A poll conducted for ultra-pro abortion group NARAL has found that more registered voters believe abortion is immoral and should be illegal than is morally acceptable. These results still obtained even after 68.7% of the sample group self-identified as pro-choice.
I think this is indicative of a population that is moving away from supporting abortion. While the country is split who identifies as pro-life and pro-choice, people still don’t believe access to abortion should be unfettered. By nearly 2.5 to 1, Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
This makes sense because according to the same skewed NARAL poll, in addition to the 24.7% of respondents who think abortion is immoral, another 45.5% also believe it’s morally wrong but are hesitant to “impose” that onto others. That’s 70.2% of voters who believe abortion is immoral.
I have a three step approach for those who personally oppose abortion but don’t want to prohibit mothers from making that “choice”. Step 1: I ask why they personally oppose abortion. The answer I receive virtually every time is that they believe abortion kills a baby. Medically and biologically speaking, this is completely accurate. At conception a new living human being begins to exist. Step two: repeat their position back to them: ‘you believe abortion kills a baby, and you think mothers should have a right to legally kill their babies if they choose to’. Step 3: let it sink in.
Sifting Reality 
If more time and energy were invested in sex education with particular emphasis on effective contraception this would not even be an issue.
Outlaw it and all that will happen is the creation of a burgeoning underground abortion industry with a lot more deaths.
This is an issue that has raged since the first women fell pregnant and it won’t stop raging until common sense takes its place.
“If more time and energy were invested in sex education with particular emphasis on effective contraception this would not even be an issue.”
Nonsense. It has been argued that much of the increase in abortion since Roe v Wade was a result of the idiotic notion that sex ed “with particular emphasis on effective contraception” would reduce pregnancies. It hasn’t. If by “effective” you mean abstaining from sexual intercourse OR vasectomies and/or tubal litigation, then you’re merely running down the same path, for aside from those three options, there exists no “effective” contraceptive. That is to say, none that anyone would insist is guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. It is true that some, who wish to have their cake and eat it as well, will insist that an embryo that doesn’t attach constitutes a non-pregnancy. But those who insist that science is everything wouldn’t make that idiotic suggestion. The existence of an embryo IS a pregnancy.
“Outlaw it and all that will happen is the creation of a burgeoning underground abortion industry with a lot more deaths.”
Would that be more than the 60 million or more deaths from being aborted by one’s mother and her “doctor”?
“This is an issue that has raged since the first women fell pregnant and it won’t stop raging until common sense takes its place.”
“Common sense” would dictate that when a man and woman wish to engage in recreational fornication, the likelihood of pregnancy is quite high given the fact that intercourse is the means by which procreation is generated. “Common sense” would then dictate that if one does not desire to deal with a pregnancy, then engaging in sexual intercourse is counter productive to that desire. Those that worship at the altar of science understand this basic truth, and their ability to act morally without some “fictitious” god telling them what to do would naturally and logically act accordingly.
Nonsense. It has been argued that much…..
Argued , yes. Proven . Not that I am aware of.
I am not interested in arguing the morals but rather face the realities.
As people will always have sex one has to look for a realistic solution.
Until science has developed some method of allowing humans to turn on and turn off their reproductive system at will, an effective ( long lasting) contraceptive, is the logical solution. There is one that can be surgically implanted and is effective for around 12 month, I believe.
Making this available across the board free or at minimal charge would help tremendously.
Would you agree to this at least?
To re-criminalize abortion will simply drive the industry underground once more and make all parties involved accessories to the fact.
Why don’t you try to offer a positive answer instead of having a rant and simply behaving like a dick?
So, you’re saying that personal accountability and self-discipline are not positive answers? Are you saying the the human species is incapable of controlling their own desires and appetites?
“Until science has developed some method of allowing humans to turn on and turn off their reproductive system at will, an effective ( long lasting) contraceptive, is the logical solution.”
This is nonsensical as we already possess a method of turning on and off our actions. Your position pretends the reproductive system is some sort of biological failure that interferes with a person’s desire to attain sexual self-gratification. The fact is the reproductive system is not the issue. The issue is the desire to pleasure one’s self being paramount above the normal consequences the actions taken to pleasure one’s self will bring.
Your name calling won’t change the fact that pregnancy is not an accident, not some wacky side-effect of the act designed to bring about pregnancy. Outlawing abortion as the murder it is in over 95% of the cases, had not led to any outrageous amounts of dead mothers, like the pro-aborts insist was the case. It reflected the more righteous fact that sexual intercourse is appropriate only for those married couples who could raise the children their actions produced. It reflected the fact that what was being aborted was a human being. I’m not concerned with women and doctors who run afoul of new laws putting abortion in its proper place. I’m concerned with the millions of babies put to death so that their parents could get their jollies without consequence..
Atheist morality, indeed!
Actually, as abortion clinics go out of business due to tighter state regulations requiring them to be clean and that the doctors actually be in good standing with local hospitals, the number of abortions go down. So effectively outlawing them does result in fewer. Conversely, there has yet to be any reports of an increase in “back alley abortions” as promised by the left.
There weren’t that many to begin with. The numbers of women who died as a result of “back alley abortions” was far overblown in order to legitimize the practice.
So, you’re saying that personal accountability and self-discipline are not positive answers? Are you saying the the human species is incapable of controlling their own desires and appetites?
No, I am saying that celibacy is not always the answer and un-planned conception occurs within marriage as well as outside. This has got little to do with lust. Although maybe it has everything to with it as far as you are concerned, Marshall?
“Until science has developed some method of allowing humans to turn on and turn off their reproductive system at will, an effective ( long lasting) contraceptive, is the logical solution.”
This is nonsensical as we already possess a method of turning on and off our actions. Your position pretends the reproductive system is some sort of biological failure that interferes with a person’s desire to attain sexual self-gratification. The fact is the reproductive system is not the issue. The issue is the desire to pleasure one’s self being paramount above the normal consequences the actions taken to pleasure one’s self will bring.
Nope. Not nonsensical at all. I consider the reproductive system a marvel of organic engineering. And like any piece of engineering it can be tuned to perform at a higher optimum level. Thus as we develop as a species it may well be possible in the future to have a reproductive system that comes on line only when we wish to reproduce.
Until then , we have t accept the fact that people will have sex. And lots of it.
So therefore, it is far better to develop something that will a” make it safe and b) remove any chance of conception without necessarily involving a surgical procedure.
Your name calling won’t change the fact that pregnancy is not an accident, not some wacky side-effect of the act designed to bring about pregnancy. Outlawing abortion as the murder it is in over 95% of the cases, had not led to any outrageous amounts of dead mothers, like the pro-aborts insist was the case. It reflected the more righteous fact that sexual intercourse is appropriate only for those married couples who could raise the children their actions produced. It reflected the fact that what was being aborted was a human being. I’m not concerned with women and doctors who run afoul of new laws putting abortion in its proper place. I’m concerned with the millions of babies put to death so that their parents could get their jollies without consequence.
I already said up front I am not in any way inclined to discuss this from a morality issue – one that you as a Christian would lose hands down, by the way – but from a simple human perspective. That is deal with the situation that’s in front of us in the best way possible.
Declaring abortion murder would drive the States, for example, back to the dark ages if you ever get a President to even consider such a move.
The US of Eh? already has one of the highest per capital prison populations in the Western World , imagine if it were suddenly forced to accept thousands of women convicted of murder for abortion? And not only them, but in many cases their partners and doctors.
I asked you to offer a practical solution or at least a suggestion that would engender a win win situation but no, you decided to continue like a dick and prefer to rant.
“No, I am saying that celibacy is not always the answer and un-planned conception occurs within marriage as well as outside.”
When is celibacy not the answer? There is no such thing as “unplanned” conception since engaging in the very act designed to conceive suggests something amiss with the intelligence and/or self-discipline of the participants who wish to use the term. As for that which happens within a marriage, that is why marriage is preferable to remaining single. Paul, in his letters, speaks of how not everyone is as committed to living for God in the manner he chose to the extent that not everyone is as committed as he was to refrain from sexual activity. For such people, he said, it was better to marry. The practical side of this for secularists is that it provides the proper context in which a child resulting from an “unplanned conception” would find care.
“I consider the reproductive system a marvel of organic engineering. And like any piece of engineering it can be tuned to perform at a higher optimum level. Thus as we develop as a species it may well be possible in the future to have a reproductive system that comes on line only when we wish to reproduce.”
Your fantasies aside, the fact remains that we are not at such an “evolved” point of human existence, if there is any possibility of achieving the pinnacle of wishful thinking. What we have now is people believing sex is everything, including being above the lives of the children produced by that activity. You wish to ignore the clear science you worship.
“Until then, we have t accept the fact that people will have sex. And lots of it.”
Not an uncommon position for a leftist to take, that we should accept that people will act badly and act to accommodate and enable bad behavior, rather than encourage good behavior. This is the secular morality that is somehow superior to the practical and logical teachings of Scripture.
“I already said up front I am not in any way inclined to discuss this from a morality issue – one that you as a Christian would lose hands down, by the way – but from a simple human perspective. That is deal with the situation that’s in front of us in the best way possible.”
Your “deal with the situation” is to accommodate and enable the bad behavior that results in choosing to put to death innocent human beings. And then you would prefer not to address the moral implications of the situation, as if that is truly possible. That’s because you would lose hands down, by the way.
“Declaring abortion murder would drive the States, for example, back to the dark ages…”
This assumes that the period prior to Roe v Wade was “the dark ages”. The fact is that some states at that time had pro-abortion policies in their laws, and some didn’t. That’s the way our nation was supposed to work. But putting that aside, I do not “declare” that abortion is murder. That’s the appropriate term for the unjustified killing of another human being. It the killing of a person who is “in the way”. We don’t allow that for people fortunate enough to make it through the gestation period. The sorry people among our kind pretend the unborn aren’t people.
“The US of Eh? already has one of the highest per capital prison populations in the Western World , imagine if it were suddenly forced to accept thousands of women convicted of murder for abortion?”
If people break the laws at a high rate, we will continue to suffer that indignity. It shows we care about the rule of law and notions of right and wrong that we imprison those who don’t.
You don’t want a “practical” solution. You want a “solution” that enables the spineless to continue acting irresponsibly. You want a “solution” that allows you to pork with abandon. I want our species to transcend their baser selves to become what people like you only think you want.
Yes, and once again you have not even attempted to offer a solution but rather continue to rant.
Nope, not at all, and you can presume all you like.
