Obama’s Speech Inspired Me

I listened to the speech Obama gave at Notre Dame today and it was a good commencement speech. Sure, it was full of the ideas of wealth redistribution and making life fair and all the stuff he believes but it was a good speech. It is not surprising because when he has a functioning teleprompter he is pretty good. I was not one who believed that he should not have been invited but I was against him receiving the honorary degree. Having written that, I am happy that those who objected demonstrated peacefully and that they did what they thought was right with regard to their own conscience.

I listened to him because I wanted to see how he addressed the controversy of his invitation and he did it well. In fact, I was inspired by him when he discussed the subject of abortion.

He told the audience that people could disagree on issues but that they needed to come together to reach a common ground. He said that he did not believe that the right to an abortion should be taken away from women but that abortions should be rare and other options should be available.

I have a different view on abortion as I believe the Roe v Wade decision was wrong. The Constitution does not give a right to an abortion so that means the issue should be decided by the states. I have always believed that it was a state’s right issue and should have been left at that level.

However, Obama’s idea of having abortions but making them rare inspired me with regard to another issue that liberals take a strong stand on. That is the issue of the death penalty. Liberals want to abolish the death penalty.

Using the Obama logic with abortion we should change the debate on the death penalty from abolishing it to leaving it as an option for each state (or a state’s choice, if you will) and make them rare. Since we already have other alternatives such as life or life without parole the same criteria Obama has for abortion already exists for the death penalty.

This should end the debate on this issue and the liberals should stop trying to abolish the death penalty because Obama has told us to find common ground and this is common ground that meets the exact same requirements he set forth for abortion.

I know that some folks will not agree. My liberal friend Adam, who comments here, is always worried about an innocent person being put to death. Yes, DNA has exonerated people but it is rare that an innocent person is put to death though I am sure it has happened. However, in order to follow the Obama logic with regard to abortion, we have to be willing to accept that an innocent might accidentally be put to death.

You see, each time an abortion is performed an innocent person IS put to death. There was no trial, there was no jury, and they did nothing wrong and yet they are murdered. Obama is willing to accept a low number of innocent people being put to death in order to keep abortion as a woman’s choice.

Therefore, we should accept a low rate (much lower than that of abortion) of innocent people being put to death after a trial in order to keep that penalty in place.

Adam commented that even if it cost more money to keep people alive he considered it a good expenditure of his tax dollars if it prevented an innocent person from being killed.

That is perfect for abortion. Even if it cost the mother and father more money it is worth it to prevent an innocent person from being murdered.

And every abortion is the murder of an innocent life.

I am glad Obama inspired me with his speech. I am sure the liberals are now happy that the death penalty issue has been cleared up.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

54 Responses to “Obama’s Speech Inspired Me”

  1. GM Roper says:

    I love your reasoning… You really ought to be on the SCOTUS!

  2. […] via Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Obama’s Speech Inspired Me. […]

  3. Kat says:

    Oh, yeah… That is CERTAINLY good inspiration; your reasoning is excellent! ;-)

  4. Big Dog says:

    Thanks,
    GM, I hear there is an opening. You think they will consider me?

    • Blake says:

      Dog, they would never consider anyone who even uttered “States Rights”- for 153 years Washington has been trying to minimize the tenth amendment, for that amendment curtails their power, and they don’t like that.

  5. Foxwood says:

    No body’s talking about what’s really happening at Notre Dame.

  6. victoria says:

    He did say one thing right–“the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

    Just like a whole lot of other issues with the Dems lately.

  7. Jenn Sierra says:

    The only problem with this plan, of course, Big Dog, is that your plan still calls for that pesky little thing liberals all hate so much known as “personal accountability.”

    Under the liberal plan, there is none. Under your plan, people are ultimately accountable for the result of their own actions, and that simply doesn’t fit the “Hope and Change” agenda.

  8. Liberty Card says:

    I am perplexed by the folks who think B-HO is an accomplished public speaker. His cadence is almost sing songy, and his lack of eye with the camera contact makes him look deceptive. And the head wag, like a windshield wiper, is, well annoying.
    And when not on the telepromper, note his use, and mispronouncment of “y’no”.
    I think people are just afraid to tell the truth about him, because it will cause the unraveling of the whole cloth that is his presidency.

    Cheers,
    Liberty Card

    PS did he give a memorable speech? I missed it for the irritation at the delivery.

  9. I wonder who crafted the speech?

    • Blake says:

      The speech was remarkable in its total lack of commitment to one side or another- in this he attempts to be statesman-like.
      I would have loved to have heard a debate on the issue with Alan Keyes- now we would have to hear Barama stake out a position. Skinny B is as bad as Clinton was for saying two things simultaneously.

  10. cdosrun says:

    Great points!
    It seems the innocent people in prison may not have a chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.
    Obama wants to take away that right as well!
    What is wrong with this man?
    I am really starting to think he hates the USA and it’s people.
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/obama_takes_conservative_dna_s.html

  11. Darrel says:

    Bigdog: “You see, each time an abortion is performed an innocent person IS put to death.”

    DAR
    A fetus is not considered a “person” and does not have the rights of “personhood.” That’s why we don’t let them vote.

    Most Christians are so confused on this for some reason. The Bible is pro-choice from start to finish and there are lots of examples of this. See this short tract I wrote:

    “Is a fetus a person?” – Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

    In the Bible, a fetus has no rights and they were regularly killed. They didn’t even count them as a person in a census until they were a couple months old.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      In the Bible, as elsewhere, many people have been killed in many horrible ways, but at least an adult is able to try to fight for their own life, a fetus is not. At what point do you believe that a fetus is a human being, Darrel? With the first heartbeats, or when separated from the mother and able to live independently?
      By THAT criteria, we have 30 somethings that have still not cut the cord- are they human?

    • Blake says:

      We don’t let fetuses vote, but if they did, I believe they would vote life, don’t you? We do not let ten year olds vote either- can we retroactively abort them, because they can’t vote? Some of them may be brats- Come on here,D- make sense.

      • Darrel says:

        DAR
        You’re right Blake, I mucked that one up. Please let me revise:

        “A fetus is not considered a “person” and does not have the rights of “personhood.” That’s why we don’t count them in a census.”

