speculation," to quote a sage speculator.

Can't the point simply be that there is no point? Just maybe one of those things that makes you say, "Hmm...I wonder what a bunch of total strangers on the internet might say about this scenario?" Because that's pretty much what blogs are, no?

Feodor said...

You two are. Not God. God loves us all.

Feodor said...

The point is that Marshall has no capacity for moral reasoning, only casuistry. Principally because he cannot center God as love as the starting point. For Marshall God is only a Judge, a strongman. He doesn't grasp the Christ of the Gospels much the living One. Corrupt the Gospel this way and a Christian undermines everything.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

If you need to believe that reiterating a point suggests a bad attention span, you go ahead and run with that. But it's hardly a sign of sloppiness, though getting my thoughts out with limited time to compose a response that meets your lofty standards might result in what you regard as sloppy. I'll try to live with your disappointment.

Your original question constitutes serious speculation. Your follow up "numbers crunching" suggests an agenda, or at least a lame way to justify the taking of innocent human life. Pretend that's not your point if you like, but I'm not buying it. Without it, why do it at all? It's not like it means anything on its own. Indeed, your description of abortion doctors as "soul savers" speaks volumes about what your point is. And it's about as twisted a justification of abortion as could be.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You have yet to prove your claims against me. Whenever you decide you're willing to attempt to do so, please let me know. Constant accusations do not do the trick. They serve only as more for which you must provide evidence.

You are typical of the fraudulent who respond to all with "God is love", as if that justifies your willful disregard for His clearly revealed Will for us. And when I respond to your childish, self-serving, self-worshiping depiction of God with the more accurate and balanced reality, which is based on Scripture itself, you then respond that I view God as ONLY "a Judge, a strongman".

As such, it is YOU who corrupts by consciously choosing to disregard the totality of God's nature as it is described for us in Scripture in order to further your agenda of anti-Biblical positions. The sad part is that people like you fool no one, including God Himself.

Erik said...

"...or at least a lame way to justify the taking of innocent human life. Pretend that's not your point if you like, but I'm not buying it."

Speaking of ill-informed assumptions, now you're making them about me. You're so desperate to find a point in why I'd present this hypothetical scenario to theist pro-lifers, but maybe you should be curious about what prompted me to do so. It's quite simple, really. John 14:27.

Sloppy.

Feodor said...

Marshall doesn't know John. He's still trying to resurrect Hasmonean rule and cast out Seleucids.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

So tell me...how long have you and feo been dating?

Why you two think you're being clever by being cryptic, as if you do so in a way that normal people would readily understand, is beyond me. I'm not here to play guessing games with people like you. However, I think I've demonstrated my curiosity quite plainly and yet at this point you haven't figured that out? How many times must I ask you what your point is, exactly? What "prompted" you IS your point. So how 'bout you cut the crap and just lay it on the line like someone who's truly interested in engaging in mature dialogue and leave the childish games to feo? Then, perhaps, we'll find out whether or not you're actually thoughtful or just another buffoon pretending he's intelligent...like feo. I barely have time for one.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

I know John well enough. You don't know squat, or you'd actually demonstrate that you might...just for a change of pace. I won't hold my breath. You're too wrapped up in pretending you're an intellectual.

Erik said...

Where's the fun in that? You get so worked up so easily in here it's just impossible to resist, and seeing you jump to conclusions about people and their opinions while insisting they themselves "engage in mature dialogue" is a delight.

Feodor said...

I don't want to be in your position, Marshall, ignoring half of what God gave us. You can't reason yourself out of a paper bag because you ignore your mind. That's not Christian faithfulness to God's creation. It's ugly stupid stubborn. And God don't like ugly behavior like yours. God don't like stupid faith like yours. And God doesn't like stubborn hearts like yours.

"What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels; have crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under their feet.”

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

What makes people like you think what you say gets me "worked up"? You think very highly of yourself, don't you? I guess someone should, but you're not providing much that compels the same from anyone else. So I guess it's worse than I had hoped. Based on your self-satisfying last comment, you're only point is simply to get me "worked up"? You don't have much of a life, then, do you?

