a challenge for christians: the moral argument against abortion
do you have any kind of moral argument against a woman being allowed to just get pregnant as many times and she wants and to than sell the fetal tissue? I can’t argue against it outside the context of faith. (Insanitybytes)
Most Christians are very much opposed to women having access to any kind of safe and legal abortion facilities. And they will resort to all sorts of odd questions to try and make their point. However, when it comes to providing reasoning for their stance, they are pretty vague in terms of providing any kind of biblical or even logical references.
Take the quote above. With full bravado, Insanity rejected the many clearly presented reasons why woman would logically be unlikely to choose to do such a thing, and also why it should never be condoned in society if someone did. As well as not accepting these reasons, Insanity was completely unable to argue for her case within the context of her faith.
As I stated on the previous post, for those who believe in the Christian god God, they must accept that their creator wove massive-scale pregnancy termination into the very fabric of his creation, and that even within the Bible he demands women be aborted for trivial reasons. Therefore, according to their holy book the Bible, Christians must accept their god has made abortion natural and also available for procurement in specific circumstances.
Please be assured I am not judging this god – I do not believe the Christian god exists. I am simply trying to understand how in the face of overwhelming biblical and observable evidence to the contrary, so many Christians insist that their faith calls them to fight against access to abortion.
So my challenge to Christians is this: explain the argument against abortion within the context of the Christian faith, with specific reference to how your understanding does not directly contradict both the design that is filled with pregnancy terminations, and the abortions encouraged in the Bible.
Thanks to this great post by Roughseas, we are also informed us that for most of Christian history abortion was accepted within the context of your faith.
My Christian friends, do you think perhaps a rethink is required?
Yes, I asked David this (after giving examples) and his response was rather bizarre.
On Roughseas post I see he’s now going down the line of Divine Command Theory, which is a little regrettable. I would have liked to have heard a real defence, rather than a cop-out deferral to Oogity-Boogity.
LikeLike
Oh well, of course! You’re bad soil, so no point in answering. Makes perfect sense. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting question. I can’t see how they could argue against it on biblical grounds. The bible is full of infanticide and children being killed or maimed for trivial reasons. If there is a plan, that plan would include fetuses dying in the womb constantly.
LikeLike
It’s made up theology. “There’s something not nice about the idea of stopping a baby growing, therefore my god wouldn’t like it.” And it flies in the face of the stories in the Bible and the ‘design’ they see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“made up theology” – redundant.
(Not that it was a bad point; just sayin’…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers Violet. I think the fact that abortion was recognised and acknowledged until C19 is a bit of a difficult one for Xtians to deal with. Neat find by me though huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“C19” = the 19th century (1800s)?
LikeLike
First, I appreciate your challenge. However, you are being a little vague as to the context of where abortion is commanded in the Bible for trivial reasons?
As far as a moral argument against abortion, I would draw the comparison that abortion for our day and age is along the lines of abolishing the slave trade in William Wilberforce’s day and age. However, there is no moral reason to be pro-“choice” in regards to elective abortions. And the burden would be on the pro-“choice” side to *attempt* the moral argument for abortion. They cannot shift the burden to the pro-life to provide a moral argument *against* abortion.
Now, as you’ve based you challenge on providing a moral argument against abortion within the context of the Christian Bible. I drew on the comparison to the abolishment of the slave trade circa late-18th Century for that reason. As that movement was spearheaded by prominent Christians in British Parliament.
While abortion and the abolishment of the slave trade might seem like a stretch at first, the similarities begin to build in view of your post. Christian abolitionists read the same Bibles that pro-life Christians read today. This means that the abolitionists Bible had passages regarding slavery being allowed which is similar to your points that the Bible contains commands for abortions. Now, as I am certain very few people who read your blog are pro-slave trade; so it mind boggling that anyone in our generation, with “advanced ethical reasoning” would be for the elective murdering of unborn life?
LikeLike
Seriously? Slave trade and abortion? If that’s your equivalency, we have to ask what sort of moral compass you have as a human being.
LikeLike
You’ll have to elaborate. You seem to be appalled that I view abortion as an atrocity that is on par with that of the slave trade circa late-18th century?
Technically, I would equate the atrocity of abortion to the holocaust, but I used the slave-trade due to the context of the question/challenge. Although, to question my moral compass would be to ask you the following: Do you feel that the slave-trade was moral? Followed up with; then why do you feel abortion is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s so simplistic it’s frightening. You see no difference between a zygote that doesn’t feel pain and a human being being beaten, chained, transported against his will to another country and forced to work for the rest of his/her life?
LikeLike
You miss the point entirely. I see the similarities of the atrocity against the value of life. It is you who differentiate that a zygote value is less than a human being. It is the pro-abortionist of our day that is the equivalent to slave trader. To devalue a human zygote as “being less than human” is what frightens me. The fact that you need to differentiate a human zygote to justify abortion and the elective termination of its life is alarming.
LikeLike
A zygote is not a human. If you don’t see the difference between feeling pain and not feeling pain than there’s something morally wrong with you.
LikeLike
So you believe that a zygote formed by the combination of a human sperm and egg, left undisturbed and naturally avoids miscarriage would develop into something other than a human?
Your argument from “pain” doesn’t make sense. at what stage does a developing fetus feel pain? That would be like saying had the Nazi’s rendered Jews unconscious before they exterminated them so they felt “no pain” it would make the holocaust humane. And we’re you aware that some medical professions suggest that a developing fetus can feel pain as early as 6 weeks from the zygote stage? I would presume that the majority of abortions occur after this point as opposed to before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t ‘naturally avoid miscarriage’. 50% of pregnancies end before the 4th week, naturally. That makes your alleged god the biggest abortionist of all history.
LikeLike
Lol, miscarriage is natural. To imply that God is an abortionist is to assert that God has supernaturally caused the abortion. Which is a highly ironic argument to make if you are an atheist.
I’m not familiar with the stat that 50% of pregnancies end before the 4th week. If what you are actually referring to is a woman’s period which occurs roughly every 4 weeks, that’s hardly something that can be considered a miscarriage as there is no evidence for conception occurring.
You also miss the point of what I meant by a zygote naturally avoiding miscarriage. It was necessary to include that comment to avoid the “what if miscarriage occurs?” As the question was regarding the development of a zygote without any complications that prevent it from full development. Would a zygote formed by a human sperm and human egg, develop into something that can be considered “not a human?”
LikeLike
Look it up. “Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, 15 to 20 out of every 100 will have a miscarriage”
So the answer is a round No. Absolutely not all pregnancies will develop into something considered human. On the contrary. Most will not.
LikeLike
And btw. Regarding your god I was talking about your belief and interpretation. If you say a pregnancy is your god’s will, how is an abortion not his will? How do you decide that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again the point of my question was to avoid the unnecessary tangent of “not all pregnancies end in live birth” It was to focus on the pregnancies that would end in live birth and whether the birth would be of something other than a human when a human sperm and human egg are responsible for the conception? Please stay focused.
I don’t recall saying either of those presumptions you’ve made about [my] god and my beliefs. I did find it quite interesting that an atheist would accuse a god they don’t believe and refer to said god as an abortionist for the natural occurrence of misconception and miscarriage?
LikeLike
You can’t focus on the minority statistic to create a general rule.
In case you didn’t understand the first time around, I’ll repeat myself: If you believe in a god, and most abortions are natural, that means your god is the greatest abortionist of all time. According to your own ideology- not to mine, as I simply consider it part of a nature.
LikeLike
No need to repeat yourself. I understood you the first time. I’ll put it plainly for you. When you say, “most abortions are natural” is an invalid statement. Abortions are not natural. Failed conception and miscarriages are natural. Abortions are an elective choice made to terminate development at some point during a viable pregnancy.
LikeLike
A miscarriage is a natural abortion, genius. from Latin abortio, from aboriri ‘miscarry’.
LikeLike
Wow. You sure are stretching, huh? You do understand English definitions, right? Two English words might come from a similar word in Latin but in English they have distinct and different meanings. Thanks for sharing though!
LikeLike
I don;t understand just English. I’m fluent in five languages. Stretching is what someone like you who doesn’t is doing.
Do you own a good dictionary? Try the Oxford. The word abortion means the expulsion of a fetus from the womb (by either natural or deliberate means)
How’s that for stretching? You ignorant little twit.
LikeLike
My, my. Name calling, someone’s feisty this morning. Positing that you are “right” because the Oxford dictionary has that for a definition? Yeah, I’d say you’ve entered the Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic range of stretching.
As I see you still don’t understand the difference between natural cause and intentional cause.
LikeLike
I’m right because I gave the correct definition.
An abortion is a process whereby a fetus is expelled from the female body. That’s it. You’re the one trying to play word games. I suppose you need to resort to that sort of thing as medicine and science (and language) aren’t on your side.
LikeLike
And we’re you aware that some medical professions suggest that a developing fetus can feel pain as early as 6 weeks from the zygote stage?
Try week 25, with full bilateral synchronisation at week 28.
LikeLike
Sure about that? http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/expert-tells-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
Seems the 25 week may be more of a pro-abortionist myth than medical fact…
LikeLike
Quite sure, yes. You are confusing (conflating) action potentials and a functioning brain. By gestational design, action potentials, the first layer of nerve nets, are present in the foetus quite early. They react. Reaction is a task. What you are ignoring here is that the foetus does not (until fill bilateral synchronisation) have any means in place to recognise and process that reaction. There is no information flow. Have you ever seen the experiment where electrodes are hooked up to a dead frog’s legs and electricity passed through? The leg muscles expand and contract and the leg moves. That is something like what is happening in a foetus.
For pain to be recognised there must be a functioning brain, and the required neurological infrastructure (neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them) simply doesn’t exist until week 20. At week 24/25 sustained electrical activity begins, but full bilateral synchronisation does not begin until week 27/28.