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Only in the legal sense. Slaves were not considered people. Do you condone what happened to them and say that it is OK because they were not people?

        • Blake says:

          This is all ” How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”,D- Justice cannot be parsed- the law can, but justice cannot. either can Morality- if you begin splitting hairs , you do lose any moral high ground you might have had.

    • Kat says:

      Darrell, first – “A fetus is not considered a “person” and does not have the rights of “personhood.” That’s why we don’t let them vote.”

      We don’t let people under 18 vote, either, does that make them “non persons”?

      Secondly, the Bible DOES consider life to begin at conception. In a sense, actually, it considers life to begin before conception.

      You need to start with God as He reveals Himself throughout Scripture: He is omnipotent – anything that He wills to do, He can and does bring to pass. He is also omniscient – He knows the end from the beginning, and there is nothing outside His ken. He knows the end from the beginning because it is He, in His providence, who brings His plans to fruition. Since He is omniscient and omnipotent, there is nothing to stand in His way.

      Now, the Bible is replete with the sovereign choosing of nations and persons by God, including the classic reference of Psalm 139:

      For you formed my inward parts;
      you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
      I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;
      my soul knows it very well.
      My frame was not hidden from you,when I was being made in secret,
      intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
      Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them,
      the days that were formed for me,
      when as yet there was none of them.

      There is also ample historical reference that the Jews and Christians, from the beginning, regarded abortion and infanticide as grave sins.

      As to the pamphlet you referenced, I scanned it, and the biblical references cited do NOT deal with “life at conception,” or even the “sanctity of life,” but rather with executing God’s judgment on sinful people. One of the sad things about sin is that it affects people around us – a consequence of the sin of drunkenness, for instance, may be that a child (born or unborn) is killed in a car accident. Is that child any less human if it died because of someone else’s sin? No.

      Your final statement re: counting babies in a census in particular – rather begs the question, because you assume that ancient Hebrew society didn’t count young babies because they weren’t considered human. Poor logic.

      Taking God’s sovereignty over and control of history together with His foreknowledge, and added to the clear witness of both Jewish and Christian beliefs on abortion throughout history… God knows who He will put into this world. Each person is specifically created by Him and lives in the time, place, and family of His choosing.

      As for the “person” argument, that’s a red herring. The true argument is whether an unborn child is human or not. From conception the DNA is human – an unborn does not start as a lizard and turn into a human at 3.45 months in the womb, for example.

      Value does NOT live in “personhood,” but rather in HUMANITY, for ALL humans are created in the image of God.

      Now, you are obviously arguing from your own preconceptions – which is obvious from just the cherry-picked and twisted Scripture that pamphlet misuses (“text without context is pretext,” after all…). I’m not going to change your mind – but that’s not my job, anyway.

      That’s His.

      • Darrel says:

        Thanks for the response Kat. Let me respond to your points. Regarding my “voting” claim, see my post above. I agree, you’re right.

        ***
        KAT: Secondly, the Bible DOES consider life to begin at conception.>>

        DAR
        No it doesn’t. The scholarship on this is clear. Consider:

        “What did the Rabbis say?:
        The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was “animated” with a “life” similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a “nefesh adam,” come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a “bar Chaiyama” (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).”

        KAT
        In a sense, actually, it considers life to begin before conception.>>

        DAR
        You are seriously confused, as I will show.

        KAT: You need to start with God as He reveals Himself throughout Scripture: He is omnipotent – anything that He wills to do, He can…. snip>>

        DAR
        Sure, fine. Let’s pretend all of your claims about God and scripture are true. This doesn’t help your position.

        KAT: …the classic reference of Psalm 139:
        For you formed my inward parts;… snip…>>

        DAR
        Yes, the classic reference. A snatch of poetry. Here is why it doesn’t work for you. God knows all things from beginning to end. Thus the fact that he can know a fetus before it is born, or before the parents were born, or before the big bang means this verse doesn’t say there is anything special about the status or condition of a fetus. Nothing at all. God knows you whether you exist or not. Think about it.

        KAT: There is also ample historical reference that the Jews and Christians, from the beginning, regarded abortion and infanticide as grave sins.>>

        DAR
        Actually, that’s rubbish. Standard, mainstream Christian and Jewish references solidly refute you. I’ll post this citation from this standard scholarly Christian reference (Oxford Companion) here:

        http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&p=18651#p18651

        Read it, you’re mistaken.

        KAT: As to the pamphlet you referenced, I scanned it, and the biblical references cited do NOT deal with “life at conception,” or even the “sanctity of life,” but rather with executing God’s judgment on sinful people.

        DAR
        If you have anything to say in rebuttal to my points in that tract I would be most pleased to see them. They are numbered for your convenience. There is no “life at conception” concept in the Bible. That’s ridiculous. The suggestion of “sanctity of life” is a nice slogan but it really doesn’t mean much. And it’s rather bizarre too associate that claim with the Bible considering that the biggest Bible heroes were mass murderers.

        For instance, see King David here:

        http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/kingdavid.shtml

        KAT: …you assume that ancient Hebrew society didn’t count young babies because they weren’t considered human. Poor logic.>>

        DAR
        Hey Kat, if they considered them persons, why didn’t they count them as persons? Because they didn’t consider them persons, for well known, well understood theological reasons. See my Oxford citation at the link I provided.

        KAT: As for the “person” argument, that’s a red herring. The true argument is whether an unborn child is human or not.>>

        DAR
        Nope. “Human” is a scientific biological category. We are talking about how society does (or should) consider the status of the legal category known as “person.”

        KAT: From conception the DNA is human…>>

        DAR
        Absolutely true. And the DNA in my fingers that I cut off and throw away is human too. But DNA is not “a human,” is not “a person,” and has no rights and very little to no value.

        KAT: the cherry-picked and twisted Scripture that pamphlet misuses…>>

        DAR
        It’s easy to make such a claim, the trick is in backing it up. Please try. Again, my examples are numbered for your convenience. Skimming it won’t get the job done.

        I have debated this topic, in great depth, many many times. Make sure and do your home work. The standard sermon pablum that pastors pass along won’t work.

        KAT: I’m not going to change your mind…>>

        DAR
        If you have good persuasive arguments I assure you, you will change my mind. My moto is I will believe anything that is true. But you have to have good reasons. Let’s see if you have any of those.