And there's no "jumping to conclusions" on my part that isn't compelled by your evasiveness. I'm left to wonder when you're so intent on remaining tight-lipped about your intentions. Thus, what you need to believe is "jumping to conclusions" is just more speculation, which can be put to a halt by an honest disclosure of what you hope to find out. Indeed, you've jumped to the conclusion that I get "worked up" as if I'm some sort of leftist snowflake easily triggered.

And then there's this notion about "jumping to conclusions" about your "opinions". What opinions have you expressed thus far, exactly? None that I can see, expect an unjustified low opinion of me. What conclusion would you reach under such conditions I wonder?

Like your buddy feo, you're not anywhere near as clever as you think you are. But by all means...continue embarrassing yourself in further attempts to project that notion. It's a delight.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

More baseless accusations? Incredible. While I'm sure it's easier than mustering up an actual case against me, one would think that at some point just one supporting example would go a long way toward proving what you so desperately need to believe about me. You claim I cannot reason, yet you never provide any fodder for consideration. You never provide any argument in opposition to any position I've ever taken. You only default to castigating me for whatever it is you think I'm doing wrong (though you can't even bring yourself to say just what that is). Rest assured that at this point in time, there's no doubt in my mind that you find me lacking. An actual Christian, which you like to pretend you are, would stow the personal attacks, at least at some point, in order to enlighten and edify. Throwing out verses as if they apply, when there is no explanation for how you think they might, doesn't cut it. Why not instead don your big boy pants and actually engage in thoughtful conversation? Show me what you think a Christian is supposed to look and act like...unless, God forbid, you've been doing that all along. That would indeed be sad and pathetic.

Erik said...

"What makes people like you think what you say gets me "worked up"?"

This:

"What makes people like you think what you say gets me "worked up"? You think very highly of yourself, don't you? I guess someone should, but you're not providing much that compels the same from anyone else. So I guess it's worse than I had hoped. Based on your self-satisfying last comment, you're only point is simply to get me "worked up"? You don't have much of a life, then, do you?

And there's no "jumping to conclusions" on my part that isn't compelled by your evasiveness. I'm left to wonder when you're so intent on remaining tight-lipped about your intentions. Thus, what you need to believe is "jumping to conclusions" is just more speculation, which can be put to a halt by an honest disclosure of what you hope to find out. Indeed, you've jumped to the conclusion that I get "worked up" as if I'm some sort of leftist snowflake easily triggered. 

And then there's this notion about "jumping to conclusions" about your "opinions". What opinions have you expressed thus far, exactly? None that I can see, expect an unjustified low opinion of me. What conclusion would you reach under such conditions I wonder?

Like your buddy feo, you're not anywhere near as clever as you think you are. But by all means...continue embarrassing yourself in further attempts to project that notion. It's a delight."

Feodor said...

😂😂😂

A thousand word screed, but he's not worked! Noooooooooo....

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

So commenting on your curious accusations amounts to getting "worked up" to you? Talk about having sloppy game! You see, it works like this: if you really wanted to use my words to prove your claim that I'm getting "worked up", you'd need more than a simple copy and paste of my words to do the trick. You'd actually have to explain how the words you copied and pasted prove the claim is true. You don't. In truth, it was a half-assed attack and you have no real basis for it.

No. You really aren't capable of getting me "worked up", unless of course, you have a completely different understanding of what getting "worked up" means. In which case, I wouldn't think of jumping to conclusion about what that might be. I have to say, however...you seem to be getting a rise out of feo.

As to "conclusions", here's another to which your comments have driven me. You're not very honest. Let's review:

You first asked a question about what I think happens to the souls of aborted babies. Clearly there was a point in asking...it wasn't mere curiosity. This was confirmed by your presentation of your "math". Then, after dismissing such consideration as superfluous in the face of the act of unjustly ending innocent lives, you claimed there was no point to presenting such math, but then later suggested that I should be curious about what prompted you to do so...despite asking more than once what your point was. So, is there a point or isn't there? If yes, then clearly you weren't being honest (what we call "a liar"). I don't see how there could not have been one, even if it was only because you like to see your comments in print. At the very least, you expressed "delight" in seeing me get "worked up" (whatever that means to you) and thus again, you prove yourself dishonest in insisting you had no point. Seems you have several. Feel free to pick one and opine away.

Erik said...

That's fair. Somewhat.

Feodor said...