Ah, and now you are blessed with second sight and able to know my politics simply from a few comments regarding abortion? You must be a genius! Is this second sight, god given, I wonder?
But prior to Roe v Wade it was merely considered illegal, the extra charge of murder was not part of this. But this is what you wish to see included in the law.
Nope, it merely shows the unwillingness to try t find a long term solution to this particular issue.
‘I’ have no desire whatsoever to ‘Pork’ with abandon, thank you very much and all you have demonstrated with this post is that you are nothing but a fucking idiot.
Why is it that the political left seeks to find ways to make the consequences of morally questionable behaviors less impactful, rather than suggesting to people that they behave more morally in the first place? Why is controlling oneself simply not even an option?
Another one who considers a person must be on ”the political left” simply because their views on abortion do not consider with theirs. Interesting.
More god-given insight, I wonder?
You are suggesting that sexual intercourse is for the sole purpose of reproduction; a ridiculous proposition as if this were the case we would be no different than animals in this respect.
.
The condemnation of contraception by the Catholic Church can in many cases be directly attributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa.
Reproduction is a by product of sex and although the primary function it is not the only function.
Are you perhaps suggesting that there should be a ban on contraception as well? Even in marriage?
Well, are you?
And I reiterate, as people will always have sex ( in and out f a relationship) and not just to have children, then working towards a truly effective method of contraception will ensure a win-win situation in the long run,
I don’t think sex is only for reproduction, but it is the only activity that results in it. Sex out of wedlock produces single mothers and abortions. Now, you seem to argue that it’s acceptable that people don’t have, or shouldn’t need self control when it comes to their sexual desires. Almost as though people are just expected to give in to their every desire.
My view, and Marshal’s, is that we don’t just submit ourselves to our base instincts and exercise a little self control. Either that, or not seek to kill the product of our indulgence through abortion and take the responsibility to care for the human being we created doing the only activity that makes new human beings.
Obviously not familiar with in vitro fertilization then, are you? But I get your point.
Sex in wedlock produces abortions.
Nope. You are, once again, making erroneous assumptions. You and Marshal might consider yourselves animals in this regard, I don’t and I am pretty sure most people don’t feel this way either.
There is no reason sex should be solely confined to married couples providing due care is exercised.
I don’t submit to my ”base” instincts either. Otherwise I might be having sex in the local Mall up against the Cornflakes shelf in isle 3 or on the bonnet of my car in the parking lot on a Saturday morning.
Either that, or not seek to kill the product of our indulgence through abortion and take the responsibility to care for the human being we created doing the only activity that makes new human beings.
I have already stated on several occasions now that people are always going to have sex. Rather than criminalize abortion, and make murderers out of those involved work towards a society that IS more responsible, where contraception is not deemed heinous ( as by many in the Catholic Church for instance) so that the problem is not even part of the equation of sex.
And you have not answered my question regarding contraception within marriage?
Are you suggesting it too should be banned and regarded in the same light as abortion?
Please answer the question, John.
Your excusing it all by saying “people are just going to have sex…” is suggesting that people don’t have or shouldn’t have self control.
But I don’t see anything wrong with contraception so long as it doesn’t end the life of a living human being, which is exactly what a fertilized egg is according to science. So long as contraceptive methods don’t do that, they’re fine as far as I’m concerned, after a fashion.
However, sex outside a marriage is irresponsible, immoral, and, according to my worldview, sinful.
I think all elective abortion should be illegal, meaning only to save the life of the mother is an acceptable excuse to abort.
“Yes, and once again you have not even attempted to offer a solution…”
Abstinence/self-control IS a solution, and what’s more, it’s the best one. You don’t like it because to you it means not having sex whenever you want. To people of character, it means having it when it is appropriate rather than at the slightest whim.
“Ah, and now you are blessed with second sight and able to know my politics simply from a few comments regarding abortion?”
Not at all. Your pathological worship of science and hatred of the notion that a deity exists are other indications. But in these few comments of your regarding abortion, you demonstrate a cowering at the suggestion that one restrains one’s self from indulging in sexual activity. Unheard of considering “people are gonna do it anyway”. But this isn’t so. Again, how many abortions per year took place before Roe v Wade? When our culture began to really view sex as morally benign, we saw more people indulge at younger ages. Contraception options are not normally employed anyway, except for those that result in chemical abortion (“the Pill”). So much of your pro-contraception comments suggest a decided leftist bent as regards how to deal with a social issue. As John has agreed, you favor enabling the bad behavior and we prefer encouraging virtue and higher character.
Your problem is in thinking that since we have so many cooler toys that we have progressed as a species. Nothing has changed in the human condition since the dawn of time except that those newer, better toys and “science” has convinced the left we have progressed. We, as a species, are still the same scumbags we’ve always been, except that too many of YOUR kind have also redefined what it means to be a scumbag. Not long ago, we acted like scumbags without pretending we weren’t scumbags while acting that way. Now, YOUR kind, with your “advanced” secular notions of morality have dictated that we CAN act like scumbags and call it mature adult behavior that is only natural and therefore OK.
You pretend to seek solutions, but you are only dealing with symptoms, not the cause, which is our fallen nature. Ironically, your “people are gonna do it anyway” suggests a more conservative acknowledgement of human frailty. But your “solutions” are totally leftist in terms of what to do about it. Nothing will change except to move further down toward perdition with your “solutions”. If that is intellectual advancement in rejecting the morality of God, I want no part of it. It hasn’t done us any good so far, and done much harm.
As to ranting, it is more a scold as your position is rather childish. I part with my fellow Christian conservatives in saying that reproduction IS the purpose of sexual intercourse (and sex in general). It is NOT a “by product” of sex. That’s completely stupid, but typical leftist thinking. PLEASURE, or more precisely, sexual self-gratification, is the by-product of the sex act. The pleasure exists to ensure that we actually engage in the reproductive act and thereby not die out as a species. It is not the “wonderful gift from God” that too many wish to regard it. Nowhere in Scripture are we encouraged to get jiggy, but instead, as I mentioned, Paul regards marriage as the proper context so as not to burn with passion. Sex for pleasure is tolerated.
Who said I didn’t like it?
And who are these people that are ‘having it’ at inappropriate times? Many married women have abortions too. Are you suggesting that there are now appropriate times when they must indulge in sex?
How about in the commercial breaks during a football game? Or, while the kettle is boiling?
Even with contraception, conception can and does occur which is why I say strive toward an effective form of contraception.
I worship nothing and hate nothing. And you have yet to establish any deity exists, so how could I hate -anything I believe is non-existent?
How silly!
Nope. Restraint is perfectly acceptable. For this reason I don’t indulge in sex in the supermarket or in the post office or newsagent or while waiting in traffic for the lights to change.
We’ll you may be, I don’t know. I do know that I am not and neither are any of the people I associate with, who, you might be surprised to know are a mixed lot that includes a fair number of religious folk.
As I demonstrated to John, the Catholic Church considers he is immoral with regards his views on contraception. If you share John’s views regarding the use of contraceptives then you too are immoral.
Perhaps you should take up,the morals issue with them first? As they were the ones who invented the religion of Christianity in the first place.
The rest of your comment is just silly and doesn’t deserve a response.
Not many married, some.
And yes there are appropriate and inappropriate times to have sex. Appropriate: any time you’re when you’re ready, willing, and able to have children. Inappropriate: any other time.
LOL.. sex only for procreation, is that right?
so this what you are saying?
“Who said I didn’t like it?”
Your dismissal of abstinence as a solution suggests as much. But it is the most effective form of contraception. As to appropriate times to have sex, half-time is not what I was suggesting and I’m pretty sure you know that. At least you attempt to posture yourself as that intelligent that you should have. “Appropriate” refers, of course, to both the context in which it takes place (normal marriage), and when the couple understands and is willing to take responsibility should a pregnancy occur. And by that I mean to care for and raise the child. THAT is the time when sex is “appropriate”.
“I worship nothing and hate nothing.”
Your denial doesn’t impress in the least. Your words otherwise say differently. Your references to what science has or hasn’t determined with regards to the existence of a deity or the truth of Scripture clearly indicate you believe science is as infallible as any deity. You do not question the validity of their findings, but instead assume they are correct with religious fervor.
Your form of condescension toward people of faith, their beliefs and your quick dismissal of everything put forth to support their beliefs is no less than hateful for its smug and snarky conviction without argument. If that isn’t enough, you certainly hate the concept of a deity and that people actually believe in the existence of any, pretending such belief is the root of all evil and an indication of backwardness.
” For this reason I don’t indulge in sex in the supermarket or in the post office or newsagent or while waiting in traffic for the lights to change.”
Again, this is a most childish response, as well as insulting to our position in assuming we’re referring to something like public indecency. Try to be a bit more honest and mature.
“We’ll you may be, I don’t know. I do know that I am not and neither are any of the people I associate with, who, you might be surprised to know are a mixed lot that includes a fair number of religious folk.”
Not the type of response I would expect from someone who postures himself as intellectually advanced, that you would pretend I wasn’t referring to the human species in general terms. Try to be a bit more honest and mature.
“As I demonstrated to John, the Catholic Church considers he is immoral with regards his views on contraception.”
You demonstrated your understanding of Church policy. I’m not so sure they regard contraception as “immoral” as they do indeed favor a form of it known as “the rhythm method”. It allows for sex for pleasure without interfering with God’s will regarding procreation. The Church regards it as His job to determine who is born and when and artificial forms of contraception interfere with that. Thus, if a couple is successful in determining the optimum time for intercourse that would prevent conception, they have indeed engaged in sex for pleasure alone, as well as naturally played a role in determining whether or not a person is born without doing anything immoral, if your understanding is correct, which I doubt.
“The rest of your comment is just silly and doesn’t deserve a response.”
How hypocritical in light of recent outrage at questions regarded as “stupid”.
I am not excusing it at all. I am accepting the reality that criminalizing abortion will not prevent abortion. It might ( and I use this term with due caution) see an overall reduction simply because figures will not be easily available) but it won’t stop abortion. All it will do is create another criminal subset.
You think this will lead to a more just and understanding society? Think for one moment that one of these women you would put behind bars might turn out to be a female relation of yours.
How would you feel knowing that you or Marshal were directly responsible for a law that sent this female relation to prison?
And unless you have no female relations please don’t be churlish i in your reply and say it would never happen, okay?
Fine. Now, before you start on the morality of it all, just you and Marshall take up the issue of contraception with the Catholic Church, as they have a different perspective on this and from their point of view you are immoral. Are we clear? Good!