        Again, thanks for your comments.

        Darrel.

        • Big Dog says:

          You claim there is no life at conception. This is an issue that can be debated depending upon what one defines as life. Since God defined the life of the flesh as being in the blood (Lev 17:11) then there is no doubt the fetus is a life anywhere from 14-21 days because that is when the blood begins to flow.

          Show me in any example where the Bible mentions abortion.

          This article gives a good account.

        • Darrel says:

          BigDog: You claim there is no life at conception.>>

          DAR
          Never did, never would. I’ll even go a step further back. Sperm are alive. Are they persons? No. Human? Yes. Human sperm. Female eggs are alive also.
          Oh, and I was wrong on my sperm math. Human males make about 200 million a day. Apparently the designer of the human body didn’t consider them very precious.

          BIGD: Since God defined the life of the flesh as being in the blood (Lev 17:11) then there is no doubt the fetus is a life…>>

          DAR
          You keep trying to equivocate. Of course a fetus is alive so it has “a life.” So does bacteria. Being alive doesn’t bestow much value.
          The fetus uses the mothers blood. This is more evidence of it’s complete dependence on the mother.

          Again, my Oxford Companion:

          “The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was “animated” with a “life” similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a “nefesh adam,” come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a “bar Chaiyama” (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
          The Talmud used the phrase, “ubar yerekh imo” (“The fetus is the thigh of its mother”) [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, “the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs” [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a “part of its mother” rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. “Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275].”

          BIG: Show me in any example where the Bible mentions abortion.>>

          DAR
          The word “abortion” does not appear in the Bible. Clearly an oversight considering how important it is to Christians today. I already gave two instances of abortions in the Bible. Here they are again:

          ***
          1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
          woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
          the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
          punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).

          2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had
          intercourse with another man–and possibly has become pregnant–he shall
          take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the
          dust off the floor–where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice–and force
          the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
          uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers
          5:11-21).

          D.

        • Kat says:

          As I said, I doubt I would change your mind. However, 10 years of fairly intense personal study have convinced me – and your attitude towards Scripture and the sources you choose to use persuade me that 1 Cor. 2:14 and Ps 14:1 are your life verses.

          “Human” is a scientific biological category. We are talking about how society does (or should) consider the status of the legal category known as “person.”

          Ah, you argue like a crooked lawyer. Humanity is not a LEGAL definition for the purposes of this discussion. We are not talking about whether an unborn child has broken a law, but rather whether that child is human.

          If you can tell me exactly when this “piece of DNA” actually becomes human, and prove it scientifically (since that’s really all you care about), your argument might make a modest amount of sense. I note that “pieces of human DNA” do not develop into lizards or cats or horses, and neither do their pieces of DNA turn into humans. Scientifically, that DNA is human DNA, it is at its appropriate level of development, and It. Is. Fully. Human.

          Period.

          To restate a previous point, the Bible clearly portrays God as sovereign in all His knowledge and ways. The sense in which life begins before conception is in the sense, as I said, that God knows when, where, and amongst whom He will bring us into being. I grieve that He has apparently chosen to bring you into such an era of disbelief.

          I believe that you are undiscerned and wise in your own eyes. I think you are a fool – according to the Biblical definition – and definitely blinded by the god of this age. You willingly reject the plain meaning of Scripture (and do NOT reason from Scripture, but rather the traditions of men), and are puffed up, placing yourself in authority over God. You have been led astray by itching ears and false teachers, and you love your own ego far more than you love the Truth.

          Therefore, I’ll “answer a fool according to his folly” and not continue arguing when said fool, since you choose to use Scripture – when you use it – wrongfully, and cannot truly admit in any way its authority and clear meaning.

      • Darrel says:

        KAT: Scientifically, that DNA is human DNA, it is at its appropriate level of development, and It. Is. Fully. Human. Period.>>

        DAR
        Of course. But having a speck of human DNA doesn’t necessarily equate to the value of a human, or person. We discard human cells and human DNA all the time. Every cell has a complete copy of the whole and has the potential to be made into the complete creature. There is a difference between the potential to have something and actually having something. You should learn this difference.

        KAT: [insults snipped] Therefore, I’ll “answer a fool according to his folly” and not continue arguing when said fool,…>>

        DAR
        So you’re going to not respond to my points, you’re going to run. I understand.

        KAT: since you choose to use Scripture – when you use it – wrongfully,…>>

        DAR
        Please show where I have ever used scripture “wrongfully.” You can’t do it.

        Let’s review. Here is what I am claiming.

        1) Current society does not consider a fetus a person. This is why we don’t count them in a census, why they can travel without a passport, and why they don’t have to buy a ticket when taken to the movies.
        This claim is so obviously true I think anyone with an IQ above room temperature can understand it is true.

        2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote did not consider a fetus a person. This is why they did not count them in a census. This is why women were regularly run through with the sword on God’s command. This claim is supported by the mass of standard mainstream Christian scholarship and can easily be confirmed by visiting your local library. Don’t bother going to the little library in your church with the big section of Josh McDowell books. Those books are written by fundies for fundies and are not scholarly and are not taken seriously outside of evangelical circles (because they are rubbish).

        D.
        —————-
        See also:

        What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?

        http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

  12. Darrel says:

    BLAKE: “At what point do you believe that a fetus is a human being, Darrel?”

    DAR
    It’s important to be precise. I am speaking of personhood. In our society, a fetus gains the status of personhood at birth. I agree with this. This is not to say a fetus has no value, or even little value. It’s a gradient curve and even the Rov v. Wade decision acknowledges this increase of value over time.

    I don’t mean to duck your question. A fetus is human in that it is a human fetus, but this doesn’t mean it has the status, or rights, of personhood.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      Because the baby does not yet have rights, it is not murder? The problem is that babies are not fungible, D- are they babies after they have been yanked out of the womb? they ARE then out of the womb- you don’t really wish to play semantics with someone’s life.It is BECAUSE the most helpless among us do not have rights that we should protect them the most. We are America, and we are supposed to protect the helpless.

  13. victoria says:

    Darrel I am sorry but you cannot use the Bible to justify abortion and say that it is right and especially by taking verses out of context.
    Genesis Chapter 25:
    21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

    22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

    (the Hebrew word used, banim, plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning “sons.”