Marshall lives in his own bullshit 24/7. So there's zero chance he will get that a thousand word screed of bullshit in response to being seeing as worked up is, in fact, being worked up. But string a handful of laughing faces together and Marshall thinks that's extra labor.

🤡🤡🤡

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Still waiting for you to explain how anything I have ever said is bullshit. As you fail to comply with this request, it seems I'm quite correct in concluding you're either not capable or you're just a lying false priest (likely both). Why not simply answer this: how does the quantity of words indicate one is "worked up"? I would think an intellectual (were you actually so wise as to be one) would regard what words were used or how words are used to make such a determination. Indeed, a simple expletive would more likely indicate one is "worked up" than how many words one uses, especially when that number of words was felt necessary so that people like you might understand. Clearly, in your case, you're too invested in your baseless hateful opinion. So sad and pathetic.

Feodor said...

Christianity bullshit: "It's all based on His own standards for qualification, whatever those standards may be. It would seem to me that given our understanding of what justice is..."

You find yourself diberating on God's standards and Gid's justice because you do not know God. You've had waaay tooo many opportunities to be permeable to the Spirit and you've made a life out of warding the Spirit off in favor of law.

Justice is being in a right relationship with God, period. A right relationship is love. By that very fact, then, God's standard is love.

The Jesus of the gospels tells you so. The farewell discourse in John tells you so and so repetitively as to spur laughter at how simple it all is: follow his commandments and you belong to him; what are his commandments? Just one, it turns out. And what is that commandment? Love.

The Living Christ pleads with you still. Will you answer with a humble heart and leave your stubborn will behind?

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You should have deleted both comments, as the second didn't improve upon the foolishness and false accusations of the first.

It is right and just to consider God's standards, to the best of our ability to know and understand them. You prefer to make up your own. But we're taught in Scripture, by the words of God/Jesus a variety of things that you choose to ignore in order to feel superior to those of us who keep them in our hearts (even if we fail to live up to them perfectly).

God's "standard" has more to do than with some self-satisfying, self-licensing notion of "love". Jesus doesn't teach us that there is only one commandment. He speaks of the greatest, perhaps, but not an "only". You need to believe their is only one so that you can ignore how He wants us to live, which Paul teaches is guided by the Law. So, while you pretend the Law is no longer in effect, that is only true as the means by which we are saved.

Thus, if there is anyone with a "stubborn will", and one is that self-damning, it is yours as you reject the clear teachings of Scripture in order to wallow in your self-idolizing ways.

And seriously...when have you ever demonstrated even a hint of humility in all the time you've soiled this blog with your presence? Answer: never.

So, again, and forever until you comply, demonstrate any notion that any of your charges against me aren't merely baseless hatred for the "crime" of holding a different opinion than you. You're the one that is supposed to be intellectually superior. When are you going to prove it? C'mon, coward. Get a pair and step up to the plate. This last comment doesn't do it at all.

Feodor said...

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.... They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.... Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another."

Read it and weep, Marshall. Weep for the simplicity. Weep for the clarity. Weep because weeping is only right before the saving truthbof love.

But you cannot weep. You don't know John. You don't know the gospel of Jesus or the living Christ.

You are lost. It's dark where you are. And so true love is too vulnerable to risk. Even in the face of God.

Marshall Art said...

Oh, sure I can weep. At least rhetorically or metaphorically. But I weep for your horribly poor understanding of both who I am, what I believe and worst of all, your poor understanding of Scripture.

Like so many on the left, you throw around "God is love" as if it rationalizes your counter-Christian positions. And as if that isn't bad enough, you pretend it is I who fails to grasp the meaning of "God is love". John, the guy you think I don't know or understand, is said to have written, "This is love for God: to obey His commands." (1 John 5:3) Your own citations quote Jesus as having kept God's commandments. But you think I'm lost because I insist we're to do so as well...at least to the best of our ability. To you, that's darkness. I see it as light because the love I have for God compels my desire to obey His commandments...regardless of how well I do so.

In any case, your presentation of more passages you clearly don't understand, and are incapable of demonstrating why you think I need to read them now, shows that you only hate and don't know why (with the distinct possibility that I simply am not impressed with your prideful and arrogant delusions of grandeur). You need to feel that I am a poor Christian, certainly by comparison to you, but you have no actual evidence to support that desperate desire. Thus you continue to be pathetic and an extremely poor example of a superior person. You're a sad fraud, feo, and I weep for you. May God grant you the epiphany you so desperately need.