A point of view, certainly, but not one ordinary people consider valid.
Again, making it illegal will only create a criminal subset and not solve the dilemma It never has in the past, so why on earth would think it would if made illegal once more?
See my comments regarding one of YOUR female relations.
It doesn’t matter if people go to jail for it. If it’s illegal, then people go to jail. Why not decriminalize larceny because someone I know might go to jail?
The point is, we already recognize that killing human beings in the womb is wrong, that’s why virtually every state has fetal homicide laws. Why should a mother be the only one who gets away with it? Elective abortion kills a living human being without proper justification . It should be illegal. People who do that should be punished whoever they are. Their being someone dear to me doesn’t make the act less wrong and due punishment.
It doesn’t matter if people go to jail for it. If it’s illegal, then people go to jail. Why not decriminalize larceny because someone I know might go to jail?
Fair enough. I can see you have really thought this through. I would love to be there when;
a) you presented your budget speech for the appropriation of funds to build all the extra prisons you need and
b) the look on your face should one of your female relations/friends/colleagues end up behind bars.
The law currently states abortion is legal within certain parameters.
Criminalizing it will not solve the problem. Are you being obtuse on purpose or unable to read?
And you have made no reply regarding the Catholic Church’s stance that YOU are immoral for using/okaying contraception.
Please respond to this charge that you are immoral, John.
But there wouldn’t be a need for more prisons for some explosion of abortion criminals. The large majority of people would be more careful sexually. You could suggest they wouldnt, but when faced with the knowledge that if they get pregnant that they’d have to be parents, they’d choose prior to sex, to be more careful.
Pure speculation. You have no data to back this up, and based on the figures bandied about there most certainly WOULD be a dire need for mare prison facilities.
And the immorality charge, regarding your belief in the use of contraception, please, John?
Don’t side step this issue.
You are considered highly immoral by the largest Christian organisation in the world and for many many years would be considered a criminal in some countries for obtaining and using contraception.
How do you respond to this charge?
It’s not speculation. As regulation tightens in states that are limiting liberal access to elective abortion, the numbers of abortion are going down. People just aren’t having abortion at the same rates as the clinics shut the doors. Prior to R v. W people just weren’t having them either. The threat of illegal coat hanger abortions in the face of limited access NEVER materialized.
Despite what you think, the vast majority of people don’t do things when they know they can go to jail for a long time for it.
As for the Catholic Church, I don’t give them any authority over me. Just like you don’t give me any over you. I think they’re mistaken. Now you can continue on and try to make that point, that I don’t get to decide what is immoral for others if you want. But I’m not claiming it is MY moral view that should be controlling others. I simply agree with the view that intentionally killing human beings without proper justification is immoral. The fact that you don’t agree doesn’t impact me personally, but it sheds light on what you’re willing to value more: human life or sexual liberty.
Figures please, otherwise it IS speculation.
And you can also include why access is being tightened.
They are not asking for your permission.
As far as their doctrine and interpretation of what constitutes life etc, you are immoral, simple as that.
They have denied millions contraception and would do to all if they had their way.
And they are adamant that you are.
I am not making that point. They are.
And you are all christian.
Yes you are, whether you like it or not.
This is why there are laws that have decided (currently) when life begins. And this is why the Catholic church holds that contraception is immoral as it destroys/prevents potential life.
No this is not the case,as you do not get to decide what is considered human life. According to the Catholic Church you are technically a potential baby killer, one of the reasons they consider masturbation a heinous sin.
So, if you believe the Catholic Church has no right to dictate anything regarding the issue of contraception and morality to you, then everyone else has the same right regarding your point of view regarding abortion.
And it is precisely because there is no agreement on this issue that people such as yourself are not in the position to pass such laws.
So therefore, the obvious way forward is to strive for a scenario where abortion is no longer a part of the sexual equation and children are born only when the parties involved decide they want to be parents.
And this involves education and more effective universal contraception not criminalization.
I’m not deciding when life begins, science already did that. From the moment of conception a new unique human begins to exist. Check with any embryologist on that.
What states have done is determine that whether a baby is wanted or not is what decides whether killing it in the womb is legal or illegal ala fetal homicide laws.
For reiteration, I didn’t invent the view that intentionally killing human beings for matters of convenience is immoral, I adopted the view because of its obvious truth.
Yes, they did, and this is why abortion with the current parameters is legal.
What states have done is determine that whether a baby is wanted or not is what decides whether killing it in the womb is legal or illegal ala fetal homicide laws.
This statement makes no sense and in fact contradicts itself.
Nobody undergoes an abortion if they wish to have a child.
Perhaps your phrasing/terminology could be better?
The definition of what constitutes a human being is what is the issue.
This is why the Catholic Church proscribe against contraception.
And this is why there is no agreement o this issue as I have stated form the outset and no matter how you wish to present your case criminalizing abortion is NOT going to solve the problem.
Abstinence is one way, but it is not effective enough.
So, perhaps you would like to apply serious thought as to how this very emotional issue can be tackled to embrace all parties concerned rather than alienating them?
Are you able to do that, John?
Actually the Catholic Church’s issue with contraception is that one shouldn’t intervene with preventing pregnancy. It has nothing to do with when they think life begins.
Second, no, states haven’t tailored abortion laws based on when life actually begins according to biological sciences. They’ve tailored the or abortion laws based on what won’t cost them large swaths of votes, and judges have taken to creative interpretation of laws. So let’s not pretend legislators have legislated according to science.
Preventing pregnancy, thus preventing life.
You are still immoral in their eyes.
Yet another emotional unsubstantiated comment. And once more, you avoid the question regarding an answer that will embrace rather than alienate.
Are you willing to address this issue, John?
Preventing life and ending an already existing life are two different thjngs.
Nothing you quoted is emotive at all.
Once again the impasse regarding what constitutes a human being.
You are still immoral in their eyes and no less so than someone who has an abortion.
You misunderstand. I am not referring to my comment, but yours regarding state interpretation of the abortion laws.
Please supply evidence of your claims in that particular comment.
And I am still waiting for an intelligent win win solution to this issue, John.
Surely this is not beyond you?
There is no win win solution so long as people so selfish as to place their sexual freedom over the lives of their babies.
If you truly believe this it shows a naivety/ or in stubborn intransigence in your ability to envisage that science – as it usually does – will eventually come up with a win-win solution. That you are determined not to acknowledge this is suggestive of an ulterior motive on your part, one that is possibly motivated by our religious beliefs, one that believes his brand of morality should be stamped on society.
Well, John, for it’s worth, holding on to this point of view will ensure you get your ass handed to you every time.
“Abstinence is one way, but it is not effective enough.”
I could be wrong, but it would seem that abstinence should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% effective both at preventing pregnancy as well as STD’s. How much more effective could it be? Is there some other method of birth control that is 100% effective?
Sorry, just a little surprised by the statement.
This post is about abortion so abstinence within a committed relationship is daft, unless one is proposing that one should only have sex for the purpose of having children.
Only an idiot would suggest such a thing.
1. Your comment doesn’t actually address my point.
2. The post is actually about a poll conducted by a pro abortion group which shows that despite the efforts to skew the poll, people still find abortion objectionable.
3. As you’ve pointed out elsewhere, in theory, methods of birth control should lower the need for abortion. So it is completely reasonable to evaluate the effectiveness of the various methods of birth control to determine what the effect on abortions might be.
4. I am not suggesting that anyone force people do do anything merely pointing out that your statement about the effectiveness of abstinence is incorrect.
Of course you are! You wish to make abortion illegal thus you are attempting to force you will; your interpretation of morality onto others.
My statement about abstinence is perfectly valid in context.
If noone had sex then, excepting cases of in vitro fertilization, there would be pregnancies and no abortions.
But abstinence is a ridiculous suggestion to propose within the framework of a committed relationship as sex is not solely for the purpose of producing children.
If this were the case then I am sure your ‘god’ would have made damn sure we simply came on heat like the animals.
Not a single thing you have proposed has not been ‘preached’ before. And nothing you have suggested has proved effective in curtailing abortion either.
Only an idiot keeps banging his head against a wall
and as people will continue to have sex – abortions or otherwise – perhaps it would be more sensible if you stopped whining and made a commitment to find a method of contraception that was more effective?
You keep missing it ark. No one is saying that abstinence should be practiced in marriage. What is being said is if you’re not prepared for a child, understand that abstaining is 100% effective. Further understand that other forms of birth control aren’t 100%, and you could end up pregnamt. The solution then is no to kill the human being that was created.
You keep missing it, John. Abstinence or no abstinence,
contraception or no contraception, conception will occur.
The solution is not to criminalize abortion but to work toward developing a truly effective form of contraception.
…because developing a truly virtuous moral character is out of the question.
I already stated up front that I had no desire to make this a moral issue.
If you wander down this path believe me, as a Christian, you will get your arse handed to you on a plate.
So let’s rather leave morality alone, shall we, and simply stick with the realities as they present themselves?
If you can’t come up with anything more effective than abstinence or jailing those who undergo abortion you are never, ever going to make a case that will win the day, and you might as well accept this right now.
Look for something better, John.
How is killing living human beings NOT a moral discussion in ANY context?
Handing my arse to me? Maybe in your own mind.
1) You have not established when a fetus is a human being.
2) If you don’t believe your arse is not already on a plate re this issue then I strongly suggest you take some time and re-read the Old Testament, that is if you have actually read it in the first place.
And the more you continue with this ridiculous approach the more you are just widdling in the wind.
The law is not going to be revoked so get used to it and best start looking for a way to help rather than continue woth this tantrum.
Do you have any children, by the way?
At conception: https://siftingreality.com/2011/10/16/get-a-life-part-1/
Not everyone subscribes to this. That is why the law allows abortion.
I have already stated this.
So you dismiss the science? I know of zero credentialed scientists in the field of human embryology who do not affirm that a unique living human being begins to exist at conception. Zero.
Abortion is not legal because of science, it’s legal because of activism, both political and judicial.
Appeal to authority, and a bad one. The question of when life begins is philosophical, which is why science continues to fail to answer it.
Actually, the question is medical/biological.
I notice you also keep the premise that people must have sex. Or that you seem to have taken adoption completely off the table. Listen, it’s not your way or the highway. You’re not correct by default no matter how many of your friends pat you on the back.
Where did I say that people must have sex?
Now you are making things up, John, and are simply grabbing at straws.
