THE BIGINING OF LIFE
Warnock
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:qbb8c1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> Does God abhor the death of zygotes?
>
> If yes, he's inconsistent. If not, *you're* inconsistent. :-)
>
> [1] Yes, God abhors the death of zygotes. Unfortunately, God
> also causes roughly half (and I do mean roughly; I've seen
> figures from 45% to as much as 80%) of fertilized eggs
> to fail to implant, either because of biological failure
> (it didn't divide?) or because it simply missed. The results
> are presumably left on a tampon or excreted into the public
> waste disposal system commonly known as the sewers.
>
> [2] No, God does not abhor the death of zygotes -- just the
> death of implanted babies done in by the hand of
> man. Trouble is, God seems to not be too active at
> preventing murders (both the ones hypothesized by the
> more zealous pro-life contingent, and real ones such as
> those which result in 100-200 pound corpses in a dark
> alley, lying in a pool of blood, stripped of valuables
> -- or, in one famous case that's still pending before
> the courts, come washing ashore, with umbilical cord).
***** Certain items are produced en masse, and there will always be
wastage - the vital link is that once they have mated and are ready to grow
into a foetus, they become special and are not to be tampered with!
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.abortion, Warnock
<warn...@pop.co.za>
wrote
on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:59:45 +0200
<bt9a43$7k8$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>:
And you wanted to enforce this precisely how?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Robert B. Winn
Jesus Christ will return the second time and all of the wicked will be
destroyed by fire. That is the way I would like to see it enforced.
Robert B. Winn
The Ghost In The Machine
<rbwi...@mybluelight.com>
wrote
on 4 Jan 2004 20:35:32 -0800
<7943568.04010...@posting.google.com>:
I'd prefer not to wait; the Second Coming has been
hypothesized/prophecied/hinted at for over 2 millennia now.
Surely you can give the police some tips in the interim on how to
stop abortions?
Robert B. Winn
Well, the number of abortions will increase as the thirst for innocent
blood increases among the people of the pro-abortion faction. Then
there will be wars and rumors of wars. Then great plagues and
destructions upon the face of the earth. I think that there should be
enough going on to occupy your time.
Robert B. Winn
Frank Dwyer
The abortion ratio for 1999 is the lowest reported since 1975.
So much for your wish that everyone not in agreement with you be
destroyed.
Me
rbwi...@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote:
>
> Jesus Christ will return the second time and all of the wicked will be
> destroyed by fire. That is the way I would like to see it enforced.
> Robert B. Winn
That same claim has been made by many others during the past two
millenia. You just keep waiting for your mythical leader to arise.
golddodgearies
> Jesus Christ will return the second time and all of the wicked will be
> destroyed by fire. That is the way I would like to see it enforced.
Then you must be against law enforcement officers, unless you're so
retarded that you don't mean what you say. Do you secretly relish the
thought of 'bad' people (not you, of course) 'burning', or have I read
too much into your words?
Roberto
Robert,
I'm a fellow Believer in Christ. I don't think that non Believer can
even begin to fathom who Christ is, if they have not experienced Him
in a personal way. To them, our Belief is a psychosis brought about by
deluded hope in mysticism.
However they haven't fully explored the facts - purpose of His
incarnation nor do they feel that He is historically significant or
currently relevant. What they see is hypocrisy which you will have to
admit runs rampant in the Church. We Believers have to help folks
understand the moral foundation for being a prolifer, and try to avoid
making flippant statements that are of no help.
Christ is the very definition of Love. Not once did he advocate humans
use violence against anyone who did not believe in Him. Remember, it
was the necessary violence done to him that helped redeem us. More
than judgement, Christ is about love.
Making statements like the one you made, though true and will be
fullfilled, does not help draw anyone of these pro choicers closer to
Him.
Roberto
PS: Sorry to chide you, but it's neccesary.
Roberto
> Subject spelling corrected.
>
> In talk.abortion, Warnock
> <warn...@pop.co.za>
> wrote
> on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:59:45 +0200
> <bt9a43$7k8$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> > message news:qbb8c1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> >
> >
> >> Does God abhor the death of zygotes?
> >>
> >> If yes, he's inconsistent. If not, *you're* inconsistent. :-)
> >> [1] Yes, God abhors the death of zygotes. Unfortunately, God
> >> also causes roughly half (and I do mean roughly; I've seen
> >> figures from 45% to as much as 80%) of fertilized eggs
> >> to fail to implant, either because of biological failure
> >> (it didn't divide?) or because it simply missed. The results
> >> are presumably left on a tampon or excreted into the public
> >> waste disposal system commonly known as the sewers.