Feodor said...

Yet again you push away God's love with lies. You deign to disparage Christ's own words to manipulate your argument. And however sweet it is of you to think the one "throwing around" these words of God and love is me, nonetheless you confuse me for the savior. Unfortunately I don't have the power to save you. The real author of these words does, though:

"If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."

This is the "whatever" of God's standards you were looking for but cannot be heard by bullshit Christianity like yours.

Try again. Your soul depends upon it.

Marshall Art said...

Oh, please! There is no possible way even someone as stupid as you could confuse you with ANY savior, much less THE Savior, Jesus Christ. But hey...thanks for the laugh!

In the meantime, you've done zip to prove that I've disparaged Christ's words at all. Nothing. Indeed, you say I don't know John. You don't know jack, and this truth is the only thing you've ever proven time and time again.

What's more, to say that by insisting you're "throwing around" the words of my Lord is not to say in any way that those are YOUR words.

You want to pretend that "Keep my commands" includes all but those commands that are inconvenient for you. You want to pretend that "love" includes enabling those who engage in sinful behaviors. And then you dare suggest that mine is a "bullshit Christianity". Still waiting for you to actually defend such a charge, but you can't because it clearly isn't true...just as it is clearly true that you don't know what Christianity truly is.

Furthermore, I'm well aware of the standards for our behavior that God has revealed to us through His own words as Father and a Son. I do not pretend that the commands of Son reject any of those from the Father, as they are One. However, my "whatever" clearly and unmistakably referred to the fact that we cannot know absolutely everything about the mind of God. That, as any actual Christian not a false priest like yourself knows, is a basic teaching about the nature of God. However, one of His standards is that HE makes the rules, not self-serving people like you and other "progressive Christians".

So go ahead, feo. Get a pair and explain where I've lied. That means you copy and paste my words in context and then explain, with proofs and evidences, how my words are wrong or in contradiction to anything revealed to us in Scripture. Simply copying and pasting another verse (that you clear do not understand) won't get it done. Demonstrate this superior knowledge you laughingly believe you possess.

Or start with this: Show an example from Scripture that shows Christ loved anyone by enabling their sinful behavior. He certainly never accused anyone of lying without explaining why what the accused said as false. When will you?

Feodor said...

I always laugh when you read a satirical joke and think it's in earnest. Shows what a wooden mind you have. And why your God is a telegraph pole instead of a living spirit.

I put up some of the farewell discourse of Jesus in John's gospel and you twist his words into "God is love" with the deceiving agenda to blind yourself to him.

That's what you did. You twisted his words because you need to run away from his love and your need for it. You've done it for so long it's an unconscious habit. Probably alays had been because you've never loved yourself enough to accept how God made you or accept God. Someone or someones lied to you. Bamboozled and hoodwinked you. All so you could grow up to hate the other.

Sad. Sad that you emobody so much falseness. And find yourself professing belief while twisting Jesus words. And burying them.

Feodor said...

The truth is, Marshall, God is loving. God wants to love you. You really should allow that to happen.

Save your soul. Get out of that dark place.

Marshall Art said...

I always laugh when you think your "humor" translates well on this medium (assuming it would be funny in another). More likely, you failed at trying to make a point and now say you were only kidding.

You don't know God, so you don't know the One I worship. What you refer to a "wooden" is merely the same acknowledgement and reverence for absolute truths that Christ Himself had (even if I don't abide them nearly as well). Like a lefty droning on about a mythical "living" Constitution, you have a distinct disrespect for truth, especially the truth of the Christian faith and its teachings, evidenced even by the mere use of the term "wooden" as a derogatory adjective.

You put of Christ's words from John's gospel with no explanation of how it applies to anything I've said or how it might indict me for saying it. There's never been any twisting of God's words on my part, and you've shown no understanding of Scripture that suggests you'd know if I did. Which I haven't. My "agenda" is based on Christian teaching. Your presentation of Christianity is based on your agenda, but you project that perversion onto me without basis or evidence to support the assertion.

As such, you've shown no indication that I actually act in any of the ways you attribute to me. As I continue to request, you've never done a thing to show otherwise. You do, however, engage in tons of assertions and such.