From the New England Journal of Medicine, Professors K.J.S. Anand, and P.R. Hickey:
Have you ever heard of Dr James R. Goldenring? He’s a staunch, staunch, staunch pro-life advocate, which makes this statement quite persuasive. The first sentence is his opinion. The rest of his statement bears the facts of the matter:
You see, it all comes down to having a brain. Even this anti-abortionist admits that.
It appears to me that you are repeating a factoid that is popular in the pro-life movement. It is false information, borne of a misinterpretation of a Japanese study in the 60’s. If you’re interested in actually learning the facts of how this mistake occurred, and how it has seeped into the argument then I suggest you read, very carefully, the linked paper below.
Click to access brain_waves.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
It all comes down to having a brain. Certainly there couldn’t be an argument against that, right?
Even if I fully accepted your premise for the sake of argument, it does not change the fact that abortion ends human existence and potential. Simply because it occurs before the fetus’ brain has fully developed, does not mean that at the moment of conception something other than a human is developing and then when the brain has full bilateral synchronization that it *miraculously* becomes a human being at that point. That would seem an odd argument for an atheist to use???
I’m assuming without reading the argument that it has something to do with autonomic response of the simple nervous system that has already developed.
Of course, this is not to mention that simply because the fetus does not recognize it consciously as “pain” does not make the elective choice of terminating it’s existence and preventing the brain a chance to develop anything less than inhumane.
LikeLike
It’s not my premise, rather the position of the legal, medical and scientific world. You were trying to argue pain is felt. You are wrong. It is not, and cannot be until after full bilateral synchronisation. Period.
As the anti-abortionist, Goldenring (Professor of Surgery, the Paul W. Sanger Chair in Experimental Surgery, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology), clearly states:
.”
Nothing is dying because there was no human organism.
At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Ever. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. The only way we have to identify a distinct human life is, therefore, by EEG activity.
Are you aware of the legal, scientific, and medical definition of “death”?
If so, the question I put to you is this: How can you “kill” something that cannot “Die”?
LikeLike
Followed by:
How is it that life began if at no stage does it magically appear?
Anyways, what you are saying is that “life” does not “appear” for a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. But the question that logically flows, is not whether life “appears” but if life is “present?”
You’re argument has been that life is not present until the human brain has fully developed. Which is the same as saying that human life does not appear until EEG activity is present. If you haven’t noticed, your argument entire argument is self-refuting.
I am curious, pro-abortionists love to bring up the “legal, scientific, and medical definition of ‘[brain] death,'” but I wonder if they know the “legal, scientific, and medical definition of life?
Do you truly not believe that a fetus does not “die” simply because it has not developed EEG activity? If a fetus is not alive the result would be a natural miscarriage or still birth. In other words, elective abortion would not be necessary to terminate fetal development if the fetus was not a living organism, nature would take care of itself.
LikeLike
You’re argument has been that life is not present until the human brain has fully developed
No, that’s not my argument. That, in fact, has nothing to do with what I said. I said “life” never magically appears in the foetus. Ever.
Now, if you know what the legal, scientific, and medical definition of death is, then please answer this rather simple question: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?
(If you don’t know what the legal, scientific, and medical definition of death let me know and I will tell you)
LikeLike
So life naturally appears in a fetus when?
As for your question: it is illogical. You cannot kill a corpse unless it’s some sort of zombie apocalypse and we are forced to provide a blunt force trauma that kills the basic brain functions of the reanimated humans.
But the reason it is illogical, is that it presumes a fetus (because it does not have a fully developed brain) “cannot die” according to the “legal, scientific, medical death” that you’ve used to try and pigeonhole the answer. We know for a fact that a living organism such as a fetus can die and therefore, it can be killed. We know that fetuses develop into living humans and that they can die naturally through a miscarriage or stillbirth or by elective abortion.
LikeLike
So life naturally appears in a fetus when?
For the third time: life never emerges in the foetus. Ever. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.
We know for a fact that a living organism such as a fetus can die and therefore, it can be killed.
Wonderful, if you believe that then please proceed to answer the question: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?
LikeLike
I’ll rephrase the question. Does life exist in a fetus? Is it present?
Regarding your question: Since a fetus is a living organism, does that mean it can it die?
LikeLike
I’ll rephrase the question. Does life exist in a fetus? Is it present?
For the fourth time: Life never emerges in the foetus. Ever. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.
Since a fetus is a living organism
Is it? I’ll refer you back to statement made by the staunch anti-abortionist, Dr James R. Goldenring:
So, provided you know the legal, medical, and scientific definition of death, are you going to address the question, or do you prefer just to keep evading it?
How can you “Kill” something that cannot “Die”?
LikeLike
How can you “Kill” something that cannot “Die?”
Simple! You crush the the fetus with forceps to stop the heart, lungs, kidney’s and developing brain before the fetus can develop full brain differentiation which would be integrated into a full human organism. Another way is by administering a drug that prevents fetal organs that would otherwise develop naturally.
Here’s some links to consider regarding the development of the fetal development and the brain:
The video describes the exponential growth of nerve cells: https://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/development-human-embryonic-brain
Namely week 10: http://www.babycenter.com/0_fetal-development-timeline_10357636.bc
As far as holding to your definition of death and your question:
Legal definition http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Death.aspx: Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions and of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. – i.e., Not solely based on brain activity.
Medical definition http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438: Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of “vital bodily functions.”) See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by “an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions.” 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”
Especially #1-3. #1 no consensus on “life” #2 depends on definition of “vital bodily functions.” and #3 “absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions” – Again, not determined by lack of brain activity.
Scientific just seems to be another way of saying “medical” so I won’t bother posting another link/definition for it.
LikeLike
ST, you really are quite tiresome
Action potentials perform a task. I have already told you this. Without a functioning brain, no information is being processed. There is no human organism, precisely as the pro-life advocate, Goldenring, so clearly affirms. Are you doubting a pro-life professor of surgery?
Here is the legal, medical, and scientific definition of death is. Read the following carefully.
In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.” This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.” It was further still updated in 1995 (to present) to state, “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death.” This is mirrored in the U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) which states: “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].” And this is equally mirrored in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation, which defines death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person.
Now, let’s read this quite carefully:
And I really want you to read this exceptionally carefully. It’s the words of the so-called ”Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement”, Jack Willke:
So, please answer the question: Before full bilateral synchronisation, how can you “kill” something that cannot “Die”?
LikeLike
John, you do understand the definition you are using is referring to “brain” death. Which is why you will notice in the definitions that I provided they have this definition included. But legal, scientific, and medical deaths are not limited to the definition you are trying to use for the sake of your argument.
If a person is shot through the heart and dies instantly, a medical doctor would rule the cause of death due to the function of the heart stopping. Not due to the function of brain activity stopping.
LikeLike
ST, let me repeat: you really are quite tiresome
The definitions present are the definitions of “death.” Did you not read “Diagnosis of death,” “Uniform Determination of Death Act,” and “ANZICS Statement on Death.” The definitions of death (in the US, UK , Aust and NZ) all begin with the cessation of brain activity. Period.
And no, the “cause of death” would be the gunshot, the determination of death would be the absence of brain function.
So, please answer the question. I’ll give you one final opportunity to rationally justify using language like “kill.”
Before full bilateral synchronisation, how can you “kill” something that cannot “Die”?
LikeLike
John, let me just say: You sure know how to beat a dead horse!
Cheers!
LikeLike
And I’ll take that to mean you cannot answer the question.
So, now you know using language that includes words like “kill” cannot be rationally justified. Will this mean you’ll change your language in the future? Perhaps… One can only hope.
What I can say is this: if you continue to use such deliberately wrong language in the future then in the back of your head you will know you’re being deceitful.
The rest is up to you. Good luck at becoming a better human being.
LikeLike
John, I’m even confused by your objection to the word ‘kill’. Would you agree it’s possible to kill cancer cells?
LikeLike
Yes, cells die all the time. Cells don’t equal an organism.
LikeLike
Do antibiotics kill organisms?
LikeLike
As in virus’s, yes. A virus is defined as a single celled organism. A human being is not. Did you see the quote by the pro-life professor, Goldenring?
LikeLike
I’ve skim read most of it. 🙂
I understand the objection to the use of ‘murder’, but it seems pretty straight forward that a fetus is killed in an abortion. No amount of re-wording would convince anyone otherwise.
LikeLike
Cells are killed, yes. Systems are stopped from developing. But prior to full bilateral synchronisation there is no human organism that can “die.”
LikeLike
John, I answered your question 4 times to show why it was invalid. So to say that [I] cannot answer it, is a joke. You chose to repeat the same non-sense as if it was impervious to logic and reason.
LikeLike
The bible commands the destruction of all human that don’t worship it. It also commands that women’s bellies be ripped open, which certainly appears to be a command to kill the fetuses inside. If you are confused where it says this, I am quite happy to point to the Old Testament. I am also happy to point to where Jesus Christ says that anyone who doesn’t accept him as king is to be brought before him and killed by believers. It also commands that women be forced to abort: Numbers 5:
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
I will guess that either you had no idea this was there, having not read your bible or knew it was there and hoped no one else had read it. If your god is okay with aborting a fetus in this instance and killing actual children in many others, where is your argument against abortion in the bible?
I do note that Christians had no problems with slavery at all, and indeed advocated it, especially in antebellum United States. Yep, Christians were abolitionist but that was a rarity, and often the Christians were of small sects that the main sects claimed to be heretics. Of course, they couldn’t show that their versions were any more true.
The moral reason to be pro-choice is that a woman’s body is hers as is a man’s is his. This does work well with how the bible should be against slavery too, but it never said one thing bad about slavery. Not one. You just pick and choose the morality you wish your god was for and have no evidence for it at all.
LikeLike
Oh, Vel. You don’t remember me, how sad?
The moral argument is that a woman’s body is hers and the mans is his, but to whom does the body (and rights therein) of the fetus belong to?
And you quips regarding “not reading” or “not knowing” are utterly false. I was never questioning the validity of the claim, I simply don’t have the Bible memorized. Do you?