I don’t recall it ever being on the table, and it bears no relevance in any case.
If you are suggesting celibacy, then this is a lifestyle choice and is not the same as abstinence as a method of preventing pregnancy.
I never said it was. But criminalizing abortion and jailing those involved is not the way to go.
I never once said I was right by default. but this is what you have tried to push and included such rubbish as suggesting I am ”Leftist” and ”immoral.”
You are the one who believes they are right by default simply because you consider morality is bestowed by your god.
And there is noone on this thread patting me on the back, John.
Really, you are whining like a spoiled child.
Ark,
A couple of problems with your response.
1. You are presuming that I wish to make abortion illegal, without having any actual evidence to support your presumption. I have not actually voiced an opinion on the legality of abortion. I would appreciate it if you would not leap to conclusions about what I wish to do.
2. Your statement about the practicality of practicing abstinence, is completely unrelated to the effectiveness of abstinence. My point stands, abstinence is the only 100% affective method of preventing both pregnancy and disease. I understand why you would like to change the subject from the effectiveness of various methods of birth control to the practicality of said methods. Unfortunately you have the same issue, no method of birth control is effective unless it is practiced. If we take your presumption, then it would be unrealistic to expect people to use any form of birth control since it’s just not always practical. Unless you are suggesting some sort of mandated birth control implants, which sounds like what you accuse me of.
3. I haven’t proposed anything, so of course”… nothing I’ve proposed…”. That’s what happen when you argue against what you want people to have said rather than what they actually have said.
4. I’m a little surprised that you believe that science will come up with a method of contraception that is more than 100% effective. Good luck with that. Especially while keeping it practical and not mandated.
5. To remove both the procreation of human life as well as the taking of human life from the realm of moral discussion seems a bit out of step with society. It is, of course, easier to simply claim victory without actually having won a victory.
6. Just to clarify. Are you suggesting that you find abortion to be an acceptable form of birth control?
Yes Ark, it’s important to keep your responses ditected. I am the one who thinks elective abortion should be illegal and mothers who abort, and any other person assisting in that should be prosecuted. Not everyone holds that view.
@Craig
You are correct. I did not look at the name on the avatar and thought I was replying to Marshalart.
I apologise in this regard.
Of course abstinence is currently the only 100% effective method of birth control. This is like saying the only way to avoid crashing a car is not to drive. It is a tautology.
I have previously stated that education should become part of the culture of birth control, in the same way that wearing a seat belt is now part and parcel of driving.
Making contraception mandatory is as bad as jailing those who undergo abortion.
Birth control implants are probably one of the most effective means of contraception at the moment.
Are you now trying to argue semantics, Craig?
Nothing can be more than 100% effective, Craig. Unless you subscribe to different science than the rest of the world?
If you wish to discuss the morality of this issue, be my guest. But perhaps you ought to re-read the Old Testament first, okay? If you need pointers, let me know.
<blockquote. 6. Just to clarify. Are you suggesting that you find abortion to be an acceptable form of birth control?
No, I have never suggested this and do not subscribe to this point of view.
Ark,
You were the one who suggested that science would invent a better form of birth control, I just pointed out the obvious that there is no possibility of a more effective form of birth control than the 100% effectiveness of abstinence.
No, I’m not arguing semantics, I have not actually done anything in this thread other than advance the point that every single person has access to a 100% effective means of birth control and disease prevention, which costs nothing. If people choose less effective means, then they should be prepared for the consequences.
Thanks for clarifying your opinion on abortion as birth control.
Craig
What I think he means is telling people not to have sex doesn’t make them not have sex. He’s right about that. But even telling people to use contraception won’t make everyone use it. You have to actually use it, and likewise you have to actually abstain.
His view, which is the same as the political left, is that since everyone is gonna do it anyway, let’s keep abortion as an option so people can still keep their sexual consequenceless freedom. Or more succinctly, sexual liberty is more important than human life.
@John
The only people ‘telling’ on this thread are those of a religious bent.
The whole idea of effective contraception is to ensure that any children brought into this world are because the pregnancy was planned.
It is to try to prevent abortion.
Pregnancy occurs within committed relationships as well.
That you cannot seem to get this through your thick skull and continue to rant that anyone who disagrees with this position is part of some sort of Leftist Conspiracy to undermine your definition of mortality simply underscores that you have an agenda, probably based upon a religious foundation.
That you would jail even married women and their husbands is indicative of just how much of
dimwit you are.
What about any other children within that marriage?
Who would be responsible for their welfare? You?
Please, do me a favour.
That you also continue to assert there is no win-win situation possible once again demonstrates your lack of intelligence. and I strongly suspect, an ingrained intransigence that demands you must be right and get your own way irrespective.
You need to grow up and behave with a little more maturity, understanding and compassion for ALL concerned..
I don’t know if you have a wife or kids, but if you do, then I shake my head. And if you don’t, then please, maintain that status-quo
Right. Suggesting that mothers who kill their babies be punished for killing them makes me the dimwit.
I had been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you’re not as witty and bright as you think. You’ve got a lot of maturing to do.
LOl…and you think you would win ANY respect for jailing parents who underwent an abortion?
Really, John this is the single most ridiculous approach I have ever encountered.
Any such move, or even such a proposal put before the state legislature would have you laughed out the room all the way to nearest neurologist’s practice.
Come up with an intelligent solution and stop behaving like an absolute jerk.
If your aim is to improve the morality of the general populace then its about time people like truly start to act with this in mind rather than simply meter out punishment.
Casting the mote out and all that, right?
And remember what I pointed out about what the Catholic Church consider a heinous sin, John?
So, no more masturbation for you, my old son
If you want to do something positive then offer to help in any way you can to further the development of a truly effective form of contraception.
You never know, if you are a clever fella there might be a Nobel Prize in it for you?
In the meantime, if you can’t control your animal urges, for your god’s sake, keep it in your pants, okay?
John,
I agree that I think that what was meant, the problem is that what was actually said was at best poorly thought out. I know that many on the pro abortion side of things want to perpetuate this view that people just shouldn’t be expected to control their urges to rut, and that therefore the consequences should be minimized. We have a 100% effective method of birth control that is free and available to everyone, yet to even suggest it’s use gets you labeled an idiot. It’s an interesting situation.
At least Ark isn’t going down the infanticide road as are some on his side of the issue, so I guess that’s something.
“LOL.. sex only for procreation, is that right?”
This is the science worshiper saying this. Sex IS for procreation. We, as imperfect and selfish creatures prefer to engage in it for recreation. But the purpose is procreation. What’s more, this condescending question was in response to a legitimate and mature position regarding when sex is appropriate and responsible.
Every time you comment you confirm what has been suspected right from the word go: that you are a fucking idiot.
Marshall…
But the purpose is procreation.
The SOLE purpose? Says who? Who gets to designate what is and isn’t the purpose of various bodily functions and options? On whose authority?
But never mind not answering those questions. I’m not really interested in your opinions – which sound warped and pretty unhealthy, (but to each his own, I say) – on what people should be doing in their own bedrooms, according to Marshall.
How about just finishing answering the questions from the last post that you assured everyone you were going to answer?
Thanks,
~Dan
I’ve little doubt that you could randomly select any of a number of biology textbooks and find that what Monty Python refers to as “naughty bits”, are labeled as “reproductive organs”. This clearly indicates to the objective observer that the purpose of putting together the “naughty bits” of a male and female is procreation. But then, that’s assuming biologists have the necessary authority, in Dan’s reckoning, to dare designate what is and isn’t the purpose of various bodily functions. It would take either an atheist or an anabaptist to question such facts.
“I’m not really interested in your opinions – which sound warped and pretty unhealthy, (but to each his own, I say) – on what people should be doing in their own bedrooms, according to Marshall.”
Interesting how you constantly suggest something you oppose is “according to Marshall”. Interesting also that you find something in my “opinions” to be “warped and pretty unhealthy” without any indication as to how. Still more interesting is how you would suggest that my stating facts implies that I would dictate to others what they do anytime, much less in their bedrooms.
“How about just finishing answering the questions from the last post that you assured everyone you were going to answer?”
I have, years ago, repented of the notion that I have any right to demand when and how one responds to my questions as if my questions should take precedence over their private lives, that a blog discussion is more important than one’s decision to prefer watching TV or shooting the breeze with neighbors or any diversion of any kind at the pleasure of the person questioned. Just seemed the gracious and Christian attitude to take. To each his own, I say.
@Marshalart
So couples should wait until the game is over or is Football in general a no-no and we should rather have sex during the Grand Prix or Athletics instead?
I quite like the idea of having sex watching the rowing. All that stroking with the oars and what not. Good for rhythm.
Tell, me, do you have children, Marshall? Do you even have sex …. with another person?
Re: Humans are scum:
In general terms? No, in general terms humans aren’t too bad. People like you might certainly come under close scrutiny when the term ‘scum’ is bandied about, though.
Really? The Rhythm Method. Good heavens! I thought this meant having sex while listening to Chuck Berry records. Damn, old Chuck has loads of rhythm.
So that rules out masturbation, I guess, right? Oh, btw, which ‘god’ are you talking about now, please?
So your god is in the damn room while I’m having sex? What a pervert!
Ah … and there was I trying to score kudos. Shucks! Caught out. Wouldn’t you know it, a smart Christian. Who would have thought? Dammit!
No, actually. I believe science is fallible, but it usually corrects itself as it goes along. This is why they didn’t send men to the moon in cardboard rockets in 1865.
I have not seen any evidence of a deity so cannot comment one way or another as to the fallibility or otherwise. Do YOU have evidence, Marshall? If so, please, please do tell.
Nope. Always question. This is what brings about progress. It is the religious who seem to sit in a dark room with a bucket over their heads crying ‘’Goddidit!’’
Nope. Don’t hate anything. Hate is a useless emotion, and it often goes hand in hand with many religious folk, sadly.
You mean I should wait ‘til I park the car in the garage, then, right?
Or how about on the table after dinner?
Please advise.
Yours Sincerely.
Debauched and Depraved.
So, Ark. You move from accusing me of being a fucking idiot to demonstrating that you actually are one. I appreciate the confirmation. You’re a peach.
Lol… lowering the standard to your level was, I felt, the only decent thing to do.
You seem to be struggling with big words and com- pl- i-ca- ted explanations.
Best you return to bible study , Marshal. See what your god has to say, hmm?
What a silly person you truly are.
“How about just finishing answering the questions from the last post that you assured everyone you were going to answer?”
Heh.