So, now you say I embody falseness. By all means...describe exactly an example where I've done that. Borrow a scrotum and actually defend your accusations for a change, just to show how superior your knowledge and intellect is to mine. I can't wait to be educated by such a being. Which of Christ's words have I twisted and how, and what can you offer from the text to support the notion? I defy you to try. You won't, because you can't handle another epic failure. You're a coward as well as a false priest and an incredible argument against higher education. C'mon, fraud! Bring me out of the darkness. I dare you.

Feodor said...

Amazing how your wooden mind can both produce but never hear the echoes bouncing around.

Again you attempt to claim that satire was really seriousness. You seem to think that looking stupid is preferable to looking the fool.

Again, you read the gospel of John but falsely - and in really bad faith - claimed that I was the one throwing around God is love.

Let me spell it out for you: 1) I didn't write the words. 2) Jesus never said, God is love in this passage from John.

Again you avoid your own bullshit faith when you revealed that you have no idea what God's standards are. Proving that you don't know the Gospel of John, the character of Jesus in the Gospels, or the living Christ.

-Lying denials
-False testimony
-Bullshit faith

You're in a dark place, Marshall. Your post head echoes only hate and lies for self-protection. God loves you, though. Try the path of love.

Save your soul.

Marshall Art said...

Aside from not taking up the challenge, which doesn't surprise me given that you're a coward as well as a false priest, you get right into lying...because you're a false priest and that's what you do. But let's dissect your spew:

"Amazing how your wooden mind can both produce but never hear the echoes bouncing around."

A sad excuse for a critique...sound deep (to you, certainly) but is merely a manifestation of the meaningless legend that exists only in your fevered imaginings. No doubt you continue to impress yourself and the frog in your pocket.

"Again you attempt to claim that satire was really seriousness."

Again you attempt to claim that your sad attempt to be deep was really only satire. Right. But if it's any comfort to you, I don't take anything you say seriously. It's all too stupid and leaves me embarrassed for you.

"You seem to think that looking stupid is preferable to looking the fool."

I'm not at all concerned with how things seem to someone who has as defective a perspective as you. I can only pray that one day you'll see the Light.

"Again, you read the gospel of John but falsely..."

Not so you've ever been able to demonstrate.

"... and in really bad faith-claimed that I was the one throwing around God is love"

Telling the truth is not acting in bad faith, false priest. You'd know that if you weren't so unfamiliar with truth. I never "claimed" it, I merely stated what anyone reading your comments above can plainly see. You're "intellectual superiority" apparently isn't so superior as to distinguish between teaching a concept such as "God is love", and using that phrase as a bludgeon, which is what I meant by "throwing it around". You don't understand the concept, but use it to falsely accuse me of acting contrary to it. But as the coward you are, or as one who speaks without thinking and thus cannot defend the charges you make, you make no effort to explain why you feel I need to be reminded that "God is love"...as if I'm unaware of what that actually means.

"Let me spell it out for you: 1) I didn't write the words..."

No. You typed them out. But I know what you mean, and you're an idiot for supposing that I thought you're the original author of that concept. Nice straw man, though. Idiot.

"2) Jesus never said, God is love in this passage from John."

Whew! Good thing I never said He did! Why you think you have to comment on something that never happened, I'll never know.

"Again you avoid your own bullshit faith..."

Again, you haven't proven there is anything "bullshit" about my faith. Don't keep me waiting for your enlightenment.

Marshall Art said...

"...when you revealed that you have no idea what God's standards are."

Are you referring to the following?

It's all based on His own standards for qualification, whatever those standards may be.

Really? Clearly I was referring to aborted babies. Can you provide the verse or passage that speaks to whether or not God welcomes aborted babies into heave? Can you provide any such that speaks in any way about the salvation of the aborted?

In the meantime, in this very thread I've mentioned "God's clearly revealed Will" at least one time. There is much that God has revealed to us that tells us what His standards are for those of us fortunate to have not been murdered by our mothers (you should read the Bible sometime to find out what those standards are). So I have a more than adequate notion regarding God's standards, but like all honest people out there, I don't pretend to know His mind perfectly. It's not possible. He's God, after all. (BTW---you might want to visit Dan's blog and tell him how you know perfectly what God is thinking. He loves that sort of stuff.)