LikeLike
I should remember one more TrueChristian(tm) who repeats the same nonsense? And one that can’t answer questions? Nah, that type is a dime a dozen.
I am quite sure that you were indeed questioning the validity of the claim made. It isn’t so “vague” now, is it?
I don’t have the bible memorized, that doesn’t mean I don’t know what it says. And search engines are so very helpful. Biblegateway.com is a lovely website for finding what you may only partially remember.
So, now that we know your god advocates abortion and the murder of children and humans in general, again, where is the argument against abortion in the bible? Indeed to whom does the body and rights therein of the fetus belong to? I believe that unless it has brain activity and can survive on its own, it can possibly be considered a entity of its own. Alas, your god doesn’t agree with me and seems to be presented as having the right to kill anyone it wants at any time. That’s quite a sycophantic attitude, nothing more than “might makes right” and shows your morals are less than a meerkat’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, it’s “not vague” to make reference only a few verses from the Bible without citation? How about I paraphrase a paragraph from Moby-Dick and expect you to know what page I was referencing? Seems legit!
Oh, and now you think it’s *so* bad that I’ve asked the person making the claim to provide a citation? Rather ironic if you ask me? I mean, aren’t atheists always asking theists to provide the evidence to support their claims?
Your argument is that until the fetus has brain activity and can survive outside the womb it is not it’s own entity? Is a rock it’s own entity? Now, I’m sure yup will clarify that you mean “living” entity or “personhood.” But then do plants have brains? Are they not to be considered “living” entities? And finally, if the fetus was left undisturbed by abortion, would it grow into an individual that has its own body and rights?
LikeLike
No, it’s not vague if one knows the source and it is always curious that Christians are always the ones who make such claims that references based on their bible are vague and always when the reference is unflattering to their religion. It’s nice to see you try to move the goal posts again, KD. One doesn’t need to know a page to know the reference. If I speak about the great white whale and a man’s obsession, one doesn’t need to know that the color of the whale was mentioned on the first page of chapter 31. But it’s great to see you compare Moby Dick, a book of fiction, to a book that Christians claim to be true and of a magical source but can be demonstrated to be little more than a book of myths from one more bronze/iron age culture. I do expect Christians to know their holy book, something that they continually claim is the base of their morality, that they claim is divinely written/inspired, that they claim tells them how to avoid being damned to eternal torture. I do know that the reality is that believers often have no idea what their bible says or that they intentionally try to hide the fact that their book is nothing as they claim.
You didn’t ask the author to provide a citation, you made a claim that the reference was vague and the reference was not. You could have asked for a citation but you did not. I certainly do ask for evidence. I do not make claims that something is vague as an attempt discount information.
Great to see you again try to move the goalposts. Oh my, rocks and plants? Thanks for showing that you do know what I am talking about without me having to explain it to you and showing your claims about rocks and plants are rather pointless. You want to ask questions but you of course do your best to ignore my points. Yep, a fetus that was born certainly would grow into an individual with its own body and rights. As you ably note, it requires that growth to change states. A fetus is not a child, an acorn is not an oak tree.
Again, where is the argument against abortion in the bible? Why is it okay for your god to command abortion, cause the miscarriage of billions, and murder children and other humans? At it stands, it seems that you are left with a “might makes right” argument.
If you are so concerned about the “rights” of a fetus, why are you not concerned that they are taken away by your god, if one can believe the claims of the bible? You try to compare abortion to slavery, and attempt to claim that Christians were uniformly against slavery, which also takes away rights. Unfortunately for your false claims, your bible never speaks against slavery and does advocated for abortion, and the murder of children and other humans; and Christians were for slavery and used the bible to argue for it. Let me ask you: did David’s son have rights? Sure doesn’t seem like it if this god murdered him for the actions of his father.
LikeLike
Vel, read what I originally wrote (emphasis added):
Asking “where it’s commanded” is asking for the reference or citation. But I do love your needlessly long argument when the facts contradict your claim as usual!
Your welcome, now it would be courteous if you could actually show that you know what I’m talking about. Using a terrible equivocation of an acorn to a fetus shows just how desperate you are. A germinated acorn, planted in the ground with a sufficient source of water and light is certainly an oak tree. Just as a human zygote with the right conditions inside the womb would develop into a human being. The reason this is a guilty of equivocation is that an acorn is like an unfertilized egg in a woman’s ovary not a zygote or fetus.
Left with the “might makes right” argument? That actually sounds strikingly similar to the pro-abortionists argument? The woman has the power (might) over the developing fetus to determine whether the fetus deserves to continue developing or not (right).
Nope, never said Christians were uniformly against slavery (which I recall using the slave trade as the comparison not slavery). Such a wonderful misrepresentation, Vel, It’s so great to see you still using the same old logical fallacies!
LikeLike
Again, KD, it’s shame that a Christian doesn’t know his bible, even vaguely. Indeed, what is the context of the command of your god to commit abortion or genocide, etc? Please do explain that and how it would change what was said by the author of the original post.
Always good to see you whine about long posts. I guess that’s all of the rebuttal you have. Still waiting for some actual evidence or facts that contradict me. Please do show them. If your claim is true, that should be very easy, shouldn’t it?
It’s great for you to make vague claims again. Please do show what “terrible equivocation” I’ve used and why it is “terrible”. I’ve seen you try to do this before, accuse me of doing certain things and never being able to show where I have done such things. You did that on my blog, claiming that I had used logical fallacies and every time I asked you to show where, you refused. That was great fun to watch.
I do love how you are doing your best to dismantle the acorn/fetus analogy. Again, you do show wonderfully how a fetus isn’t a child. Congratulations! Yep, a fetus needs all sorts of things to become a child, just like an acorn needs all sorts of things to become an oak. An acorn is a seed, which is the combination of a pollen (sperm) and ovule (ovum), like a fetus is a combination of an animal sperm and egg. You don’t know much about biology at all, do you? It would be wonderful if you would know even a little about what you attack and claim. I’m more than happy to enjoy this schadenfreude you have created for yourself.
Hmmm, so you wish to claim that it is “might that makes right” when a woman decides that she wants to control her own body. Let me ask you something, KD, since a fetus isn’t a child or an adult, as you have so ably shown, why do you think a fetus has the same rights, or as you want to term it “power” as an adult? If it does have the same rights, then why did your god never say this? Why does your bible say nothing about the right of children or fetuses when your god is murdering them or having them murdered? Again, why was it okay for your god to murder David’s son for something David did, if everyone has equal rights?
You have tried to claim that only Christians were against slavery. It seems we are going around again on what you “exactly” said rather than what you meant. Oh well, we can see what you said here: https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/a-challenge-for-christians-the-moral-argument-against-abortion/#comment-21844 . And it’s hilarious that you try to separate the slave trade from slavery. Again, KD, where is the moral argument in the bible against abortion? If this god was against slavery (or the slave trade), why not one mention? If personal freedom is so important, why no mention of it and lots of advocating of how slaves need to remain with their masters no matter what? If personal freedom is so important, why does your god remove it by murdering people and commanding abortions and supposedly causing miscarriages?
Oh my, here we go again. What logical fallacies, KD? I’ve given you the nikzor site that has lovely explanations of what logical fallacies are. Which did I use? Surely you can tell me, right? Or are you going to try what you have before, and claim that I must find it for you or that “anyone” can find it?
LikeLike
I pointed them out Vel, or did you miss this because you felt the need to type out a chapter length response. I know how you love your typing exercises.
Comparing a fetus to an acorn has got to be the most intellectually dishonest analogy I’ve ever heard. But thanks for sharing it, I enjoyed a boisterous laugh from it!
LikeLike
Ah, still hoping that others will believe you when you make claims and then can’t show the evidence.
Basic biology disagrees with your claim that acorns are unfertilized eggs. http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Pollination/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Pollination-and-fertilisation
But please do show how an acorn is not like a fetus if you are so sure I am “intellectually dishonest”.
LikeLike
Seriously Vel, re-read my original comment! You’ll see how I’ve already pointed this out to you. You truly do a bad job of missing my points and thus you do an incredible job at misrepresenting them!
Do you understand how intellectually dishonest this is?
In my original comment on your analogy, I pointed out to you that an acorn that has not been germinated or allowed to take root in soil where there are the right type of nutrients for it to grow cannot be compared to a fetus. You can compare the acorn to a human egg or sperm cell, but not to a fetus. Do I need to blockquote or link you back or can you find it on your own?
LikeLike
ST,
Curious, are you going to answer my question to you?
LikeLike
Perhaps. But just like with Vel I feel I’d just be repeating myself. I mean, I would obviously try and communicate it in such a way as to clarify my original points.
LikeLike
I did want to ask about this “Nope, never said Christians were uniformly against slavery ”
So, how does this work with the Christian claims of a moral truth from their god and the bible? Which Christian was right?
LikeLike
Still trying Vel? I thought Stretch-arm-strong was a toy for kids?
You first misrepresented my original comment and now you want to misrepresent your original objection? When will you just learn to give up?
LikeLike
Evidence please.
LikeLike
Want evidence? Here ya go:
I said:
Then here https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/a-challenge-for-christians-the-moral-argument-against-abortion/#comment-21890 you falsely claimed that I said:
Then you try and attack your nice little strawman: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Stating that:
Christians were for slavery and used the bible to argue for it.
Well, sorry, but even you admit that this doesn’t work when you ask the following question here: https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/a-challenge-for-christians-the-moral-argument-against-abortion/#comment-22033:
oh this will be fun. 🙂 I’ll be back in a day or so.
LikeLike
No surprises there. It will be quite hilarious to read your objections.
LikeLike
Wait for it…
WAIT FOR IT…
LikeLike
Are you trying to pretend I haven’t responded yet? It seems so. I’ve already responded, KD: https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/a-challenge-for-christians-the-moral-argument-against-abortion/#comment-22177
LikeLike
WordPress must be acting goofy, it never showed up in my notifications. I know I had a comment that violet said filtered into her spam and wonder if that wasn’t the case with yours. I see it now, so thanks for the link!