Bubba, I have and maintain the offer to trade answers on a one for one basis, IF you feel like your questions have not been answered sufficiently. What I’m taking off the table are endless answers from me with one way conversation from you, especially when the questions you all continue to completely dodge, ignore or demonize are critical holes in your arguments.
Heh, indeed.
~Dan
Surely, Dan, you’re referring to the question I posed by my very first blog posting wherein I cited an explanation for why some Levitical laws still apply for Christians today and others don’t. Your response? “I don’t buy it.” No explanation for why you didn’t buy it, no explanation for what was wrong with the position of the men cited despite my request for such clarification. Just, “I don’t buy it.” Since then, I reserved a posting expressly for you to explain your fantastical journey from alleged conservative Christian to your current “my opinion” God-would-bless-a-homosexual-marriage heresy. Many questions there went unanswered and remain so to this day. Now you’re running with this new “one for one basis” line. Not a practical solution at all. I favor the more logical, traditional and more clarifying “ask me any and as many as you think you need to ask” option. Say the word, and I’ll reserve another post for that very purpose, with a topic of your choosing, and I’ll demonstrate what unfettered, unambiguous and unequivocal answers look like. But I’ll respond as time and opportunity allows, as I have always allowed of you, you graceless hypocrite.
Just saw this and thought it relevant to the discussion, particularly as regards abstinence education for reducing abortion and unwanted pregnancy. While I didn’t read every link, the overall message of the article points to a salient fact regarding how the general tone and direction of the culture results in predictable consequences. Here, abstinence is shown as the win-win type of solution Ark insists he favors. It specifically mentions the “they’re going to do it anyway” attitude and that the truth is that cultural influence does have an effect.
Sure, some people will always act badly, irresponsibly or selfishly. But criminalizing or culturally stigmatizing certain behaviors is a form of “peer pressure” that has always guided the moral direction of the general population. That’s why the numbers of abortions shot up after Roe v Wade when they weren’t so common previously. The article supports the notion that Comprehensive Sex Education (can anything with “Comprehensive” in the title ever be good? doesn’t seem so) resulted in MORE sexual activity, the Surgeon General’s encouragement of it and the use of various forms of contraception did NOT lead to fewer pregnancies and reduced cases of STDs.
Dan, “endless answers from [Dan] with one way conversation from [Bubba]” has never been on the table in the first place.
I’ve been far more willing to give clear and thorough answers to your questions than you have been regarding mine, but you’re welcome to show me precisely where I’ve behaved in a manner as rude as you have been in the last thread, where — FOR AT LEAST THE SECOND TIME — you’ve avoided answering my prior questions by insisting that your later questions had higher priority as a test of my being worthy of being treated your equal. The first time around, I did thoroughly address your questions regarding a supposedly awful comment from Mark — a comment I didn’t see and couldn’t have seen, since it had already been deleted — and you STILL didn’t keep up your side of the bargain.
You’ve written that you don’t want to answer my questions “again” and you’ve accused me of stating a falsehood by insisting that you actually haven’t answered more than a dozen specific questions of mine, but you’re welcome to show me where you’ve answered them.
Alternatively, you could just start answering my questions, the 12+ from more than 2 months ago, or start addressing any of the 5 points from the lengthy argument I quoted from John Stott more than 4 years ago: feel free to point out any PRIOR questions that you think I haven’t adequately addressed, and I’ll be happy to give them my best shot.
Or you could just be honest in your avoiding that supposed two-way conversation you would so like to have. It would be bad enough if you just stubbornly but honestly exercised your prerogative to refuse to answer questions, but it could be endured. What is intolerable is the routine of how poor widdle put-upon Dan really wants a dialogue between equals: it’s a transparent lie built on hypocrisy and an attempted character assassination against your critics.
Re: that deleted comment of Mark’s. It occurred at my blog and I regret having deleted it considering how Dan used its absence to score more rhetorical points. As I found Mark’s comments needlessly graphic, it was simply a hypothetical no more offensive in tone than a typical hypothetical by Dan, such as that favored question regarding God asking us to rape babies.
Again, I’ll trade questions one for one. To be fair and consistent. You all clearly feel that I have not answered enough of your questions and I clearly feel that you have entirely ignored all the critical questions I have asked over the years. The only just way to move forward, given this, is to proceed on a one-for-one basis.
Take it or leave it. But by leaving it, you are demonstrating that you are not the one acting in good faith, I’ve done what I can to meet you half way.
~Dan
Once again, I’m not confident the “one for one” proposal will be honestly employed with integrity. Supposing that it could be, I am also certain it would only more easily allow for tangents and straying from the original topic. It also relies on Dan actually conforming to whatever standards of “rational” questioning he imposes upon us. I favor letting one side get questions answered to that sides satisfaction or inability to counter, and for as long as it might take. That is, I find that a far better way of fully understanding each side’s positions than “one for one” could possibly provide.
Either way, I’m not so arrogant as to insist on a “take it or leave” proposition, as if no other option proposed has merit.
Dan, you write, “I clearly feel that you have entirely ignored all the critical questions I have asked over the years.” I’ll direct you back to the very end of the No True Scotsman discussion here on John’s blog, an exchange between us from less than two weeks ago.
You had groused about my not answering your questions, I pointed out where I had, you asked what question I thought I was answering, and I walked you through the exchange.
You then apologized for your lapse in memory.
“Ah, THAT question. So many questions had been asked and ignored since then. Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it and apologize for having forgotten having asked it (or, actually, for failing to recognize that was the question you were answering). I’m sorry about that. My old memory does fail me some time, please be patient.”
There actually WEREN’T that many questions “asked and ignored” in the THREE DAYS AND SIX HOURS between your raising that question and your apologizing for not realizing I had answered it, but let that little smear slide.
If your old memory is so frigging poor that you can’t keep up with an active conversation going back just 76 hours, perhaps you shouldn’t trust your feelings about how I have “entirely ignored” your every crucial question, and you shouldn’t expect others to accept your questionable recollections about what you’ve already answered when you do not link to those answers.
You want to trade questions “one for one”? Fine with me, and if you want to avoid derailing any of John’s threads further, feel free to start a thread at your blog, tell me that you’ve done so, and provide your reassurance that my comments will not be deleted or altered in any way.
I just insist that questions be answered in the order in which they were asked, an entirely fair expectation for a dialogue between equals, where there is no requirement that one prove his worthiness to the other.
After that comment at Marshall’s enumerating those 15 questions that you never answered and often completely ignored, I raised a couple other questions that you never even acknowledged, after which you decided it was time to check out.
I’m returning to that thread to focus on one of those last few questions, quoted from the original comment with the only alteration being spelling correction for the words “amputate” and “anesthetic.”
—
Suppose that a child got a very serious cut on his arm, and the cut became infected with gangrene, a lethal infection if it goes untreated.
Suppose furthermore that antibiotic and anesthetic are unavailable, perhaps because the situation predates modern medicine or the family is marooned on an uninhabited island, Swiss Family Robinson style.
Suppose that, if the father doesn’t amputate the arm even without anesthetic, his child dies.
And suppose the child is too young to understand what death means but not too young to understand that getting his arm cut off is going to hurt. A LOT.
Finally, suppose that the father is a good father who has given his child every reason in the world to believe that he always has the kid’s best interests at heart, even enduring great hardship for his sake.
QUESTION 1: What is the father’s moral duty, to amputate without anesthetic, to let the child die, or to let this very young child decide whether he wants to live without an arm even if he doesn’t really understand the fatal alternative?
—
I asked this question on June 12th, at 4:19 PM, after those other 15 questions and LONG after posting that lengthy excerpt of Stott’s commentary on Matthew 5-7. If you can link to an even earlier question of yours that I overlooked and which you would like me to answer, feel free to do so.
Otherwise, it’s been 2 1/2 months. I would appreciate your answering this question, Dan.
Question posted and directly answered at my site, along with my question for you. I hope you’ll honor the question with a direct and clear answer. It should be easy, since it’s a simple real world fact that your subjective opinion is a subjective opinion, but we’ll see if you come through.
~Dan
Asked and answered, Dan, along with a follow-up to my first question.
It’s tautologically true that my subjective opinions are subjective opinions, but I believe you greatly misunderstand the distinction between objective and subjective. Even so, I point out that you don’t treat my positions on the moral law like truly subjective claims, like what pizza toppings are best (sausage, mushrooms, and spinach).
No, you argue about God’s law as if it were an objective thing over which rational argument is possible.
No, you misunderstand, Bubba. IF there is a God (as you and I believe) and IF God holds opinions about items 1, 2, 3 and 4, THEN those are objectively God’s opinions.
But we’re not talking about God’s opinions, we’re talking about YOUR opinions about God’s opinions. YOUR opinions about God’s opinions are literally unprovable and NOT objective.
See the difference?
YOUR opinions about God’s opinions ARE subjective, like what pizza toppings do you think are best. They are NOT, by definition, objective, or “apparent to all observers…”
But that’s at my blog, I’ll deal with it there.
~Dan
If my positions really were subjective, “like what pizza toppings do you think are best,” you wouldn’t be arguing about them, no more than I argue with people who like pineapple or (blech) black olives on their pizza.
Either that, or you’re just argumentative for its own sake, a quarrelsome spirit who fancies himself a peacemaker.
You write, “we’re not talking about God’s opinions, we’re talking about YOUR opinions about God’s opinions”
Why aren’t we talking about God’s “opinions”? We could easily discuss the opinions of dead men like Plato and Socrates, or Burke and Payne, or Lincoln and Douglass, or Hayek and Keynes, by reading their writings or transcripts of their speeches; why can’t we discuss the opinion of God, who revealed Himself in the written revelation of Scripture?
You insist denying the notion that God mumbles, so surely we must be able to know what He has said and draw at least SOME conclusions.
Really? Could you indicate which revelation in particular has the ‘Hand of God’ in it, Bubba?
For starters, this:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise [this part surely had Arkenaten in mind], they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”
Then there’s this:
“In the pride of his face the wicked [Arkenaten again] does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
And of course, this:
“The fool [guess who] says in his heart, “There is no God.”
The Hand of God if obviously on each of these. They speak so clearly about people like Ark, implying the very arrogance and self-delusional self-assurance of one who only pretends to know anything about topics like this, while providing no reason for reasonable people to believe it is so.
No, this is merely what someone wrote. No different to what an author such as JK Rowling might write about Harry Potter.
As you love the bible so much perhaps you should take to heart 1 Corinthians 13:11?