    The New Testament uses the usual Greek word for baby, brephos, to refer to the unborn John the Baptist, who “leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb” because of the presence of the unborn Christ (Luke 1:41-44).

    In Old Testament Israel, a criminal injury that caused a pregnant woman’s unborn child to die was treated the same as any other murder. The criminal was punished less severely, only if the baby was born alive, although premature (Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).

    “These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood…” (Prov. 6:16-17, NKJV).

    Right throughout Scripture, murder—that is the intentional killing of innocent humans—is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9).

    • Darrel says:

      Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments Victoria. Let me respond to yours.

      ****
      VIC: Darrel I am sorry but you cannot use the Bible to justify abortion>>

      DAR
      I would never use the Bible to justify abortion. I don’t believe the Bible. Not most of it anyway. But I spent about 10,000 hours in church and am a bit of an amateur scholar and wrote a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

      VIC: …and say that it is right and especially by taking verses out of context.>>

      DAR
      Feel free to add all the context you want. The more the better. I am well aware of the context and it doesn’t change any of my claims in the slightest.

      VIC: Genesis Chapter 25:
      (the Hebrew word used, banim, plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning “sons.”>>

      DAR
      Apparently it also can on occasion apply to a fetus. And this is supposed to show what exactly? That Jews did not consider a fetus a person is clear and I have provided many specific examples. A woman can rub her tummy and talk about how her fetus has the potential to become a baby, but this says nothing about how a society considered the legal status of a fetus.

      VIC: “leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb”>>

      DAR
      I don’t think anyone would deny that a fetus can kick. Even a fetus without a brain. This says nothing about the status of a fetus.

      Jesus gave lots of commands, rules and suggestions, but he never took a moment to say a word about abortion. Not one word. Moses had 600 or so very important laws to deal with, but again, not a word about abortion. A curious oversight.

      VIC: In Old Testament Israel, a criminal injury that caused a pregnant woman’s unborn child to die was treated the same as any other murder. The criminal was punished less severely, only if the baby was born alive, although premature (Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).>>

      DAR
      The NKJV is a evangelical translation put together by pseudo scholars who were required to take oaths about their faith. I have a whole section on these dishonest translations in my book. Scholars don’t take it seriously because they play games with verses like the above to please evangelicals who buy their books. Even the KJV is more honest.
      I deal with this example in my tract. It’s #1. See what the scholarly translations say. They show that in this verse a fetus is specifically given less than personhood value.
      As were slaves by the way. See the preceding verse where it is allowable to beat a slave to death as long as the slave takes a day or two to die. “Sanctity of human life” indeed.

      VIC: Right throughout Scripture, murder—that is the intentional killing of innocent humans—is regarded as a heinous sin….>>

      DAR
      What a bizarre notion. The Bible is filled to the brim with mass slaughter of men women and child and the unborn (God even kills David’s baby because he’s made at David). I can give you literally hundreds of examples. It’s hard to imagine how a book filled with such genocidal slaughter could have less of a regard for human life or “killing innocent humans.” Unless you want to suggest that because they were killed, they were therefore guilty and their death was justified.

      But that would be more than a little self-serving wouldn’t it?

      thanks,

      Darrel.

  14. Darrel says:

    BLK: “Because the baby does not yet have rights, it is not murder?”

    DAR
    Correct. Murder is defined as the wrongfully killing of a person. A fetus is not a person and does not (and should not IMO) have the rights of a person.

    BLK: “We are America, and we are supposed to protect the helpless.>>

    DAR
    And we have to balance this with protecting the rights of a person to control their body and their life. A fetus is part of a woman’s body and is dependent upon it. She has full rights, her rights, almost without exception, trump.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      A woman’s body is not hers alone if she is not alone in that body.

      • Darrel says:

        This begs the question. I would say she is alone in her body and this is how our current society views the situation. The Jews, who wrote every word of the Bible, considered the fetus something like an appendage or an organ. Which is almost how our society views the fetus. Except we give them full status at birth. In the Bible they didn’t.

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          You claim not to believe the Bible. Then why use it? We can deal solely with the laws of man. The fact that the legal profession has defined a person as someone who has been born does not negate the fact that a fetus is a person by the non legal definition.

          I have asked you a number of times, was it OK for slaves to be beaten and killed since the law did not classify them as people? They were property, under the law, so was it OK to treat them badly?

          You have obviously not studied the Bible or you would understand the difference between the Old and New Testament and why things happened. I also wonder if Jews wrote every word of it. Had not some become Christians after Christ was executed?

          I still wonder why you think it was necessary to use a book you do not believe to make an argument. First, if you do not believe it then that means the things you quote are a not believable (by your account). Second, one does not need the Bible to see that a fetus has organs and functions as a little being that requires the mother to survive.

          You also failed to answer why it is that our society says an unborn child is not a person so it can be aborted but then if a pregnant woman is murdered and her baby dies the murderer is charged with two murders. Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for the death of his pregnant wife. How can that be if the fetus was not a person entitled to protection?

          Obviously society does not view her as alone in her body if she is harmed while pregnant. The law contradicts itself and it contradicts your stance.

        • Blake says:

          so, using your “appendage” terminology, you would cut off your nose to spite your face, D? The truth is that she is not alone in her body, and she has an obligation to consider the baby in ALL of her decisions.
          Conception should not be considered using the grounds of “inconvenience” to justify the decision to abort.
          The minute our morals are decided by whether or not something is “convenient”, we have ceased to be truly human.
          Liberals really should ponder those words.

        • Darrel says:

          BIG: You claim not to believe the Bible. Then why use it?>>

          DAR
          If the matter in question is what is the biblical position on “X,” I obviously have to refer to the Bible. I don’t have to be a muslim or a follower of Islam to answer a similar question about the Quran.

          BIG: The fact that the legal profession has defined a person as someone who has been born does not negate the fact that a fetus is a person by the non legal definition.>>

          DAR
          The legal profession? I am talking about our society. Our laws have been enacted by our elected representatives and the law of the land says a woman can terminate a pregnancy and kill her fetus. Agree or not, like it or not, this means our society deems that action, not murder.