LikeLike
mmm-hmmm.
LikeLike
Lol, you crack me up Vel, you know that! I’m not surprised you don’t believe me, but it’s the truth. Which is what makes it all the more hilarious!
I’ll be getting back to your other comment that you linked me to since it didn’t show up in my notifications.
LikeLike
Amazing what crying wolf will do to a person’s reputation, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, Vel you’ve assumed that I’ve been “crying wolf” the whole time.
I think the moral of the story that you should focus on is: What happened when the wolf came and the villagers assumed that the boy who “cried wolf” was not telling the truth?
LikeLike
Still waiting for that wolf.
LikeLike
Smh…
Are you truly this dense?
Your comments reiterate the points I’ve made. The only argument you have raised is against the strawman you’ve tried to create.
It’s been real…well…it’s been something else. G’day!
(I’m guessing you’re going to take this as John did, by making the wrong conclusion based off of your presumption from the start. i.e., lack of being objective in your comments/arguments)
LikeLike
I’m not dense at all. I float quite well. Or, are you trying to call me stupid, KD? I have repeated your comments and shown them to be silly and wrong. I certainly have not agreed with them. But, as always, as soon as you want to give evidence of this, I’ll be waiting. Where is the strawman argument, KD? Or are you again making false claims about me to avoid having to answer questions?
Where is the moral argument against abortion in the bible, KD? Where is the moral argument against slavery? All of this and you have been utterly unable to offer what the author of the blog post asked for.
You ‘ve, of course tried to claim that all Christians have “central beliefs” but as soon as I have asked you to support your claim, you have decided to run away again. Again, what are these central beliefs of Christianity? Or were you just hoping I’d take your word for it and not know better than to believe you? How can we determine what is “central” and what is not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems you have a lot of questions. I hope one day you’ll be able to listen to the person answering them, rather than believing they fallen into some imaginary schadenfreude of yours.
As for my comments, you have agreed with them, as you nearly repeated word for word my last statements but continued to wrongly assert that I was meaning “all and not just some.” But Vel, as I said, you’d take my not bothering not to answer all of your questions the wrong way, much like John did. So I hope all the best for you in your future endeavors!
LikeLike
I have listened to you and others. Listening does not mean accepting without question as you pretend it does.
Still waiting for evidence of your claims. You of course cannot provide it. If I have supposed repeated you “word for word”, the you can surely show this, correct?
You have made claims and cannot support them.
I am curious: what is the “right way” to take someone who has made baseless claims, insists he has evidence and then refuses to provide that evidence?
LikeLike
I’m not even sure how to politely respond to this. I see you are doing your best David Irving impression yet again, but frankly you are wrong. What you “[did] argue” is absolutely false. How you concluded I meant “Christians uniformly believe…” is a display of horrid reading comprehension.
Let’s see, I compare Christian anti-slave trade circa 1800’s in British Parliament to present day anti-abortionists. The reason for this is that, the Christian anti-slave trade movement had opposition from others who “defended slavery” using a few verses from the Bible. Not much differently than the original post is using a few verses from the Bible to defend abortion which is being used to oppose Christian anti-abortionists views. No one who is acting reasonably would conclude as you have that this means Christians were uniformly opposed to either slavery of abortion.
My reference to “very few people” is that presently, very few people would be in favor of slavery or the slave-trade. Again, no one thinking rationally would argue that this means uniformity of Christian beliefs. Rather that it means, people today (Christian and non-Christian) are uniformly against slavery. This of course is not saying that this is universally accepted as I’m sure there are some who still force various types of slavery, but I doubt they’d be reading this blog.
Unlike you have argued, there is no evidence to support your claim that I was saying “Christians uniformly believed…” So you’ve created something that never existed in order to attack it, which as you have stated; is exactly what a strawman argument is.
You have an exceptionally convoluted way of thinking. Let’s just say, I mentioned that it would be wrong to assume that your comment about Christians arguing for slavery meant Christians were uniformly pro-slavery. As you agreed that you meant “some and not all,” it’s a wonder that you would argue that I meant “all and not just some?” Again, this proves illogical to even attempt to form the argument that you have.
As far as which Christian is right? It’s not up to me, I reserve that judgement for God. I do my best at understanding what the Bible teaches and understand the world around me. But if objective moral values are true and there is a moral truth giver, which I believe is what the Bible directs us to with God. Than I find that it is my responsibility to evaluate my moral reasoning to align it with what is objectively true regarding morality. However, because there are differing worldviews most of our moral values end up becoming gray areas. To rectify this, one must decide what is “true for them” at a given time, while they continue to question their subjective morality and work towards the objective truth.
(I will add that DP has commented that there are central beliefs across the majority of Christian faiths, these are much more uniform beliefs that Christians hold. Whereas there are discrepancies in non-central beliefs that are a result of what is being taught as “truth” when it may not be. There is personal responsibility to evaluate what you have been taught to believe, unfortunately not everyone does this.)
As for your “faith,” it’s not that you have “asked wrong.” It’s not even that you’ve “lost” it. You have simply transferred it from “faith in the Christian God” to “faith in something else.” If it helps, it’s like pulling all of your money and investments out of The Way Savings and Loan and depositing it into GloboBank. You didn’t lose your money and investments, you just changed which bank is holding your assets.
LikeLike
Considering I have no idea who David Irving is, nor do I care, your attempts to insult me are rather pointless.
Nice to claim I’m wrong, but I’m used to seeing you have nothing to support your claims, only relying on vague nonsense.
I have very good reading comprehension. Considering that the man who has no idea how an acorn is like a fetus is trying to claim I do not is quite funny. I am also quite rational. To claim that I am not simply because I can show you to be wrong and disagree with you is not much evidence to support you at all. All this appears to be is more personal attacks based on nothing.
There is nothing that even shows that now people are “uniformly against slavery”. We have the very unfortunate example of the vermin in ISIL. Uniform means consistent in conduct or opinion universal means: present or occurring everywhere. People are uniformly against slavery; people are universally against slavery. So, do you really mean that people are uniform in conduct opinion or are they not? It doesn’t matter if they read this blog or not. I have no idea why you find it is strange that the phrase “some and not all” doesn’t mean “all and not some”. I meant the first, and I have explained why I consider that you have argued the opposite.
Ah, here we go, the usual dodge of a Christian who claims that his version of Christianity is the only right one and then tries to claim that it’s not up to him, it’s up to god. We went through this on my blog, where I could point out where you insist that other Christians “misuse” the bible. Funny how you take responsibility for your claims up until someone points out that Christians don’t agree and there is no reason to believe any of your claims to have the true god given morality. The sects of Christianity claim that the others are wrong and what they claim is true, so your bs that you only “do your best” is nonsense. You do not, you try to convert others to what you claim is true. It’s always fun to watch this when Christians send missionaries to countries that are 90% Christian, but oooh, not the “right” Christian. Christians have murdered each other over who was “right”. You have yet to show that there are any objective morals at all, much less from your bible or your version of what you claim your god meant. If there were objective moral values, why would there be gray areas? It seems that this poor god can’t make itself understood which is rather amazing for an omnipotent being. Wow, lovely example of entirely situational morals “To rectify this, one must decide what is “true for them” at a given time, while they continue to question their subjective morality and work towards the objective truth.” So much for the divine truth of a god, the world is just like a world would be without any divine moral-giving god.
Again, what are these central beliefs of Christianity? I do want to know what you think they are. I want to know what beliefs that Catholics, evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, Coptic Christians, and all other tens of thousands of Christian sects agree on. I do see that you are setting up to try to claim certain things “non-central”. How can we determine what is “central” and what is not? I do love your nice little swipe against any Christian who disagrees with you “There is personal responsibility to evaluate what you have been taught to believe, unfortunately not everyone does ths.”
Alas, KD, I have no faith: the belief in things unseen in anything. I do have trust in evidence. So your attempt to again try to make believe atheism is a religion is just as silly as ever. You are wrong….again. Your bank analogy is interesting. If we follow it, there were no tellers, no president of the bank, not any bank at all to speak to the customer who was wondering where everyone was and what they were doing with her investment.
Again, KD, where in the bible does it say abortion is bad and slavery is bad? Hmmm?
LikeLike
Let’s see what you did say in your original post:
“Now, as you’ve based you challenge on providing a moral argument against abortion within the context of the Christian Bible. I drew on the comparison to the abolishment of the slave trade circa late-18th Century for that reason. As that movement was spearheaded by prominent Christians in British Parliament.
While abortion and the abolishment of the slave trade might seem like a stretch at first, the similarities begin to build in view of your post. Christian abolitionists read the same Bibles that pro-life Christians read today. This means that the abolitionists Bible had passages regarding slavery being allowed which is similar to your points that the Bible contains commands for abortions. Now, as I am certain very few people who read your blog are pro-slave trade; so it mind boggling that anyone in our generation, with “advanced ethical reasoning” would be for the elective murdering of unborn life?”
So you certainly did compare abortion to slavery and you have attempted that Christians got their information from the same bible and that they agree on what the bible says: “Christian abolitionists read the same Bibles that pro-life Christians read today.” I would argue that it appears that you are saying Christians uniformly believed. This is also supported by you saying that “very few people” are pro-slave and that you are astonished that “anyone in our generation” would be for abortion, indicating that you believe Christians are uniform in belief. The bible does command abortions(and has your god repeatedly murdering children, the murder of expecting mothers, etc), and it does support slavery. The abolitionists choose to ignore that the bible never says slavery is wrong. The anti-abortion people choose to ignore that the bible never says abortion is wrong and is commanded to occur by their god. It does boggle the mind that Christians pick and choose from a book that they claim is a moral absolute. A strawman is creating something that doesn’t exist invented for the purpose of attacking it. You appear to be saying Christians were uniformly against slavery and abortion. There appears to be no strawman invented by me.