That's an interesting arguement. Are you correct in your facts? I
think so. However, I doubt you've fully reasoned your arguement. He
does not abhor zygotes any more than He'd want to mess with human free
will. Does He allow humans to excercise our free will? Absolutely. Is
He in control of the biological processes that allow for zygote
implantation failure? Absolutely. Well, what do the two have to do
with each other?
It all boils down to choice.
Choosing to believe in a God that authored life for a purpose, or
choosing to believe that life is an accident. It's simple as black or
white or creation vs evolution. Your moral foundation is based on
this.
Regarding God, we believe that He created man and is soverign. He
allows man "Free Will" but gives guidelines for life and living. So
what's all this got to do with Zygotes? Well, there is a purpose to
life besides endless procreation. It's mainly to fellowship (hang out)
with Him as a Father. Fellowship requires a necessary element of free
will, otherwise we'd be robots.
He is soverign over His creation. Failed zygote implants are His
business. He makes the choice to allow it to fail, especially if there
is no human influence (crack head moms and the like).
The real question is do we then have a right to assert the same level
of sovergnty over our bodies? Well, no. Otherwise suicide and
masochism would be "normal" (although at the rate things are going ...
).
Relating to abortion, there is something fundamentally wrong with
human choices when:
1) MOST abortions are done as a matter of convenience, rather than as
a need to save the mother from an impending health risk. A MINORITY
are as a result of rape or incest (show me unbiased stats that speak
otherwise).
I have yet to see any evidence that the psycological harm to a woman
who chooses life, for unplanned pregnancy, is worse than the
psycological harm to a woman who has gone through the trauma of an
abortion.
2) A culture that encourages young women to choose consentual
premarital sex over abstinence. The physical pleasure is emphasized
over the the psycological damage (self view). Abstinence, as a rule,
could prevent unplanned pregnancy as well as abortion and the spread
of STD's like HIV and AIDS.
3) An industry profits from women that get knocked up accidentally.
Abortion rights advocates, like planned parenthood clinics stand to
profit ($400 - $700 per abortion). If they're so conserned, why not
offer it for free? Some doctors average a 1000 abortions a year. That
is in addition to what ever money garnered through their practice.
> >>
> >> [2] No, God does not abhor the death of zygotes -- just the
> >> death of implanted babies done in by the hand of
> >> man. Trouble is, God seems to not be too active at
> >> preventing murders (both the ones hypothesized by the
> >> more zealous pro-life contingent, and real ones such as
> >> those which result in 100-200 pound corpses in a dark
> >> alley, lying in a pool of blood, stripped of valuables
> >> -- or, in one famous case that's still pending before
> >> the courts, come washing ashore, with umbilical cord).
> >
Dude, there would be no corpses in dark alleys if these women used
good judgement and saved sex for marriage. In the case of incest or
rape, the Christians (I'm talking about true believers and not
Church-goers) have NEVER turned away from women in such crisis. I'm
not saying that the dark alley abortions are a myth, but that the
moral basis that causes unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is the root of
the problem.
Abstinence - no one can argue against it.
Roberto
Frank Dwyer
>
> Me <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<srhi-FDDC38.1...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > In article <7943568.04010...@posting.google.com>,
> > rbwi...@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jesus Christ will return the second time and all of the wicked will be
> > > destroyed by fire. That is the way I would like to see it enforced.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > That same claim has been made by many others during the past two
> > millenia. You just keep waiting for your mythical leader to arise.
>
> Robert,
>
> I'm a fellow Believer in Christ. I don't think that non Believer can
> even begin to fathom who Christ is, if they have not experienced Him
> in a personal way. To them, our Belief is a psychosis brought about by
> deluded hope in mysticism.
Thanks for telling everyone who doesn't believe in your god what they
think.
> However they haven't fully explored the facts - purpose of His
> incarnation nor do they feel that He is historically significant or
> currently relevant. What they see is hypocrisy which you will have to
> admit runs rampant in the Church. We Believers have to help folks
> understand the moral foundation for being a prolifer, and try to avoid
> making flippant statements that are of no help.