Now stop being a twit, go read and make a decision to grow up a little …please!
Wow, Arkie! You picked a verse that really speaks to you, doesn’t it? Your entire position is childish, but more so is your petulant refusal to support your opinion, your grade-school derision of people of faith and God they worship. It all demonstrates that you talk, think and reason like a child. Well done. Grab a cookie.
I HAVE supported my point of view – based on expert scientific testimony. ( that you point-blank refuse to investigate)
All you have ever done is respond with superstitious clap trap.
I want to see your evidence , Marshall. Not faith. Not silly apologetic rationalizations based on biblical interpretation. But EVIDENCE.
Have you got any? If so, let’s see it, and THEN we can have a proper, grown up conversation.
Ark, you’ve supported nothing. You certainly asserted much and threw out a few names, but not much support.
No one here is going to do your research. You’re not the teacher and thus don’t get to assign us homework. YOU make the case, and WE will address it.
That’s your problem here. It’s not ok to throw out some claims then tell us to look it up.
I do not need to make the case. It has already been made and agreed upon by the experts – just like evolution. What is it you cannot seem to comprehend?
All you are looking for is a fight or a pointless argument.
What is there left to say?
As far as I am concerned, you have no evidence for the biblical claims you propose . NONE.
If you have, make them and I will will refute them with the backing of expert evidence/testimony.
“I HAVE supported my point of view – based on expert scientific testimony.”
Not once. Ever. Saying, “Moses? Fiction!” is not supporting a thing. Dropping a name of some alleged expert is not supporting a thing.
“All you have ever done is respond with superstitious clap trap.”
I’ve offered nothing thus far because you haven’t offered anything yourself but your constant reiteration that you don’t believe anything regarding religion, the existence of God or anything from Scripture. The thing is, we get that. And quite well by now. What we don’t get, because you don’t give it, is why? You say, “There’s not one shred of evidence” which is crap and you know it. Otherwise, your “experts” could not refute what doesn’t exist. Isn’t that one of YOUR lines? You speak of experts proving something, but never provide what that proof is. Surely if it is so certain, it should be easily at hand for you to produce this game breaker.
And as John has said. You do indeed need to make the case. And now, it is just to prove you’re not the fake you appear to be.
Ah, so referencing Finkelstein, Herzog, and Devers, to name three of the most well-known and respected archaeologists in this field is simply names dropping?
While I am aware of most of the secular arguments surrounding the fiction of the Pentateuch, for anything I write to have validity you actually require me to not only quote their work, but then go on to put my own spin on it – as an amateur biblical scholar who knows fark-all about archaeology – and do a better job of making a case than these fine gentleman?
You want to read my interpretation as an amateur?
Isn’t this what all you Christians do? Isn’t this why there are over 32,000 separate Christian cults?
You have declined any of my offers to supply links, you have obviously not even bothered to look on a site such as Wiki ( I recognise, it is often suspect but a good place to start).
Sorry, I won’t dance to that tune.
If you are all just so bone head stubborn – or shit scared more likely – to acknowledge that every recognised biblical archaeologist, scholar, and non-fundamentalist Christian acknowledges that the Exodus etc is nothing but fiction then you might as well go and sit in the corner with a bucket over your heads and sing La La tunes all day.
As the first claimant – you has to step up to the plate and defend your claim.
The archaeologists have done their part (and are still doing it), as have the scientists and genuine biblical scholars. It is no concern of mine if some piss-willy whining fundamentalists want to sit in the corner and sulk because noone wants to listen to them.
People have been forced to listen to them for over 2000 years, often at the cost of their lives.
In many places of the world it is STILL costing lives.
If you had a shred of integrity you would stop your chuffing whining and step up to the plate and show the world the evidence for your claims. The Grand Commission of your god, the character Jesus of Nazareth’s explicitly said you had to take the word to the world – the character said nothing about idiots taking it, nor did he say anything about taking a sword along either.
You have cried ‘’Goddidtit’’ for long enough and this god has been found wanting.
The case has been made, you berk!
You and your ilk simply don’t have the intellectual capacity to recognise the fact.
Case closed…
“Ah, so referencing Finkelstein, Herzog, and Devers, to name three of the most well-known and respected archaeologists in this field is simply names dropping?”
That’s exactly what name-dropping is. It is done to impress or leave a notion of some implication that is expected to be taken with more than a grain of salt. And yes, we do require that you quote their work, and you only need start with one salient point that you think provides us with incontrovertible proof for any “falsehood” from Scripture you think exists. I doubt you can do it. I totally doubt you could possibly do no more than show what they haven’t been able to find (which is not proof that Scripture fails), rather than something that contradicts a significant claim of Scripture. Thus far, I’ve never seen anything from such people that you would call “expert” that has done any more. But you seem to confuse that with proof that Scripture is false. So let’s see it.
“Isn’t this what all you Christians do? Isn’t this why there are over 32,000 separate Christian cults?”
Perhaps Dan does. But no, that does not explain the number of denominations as much as does things like church polity and traditions. The core essentials of the Christian faith are shared by most of the various denominations. The various denominations only shows that each is able to worship in their own way. Not that this helps your cause, but too bad for that.
“You have declined any of my offers to supply links…”
You’re either a liar or just not very bright. I can go either way with my wager here. Links are fine if they are used in support of a specific argument, but not as a replacement for making an argument. In that way we can be sure you even understand what your link is saying, which I would also wager against.
“Sorry, I won’t dance to that tune.”
That’s funny in a pathetic way. I’ve not seen any direct citation from you for anything. When you demanded one from me, I gave you a quote from Tacitus, to which you responded with another dropped name, as if that meant anything. From that point, you do not get to demand anything and then pretend it is YOU who is forced to dance to nasty tune. What an inveterate hypocrite!
“As the first claimant – you has to step up to the plate and defend your claim.”
As the only one between us who done so (Tacitus), it’s been your turn for quite some time now.
“The archaeologists have done their part (and are still doing it), as have the scientists and genuine biblical scholars.”
I say the same for my side of the issue. You simply pretend they are not credible because they conflict with your desperate hope that no deity exist. Like the homosexual who cites any crappy study that concludes in his favor, you bite on any anti-deity report that floats out the sewer pipe.
“If you had a shred of integrity you would stop your chuffing whining and step up to the plate and show the world the evidence for your claims.”
Where do you get this “whining” nonsense from? It amazes me, in an annoying kind of way, how you lefties constantly believe we get so emotional, while being emotional in insisting as much. Is that like a requirement for your side?
“You have cried ‘’Goddidtit’’ for long enough and this god has been found wanting.
The case has been made, you berk!”
Still with the name calling, huh Arkie? You’re a real class act. Your opinion of “this god” is what is found wanting, because it is based on your rebellion and supported by anything you think is valid simply because you like the conclusion. When you find the spine to actually make an argument, rather than simply rely on assertion, we’ll know for sure just how “wanting” our position is. You’ll have to pretend I’m holding my breath in anticipation, for you’ve given no justification for doing so.
“Case closed…”
You’ve never looked inside the case, sad pathetic fellow.
There is no evidence for the Egyptian Captivity, the Exodus, Moses, the sojourn in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.
Archaeologists have recognised this for a number of generations and as far as the genuine academic world is concerned this is a closed book. It never happened.
Period.
Salient enough point for you, hot shot?
I’m guessing the “absence of archeological evidence” as a reason to Chuck the whole system doesn’t apply to the same lack of fossil evidence to show the alleged gradual evolution. The record shows an immediate appearance of a full structure formed organism, stasis, then extinction. But I bet this doesn’t matter cuz science bro.
Oh, dear, a creationist. I wonl’ discuss such crap with anyone unless they first produce evidence of the creator they deem responsible.
The usual leap by atheists:
“There is no evidence for the Egyptian Captivity, the Exodus, Moses, the sojourn in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.” to “It never happened.”
Honest people understand that while one might conclude that perhaps those events never occurred by citing the paucity of evidence, they can do no more than speculate whether or not they did. But not the atheist. So desperate is his hope that God does not exist that he regards the failure to find evidence as equal to proof that the events never happened.
So no. That’s not the least bit “salient”, but merely another assertion. And considering that you were asked for proofs or evidence, saying none has been found means you cannot insist that God does not exist or that the events of Scripture never happened. You can only, AT BEST, state as a matter of faith that God doesn’t exist or the events of Scripture never happened. It is not a fact. The case isn’t closed. It is only your opinion and admittedly is one based on no evidence.
Oh, evening, a’hole.
After stating I never supply even a salient point, I did, then added a whole heap of references and still you come back and whine.
Do yourself a favour, if you can’t face Finkelstein or Devers , at least read Kenyon – who was a christian – and see the evidence she turned up for Jericho.
If you were able for five minutes to stop ranting like a demented fundamentalist you might even learn something from fellow god-believers( like Kenyon) instead of being hell bent on isolating yourself into a group of one and making yourself look like the fucking village idiot.
When you have done the spade work regarding the archaeology, then then afterwards we can talk about your god, okay, Marshall?
A truly excellent and well thought out and balanced essay.
It doesn’t use too many big words either.
You should manage.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/let-the-stones-speak-part-2/
Once again, we see the lack of class in an atheist who doesn’t believe he needs a god to determine morality. This allows the atheist to speak in the most derisive terms while suggesting he is a moral person, or capable of being one. Of course we see no evidence that Arkie is or can be moral, as he can’t control his fingers across a keyboard. That is to say, while I can’t declare myself to be free of the urge to use profane language in a public setting, there is no “slip of the finger” in typing out profane language. This low class individual demonstrates the folly of suggesting that without God there can be morality. He can’t even treat opponents with respect he would hope to receive from them. Instead, he shows he is what he projects onto opponents. But this has already been established long ago. The point here is that he has been warned, at the least encouraged, by our host to restrain himself and he, as a child, is unable.
He also believes that because someone claims to be a Christian that somehow I should regard her work as credible. This is not so as we have at our disposal hundreds of comments from Dan Trabue, who also calls himself a Christian but continues to fall short. It is hard to imagine how one can legitimately claim to be a Christian while insisting that the book upon which the faith is based is crap. So no, I would not simply swallow what Kenyon is serving simply because she attaches to herself the label “Christian”. Unlike Arkie, I am just a bit more principled than to do something so superficial.
In the meantime, that someone like YOU, Ark, might dare refer to me as akin to “the fucking village idiot” holds no sway when considering the source. To be so referred by an idiot is not effective, but it does show a childish level of frustration from your own lack of ability and intelligence. I mourn for you.