Yep, some Christians were for slavery and used the bible to argue for it. I have no idea how you think that I have admitted that this isn’t true or doesn’t work when I asked which Christian claim is right. You certainly did quote John 4, and have yet to show which Christian position is the one your god approves of. Christians constantly claim that their bible is the moral truth. But contradicting positions on moral questions shows that it is not any kind of truth at all.
Each type of Christian makes the claim that there are the “true worshippers” and they contradict each other. You’ve been asked these questions repeatedly and I do not recall if you answered them directly: where in the bible does it say abortion is bad and that slavery is bad? How can we know which Christians are the “true worshippers” since all Christians make the claim that they and they alone are “worshiping in spirit and in truth”? I do not see this supposed mountain of evidence that your claims are correct. Please do show it to me. If it is there, cutting it and pasting it again to let me see it should be no problem.
When losing my faith, I did ask this Christian god for help keeping it. Still waiting. Let me guess, you’ll insist that I didn’t ask correctly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone who is curious about KD here and his tactics can find much to be amused with here: http://clubschadenfreude.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/
LikeLike
Oh Vel, we both know the comment section exposes your tactics. But keep denying reality!
LikeLike
Wonderful to see you trying to speak for me and making false claims again, KD. Alas, I don’t agree with you at all, no matter what you may claim. Tsk.
LikeLike
Not agreeing with me is not the same as knowing what is true or denying reality. You can object as vehemently as you wish, it doesn’t change the facts! But A for effort Vel, A for effort!
LikeLike
Well, KD, as soon as we see any facts from you, that might be up for debate.
As usual, you have none. You try to claim that I agree with you when that is a rather pathetic little lie. And when your claim is shown to be another lie? Ah yes, now you backpedal away from it. Again, evidence for your claims, KD?
LikeLike
LOL, you should check the pudding Vel, that’s where the proof is. In this case it’s in the previous comments section. I thought we went through this way back when.
Just realize that now you are demanding me to provide citation. I thought that was *so* bad when I did it. Please be a little less contradictory with your attacks. It’s just sad.
LikeLike
Of course, rather than give evidence, KD decides to make more promises and really wants someone to find what he can’t. Yes, indeed we went through this back on my blog. Still waiting for your evidence.
hmmm, where was I contradictory? Or is that just more hoping someone might find something since you can’t?
LikeLike
Where were you contradictory?
Let’s see, I’ll just repeat myself.
You got all bent out of shape that I asked violet for the citation of the passages she referred to in her post, expecting me to look it myself. Now you are all bent out of shape that I haven’t provided the citations for you and I am expecting you to be able to find them yourself?
You want to exclude yourself. Of course, you’ll just claim that you’ve read through them 20 times and couldn’t find anything, which certainly does mean squat. Just that you are not objective in reviewing your own comments.
LikeLike
What you seem to be forgetting is that Christians claim to know their bible very very well and anyone who knows their bible knows that it does say such things, even not if the exact page. You are either stuck with not knowing your bible as well as you claim or you are trying to pretend it doesn’t say what it does when you try to claim “However, you are being a little vague as to the context of where abortion is commanded in the Bible for trivial reasons?” as a reply to this from the OP: “for those who believe in the Christian god God, they must accept that their creator wove massive-scale pregnancy termination into the very fabric of his creation, and that even within the Bible he demands women be aborted for trivial reasons.”
When I ask you for where you have said something that I can’t find, and I have read your posts, this is rather different from citations from the bible that I do know exists and that you should know exists if you read your bible. I do want to know of this context you claim about the bits in the bible that advocate abortion and genocide. Do you think that the reasons aren’t trivial? Do you think abortion is perfectly fine and genocide is a moral act?
If the piece of writing was read and a certain claim can’t be found in that piece, I would then ask the author who claimed that it was, where this part can be found. You have made claims that you have answered questions. I can’t find where that is so I am asking. You have claimed that I have written certain things, and since I can’t find where that would be, I ask. Now, since you can’t provide this evidence, and it should be evidence quite easy to provide, the conclusion is that you are lying and you have not answered questions and I have not written what you have claimed. I am quite objective in reviewing my own comments and my conclusion is that I have not written what you have claims. I have my comments to support that. You have what exactly, KD? You have yet to show that I am not objective in reviewing my own comments, again by being unable to show any evidence to support that claim either.
So, again, where was I contradictory? Where haven’t I been objective? Where are the quotes that you supposedly can offer where I have used logical fallacies? If any of these claims of yours are true, you can quote me. Do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vel, I never claimed that the OP’s reference was not from the Bible, I simply didn’t know what Book/Verse she was referring to and figured rather than spend the time looking it up I figured I would just ask. I also found that simply clicking her link to her previous post that she cited 2 verses she was referencing. So all I am guilty of is being somewhat lazy to not research it myself. For you to argue/claim otherwise would be utterly false.
You don’t see the hilarity in your response about reviewing the comments and not finding anything? Seriously, did I call it or did I call it!
And sorry, not wanting to go back through all the old comments and provide evidence does not mean I was lying. Lazy when it comes to wanting to do the leg work, probably, but lying? No, like I said, a plausible alternative to me lying is that you lack the ability to be objective of when reading your own comments and arguments. People like to assume that they are being objective in reviewing their own work, but very few are. It’s very common that people are highly subjective when it comes to the things they say. That’s why in academia peer reviews are required. Otherwise, someone could try and pass off biased papers and research. Simply because they “think” they’ve been objective.
LikeLike
“I do note that Christians had no problems with slavery at all, and indeed advocated it, especially in antebellum United States. Yep, Christians were abolitionist but that was a rarity”
You have no idea of what you are talking about.
LikeLike
DP, it is customary for the learned person at the moment of disagreeing to mount an actual coherent counterargument, detailing the claim he or she holds in contention while presenting evidence to support this proffered position.
If you think what Club said is incorrect, and from I know its not, then by all means attempt to disprove it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you know anything about Abolitionism you know it was a religious movement with Enlightenment overtones. Like the temperance movement, it grew out of the Second Great Awakening. It was located primarily in New England, which at the time was the most religious part of the United States. (All the New England colonies had been founded for religious motives, which is one of the reasons they resisted slavery from the beginning.) Some Abolitionists like Lyman Spooner were Deists, but most were Quakers or Evangelicals. The Beecher and Stowe families, where every man was either a minister or seminary professor, were typical. Men like Whittier and Garrison were devout Quakers, Quakers in those days being more like Pentacostalists: very in-your-face about what God was telling them.
The fact that the preachers of the Second Great Awakening had preached to slaves resulted in the Black Methodist Church, which was a major agitator against slavery.
This is basic American history, I should not have to point this stuff out.
LikeLike
I believe Club mentioned the Abolitionists. Perhaps you should re-read her comment.
LikeLike
I quoted it.
LikeLike
Really? Please google “Christian pro slavery arguments”. Let me know what you find.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the time of the Civil War many slave owning Christians did propose arguments in favor.
Your assertion however was not that particular Christians favored slavery, but that they did so in general, and that abolition was not a Christian movement; that Christian abolitionism was a rare exception to the rule.
This assertion is not just wrong, it is fundamentally ignorant of the dynamics of the abolition moment, which was a product of the Second Great Awakening and led by Evangelicals, Quakers and Methodists.
LikeLike
Wow, nice dodge. So, your claims that Christians opposed slavery “in general” is supported where? Where is abolition only a Christian movement? Hmmm? I’ve recently finished “One Nation Under Gods” and it does disagree with you and has the evidence to support it. Show me where abolitionist Christians weren’t the exception to the rule. I’ve read quite a lot about the Civil War. The average Northerner wasn’t for emancipation either. Abolitionists were attacked. We see this in the reaction to John Brown.
I am not surprised at all that you haven’t done as I suggested by googling Christian pro-slavery arguments. You keep your own ignorance and then try to claim that I am ignorant.
It’s rather amazing that you lump together Quakers, those who suffered the Great Disappointment, and Methodists. I, unfortunately for you, know how the main Christian sects considered Quakers. Perhaps our readers would be interested in what the Second Great Awakening actually was about and what they did : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening The section about “Slaves and Free Africans” is quite illuminating. The “First Great Awakening” is also interesting since it also reveals what Christians thought about slavery as is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Another good source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Religion
The sources are quite thorough, in case you try to use the “but but it’s Wikipedia.” complaint. Now, if the US is a “Christian” majority country, it is the Chrisians who are doing all of this. I like to note that since Christian sects hate each other, the claim of majority is always rather silly.
It is also not surprising at all that you have ignored my questions about your bible, the supposed font of all morality and knowledge about your god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) Your claim was that Christian abolitionists were the exception among abolitionists: this is factually wrong because the abolition movement was led by Quakers, Methodists and Evangelicals, generally deeply devout, many being clergy. It was basically a Christian movement, with some Deist exceptions.
2) The attitudes of the general Northern population are not in question, rather your lame assertion that Christians were the exceptions among abolitionists when they in fact led the movement.
3) I lump together Quakers, Methodists, Evangelicals etc as those Christian denominations most likely to produce abolitionists. Their internal disagreements are not relevant to the case at hand.
4) I studied pro and contra slavery arguments, religious and otherwise, in high-school. My ignorance was cured by study. Yours will be cured when you admit historical fact: abolitionism was essentially a Christian movement and a result of the 2nd Great Awakening.
5) Yes the growing awareness of blacks of their own dignity as children of God did in fact lead to them wanting freedom, thanks to the Second Great Awakening, as your useful Wikipedia entry suggests. For further Wikipedia reading, perhaps you would like to read about Lyman Beecher, Timothy Wright or William Wilberforce?
6) I don’t recall you asking me any questions about the Bible.
Abolitionism was a Christian movement. It was a result of the Second Great Awakening which was itself part of a broader international pietist movement. Such movements recur historically, including the First Great Awakening, the Devotio Moderna, the Franciscan Movement, the Peace of God Movement, etc.
The purpose of such movements is to get Christians to behave more as Christians, abolitionism being a concrete historical effect.