>
> Christ is the very definition of Love. Not once did he advocate humans
> use violence against anyone who did not believe in Him. Remember, it
> was the necessary violence done to him that helped redeem us. More
> than judgement, Christ is about love.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law."
Feel the love.
Robert B. Winn
Those statistics refer to the United States, whose dainty people are
finding new ways to avoid pregnancy. Where abortion is increasing is
in poorer countries.
Robert B. Winn
Roberto
Roberto
I'm not surprised you picked that verse (Mathew 10:21 and on). It is
often quoted out of context. It is no secret that Jesus was considered
a trouble maker during his time. He made bold and sweeping statements
against the religious establishment. The verse above refers to the
divisions that have taken place, separating the Jews from the Jews
that converted to Christianity, as a result of His teachings. To
Believe in Christ is to believe that He represents Truth, which
inherently implies that all else is false. This naturally split
families up to the point that where conservative Jewish family members
would persecuted their own converted family members. Most of this is
historically documented and actually happens in families today. Think
about it, if your dad or sibling came home and told you that he/she is
now a Born Again Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't be too excited.
Wouldn't that create "variance"?
Roberto
Lawrence E. McKnight
wrote:
Why don't you learn something about the history of Christianity, and
then come back and take another run at that. There weren't ANY
Christians until Paul got into the act.
>
>Roberto
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Roberto
I'm sorry, but what do you mean? During Christ's ministry on earth
(very much prior to Paul entry into the picture) there were many who
believed. First, there were His deciples. In fact Paul oversaw the
killing of Stephen, who was stoned to death for his belief in Christ
(Acts 6,7,8). Please clarify your statement.
Lawrence E. McKnight
wrote:
Well, if you would stick your nose back in your bible, you might find
out that Acts descirbes the period AFTER the death of Jesus.
Roberto
Well, I did what you said and I still think that the 12 deciples (okay
11 sans Judas) were Christians and they were alive and following him
during his ministry. Before you lead me off topic, I want to point
that I responding to your quote of the Bible. You quoted it out of
context and it does not mean what you think it means. Thats all.
Christ is about love. He is not the hate monger many think Him to be.
Lawrence E. McKnight
wrote:
Looks like your definition of 'Christian' doesn't have a whole hell of
a lot to do with the beliefs of Christians.
Looks like you are unable to follow a thread. I didn't quote the
bible.
Frank Dwyer
Since you're so sure of that, I'm sure you'll have no problem whatsoever
supplying supporting documentation.
I wait with bated breath.
Frank Dwyer
A trouble-maker is not "the very definition of love"
> He made bold and sweeping statements against the religious establishment.
As I said, feel the love.
> The verse above refers to the
> divisions that have taken place, separating the Jews from the Jews
> that converted to Christianity, as a result of His teachings. To
> Believe in Christ is to believe that He represents Truth, which
> inherently implies that all else is false.
The book and his followers certainly imply it. Feel the love.
> This naturally split
> families up to the point that where conservative Jewish family members
> would persecuted their own converted family members. Most of this is
> historically documented and actually happens in families today. Think
> about it, if your dad or sibling came home and told you that he/she is
> now a Born Again Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't be too excited.
Actually, I wouldn't care one iota. People are free to believe whatever
they need to believe in order to make them feel all warm and fuzzy
inside. I only care when people feel compelled to express their beliefs
to others in and unconscious effort to reaffirm their beliefs.
> Wouldn't that create "variance"?
If he creates variance, then he can not be considered the "very
definition of love"
Let's look at it from another angle: If her were the very definition of
love, then that implies that he is incapable of evil... that he must
always act in accordance with what love would do.
Is your god incapable of evil? Is he enslaved by love? Is "love" his
god?
Frank Dwyer
Yet he claims that those who do not worship him will suffer eternally...
feel the love.
Robert B. Winn
Go ahead and wait. So you claim that medical science is not trying to
increase the practice of abortion worldwide?
Robert B. winn
Roberto
Is that, or is it that your definition of "Christian" is wrong? You
have based your definition of Christianity on an amalgam of many bits
of misinformation given to you through out the course of your life.
You sound surprised that I don't talk like a fundamentalist. I'm not
about justifying legalism; rather about sharing Truth.
Many people have misused the name of God or Christ to further their
own selfish needs. This is a sad truth about every religion, not just
Christianity (an example, the WTC 9-11-01 "muslim martyrs"). The
perversion of the name of God is rampant and makes life for us
Christians difficult, but not impossible to overcome. Anyone willing
to seek out Truth will find it. 100% of the time. Like it or not, your
view of Christianity is based on your observation of these hypocrytes.