          BIG: I have asked you a number of times, was it OK for slaves to be beaten and killed since the law did not classify them as people?>>

          DAR
          No. Please note. I am NOT saying the correct moral answer is arrived at because of the law of the land or popular belief. That would be the fallacy (ad populum). I have provided no argument that abortion is morally right. We can have that discussion if you like but it gets much more murky on both sides. Please read carefully. I have said it is the law of the land, I have said my opinion is I agree with it. I have made these two claims:

          1) our society does not consider a fetus a person
          2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote it did not consider a fetus a person

          I try to stay to claims I can back up. Those two are a slam dunk.

          BIG: They were property, under the law, so was it OK to treat them badly?>>

          DAR
          According to the Bible (which is pro-slavery from start to finish), yes. You could beat your slave to death as long as it took a couple days for it to die. See Exod. 21:21.

          According to me, no.

          BIG: You have obviously not studied the Bible or you would understand the difference between the Old and New Testament and why things happened.>>

          DAR
          Yeah right. Hey Bigdog, take a few moments and take an online Bible quiz. It’s multiple choice so you can use your quarter if you like. See if you can get 96% like I did.

          http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html

          BIG: I also wonder if Jews wrote every word of it. Had not some become Christians after Christ was executed?>>

          DAR
          The gospels are anonymous, the names were added later for convenience. Paul wrote most of the NT and is the only author in the NT that is confirmed. And don’t forget Paul never met Jesus, and he never mentioned the gospels either (which were obviously written later). The Bible is Jewish from start to finish.

          BIG
          Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for the death of his pregnant wife. How can that be if the fetus was not a person entitled to protection?>>

          DAR
          Wiki has:
          “Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.”

          She was eight months pregnant so probably this was taken into consideration, as it should have been. Roe v. Wade also takes viability into consideration, this is why it is such a reasonable compromise. He is up for the death penalty which would not be the case if he had only killed the fetus. He probably wouldn’t even have been charged with murder two for that except that he killed the mother and this was such a heinous and publicized case.

          BIG: The law contradicts itself and it…>>

          DAR
          Sometimes our society and our laws do have contradictions (as with the laws in the Bible). This is why we have judges to interpret laws.

          If Lacie has terminated her pregnancy, she would not be charged with murder. I am not for other people being able to kill someone else’s fetus without their permission.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            You claim society has determined that a fetus is not a person. No, the courts and the legislators have decided this. Many states were opposed to abortion and were forced to allow it after Roe. There are plenty of states that would like to (and some have) enact anti abortion laws. In my opinion, that is where the issue should have been decided in the first place. The SCOTUS found a right that does not exist in the Constitution and ignored the 10th Amendment in so doing.

            51% of the country is anti abortion. Not all of society has taken this decision. The courts did it for them and there are large pockets of people who are for it in the liberal cities and many more against in the conservative areas of the country.

            The Bible contains a lot of violence and there were a lot of people killed. There is no specific portion that deals with abortion and the killing of children in the womb is a punishment from God. There are consequences for actions.

            I do not necessarily look at the issue from a religious standpoint. I look at it from a human and moral standpoint. I say the fetus is a human and it is a person regardless of what the courts have decided and it is morally wrong to murder them. Those who do will have to deal with the consequences. I oppose it.

            However, there is no doubt that the argument I presented dealing with the death penalty is valid. Since you used the Bible in the abortion example, it also allows the death penalty. Society also is in favor of the death penalty.

            Interestingly, you asked somewhere about gay marriage and what the arguments against it were. Does it matter? Our society, time and again, has rejected it. Everywhere voters decide they vote against it. They only time it is ruled OK is when the courts rule against what society has decided (just like in the case of abortion). Under your rules of the game gay marriage should be a dead issue because society has spoken and said they are against it.

            Your website is from a group of people who want to rid us of religion. There arguments are biased and slanted. I am not interested int he test. I have read the Bible cover to cover a few times and I can always go to it for information.

            • Darrel says:

              BIGD: You claim society has determined that a fetus is not a person. No, the courts and the legislators have decided this.>>

              DAR
              Those courts and legislators where put in place by our society.

              BIGD: Many states were opposed to abortion and were forced to allow it after Roe.>>

              DAR
              That’s part of the deal when you sign up to be a state in the “United States.” You follow the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

              BIGD: 51% of the country is anti abortion.>>

              DAR
              Let me check that.

              Gallup Poll. May 7-10, 2009. N=1,015 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

              “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”

              Answer:

              22% legal under any

              53% legal only under certain

              23% illegal in all

              Dar: This means, 75% believe abortion should be legal at least in certain circumstances.

              Regarding Roe v Wade:

              CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

              Poll question:

              “The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

              Answer: (5/14-17/09)

              30% yes overturn

              68% no, do not overturn

              1% not sure

              Dar>

              DAR
              Or so say the priests of the time. Religious people like to claim they get their commands to kill other people and steal their land, from God. This ruse is still very popular today. I don’t believe them then and I don’t believe them now.
              It’s a good policy not to take books with talking animals in them too seriously.

              BIGD: I oppose it [abortion].>>

              DAR
              I understand.

              BIGD: Since you used the Bible in the abortion example, it also allows the death penalty.>>

              DAR
              I am not aware of any verses that could be construed to allow our government to put people to death. The Hebrew Scriptures were of course, as you know, directed at the Hebrew people (and for that we can be thankful).

              As Robert Ingersoll said a hundred years ago:

              “If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”

              No one strictly follows either, or we lock them up for our safety and their own.

              BIGD: Society also is in favor of the death penalty.>>

              DAR
              Society was also in favor of slavery. I guess I don’t trust the government as much as you do, that is, to always get it right and kill people in my name without making mistakes.

              Over 100 people have been taken off of death row because of errors.

              And you need to update your files on this. Consider:

              ***
              “Opinion on the death penalty has also shifted in recent years. Although many Americans support the death penalty for murder, when offered a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment, the two options receive nearly equal support (47 percent to 48 percent) in the Gallup poll. This is a particularly dramatic shift: Just a decade ago, Americans preferred the death penalty over life imprisonment by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (61 percent to 29 percent). Since then support for life imprisonment has increased by 19 points, while support for the death penalty has declined by 13 points.”
              –http://tinyurl.com/rdan3c

              BIGD: you asked somewhere about gay marriage and what the arguments against it were. Does it matter?>>

              DAR
              Yes. I have never heard a cogent argument for not allowing gays to have equal rights on this issue. I would like to see one.