LikeLike
What I said was “I do note that Christians had no problems with slavery at all, and indeed advocated it, especially in antebellum United States. Yep, Christians were abolitionist but that was a rarity, and often the Christians were of small sects that the main sects claimed to be heretics. Of course, they couldn’t show that their versions were any more true. ”
Nice to see you try to twist my words. In the US, Christian were rarely abolitionists. That is my point, not whatever you are trying to invent in order to make believe that Christianity invented the idea of anti-slavery. Again, nothing in Christianity says that slavery is wrong. Humans said that slavery was wrong, of many faiths and lack of faith. There were just as many, or more, Christians “generally deeply devout, many being clergy” who were completely for slavery. This shows that the claims of Christians of a moral truth from their religion is false. The bible also shows that they did not get the idea of abolition from the bible. Where did this idea come from? Ah yes, humans. And since there is nothing in the bible against abortion, and plenty for how great it is to command abortion and to kill humans, there is no anti-abortion argument in the bible.
I always love to see Christians claim that their contradictory claims are not “relevant”. They are very relevant. It is also pertinent that you say that certan sects are “most likely to produce abolitionists”, which demonstrates that somehow these sects that claim truth don’t “always” produce abolitionists. How does that work with supposed divine “truth”? If a sect can’t always produce the same morals, then there is no reason to believe your claim that abolitionism is sourced from Christianity.
I also studied pro and anti slavery arguments in high school. It’s not surprising that rather than support your claims, you make a personal attack. I will be cured of nothing if I blindly accept what you demand. The abolition movement did indeed have Christians in it and they were leaders, but there is nothing to show that Christianity supports anti-slavery, or as the OP notes, anti-abortion claims. The link I gave about the second great awaken in reference to slaves and free Africans does not support your claims about abolition coming from the SGA. I have read quite a bit of history of slavery, and the questioning comes about from the rationalists and skeptics in the Enlightenment, who questioned the bible and its claims like the divine right of kings, the claims that one group of people is “chosen”, that slavery is okay and slaves should never ever leave their masters, the ideas of personal freedom and free will which are never advocated in the bible. Christians, to my knowledge never questioned slavery up until that time, unless they personally experienced it themselves and then we get a glimmering of how the bible was slowly being cherry picked. The acceptance of slavery as wrong by some Christians is more evidence that it is not religion that leads in humaneness but that it always follows, ignoring the inconvenient parts of the bible.
I rather suspect that African-Americans wanted freedom long before they got converted to Christianity. It’s rather amusing that you seem to want to think otherwise. I’ve read about Wilberforce, Beecher and Wright. Again, where did they get their ideas of abolitionism from? It certainly wasn’t from the bible.
Considering that Christians don’t agree on what “behaving like a Christian” means, your claims that the purpose of such movments as you list are at their base false. No Christian, and no theist can show that some god approves of them and no others. Christians were pro and against slavery, Christians are pro and against abortion. No magic hand writing on the wall “Hey, these guys are the right ones!”
You have responded to my posts, the ones not directly to you initially, and those did include questions about your bible. You have avoided the problems with your bible and thus the root of Christianity. You’ll attempt to attack points you think you can win but those you cannot, strangely enough they aren’t touched as if you think you can pretend they aren’t there. Abolitionism can be argued to have been a movement that some people who happened to be Christians ascribed to, but the idea wasn’t Christian, neither is the ideas of equality of all humans. This can be supported by the facts that not all Christians were abolitionists, not even within sects and that Christians used their religion to be heartily pro-slave, with much more biblical support than the abolitionists had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, I understand your position better. I had thought it was that abolition was not a Christian movement, when it was rather that the majority of American Christians were not abolitionists. The phrase “Christian abolitionists were a rarity” confused me, as if they were a rarity among abolitionists, but I see the way you are using it.
When broaching the subject of Christian attitudes towards slavery in general, over the last 2000 years, it is hard to generalize, but seems to be basically that slavery is an evil to be limited, but often could not imagine a world in which it was eliminated. As far as the ancient church was concerned the slave and freeman were on equal footing. But the church did not generally feel like it had to launch a structural reform of society. They were concerned with living a moral life in the world they had.
But the fact is that slavery was eliminated throughout most of Europe under Christian influence. Once baptized Vikings and Celts found it harder and harder to justify raiding neighboring towns for slaves.
At the same time in the Eastern Mediterranean Christians and Muslims enslaved one another regularly, but that was in an atmosphere of more or less perpetual low-grade war.
So to generalize, in Christian societies slavery tended to be rare, but where Christian societies rub against non-Christian, it becomes more common.
That is what happened in the New World where the temptation was to enslave Indians. Spanish priests fought against it, but the economic realities were what they were, so they ended up allowing slavery in the grey area of purchasing someone who already was a slave, and it happened the Arabs were already selling blacks.
As for the good ol’ “where in the Bible does it say…” you seem to suppose that Christianity is in general Biblically fundamentalist, when that sort of theological argument is a modern development that would not make sense to anybody before John Calvin, and after that only among a small percentage of Christians, considered globally. The fact that you has so many Calvinists in America is probably why some Americans made Biblical arguments in favor of slavery. Arguments that would not make sense to a Greek Orthodox or Polish Catholic, but only to an American Presbyterian.
American style slavery on a mass scale was not the typical western experience of slavery, at least not since Roman days. The racial aspect was an historical accident. It was also a worsening problem, growing in scale. It is an historical outlier.
The abolitionists opposition to slavery makes more sense in the general Christian tradition than a slavers support for it. What was new was the abolitionist belief that they could reinvent an America without slavery: that is more of an Enlightenment attitude.
LikeLike
Abolition wasn’t a Christian movement. It was a movement that Christians were in and who were leaders. There is nothing innately Christian about being anti-slavery.
It is not hard to generalize at all about Christian attitudes about slavery in the last 2000 years. Christians obeyed the bible, and were sure that those “other” Christians were satanic until the Enlightenment started questioning the claims of the bible. It is nonsense to claim that it was regarded as an evil to be limited. It was never considered an evil at all. There is not one bit of the bible that ever said slavery was wrong. Slavery was fine, and to be continued, and slaves should never ever leave their masters, no matter how horrible they were. The early Christians and their many churches and conflicting beliefs, did not consider master and slave on equal footing in anything but maybe getting into heaven. The slave was to keep in his place. There is nothing moral in demanding that and enforcing that. I know that the churches didn’t feel like they had to actually do anything to reform society, they were controlling it. Funny how they got richer and richer and just didn’t see a need to change anything.
The fact is that slavery changed names and was called serfdom in Christian Europe, where people still were not paid, could not move freely and who were owned by a lord. The only people somewhat protected were Christians, everyone else was free game(this wiki entry has good references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe ). The claim that Vikings and Celts somehow found it harder to enslave others after being baptized is hilarious and not supported by evidence at all. The Christian kingdoms destroyed, raided and enslaved others. The Byzantine Empire had it. Saint Augustine was fine with it (unsurprisingly, Christians who actually were slaves were against it). Christians were pro and anti slavery. Since you claim a moral eternal truth which is the real version? What appears to be happening is that the religion make no difference it is the actions of individual human beings and poof goes your moral guiding god.
From the above, no, slavery wasn’t rare in Christian society at all. Since it wasn’t rare, it isn’t strange at all that Christians wanted to enslave others who weren’t Christians. Spanish priests did occasionally argue against the enslavement of the native Americans. They also encouraged it, claiming that “natural law” that favorite of Catholics, required native Americans to be enslaved so they couldn’t do anything that Catholics found offensive. This was the Valladolid debates, which are a great example of how Christians don’t agree and there is no reason to believe that they have any moral superiority to anyone else or that their magic book and imaginary god is a source of morality. It’s so pitiful when your god and your religion is limited by the “realities” of men. A pity such a supposed omnipotent being can’t do a damn thing.
Thank you so much for again showing that Christians don’t agree and there is no reason to believe your claims of moral truth. There is no one TrueChristianity, and what you want to pretend as a “modern development” has been what Christians have believed for a very long time, that the bible it to be taken literally, literal 7 day creation, literal original sin, literal magic flood, literal man/god, literal resurrection. There have been, of course, those who have tried to reinterpret Christianity to fit what they want, usually to match reality, and that again shows that Christianity is no great haven of “truth”. You want to ignore the messy parts or the silly parts. You hate that anyone knows your bible better than you and knows that there is no argument against abortion, which shows that the supposed “pro-life” claims of Christians are indeed nothing more than a modern invention, and that there is nothing in the bible that says slavery is wrong and abhorrent, that it says that slavery is what your god wants no matter what. Abolitionism is quite a modern invention.
Considering that the Greek Orthodox and Polish Catholic also read the same bible, and that bible says “18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. “ And “ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.”
There is no reason to think that they wouldn’t agree with the bible. These were the verses used by Christians, not just Presbyterians, to advocate and excuse slavery. It’s not the sect that is making these claims, it’s the bible. Again, where in the bible does it say that slavery is wrong and should never be done and where does it say that abortion is wrong and should never be done? Not asking the sect, I’m going to the supposed horse’s mouth. Funny how the Christians in those countries also kept slaves, non-Christian usually, or at least not the same sect. Remember the Byzantine Empire, all based on Orthodox Christianity?
Oh my, here’s the usual excuse for slavery, to claim that American slavery was not the slavery in the bible. That’s another great example of how a Christian really hopes no one else has read his bible or is utterly ignorant of what it actually says. The racial aspect was an historical accident? Oh my. So that whole “curse of Ham” was just a mistake spread by Christians? Funny how the bible slavery was just like American slavery: preventing a human being from controlling his own body (forcing a male slave to have his penis mutilated because his owner wants it), considering a human being to be property and not a human being, considering harm done to a slave just harm done to property, making a man choose between his family and his freedom, etc.
Again, where in the bible says that slavery was wrong? That abortion is wrong?