I don't blame you for being mislead, it happens because secularism and
aethism is promoted as "scientific" and "rational" by most public and
private school systems, especially during formative years. It is a
powerful influence because the "majority" is lead to believe that this
is true, when in fact it's false.
> Looks like you are unable to follow a thread. I didn't quote the
> bible.
>
I appologize for my poor threading skills. But that does not take away
from the fact that the quote was from the Bible. My arguement still
stands.
Roberto
Really? Nelson Mandela was considered a trouble maker. So was Mahatma
Ghandi and Martin Luther (the old) and Martin Luther King, Jr. I guess
they did not love thier people.
>
> > He made bold and sweeping statements against the religious establishment.
>
> As I said, feel the love.
>
Yup, I'm feeling it. I'm free as a minority in the US. Thank goodness
for Martin Luther King, Jr.
> > The verse above refers to the
> > divisions that have taken place, separating the Jews from the Jews
> > that converted to Christianity, as a result of His teachings. To
> > Believe in Christ is to believe that He represents Truth, which
> > inherently implies that all else is false.
>
> The book and his followers certainly imply it. Feel the love.
>
Yup, the same kind of love that was between the the north and the
south during the war that hinged on the issue of slavery. I think the
issue tore families apart during that war, in very much the same way
it did 2000 years ago.
> > This naturally split
> > families up to the point that where conservative Jewish family members
> > would persecuted their own converted family members. Most of this is
> > historically documented and actually happens in families today. Think
> > about it, if your dad or sibling came home and told you that he/she is
> > now a Born Again Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't be too excited.
>
> Actually, I wouldn't care one iota. People are free to believe whatever
> they need to believe in order to make them feel all warm and fuzzy
> inside. I only care when people feel compelled to express their beliefs
> to others in and unconscious effort to reaffirm their beliefs.
>
What you are saying implies that "truth is in the eye of the
beholder". I guess then that you are saying that Adolf Hitler was
justified in feeling warm and fuzzy in the glow of burning Jews. Or
Charles Manson when he was sodomising cadavers then eating them.
I think it's okay to feel compelled to express my beliefs to others
when I see something blatantly wrong. If people didn't do this, you
wouldn't have figures like George Washington, Martin Luther King,
Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela. People that went against attrocities.
You, by virtue of responding to my posting are also guilty of "feeling
compelled to express your beliefs to others in and unconscious effort
to reaffirm their beliefs" True or false?
> > Wouldn't that create "variance"?
>
> If he creates variance, then he can not be considered the "very
> definition of love"
>
See arguements above relating to freedom fighters. Every single one of
them caused some variance or the other. Did they not act out of love?
> Let's look at it from another angle: If her were the very definition of
> love, then that implies that he is incapable of evil... that he must
> always act in accordance with what love would do.
> Is your god incapable of evil? Is he enslaved by love? Is "love" his
> god?
Absolutely. He allows evil, because unfortunately, evil is essentially
disobedience. Disobedience is a necessary element of free will,
otherwise we'd be robots. That's the beauty of it. You have choice.
Choice to obey or disobey.
He is not enslaved by love, because he IS love. And He is God.
Krisblake
james g. keegan jr.
news:8i8a005rc9o43jenr...@4ax.com:
> Medical science is working on ways to make pregnancy totally
> voluntary. RU486 and the morning after pill are only a start.
the christian right does not want pregnancy to be totally voluntary. as an
example, consider teh rcc's position on birth control.
Roberto
God's Truth, which is absolute.
Robert B. Winn
Isaiah 7:4 And say to him, Take heed and be quiet; fear not, neither
be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the
fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and the son of Remaliah.
Robert B. winn
Bob
news:859bedfd.04011...@posting.google.com:
Why don't you just be honest with yourself and everyone else and admit that
all of your god bs is based purely on "faith" and nothing more? If you
have solid evidence of your god's existance, show it. If not, blow it.
Krisblake
wrote:
Whose God? And by whose perception?
Frank Dwyer
So now you've changed it from "the very definition of love" to "loved
THEIR people". A rather convenient, albeit transparent, alteration.
>
> > > He made bold and sweeping statements against the religious establishment.
> >
> > As I said, feel the love.
> >
>
> Yup, I'm feeling it. I'm free as a minority in the US. Thank goodness
> for Martin Luther King, Jr.