              BIGD: Our society, time and again, has rejected it.>>

              DAR
              You’re right but that’s changing really, really fast. Again, this country and the conservatives are behind the curve on this. They are caught on the wrong side and the losing side of history, once again.

              I picked up a tract in a church just a few years ago that argued that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear pants. Seriously. I still have it. It’s called Pantsuits and the Christian Woman.”

              How do you think that issue is polling today Bigdog?

              In a decade or two this whole gay issue will be behind us, they will have their full human rights as they should and those who oppose it will be viewed as being as silly those who think woman shouldn’t be allowed to vote or wear pants.

              You can eat less crow by joining the progressive side now. Or not. Do you like crow?

              D.
              —————-
              “When a 68-year-old Catholic priest suffered a fatal heart attack inside a Dublin, Ireland, gay sauna, he did not want for spiritual solace. Fr. Liam Cosgrave received last rites on the spot — from two other priest who were there at the same time.”
              -–Secular Humanist Bulletin Spring ’95

            • Big Dog says:

              I see Darrel. The things you agree with that society “believes” such as abortion are on the right side and should be done because that is what society wants. But, on an issue you do not agree with like banning gay marriage then society is on the wrong side of the issue and needs to change. Interesting how you operate.

              Society is not rapidly changing and they will never get all the states to allow gay marriage.

              As for abortion, the SCOTUS got Roe wrong because there is NO Constitutional right to an abortion. Neither you nor they can find it so do not attempt to BS me with some abstract ruling. It is NOT there.

              Which means it should have been pushed back to the states making it a states right issue IAW the 10th Amendment.

              As for abortion. I don’t care what others do. They have to answer for it. I do vehemently oppose my tax dollars paying for abortions. If I pay for it I have a right to tell you you can’t have it.

              Making gay marriage a states issue would cause problems if gays moved to a state where it was not recognized.

              I personally don’t care if gays marry. They can’t reproduce so they will all go away and liberals (none of you are progressive) do not reproduce at a rate high enough to sustain. They will abort themselves out of existence.

              I will never be on the wrong side of an issue because right and wrong are a matter of opinion. You see, the court can say Adam and Steve can marry but I do not have to recognize it.

              Also, marriage is a religious institution. They should allow civil unions which give the exact same benefits. Have the government change the tax laws so those joined in a civil union can file the same as married couples and then be done with it. There is NO reason for marriage when a civil union is just as good and it would not be a religious ceremony.

            • Darrel says:

              BIGD: The things you agree with that society “believes” such as abortion are on the right side and should be done because that is what society wants.>>

              DAR
              No, I specifically said I was *not* arguing that. That would be a variation of the ad populum fallacy.

              BIGD: But, on an issue you do not agree with like banning gay marriage then society is on the wrong side of the issue and needs to change.>>

              DAR
              Again, I would not, and have not said something is right because a bunch of people, or society, believes something to be right. That’s a fallacy.
              I have said, society believes X, and in my opinion I agree with X. Do you see the difference?
              With regard to gay marriage, I am observing that it is changing and that those opposed to equal rights for gays will lose. Bigtime. Over and over. I will enjoy this process. It’s bigotry and it’s good to see it recede.

              BIGD: Interesting how you operate.>>

              DAR
              In the above you clearly distort how I operate.

              BIGD: Society is not rapidly changing and they will never get all the states to allow gay marriage.>>

              DAR
              Nice. A factual claim. Those are my favorite. And flat wrong too.
              Five of them have flipped in the last few years. Most of them will flip in the next 10-20. Nearly all of them will in my lifetime. You can have a couple backward holdouts for a few more decades after that, then the old bigots will die, the children will replace them, and it’s a done deal. The children don’t about this issue. They can barely understand why there would be opposition. This is because the opposition has no good reasons. And you know it.

              As for the rest of the world. Get up to speed. Here is how it’s going:

              * Denmark in 1989 became the first country to grant registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples.

              * Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later.

              * Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

              * Belgium allowed gay marriage in 2003.

              * Canada and Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005.

              * Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for “life partnerships” since 2001.

              * France in 1999 introduced a civil contract called the Pacs, which gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of sex. These do not include the full rights of marriage.

              * Luxembourg, allowed civil partnerships in 2004.

              * New Zealand recognized gay civil unions in December, 2004.

              * Britain gave same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples in December of 2005.
              ****

              This is “rapid change” by any normative understanding of the word.

              BIGD: As for abortion, the SCOTUS got Roe wrong because there is NO Constitutional right to an abortion.>>

              DAR
              The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Thanks for coming out.

              BIGD: As for abortion. I don’t care what others do.>>

              DAR
              Good. Then you’re pro-choice like me. Except for the government funded part. Got it.

              BIGD: I do vehemently oppose my tax dollars paying for abortions.>>

              DAR
              I do have a little sympathy for you on this. Not much, just a little. I was opposed to my tax dollars causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s and orphaning 5 million children.

              BIGD: I personally don’t care if gays marry.>>

              DAR
              Good. See, it’s much easier to just live and let live. Having beliefs that try to withhold equal rights and hold people down… it just isn’t healthy. And there’s no good reason for it. And the progressives are going to win anyway.

              BIGD: They can’t reproduce so they will all go away…>>

              DAR
              As I mentioned, they do all the time. And there is no evidence that it is very hereditary. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, so the idea it “all go away” is flatly false. It won’t.

              BIGD: and liberals (none of you are progressive) do not reproduce at a rate high enough to sustain. They will abort themselves out of existence.>>

              DAR
              Now you’re just being silly. Both of my parents are very conservative and would definitely be republicans if they voted. They never have.

              BIGD: I will never be on the wrong side of an issue because right and wrong are a matter of opinion.>>

              DAR
              Nope. Sometimes you are just plain wrong on the facts. Opinions however, will of course vary.

              BIGD: You see, the court can say Adam and Steve can marry but I do not have to recognize it.>>

              DAR
              You go big dog! Personal mental protest!

              BIGD: Also, marriage is a religious institution.>>

              DAR
              Yeah, but who cares about that part anymore. What matters is the legal part and the rights bestowed by the government.