Your claim that abolitionists make more sense in the general Christian tradition is baseless since you have yet to show the very root of Christiantiy never said it was wrong and advocated keeping the institution. A slaver has all of the support of the bible, the abolitionist doesn’t. You are quite right, the idea of removing slavery from a country was an Enlightment attitude, as was removing the claim of divine right, another very biblical idea. The religious colonists wanted a country made in their sect’s image. Those who did not wish to force their religion on others tried to build a country where no religion, or interpretation of it would be forced on anyone. They just didn’t quite get that this needed to be applied to all human beings. They slowly stepped away from the ignorance of religion and toward freedom, from the idea that slavery was fine, to considering women as property as fine, to where we aren’t keeping others like slaves and chattel. Personal freedom isn’t a biblical idea; blind obedience is.
LikeLike
Wow, you manage to overstate your case at every turn.
Abolitionism was led by Christians and inspired by the second great awakening but not a Christian movement because the Bible does not militate against slavery? That is like saying the Reformation was not a Christian movement because the NT encourages obedience to church authorities, or the Benedictine movement was not Christian because the NT says nothing about monasteries.
Again, you are projecting onto the whole of Christian history an attitude towards the Bible as a rule-book that does not make much sense to Christians outside of modern, English-speaking churches of a Calvinist tradition. You have a more fundamentalist approach to the Bible than most Christians, interpreting it in isolation from traditional ways in which Christians actually live and think: that is not how Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox or Middle Eastern Christians have ever read the Bible. The tradition is one of limiting slavery.
In the ancient church slaves were considered equal to freemen within the church: they could marry in the church, though not in Roman law. They could exercise authority in the church: Bishops of Rome Calixtus I was a slave. Hermas, the Christian author, was a slave.
There were general efforts throughout the middle ages to limit slavery, and even abolish it in large parts of Northern Europe, especially after the Peace of God movement, as part of a broader condemnation of wanton pillage and violence by local war-lords.
But you are correct that total abolition is a modern development. In the ancient church the debate about slavery was whether Christians are bound to free their slaves after a time, or if it was a good but optional thing. Some authors worried about the social effects of having lots of freed slaves without the means to support themselves.They saw it as an unavoidable part of society. The medieval church sought to ban or limit the enslavement of Christians and limit the mistreatment of slaves, but accepted the standards of time of debt-slavery or enslaving some categories of war prisoners.
You are taking a nuanced subject, Christian attitudes towards slavery over the millienia, and grossly oversimplifying. The fact that they saw it as an evil to limit is shown by the fact that they were always trying to limit it. What they lacked was the Enlightenment ideal of rebuilding society from the ground up, which in practice is not always a good idea anyway.
When I suggested American slavery was a different reality I did not mean that it was “non-biblical”, but that it developed from something anti-slavery Americans saw as going out of style into a massive, expansive thing thanks to the demand for cotton and the settling of the interior. It made sense that people’s consciences were more bothered by it as time went on. Race-based ideologies really don’t make any sense in the Christian tradition. Even in American law a black could be a citizen until the Dred Scott decision.
The Divine Right of Kings interpreted as absolute power is actually an Enlightenment idea from the 18th and 19th centuries. State absolutism is a modern thing, the dark side of the Enlightenment.
The assertion that personal freedom is not Biblical is strange: the OT is full of condemnations of royal absolutism. The NT talks about freedom all the time: freedom from sin, the freedom of being a son of God. But the NT is not very concerned with politics.
LikeLike
Yep, DP, the idea of being anti-slavery is not solely Christian as you seem to want to claim since others have come up with it and that the bible, which Christians claim is the font of their morality, never speaks against slavery and repeatedly supports it. For something so important, why is there not one point where this god says that Christians should stand against slavery? I can agree that the Reformation isn’t a Christian thing either for exactly the reason you mention, the bible says that one should obey all rulers for they are put in their place by god, and not to be questioned, though the Reformation is indeed Christian because it’s one more example of Christians picking and choosing the bible. This is why Christian sects are sure that those “other” Christians aren’t Christian at all. I would argue that the NT can be used to support the idea of monasteries since it says that Christians shouldn’t associate with others, not be “yoked” to unbelievers. Christians of course have verses for it and against it; the usual anti-Catholic Christians love to attack any associated with the sects of Christianity that they hate.
The bible has been considered a rule book for the whole of Christian history. Which rules are obeyed and claimed to be from god has of course changed depending on what humans want to pick and choose. Catholics, the various Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, all use the bible as a rule book. If this is not true, then why do they claim that the commandments are so important and follow them? Why do Christians use their bible to support their personal desires and hatreds if they are not using it as a rule book? If they didn’t treat the bible as a rule book, they wouldn’t use it as “proof” that their god supports opinion “x”. The Christian tradition is not limiting slavery. It’s the tradition of *some* Christians and not others and this idea came from someplace other than this god and its supposed bible. That is my point. The ancient Greeks had rules limiting slavery, and some were for it and some against it. The Achaemenid rulers of Persia banned slavery in the 4th c BCE. It’s nothing new or special to Christianity.
There were not “general efforts” from Christians, again some were for slavery, limited or not, and some were not. It was not a universal Christian position.
Yes, total abolition is a modern development and again shows that there is no reason to think that some omnipotent/omniscient god gave or gives Christians their morals. The debate about whether Christians should free their slaves applied to Christian slaves only, as you note. Not exactly supporting the claims of how much “love” Christianity has. The excuses for not freeing slaves were the same then as was used by Christians in the USCW. I know that humans saw it as an unavoidable part of society; this again indicates that the claims of divine morality are false. It always bemuses me how many Christians make their supposed absolute truth always subservient to human society. Their omnipotent omniscient entity can’t possibly make people understand that slavery is wrong, so it just has to go with it.
If your god is real and its divine word the basis for Christian morals, there should be no “nuance”. There certainly can be lots of nuance if there was no god and the claims of divine morality are nonsense. Again, Christianity never saw slavery as a sin or evil, if it did it would never have said that slaves should never ever try to leave their masters. Christians came to see it as bad when they were the targets of it, but had no problem in still treating humans as property as long as they could consider them less than human. That’s another very biblical attitude, gotten from that book that you want to claim wasn’t used as a rulebook.
I will say that I am not surprised that you do not seem to be for Enlightenment ideals. The idea of considering everyone deserving of equal rights doesn’t mesh very well with a religion that says one should obey.
American slavery was the same before and after the invention of the cotton gin and the expansion into more land. It did indeed grow massively, but slaves were in the same position; there were just more of them. The morals of Christians changed again, to follow humans, not from some magical being. If the conscience is somehow magical e.g. the soul, they should either be bothered or not.
Race based ideologies came from the bible, DP. We have the claims of the curse of Ham, that one type of person is better than another repeatedly claimed in the bible. But you want to talk about “tradition”. Plenty of Christian tradition is all about race and how dark skin means one is less good than another man. It being that the US law isn’t bible based or from the Christian “tradition”, I am not quite sure why you mention citizenship and the Dred Scott decision.
The divine right of kings is from Romans 13. What is “state absolutism”? Once you define that, can you please tell me an Enlightenment source for it? You also say that the OT is full of condemnations of royal absolutism. I am not familiar with those. What I am familiar with is that this god supposedly puts kings into power repeatedly, even some very unpleasant people.
The NT does talk about freedom from sin and freedom to be a son of god. It also says that one has no freedom to be a son of god, that this god has already chosen who is to be saved and who is to be damned (Romans 9). It says that obedience is all that is important, no one is free to do what they wish, there is always the gun to the head of hell. The NT is also very concerned with politics. JC says that one should give Rome what is Rome’s. Paul says that all rulers are put in place by his god, no exceptions (Romans 13), exactly where the divine right of kings comes from. Revelation gets to the nitty-gritty of politics with the claims of the anti-Christ, something so many Christians love to tout.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever would I do without all these atheists explaining to me what I as a Christian should really believe!
The thesis “If the Bible really were a textbook floated down from heaven on a cloud, it would tell us how to build the perfect society” is wrong on so many levels. The Bible is not a text book, nor a rule book. It is a witness to the development of Judaism and a witness to the preaching of the early church about Jesus. It is to be interpreted in the light of Christ and the context of the living church.
It is not a blueprint for a perfect society, perfect societies being impossible. To the extent it is concerned with morals, it is concerned with morality in an imperfect, often unjust world.
Now you go back to wild overstatements: if racist ideology were so essential to Christianity then why insist all men are called to be Christian? Why do you find no suggestion by Christians that slaves are less than human in the ancient or early medieval world when slavery was common? Why were these non-humans allowed to marry, be baptized, write books and become bishops? The arguments to justify black-chattel slavery were invented in the 18th century and dismissed in the 19th. That is hardly what I would call tradition.
Absolute monarchies developed in the 18th century and lasted to the 20th. Enlightenment thinkers liked the idea of one man rationalizing the state and society, witness their love for Napoleon. The all-powerful state is a twentieth century idea.
If you haven’t noticed anti-monarch strains in the OT, you haven’t read it. Stories about Elijah, Elisha, prophesies of Jeremiah. Even 1 Samuel.
As for the NT, being “very concerned” with politics, what the hell planet are you on? Jesus says, in essence, that political concerns are passing and secondary, and that is “very concerned”? Paul says “be good citizens so they leave us alone” and that is “very concerned”? Rev says, in essence, “The state is against us now, but be faithful to God, this will not last forever” and that is very concerned?
I think you are just out blame whatever you can on Christianity whether it makes sense or not.
LikeLike
It is a witness to the development of Judaism
That’s an interesting claim considering we know with thorough clarity (and have done so for nearly three generations) that the Jewish origin tale recounted in the Tanakh is nothing but inventive geopolitical myth… Fiction. None of it happened. The true history of the early Jews is rather pedestrian, and local.
LikeLike
I’m speaking narrowly: development of Jewish religion / theology in the space of the Bible. Archaeological questions are interesting but not the main concern.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They should be. Yours is a “revealed” religion, and if the characters to whom this “revelation” occurred are fiction, then your religion is also fiction. Truth be told, your religion rides on archaeology, and the archaeology says you’re all following a myth.