“When you have done the spade work regarding the archaeology…”
This childish assumption that I have not already dealt with claims that attempt to dispute the validity of Scripture is the standard tactic of the typical atheist. In this case it is somewhat justified considering that I have not felt compelled to offer anything to a punk who does nothing but mock and deride people of faith as if his position has been established absolutely as fact without having done squat to demonstrate it. It is also hypocritical coming from the same punk who claims that, as he is not an archeologist, how could he do better to present a case already presented by experts who claim what appeals to him. In other words, what spade work has Arkie done that I haven’t? Well, he can’t tell because he’s too busy assuming I’ve done none. He demands I do what he won’t, so therefor I’ve read nothing in his fevered imaginings.
Incredible.
As it happens, I am in the midst of reviewing all of his most recent links and thus far, I’m seeing very much the position I’ve put forth regarding atheist positions on the archeological evidence. As John suggests, I don’t think Arkie’s read what he offers up as proofs. But it’s early and there is more to review. So far, he’s got nothing but speculation, but no proof, no “case closed”. We’ll see.
Marshal, I am, at this point, convinced that Ark has not read any of the people he lists. He has outright refused to even bullet point in a summary fashion what their arguments are. He merely says he doesn’t have to write what has already been written.
I think he’s full of it. He read those names on an atheist blog and rewrote them here.
1. http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/herzog.html
That’s a good enough start for the novice.
2. Here’s another for you …
Rameses III overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it. The children of Israel– the Hebrews– were not there. In the 5th century B.C., when Herodotus, the father of History, was collecting materials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion of Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places; but the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a line from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king.”
John E. Remsburg,
3 Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion – probably a majority of this population – were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham’s journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.
Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.
Would you like the references to these as well or are you now prepared to offer counter evidence to refute the claims evidence listed above?
Rabbi David Wolpe
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx
However, the archaeological conclusions are not based primarily on the absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements–pottery remains and so forth–make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE).
William Devers From Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Dever
Kathleen Kenyon ( who was a Christian, by the way)
http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class%20of%2051/jericho/kenyon.html
Wiki….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kenyon
Kenyon demonstrates that the Jericho collapsed long before the supposed arrival of Joshua and his hordes.
She was a Christian by the way.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.shtml
Long article but worth a look. Kitchen is one of ”yours” by the way. A pretty god archaeologist who, sadly, let’s his theology sometime cloud his judgement.
Right…. there’s plenty to be going on with I think.
Pick something and if you like, refute it…
Nt by going around the( burning ) bushes, either. Be specific and offer a reasonable argument why these people are wrong.
You know there’s been recent discoveries regarding a few of these right? I’ll look through and see how much they make your point.
How many others have you researched who hold an opposite view?
The various Stele? Right?
I am aware, yes.
Well, Kitchen is the most respected and although he has turned up some interesting stuff, at crunch time he falls short and cannot deliver.
I have looked at a few others, but they are generally regarded as ‘fringe’ and all too often have theological motives, so while their theories look sound regarding such issues as the Hyksos, and trying to match the right Pharaoh, the dates of the archaeology in Palestine then don’t match up – so, please gods, don’t come back with such a theory.
And such speculation is usually preceded with the belief that the bible must be right,( classic Albright attitude) so all we have to do is fit what we have to the story – rather than follow where the evidence leads.
Finkelstein has his critics, but considering what’s on the line for him, living in Israel and being Israeli, his work is respected more than reviled.
Let me know how you get on?
John,
I agree that Arkie likely hasn’t read much, if any, of the people he cites as experts. I even more convinced he hasn’t read any responses to those he cites as experts who have settled the questions to his liking. Go ahead and peruse his most recent links and you’ll find it harder to believe that he actually studies what he offers to support his position. It’s kinda funny.
This doesn’t even warrant an answer though I am pleased to note you at least dropped the capital ‘G’ for god. Well done! Make progress.
I find the occasional use of the vernacular quite the attention grabber, especially when dealing with those with their head suck up their bottom.
Ah, well, this just about seals is then, does it not? The only ‘’Christian’’ Marshall will recognise will be one that measures up to his rather odd and ego-motivated standards.
Good heavens! All that …. and more, and you did not offer a single refutation for the evidence presented other than to trash the work of Kathleen Kenyon, who was considered one of the most respected archaeologists in the field.
Amazing!
So it seems you really are the “fucking village idiot’’ after all.
Well done, Marshall. Go get em, Tiger.
Jesus would be proud of you.
What a half wit.
This from someone who dares to condescend:
“This doesn’t even warrant an answer though I am pleased to note you at least dropped the capital ‘G’ for god.”
There’s a vast difference between “a god” and “God”. The latter you aren’t worthy of even being in the same sentence. I fear no progress is forthcoming from the likes of you. May God have mercy on you.
“I find the occasional use of the vernacular quite the attention grabber…”
You would. To the honorable man of character, it denotes low character. A habit of mine of which I am not the least bit proud. You’re prideful without basis. May God have mercy on us both.
“The only ‘’Christian’’ Marshall will recognise will be one that measures up to his rather odd and ego-motivated standards.”
I’ve no doubt you wish that were so. At the same time, in another display of rank hypocrisy, you only recognize as “serious” archeologists those that think they’ve proven God doesn’t exist and Scripture is false. But it’s not “ego-motivated” standards that matter, but the standards of God which neither of us come close to meeting, and you seem determined not to try. May God have mercy on us both.
“All that …. and more, and you did not offer a single refutation for the evidence presented other than to trash the work of Kathleen Kenyon,”
Where? Where did I do this? I can’t see it in my comment, and certainly not in the one you copied and pasted. I guess you desire “liar” added to your resume. Consider it acknowledged. May God have mercy on you.
Also, I’m pretty sure I said that I’ve begun reviewing your links. Keep it in your pants until I’m through and have the time to respond. And BTW, that’ll be when I’m good and ready to do so.
“So it seems you really are the “fucking village idiot’’ after all.”
In your desperate nightmares, Chuckles, but not that you’ve been able to demonstrate. It’s quite clear, however, what you are. May God have mercy on you.
“Jesus would be proud of you.”
I should be so lucky. Luck won’t be enough for you. May He intercede with God on your behalf.
“What a half wit.”
Making me twice as intelligent as you. May God give you wisdom. You could use it.
Lol…I actually referenced two christians in the list I provided, Kenyon and Kitchen.
And still, not a single solitary word to either refute any of the claims or the integrity to provide a scrap of evidence to counter.
But I thought you had all the ”right” evidence at hand? How could you possibly deny/reject everything I have been saying if you didn’t know the other arguments? Unless you were sucking it out your thumb?
On Kenyon.
Here it is … again. Second paragraph, first sentence.
Oh, I screened saved it …You know .. just in case. ;)
my emphasis
Sorry ,Marshall you are right, to call you the ”Fucking Village Idiot” is to impugn genuine Village Idiots everywhere.
You don’t deserve to even get on the list.
You are not only a fraud, but a damn hypocrite to boot.
“I actually referenced two christians in the list I provided, Kenyon and Kitchen.
And still, not a single solitary word to either refute any of the claims or the integrity to provide a scrap of evidence to counter.”
And still not finished wading through your links. I actually study what people provide (often a waste of time when they come from people like yourself) and take the time to formulate a cogent response (something that is also a waste of time and not really a matter of true reciprocity). So again, you’ll just have to hold it until I get there, when I get there, at my own pleasure. Or you can continue to wet yourself.
Regarding Kenyon and your foolish and false accusation. I have NOT spoken on her work at all. I have spoken on YOUR suggestion that because she’s a Christian her work is more credible and noteworthy, as if her personal religious beliefs matter to the quality or accuracy of her work. But apparently you’re not sharp enough to see the distinction between your desperate attempts to smear and reality.
“Sorry ,Marshall you are right, to call you the ”Fucking Village Idiot” is to impugn genuine Village Idiots everywhere.”
The truth is that you’re simply not gifted with the intellectual ability to determine who else is or isn’t an idiot. What’s more, you’re not gifted with the integrity to support the accusation with actual factual evidence, as we’ve seen above regarding Kenyon. You’re a sorry individual. May God have mercy on you.
Lol…what an insecure little person you are, and no integrity to recognise where you have fouled up,
Don’t try and get clever and weasel your way out. You wrote what you wrote about Kenyon. Read it again , then have the courage to apologise.
Here we go… again.
Because SHE attaches the Christian label. SHE. No mention that it was because
I said so.
Oh dear, was that an Oops I hear from camp Marshal? Or maybe a teeny tiny apology?
As for ”wading through the links”.
I reiterate. You have dissed my references to these experts from the word go. Called me a fraud for not providing anything to back what I believe. Demanded data, insisted I make an argument and yet you do not have a single ready rebuttal! Not a damn one!. Which suggests you are not even aware of the bible-based arguments from the( largely fundamental) Christian archaeologists.
I would determine ordinary idiocy by societal standards and based on this thread, you fit the bill.
And some of those that are following this thread have agreed.
In all honesty, Marshall, this is a waste of time as you have no real interest in expanding your horizons and no matter what scientific evidence is produced or by whom, unless it confirms to your Fundamentalist world view you are going to reject it even before you examine it.
You have clearly demonstrated this throughout, by your reluctance and in most cases, outright refusal to offer any sort of genuine explanation or evidence for the biblical claims you believe in/support.
As your Worldview is based first and foremost on faith there is no place in your heart or mind for science backed evidence if it remotely contradicts your indoctrinated biblical perspective.
It is simply anathema to you, as it is every fundamentalist. You are even at odds with your fellow, more progressive and enlightened christians and flat out disagree with someone like Dan.
No atheist, that I am aware of, has ever made the slightest impression on one as indoctrinated as the likes of you. Those christians that have shrugged of the mental shackles of their severe religious beliefs have done so off of their own back.
I really should not have got so cross, as you are likely a product of indoctrination that you had no defense against, but I have witnessed how children suffer because of this rubbish and it rather touches a raw nerve.
We shall leave it as it stands I think.
Maybe if either you or your fellow fundamentalists truly begin to see the light we can have a more productive conversation in the future?
And know that there are plenty deconvertees ( right here in blogland) that were in exactly the same frame of mind/position as you currently are.
They can relate perfectly and everyone to the last now wonders how on earth they could possibly have held such mentally and physically damaging views for so long.
I hope you manage to come out of it. Truly I do.
No hard feelings.
Take it easy.