              BIGD: They should allow civil unions which give the exact same benefits.>>

              DAR
              Actually, they don’t. I used to have a list of 167 differences. Would you like me to find it? I could do that.
              Were you a big supporter of civil unions then? I bet. Bush said he was too. Then he changed his mind. Or lied.
              But no matter. Full status is coming. Won’t hurt a bit.

              This just in! Things are changing even as I write this post:

              ***
              “…a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post gives gay marriage an outright plurality, with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed.”

              http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf
              ***

              Can’t bet ’em… join ’em.

              D.

          • Big Dog says:

            Hippocrates thought abortion was wrong. This is part of the Hippocratic Oath. It has been changed but doctors took this for years.

            Hippocratic oath:
            I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

            Seems the medical community has known something for quite a long time…

            • Darrel says:

              You’re right about Hippocrates. But that was a long time ago (4th century BC) and we have learned a few things since then. They used to think (and the Bible agreed with this error) that thought originated in the heart. Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator to “cool the blood.”

              And note:
              “Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the original version that forbade abortion, euthanasia, and further forbade general practitioners from surgery. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.”

              –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

              D.

    • Big Dog says:

      Darrel,
      You are using the legal definition of a person to give legitimacy to murder. The legal definition is that an unborn child is not a person, unless of course the pregnant mother is killed because then the perp is charged with 2 murders. Or if the mother abuses drugs and the child is born retarded, then she is charged with abuse. How can you murder or abuse that which is not a person? The non legal definition of a person is a HUMAN. An embryo is a human the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father combine with the 23 chromosomes of the mother. A unique human is formed and its height, eye and hair color and sex are all determined and (unless it is an identical twin) there will be no other like it.

      The law uses the legal definition of a person to abuse. At one time blacks were not considered people. No one in his right mind will say that this made it OK to beat or kill them. They were PEOPLE just like us and deserved to be treated as such.

      You use scripture to make a point and then use a legal definition to say it is OK to murder an unborn child. The reality is that the Bible says that the life is in the blood and an unborn child has blood running through it. In other words it is a life.

      God could have put Jesus on this Earth in a second but he created him in the very way we are created from beginning to end. He must have placed some importance on the process.

      You claim a woman has a right over her body and that she can abort because the child is dependent on her. We allow her to abort in this country until well after it could survive without her. Also, the child is still dependent on her for everything except breathing when it is born. Can she murder it then if it is a burden to her and her body?

  15. Darrel says:

    BIGDOG
    The legal definition is that an unborn child is not a person,…>>

    DAR
    You got that part exactly right.

    BIG
    unless of course the pregnant mother is killed because then the perp is charged with 2 murders.>>

    DAR
    Really? Is that true? Shouldn’t be but sometimes goofy things happen out in the fringe states.

    BIG:
    Or if the mother abuses drugs and the child is born retarded, then she is charged with abuse.>>

    DAR
    Well, prosecutors can bring all sorts of charges can’t they?

    BIG: How can you murder or abuse that which is not a person?>>

    DAR
    You just shown (or at least claimed) above that it can be done. Murder means wrongful killing. This is just question begging.

    BIG: The non legal definition of a person is a HUMAN.>>

    DAR
    “Human” is a biological, scientific term. My toenails are “human.” When you say “a human” you are simply begging the question.

    BIG: An embryo is a human the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father combine with the 23 chromosomes of the mother.>>

    DAR
    Nope. If we have two test tubes in front of us and one has a canine embryo and the other a human embryo, we may say one is canine and one is human, we do not say one is “a dog” and the other is “a human.”
    There is a difference between a “a dog” and a dog embryo.

    There is a substantive difference between a pecan, and pecan tree. One has the potential to become a pecan tree and has very little value and the other is a pecan tree and can have a great value. We got a 147 lbs from our pecan tree last year. Great tree! There is a difference between the potential and the actual and it’s not useful to pretend there isn’t.

    BIG: A unique human is formed and its height, eye and hair color and sex are all determined and (unless it is an identical twin) there will be no other like it.>>

    DAR
    My body produces hundreds of thousands of sperm per day. By design, almost all will be discarded as will almost all of a woman’s eggs (never mind that the female body discards many if not most embryos too). Each sperm is unique. My pecan tree will produce millions of seeds in a year (and 12,000 pecans in a good year). Each seed is unique. The moral of this story? Nature, or a designer, doesn’t give a flip about “unique.” Every sperm is indeed “not sacred,” by design. And unique doesn’t even address the issue anyway.

    BIG They [blacks] were PEOPLE just like us and deserved to be treated as such.>>

    DAR
    Right. Except when they were a fetus. Then they don’t have the same rights as a person.

    BIG: the Bible says that the life is in the blood and an unborn child has blood running through it.>>

    DAR
    Right. *The mothers blood.* She had it first and she is sharing it, if she wishes. This is just another reason a fetus does not (and actually cannot) have separate personhood status.

    My claims regarding the Bible come from standard mainstream Christian scholarship and standard historical reference works regarding the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible against abortion, and several verses supporting it and many others showing that a fetus has less than person status. See my tract and Oxford reference for a start.

    BIG: We allow her to abort in this country until well after it could survive without her.>>

    DAR
    With few exceptions, that’s pretty much a myth some pass around. Most of the rather rare late term abortions are for health reasons or because the fetus has no brain etc.,.

    BIG: …the child is still dependent on her for everything except breathing when it is born. Can she murder it then if it is a burden to her and her body?>>

    DAR
    Nope. In the Bible, if the child was disobedient or stubborn, of course then you could kill it (Deut. 21:18).

    thanks for the reply Big Dog.

    Darrel.

  16. victoria says:

    DAR
    I would never use the Bible to justify abortion. I don’t believe the Bible. Not most of it anyway. But I spent about 10,000 hours in church and am a bit of an amateur scholar and wrote a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

    You’ve lost me because you have been going on about Exodus 21:22-25 and Deut 21:18
    and scripture being filled with killing, and saying the Bible does not give fetus’s personhood but you don’t believe in the Bible. So why are you using it as an argument? You say you have spent about 10,000 hours in church–did you learn anything there? I mean I don’t know what kind of church it was and you think you are a scholar but I just have two verses for you–Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart there is no God and Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
    You may have written a book about Biblical inerrancy and I can pretty well guess what you talked about–all the so called contradictions but if you knew God and His son Jesus Christ you would understand the Bible. The Bible does not even begin to mean what you say it does. Just one more verse for you–Isaiah 5:21:Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: “…you don’t believe in the Bible. So why are you using it as an argument?”