"Proving that you don't know the Gospel of John, the character of Jesus in the Gospels, or the living Christ."

So you need to tell yourself. You're like a small child who insists he won the game after getting his head handed to him.

"-Lying denials
-False testimony
-Bullshit faith"


Prove it, coward.

"You're in a dark place, Marshall. Your post head echoes only hate and lies for self-protection."

So you desperately need to believe in order to feel good about yourself.

"God loves you, though. Try the path of love."

You clearly don't understand what "love" means in the Biblical sense, and thus wouldn't recognize that path if I rubbed your nose in it.

"Save your soul."

My Lord, Jesus Christ, already did. Praise His Holy Name.

Feodor said...

I see you're worked up again. How's your pressure?

Feodor said...

BTW, thanks for making the pro-woman's choice argument way up above among your arguments to Erik.

(... an instance where your unconscious and satire if your conscious sawdust mind agree on the truth: you do know better somewhere inside that try every day to cover over. You don't even know yourself, much less John, Jesus, Christ, and faith.)

Feodor said...

(Another aside [when you get worked up and write at length deep fissures open in your logic and your shallow tortured thinking is revealed.])

Marshall Art said...

"I see you're worked up again."

I can't help that you see what you want and need to see. Your inferiority and impotence must really nag at you. That's so sad.

"BTW, thanks for making the pro-woman's choice argument way up above among your arguments to Erik."

I can't help that you see what you want and need to see. I see that you again refuse to provide proof for your charge. Far easier to pretend I did what I did not do, I suppose. That's so sad.

"(Another aside [when you get worked up and write at length deep fissures open in your logic and your shallow tortured thinking is revealed.])"

I can't help that you see what you want and need to see. But you could prove you're not delusional by actually pointing out what you perceive as "deep fissures" in my logic. But you won't, will you? You're too much the coward for that.

I have to say that I find it fascinating that you regard any response from me as "getting worked up". No doubt were I to not respond at all, you'd regard that as having posted that to which I could not possibly respond. In short, it is as I said above, that like a whiny child, you'll claim victory when no legitimate claim is possible. That's so sad.

Will you ever have anything substantive to say? I'm just wondering here. All those books...all that education...so sad.

Feodor said...

I tell you what, let's just leave at this: congratulations on finally accepting your cluelesness on what Gid's standards are - that it is in fact loving one another - and so were spouting bullshit; and finally perceiving how reducing Jesus' words in the Gospel of John to "God is love" deceitfully twisted his words; and so also have to accept the fact that you didn't know the Gospel.

Knowing Christ, loving Christ, and so being saved we'll leave you to work out in your private life.

I'm sure you're not ready yet to perceive how you gave a pro-woman's choice argument waaay above. I'm just glad that you're hard heart can still see just enough light that hope remains.

Marshall Art said...

You're one sick bastard, feo. You continue to validate and confirm all I've said about you, including doing a victory dance when you've won absolutely nothing. Why are congratulating me for something I haven't done...and wouldn't since it isn't true. I'm well aware of what God's standards are to the extent they are revealed to us in Scripture. Once again, I'm quite certain I indicated that what is in Scripture doesn't cover the subject brought up by Erik.

I'm also aware that "loving one another" does not include lying, as you're doing once again by saying I've accept that I'm clueless about God's standards.

I also did not in any way reduce anything about Christ's words in the Gospel of John, and you couldn't possibly prove otherwise. But you continue to reduce God's standards to "loving one another", corrupting that concept by your current lies and your embrace of sexual immorality and the murder of the unborn.

Thus, I've long ago accepted the fact that as the false priest you are, you don't know the Gospel.

"I'm sure you're not ready yet to perceive how you gave a pro-woman's choice argument waaay above."

If I wasn't, I wouldn't have requested you provide proof of this incredibly preposterous accusation. Now you're just dodging because you're a coward and a fraud.

So nothing's changed. You confirm my analysis of your low character and make no effort to correct the conclusion your childish behavior and baseless accusations compel. I don't know how better to encourage you to open up and actually make your case, rather than satisfying yourself with reiterating the same drool over and over again. You must be trying to get me "worked up". All you do is make me sad for you. Do you even own a pair of big boy pants? Doesn't seem so. Deletions will be the result of further posting of the same old empty and substance free petulance.