Arkie, Arkie, Arkie,
You want so badly for me to be some kind of unbalanced or ignorant fundie! Now you say I’m “insecure”? Wow. You truly are disturbed and desperate, aren’t you?
“Don’t try and get clever and weasel your way out.”
Don’t try and get clever? Why? Are you insecure? Besides, I don’t have to “try” and get clever. I AM clever. At least compared to you, which is a low bar indeed. Thanks for making it look so easy!
I don’t need to weasel my way out of anything, either. But you posted six links on your Sept 6 comment. There’s a lot to read. The second link alone has a ton of stuff (much of which directly refutes one of your “experts”. As I said, I’m not going to rush through them just because you think you’re going to be able to triumph and do the happy dance when I finally respond. (Hint: you won’t) I’m not under any obligation to do a damned thing on YOUR timetable, so bite it off and wait until I’m good and ready. Adults have things to do. I’ll get to it for sure.
As to Kenyon, you reprinted three of my comments trying to explain YOUR comment and you STILL lie. That’s pretty bold. It’s as if I stated in three different ways that fire is hot and you then reprint them to prove I said fire is cold. It’s awesome in it’s stupidity. So let’s look at what touched it off. From that post of Sept 6 @ 8:33AM:
“Kathleen Kenyon ( who was a Christian, by the way)”
Here are my three comments regarding this statement of YOU informing me of her having been a Christian:
He also believes that because someone claims to be a Christian that somehow I should regard her work as credible. ….. So no, I would not simply swallow what Kenyon is serving simply because she attaches to herself the label “Christian”
————————————–
I have spoken on YOUR suggestion that because she’s a Christian her work is more credible…
————————————–
He also believes that because someone claims to be a Christian that somehow I should regard her work as credible. ….. So no, I would not simply swallow what Kenyon is serving simply because she attaches to herself the label “Christian”
I can’t see any reason to apologize for anything, either to you or to Kenyon. YOU are the one who felt it necessary to say she was a Christian. For what reason? Just for fun? I doubt it. You believe that it is significant. I merely stated that it is meaningless with regards to the conclusions to which she came as a result of her archeological work. The work stands or falls on its own merits, not on her religious beliefs. This is a fact. So no, Skippy. You heard no “oops” because I did not err. You’ll hear no apology, because I said nothing the obliges me to do so.
I gotta go as I’m in my busy time. But here’s where you’re going to fall. It’s got nothing to do with preconceived notions, religious indoctrination or anything like that. My faith, Christianity, does not require me to reject anything at any time. It encourages us to reason and study and seek truth always. I’ve no issue with something that might appear to contradict Scripture. There simply hasn’t been anything thus far that does. And what you fail to understand about archeology and its “experts”, is that the science has two parts:
1. Finding stuff.
2. Speculating on what it might tell us.
Seven archeologists can look at the same dig and come up with seven different ideas about what the stuff they dug up tells us about the people who once lived there. Then, more digging will change all their minds about it. YOU believe what you prefer to believe and regard certain archeologists as the best because they say what pleases you to hear. I don’t do things that way.
As to your last comment, I’ll say only this (for now anyway): Hard feelings? Not at all. Only feelings of pity and sadness for you. You’re obviously desperate.
You see … waste of time.
I mentioned that Kenyon was a Christian to try to offer a little balance and avoid being accused of only offering ”my experts”.
Seems it is a case of damned if you do or damned if you don’t, which rather echoes my belief all along that you will only find fault and dismiss those who do not agree with your worldview irrespective of what the evidence says.
This is the power of indoctrination.
Really? For the record…
Since Kenyon first dug at Jericho around 900 Carbon dating readings have been taken.
They do not support the biblical claims.
You want a link to this too, or will you take my word for it?
This is what science does, Marshall, and, for the same reason the are no Chariot Wheels belonging to Pharaoh’s army at the bottom of the Red Sea, if there was any truth to the biblical claims science would have found them out.
And sadly, once again, you have not offered a single scrap of evidence to support a single claim you have made.
Enough said, I believe.
You enjoy your faith. Science has already left you behind in its wake.
Bye.
Amazing. While I have been reviewing your links, and investigating some of the claims made by your favored experts, I’ve found so much from both sides that indicate your convictions are unfounded. Your positions are as much based on faith, if not more so, than any I hold as a believer in God. It’s humorously ironic, in fact.
Take carbon dating, for example. It is far from an exact tool of measurement. To insist that carbon dating has proven anything requires an incredibly zealous level of faith.
Referring more directly to Kenyon, I’ve been reading of problems with her interpretation of her findings, even without more recent findings revealing that which she believed wasn’t borne out by the findings of her digs. This link goes into some of those findings and the problems with Kenyon’s.
“I mentioned that Kenyon was a Christian to try to offer a little balance and avoid being accused of only offering ”my experts”.”
Sorry, but she still qualifies as “your expert” because of her conclusions, not her faith or lack of it, which is why I tried unsuccessfully to get it through your irrationally biased brain that her faith has no bearing on whether or not her findings are credible. It hasn’t. Thus, you’re damned because you haven’t offered balance at all. It is no more relevant to the worthiness of her work than saying, “AND her name is Kathleen!” What’s more, you’re likely damned anyway for, not just your non-belief in, but your mockery of God.
Your Dever quote is worthless in supporting your position as well. He is just an archeologist of 35 years making exactly the same mistake you make. He regards the lack of proof as proof the OT is false. He regards as respectable only those archeologists that share his opinion. As I said earlier, I have no issue with one admitting his lack of belief is hard to shake in light of the absence of undeniable proof. But I have a no respect for anyone who concludes that the lack of absolutes is proof itself. It is, again, only proof that absolute proof has not been found. Nothing more can be concluded, but only speculated. That’s an important distinction that neither Dever nor you have the integrity to admit or possibly understand.
Science has not left me behind, especially since I do not fear it, nor do I fear looking at all of it. I can easily accept the implications of scientific findings (to the extent that I am capable of understanding what is presented) because unlike yourself, I am not required by my faith to only believe one thing and not another. You, apparently, can do not other. The interpretations of archeological evidence that favor Scripture as historical are extremely problematic for your worldview, so I don’t expect that you would ever allow an alternative interpretation than one that allows you to sleep easy in your self-delusions.
My faith and science are on extremely good terms. Not so much with your faith and science.
So, still no evidence to back your claims, then Marshal? You truly are a bore.
I’m not under any obligation, though I do plan to respond eventually. What you fail to understand is this:
While the faithful seem to have made the claim for God’s existence first, it is a claim that really goes back quite a ways, as if it was taken for granted like it was absolute fact (which it is). So then, guys like you come in and pretend you can make a counter claim without supportive evidence, as if you don’t have to or as if there’s no basis for arguing against what one believes doesn’t exist. Rank cowardice, actually, as well as intellectually lazy.
At the same time, the links I offered in my last comment does indeed provide evidence in Wood’s countering of Kenyon’s archeological conclusions, using a bit more than the mere speculation she used. Obviously, you aren’t interested in reading the links of others, feeling that only those you provide are worth anyone’s time of day.
So once again we see that you are not interested in truth or facts, but only in whatever you can use to pretend your position is valid and superior. You are what you accuse people of faith of being: indoctrinated and ignorantly so.
Why didn’t bother to respond to your link, Marshal.
Here’s why…
Aside from the fact that Wood is a frigging Creationist ( and you have the absolute bare-faced gall to reference a Creationist to me!) which immediately Red Flags him there is also this….
Anything else ?
I see. So, one archeologist being a Christian is meaningful and the other being a Christian is disqualifying. With that said I can’t imagine why I can’t seem to take you seriously. Can you be more clear about how everything must go your way? Wood’s belief in Creation has no bearing on the conclusions of his findings anymore than Kenyon’s belief in Christ has on hers. It is the findings alone and the conclusions they draw from them based on their methods of coming to those conclusions.
But you insist on a highly disputed method of dating to dismiss Wood’s conclusions. Had you read the link like a good little boy, you’d see him address the very “proofs” you think the radiocarbon dating provides you.
Once again you demonstrate that your desperate hope that God doesn’t exist guides your understanding of evidence, rather than the evidence guiding your belief in God’s existence. You are what you accuse us of being.
Marshal
Let’s cite Christian NT scholars and see if they are accepted by Ark as credible.
Here’s something else, that you won’t read because you lack the integrity to do so. This time, try to not wet yourself about the source, but concern yourself instead with what it puts forth. You can skip down to around half the page for the parts of greatest significance to our dispute; that which follows the summaries of the three archeologists of note. It speaks of the shortcomings of the dating methods upon which you hang your pointy hat.
Don’t know why my entire last comment is highlighted, but if you put your cursor over the first three words, you’ll get to the source.
I wont enter into debate over what a Creationist writes. Period. They are ignorant and often distort the truth to the point of lying.
Bryant is not respected outside of the Creationist field.
Most are not, simply because they begin from a presuppositional point of view.
@Marshall.
As for your cheap shot crappy Bryant Wood link…..
Woods proposed re-dating to circa 1400 this was shot to shreds in 1995 by Bruins and Plicht using high precision radio carbon measurements on 18 samples.Six of these were grain samples.
This scientific evidence took me two minutes to find. How come you didn’t find it?
And how come the link you posted to Bryant’s page on Creation wiki does not reflect this updated scientific re-dating?
So, Kenyon’s dating is still the standard.
Want a link for this assertion, Marshall? Just say the word.
And for the record, even if Woods dating was correct there are tons of other stuff that does not match up to the nonsense biblical claims, and if you took five minutes to look at was actually going on in Egypt at that time you’d see.
Honestly, Marshall, if you actually allowed yourself to suspend your apologist fundamental world view just for once and followed the evidence where it led and not where you want it to go and took just a little time to research the damn science from the genuine scientists and not those who have theological skin in the game you might actually come out looking half-respectable instead of looking like the apologist nit wit you are.
It is not a question anymore of what you are going to do when the truth catches up with you – it already has – but what you are going to do about it?
Face up to it and deal with it, or deny it and stick your head in the sand?
Allbright was wrong, and so was Bryant.
Oh, and another thing that really cheeses me off about the link your provided is at one point the writer uses the phrase ”Wood, Garstang and by other archaeologists..” when trying to cast aspersions on the C14 dating yet when you scroll down to the bibliography
the only damn archaeologists it lists are Wood and Garstang.
And when you try and search for any other archaeologist that supports Woods’ view none come up.
How bloody convenient!