      DAR
      Thanks for the question Victoria. I do not base my personal beliefs about abortion on the Bible. Now, regarding the question, is the Bible pro-choice? Did the writers, inspired or not, consider a human fetus, as having the value of a personhood?

      That is an interesting historical and theological question. And we have an answer to that question. They did not.

      VIC: “and you think you are a scholar but I just have two verses for you…>>

      DAR
      I am an Arkansas goat farmer with a high school degree, but I have been studying the Bible since the 60’s and it’s a safe bet I know more about it than you do. So no need to toss little knee jerk scriptures at me.

      Let’s test my claim. Here is a little online Bible quiz. Multiple choice:

      http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html

      See how you do. I got 48 out of 50 correct.

      That’s 96%.

      If you can do that well I’ll give you a goat. Delivery not included.

      Good luck!

      D.

      • victoria says:

        Dar:It’s a safe bet I know more about it than you do. So no need to toss little knee jerk scriptures at me.

        You have caused me no knee jerks but here is another one–Psalm 1:1How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners,Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
        Well sir I have been saved since I was 10 yrs old and that was back in the 60’s so I don’t think you have anything on me because it is not what you know it is who you know.

  17. victoria says:

    DAR here is one more:
    1 Corinthians 2:14:The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    • Blake says:

      Victoria, If you were to go to the site D suggests and take the quiz, you would soon see that “freethinkers” are a group that spends all their time attempting to refute the Bible, a place that is glad to twist the context of the Bible.

      • Darrel says:

        Nope, “Promoting up-to-date, scholarly, information about the Bible” is only one of the nine listed things we do. See the rest here:

        http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml

        I don’t hold any beliefs about the Bible that aren’t exactly in line with what is taught in every religious studies program in every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure. I only make claims about the Bible that can be backed up with solid, mainstream, even mainstream Christian, Bible scholarship.

        The problem is, America is filled to almost 1/3 with biblically illiterate people who have been lied to by their clergy. They are regularly fed absurdities that were discarded in serious scholarship well over 100 years ago. This is a problem. But I am a Bible missionary, and I can help.

        BLK: “a place that is glad to twist the context of the Bible.”>>

        DAR
        You keep saying this as if it means something. You have yet to provide a single, solitary, example.

        Why don’t you do this? I know why.

        We’ve has our website up for about ten years. I have begged Christians to provide critical analysis and give feed back about anything inaccurate.

        No takers yet. Two verses come to mind:

        1 PET. 3:15 (RSV). “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”

        JUDE 3. “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith.”

        D.

        • Blake says:

          And yet you do not believe nor do you take the verses to heart. Why not, D?
          Shouldn’t you “earnestly contend for the faith’?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: And yet you do not believe nor do you take the verses to heart. Why not, D?>>

          DAR
          The same reason you don’t believe or take to heart the verses in the Koran.

          BLK: Shouldn’t you “earnestly contend for the faith’?>>

          DAR
          It’s not my faith. And faith is never a good reason to believe in something. Better to have good reasons, good evidence. Everybody knows this is true but they go to church and for a couple hours, pretend it isn’t true.

          faith n.
          1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

          — Webster’s New World Dictionary — Third College Edition

          D.
          ——————
          “Tell a devout Christian man that by eating frozen yogurt, he can become invisible – he requires evidence as much as anyone else” – but tell him that a certain book he keeps by his bed is written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for an eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he requires no evidence whatsoever.”
          –Sam Harris, “The End of Faith”

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, if I am wrong in my faith, i lose but a small amount of time in my life- if you are wrong and do not believe, you risk losing your eternal soul- but this is a part of free will, Darrel, You are free to reject Him. Your rejection of Him does not bother me, but your ridicule of Him does, somewhat, for it reveals a lack of respect here, and that is very unbecoming to anyone.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: Darrel, if I am wrong in my faith, i lose but a small amount of time in my life- if you are wrong and do not believe, you risk losing…>>

          DAR
          If I only had a time for every time someone passed this one along.

          This is Paschal’s Wager. It was formulated by Blaise Pascal in the 17th century. Here are five reasons why it doesn’t work:

          1. The wager makes truth irrelevant to one’s method of choosing beliefs. One who proposes the wager is suggesting that we should hold beliefs based on what rewards they promise, not based on whether they are true. Surely one who decides that truth is irrelevant to belief sacrifices integrity. How much is your intellectual integrity worth? How much is believing the truth worth to you, even if that truth is uncomfortable?

          2. If one believes things on the basis of promised rewards (wishful thinking) instead of on the basis of truth (as determined by careful critical examination) one is more likely to be wrong than right. But Pascal’s wager asks that we go with the least likely of two possibilities “just in case.” Why shouldn’t we critically investigate the claim of a reward in heaven or eternal punishment in hell at least as carefully as we do other extraordinary claims? Because we don’t want to? Because the much desired promise is seen to be without foundation?

          3. The statement that “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing” is not true. Suppose you’re believing in the wrong God — the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer. The time wasted worshipping and being afraid of, the many different and necessarily false gods.

          4. It does not take into account that there are many religions to follow. This wager works equally well for all of the competing religions, which means it doesn’t work at all. There are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there each with their own route to salvation. Are the Hindus correct? Were the ancient Greeks? Even among Christians there is no agreement about which denomination is the correct one. Many fundamentalist hold that Roman Catholics will go straight to hell. Strict Muslims will hold that their hell (the real one) will be full of misguided Christians. Strict Christians will say the same! The wager does not work if there are many competing religions and denominations available, and, of course, there are.

          5. Pascal’s wager is a failure if there really is an omniscient God since he will certainly know who really believes and who is believing as a wager (fire insurance). As Robert Ingersoll said over 100 years ago:

          “They tell us that to believe is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest.”

          http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml

          BLK: You are free to reject Him.>>

          DAR
          Thanks for your permission.

          D.