MLK, Jr did a lot of good things for the people he represented. But he
was not "the very definition of love".
> > > The verse above refers to the
> > > divisions that have taken place, separating the Jews from the Jews
> > > that converted to Christianity, as a result of His teachings. To
> > > Believe in Christ is to believe that He represents Truth, which
> > > inherently implies that all else is false.
> >
> > The book and his followers certainly imply it. Feel the love.
> >
>
> Yup, the same kind of love that was between the the north and the
> south during the war that hinged on the issue of slavery. I think the
> issue tore families apart during that war, in very much the same way
> it did 2000 years ago.
So it's the same kind of love that resulted in war that pitted brother
against brother? That's "the very definition of love" to you?
> > > This naturally split
> > > families up to the point that where conservative Jewish family members
> > > would persecuted their own converted family members. Most of this is
> > > historically documented and actually happens in families today. Think
> > > about it, if your dad or sibling came home and told you that he/she is
> > > now a Born Again Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't be too excited.
> >
> > Actually, I wouldn't care one iota. People are free to believe whatever
> > they need to believe in order to make them feel all warm and fuzzy
> > inside. I only care when people feel compelled to express their beliefs
> > to others in and unconscious effort to reaffirm their beliefs.
> >
>
> What you are saying implies that "truth is in the eye of the
> beholder".
Who said anything abut truth? I said "believe".
> I guess then that you are saying that Adolf Hitler was
> justified in feeling warm and fuzzy in the glow of burning Jews.
Who said anything about justification? I said "believe".
> Or Charles Manson when he was sodomising cadavers then eating them.
Who said anything about justification? I said "believe".
> I think it's okay to feel compelled to express my beliefs to others
> when I see...
When you "believe"
> ...something blatantly wrong. If people didn't do this, you
> wouldn't have figures like George Washington, Martin Luther King,
> Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela. People that went against attrocities.
As well as those who committed them
> You, by virtue of responding to my posting are also guilty of "feeling
> compelled to express your beliefs to others in and unconscious effort
> to reaffirm their beliefs" True or false?
Absolutely false.
> > > Wouldn't that create "variance"?
> >
> > If he creates variance, then he can not be considered the "very
> > definition of love"
> >
>
> See arguements above relating to freedom fighters. Every single one of
> them caused some variance or the other. Did they not act out of love?
No, they act out of hate. They don't fight freedom because they love a
people, they fight freedom because they believe they are oppressed, and
they hate it.
> > Let's look at it from another angle: If her were the very definition of
> > love, then that implies that he is incapable of evil... that he must
> > always act in accordance with what love would do.
> > Is your god incapable of evil? Is he enslaved by love? Is "love" his
> > god?
>
> Absolutely. He allows evil,
Not only does the book say he allows it, he claims he CREATED it.
> because unfortunately, evil is essentially
> disobedience. Disobedience is a necessary element of free will,
> otherwise we'd be robots. That's the beauty of it. You have choice.
> Choice to obey or disobey.
>
> He is not enslaved by love, because he IS love. And He is God.
According to the actions described in his book, he is not love. His
so-called love extends only to those who lick his feet. All the others,
who exercise "free will" only because he empowers them to do so, are
condemned to eternal pain.
Any god worth a grain of sand, who "requires" people to worship him,
would have no problem providing absolute proof of its existance. If a
god says "worship me or die" and then refuses to offer the people any
evidence whatsoever that he even exists, is nothing more than a
game-playing fool. Such a god would not only be unworthy of worship, it
would be unworthy of any respect.
Ghandi loved more people than god. Mandela loved more people than god.
MLK, Jr loved more people than god. According to his book, god doesn't
"love" very many people at all. He is a far far cry from "the very
definition of love"
Frank Dwyer
Does your god repent?
Warnock
<proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:5oia009ba5laftkb9...@4ax.com...
> >> Medical science is working on ways to make pregnancy totally
> >> voluntary. RU486 and the morning after pill are only a start.
> >
> >
> >the christian right does not want pregnancy to be totally voluntary. as
an
> >example, consider teh rcc's position on birth control.
>
> No, I will not consider the rcc's position on anything since almost
> everything the do I find repugnant.
>
> Pregnancy will become voluntary no matter who does not want it to
> happen. There is simply too much money waiting for whoever is
> successful for this not to occur.
***** Please tell me about all this money!