LikeLike
You are oversimplifying.
There is no one standard “bible truth”, because there is no one standard Biblical genera. The OT runs from poetry to myth to history to novels and forms in between. Different literary genera communicate different truths.
Archaeology is interesting, but fragmentary. The most it can tell us is “according to what we know of the time, event X could (or could not) have happened as described.” It can say that it is very unlikely David was king of a united Israel cir. 1000 BC, with the level of economic development described, rather he would likely have been a local warlord. But archaeology it can’t say if he existed or not. That can influence interpretation, the book of Samuel would not have been written as history, but as something like Le Mort D’Arthur, reflecting ideals of a later age.
But the main thing one is studying in the OT is the evolution of Jewish notions of God. In my opinion, and I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, that is the inspired part.
By the way, what is the difference between a healthy zygote and a miscarriage? The answer you gave to Violet was what caused the miscarriage, not the essential difference between one state and another.
The answer is obvious but it escapes you because of your silly biological theories. The first is alive, the second is dead.
Or if you will, the first is an organism, the second organic material.
LikeLike
Archaeology is interesting, but fragmentary. The most it can tell us is “according to what we know of the time, event X could (or could not) have happened as described.”
Yes, that is what you would like to believe. Sadly for you, that’s not at all the case. It is not simply a matter that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest, rather the case that there is a mountain of hard evidence for a completely alternative Jewish history. We even know when the Tanakh was crafted (7th and 6th Century BCE) by the astonishing historical blunders it makes. So overwhelming is this evidence that in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from >Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology… a change made simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.
Your “revealed” religion has no “revelation.”
LikeLike
I see you absorbed nothing of what I said.
LikeLike
Says the person who tomorrow, or next week, or perhaps the week after that will repeat to someone else: ”Archaeology is interesting, but fragmentary”.
Evidence-based reality, DP… You should try it on for size one day.
LikeLike
Says the guy who can’t tell the difference between a dead thing and a live thing.
LikeLike
Shall I repeat what I have already said to you, twice, but which you obviously can’t seem to comprehend?
Meditate on that revelation, DP, then get back to me if you happen to grasp what it means.
LikeLike
Christians don’t agree, so what does a TrueChristian believe, DP?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not an authority to judge details, but I’d just take the broadest historical consensus on general themes and call that the center of gravity. Orthodox, Catholics and Middle Eastern churches have the best claim to continuity with the ancient church and are in broad agreement on doctrine and practice, despite some sharp but relatively minor disagreements. At least, that would be the place to start looking.
LikeLike
I do love this. Such a lovely attempt to try to ignore that Christians don’t agree on what morality their god is teaching.
It’s great to see that good ol’ claim of a Christian that some Christians have a better claims than others. Funny how modern Christians often claim that they are closer to “original” Chritsianity than any of those who you make the claim for. Now, who shall we believe?
The sects you mention are anything but in broad agreement on doctrine and practice. Do you really think that I’m so ignorant of Christian sects? It’s always great for a TrueChristian to claim that disagreements on who goes to heaven and who goes to hell “relatively minor”. I know better than that. It’s rather like reading C.S. Lewis who recommends lying outright to prospective Christians about these “relatively minor” disagreements.
For all of your claims of what Christianity is, it’s great that you now retreat claiming you are “no authority”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the arguments I made above about Christian tradition were from the above mentioned churches, so I’m not shifting any goalposts.
You obviously are ignorant of the doctrinal disputes of the above-mentioned. What are their mutual disagreements? Lines of authority and the wording of a Christological dogma. They otherwise share the same teaching, same basic outlook. They do not “condemn each other to hell”, they acknowledge each other’s sacraments. Their claim to historical continuity with the ancient church is solid.
You are mistaken when you say all Christians claim continuity with the ancient church. Protestants generally do not; they claim to recreate primitive Christianity from scratch.
You have an interest in presenting Christianity as a myriad of conflicting beliefs. I can’t deny conflicts exist, but you can break it down into four or five closely related groups. Which group represents the bulk of the Christian tradition is pretty easy to see. Maybe the Protestants were successful in their bid to recreate the early church, but I tend to be suspicious of such projects.
LikeLike
I’ll be back in a day or so to respond.
I would ask you to consider why the Inquisition was put in place and why Protestants burned Catholics at the stake.
LikeLike
DP, it is not I who say what you should believe. I know that Christians have many different beliefs. I have pointed out that Chrisitans do not agree on what their god wants or what morals their holy book teaches. It is Christians who tell each other what they should really believe.
Christians have consistently claimed that their holy book is indeed a “textbook floated down from heaven on a cloud” that it does say how to build the perfect society, and that it is the source of all morality. They point to the commandments as instructions on how to live (of course they ignore the ones that they don’t like). They point to Jesus and insist that this messiah has told them how to build the perfect society. Paul repeatedly says this, that people should obey his words since they are from his god, that men should act a certain way, that women should act a certain way and that everyone should obey the rulers of this earth since his god put every single one of them into their position.
You keep claiming I am wrong, but you have yet to show how that I am wrong. The bible is full of rules on how to live, see Exodus and Leviticus (the law book, eh?) it has JC saying that all of his father’s commandments are to be followed. He says that one has to follow certain rules or one is damned (except for the parts that say some are damned no matter what). So your claims that the bible isn’t a rule book are wrong. It certainly is a witness to the development of Judaism and Christianity and it holds all of the rules that those religions invented.
Every Christian claims that they and only they have the right interpretation and of course can’t show that theirs is any better than the next Christian, who they completely disagree with. If one believes the bible, it is certainly a blueprint for a perfect society. Paul indicates this by his orders to the churches in the various cities. Revelation also insists on this by saying that a world ruled by JC is the perfect society, with everyone else murdered.
“To the extent it is concerned with morals…” Oh my. The dissembling of a Christian is always quite funny. The bible is full of claims of how morality comes from it and its god. Priests and pastors rail at the populace insisting that their morals come from the bible and thus from the Christian god. I get to hear this on the hundreds of radio stations and dozens of tv stations. The bible claims that its god is absolutely just and perfect, and that the laws from it are absolutely just and perfect. It’s amazing when Christians like you try their best to depower their god to excuse its impotence. Poor ol’ God, can’t do a thing in an imperfect world.
I didn’t say that racist ideology was essential to Christianity, expressly since I know that Christians don’t agree on much of anything. Racism is part and parcel of what the bible teaches, that some people are less than human, less than “chosen”. I don’t recall where the bible “insists” that all men are to be called Christian. Can you help me with where that is?
I can find plenty of suggestion, indeed complete quotes where Christians said that slaves were less than human and deserved to be enslaved. You might want to do some actual research. The wiki entry on Christianity and slavery has quite a nice collection of references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery Augustine supported slavery, John Chrysostom said that obedient slaves were obeying this god. Aquinas said that some people were meant to be slaves. The existence of laws that protected Christian slaves but not non-Christian slaves is pretty good evidence that these people thought that non-Christians were less than human; pactum lotharii, Council of Koblenz, etc. Christians castrated human beings because they brought more money as slaves. You might want to do some research on this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe .
Again, you do seem intent on ignoring the difference between non-Christian slaves and Christian slaves. Why is that, DP? The ideas to justify human chattel are in the bible and used there after. Now, do you recall the words of Noah: Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”26 He also said,“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.27 May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” This was used in the ancient world, the middle ages and people still believe that nonsense now, just go to sad little websites like “stormfront”. It certainly seems like tradition. I do love how you want to move the goalposts when it comes to what is “tradition” and what is not.
Well, either you are ignorant about history or you are just a poor liar. Absolute monarchies did not magically develop in the 18th c and lasted until the 20th. It’s hilarious to watch you try to claim this, when anyone can look at history and see kings like Charlemagne, King Richard the lion hearted, his infamous brother King John, Emperor Justinian, Empress Theodora, Ivan the Terrible, Isabella and Ferdinand, etc. Add to this the Papal States, and we have lots and lots and lots of absolute monarchies. It’s hilarious that you are also so ignorant on how there were people who exemplified the Enlightenment and did not “love” Napoleon. You might want to check out Benjamin Constant, to relieve you of your ignorance.
I’ve read the entire bible, once as a believer, once as an atheist and piecemeal probably several more times. The stories of Elijah, Elisha and Jeremiah are very interesting stories. They are all about how they don’t have the right king, not that they have a king, Jeremiah 22, Ezekiel 37, all show that kings are perfectly fine. This god is all about how great Nebuchadnezzar is. It’s a shame that you think you can lie to me and I wouldn’t know it. 1 Samuel is also an interesting book that has your god picking out someone to be king and who fails. How does that work with an omnipotent, omniscient being?
Tsk, such language from a TrueChristian. The NT is indeed very concerned with politics. Rather than cursing at me, you might want to try to show how I’m wrong when I can quote your own supposed “messiah” who does not say that politics is passing and secondary, but one should pay one’s taxes. Paul seconds this when he says that politics, you know, how governments and government officials act, are put into place by his god and should be obeyed because this god has its fingers in politics. Paul doesn’t say “be good citizens and they’ll leave us alone” he says that God is behind all politics in Romans 13. Yep, that is certainly very concerned. Not sure where the author of Revelation says ““The state is against us now, but be faithful to God, this will not last forever” either “in essence” or directly. We do have the author commenting on the politics of the churches and the governments, so yes, that does seem to be very concerned. If they did not care about the politics, why would they mention such things rather than just ignoring everything in favor of their supposed truthful religion? Why does it laud a child who will rule the earth with an iron scepter if they weren’t concerned about politics and government? You arethe one who loves to claim Christian “tradition” and that certainly is always about politics, attempting to influence politics, attempting to put the various opinions of Christians in as law.
Now, concerning divine right, I’m waiting for you to show how this came about only in the last few centuries and how this has nothing to do with what Paul claimed.
Nice of you to make more baseless claims about me and not be able to actually rebut my points or answer the questions put to you. Why should anyone consider Christianity some font of magical morality since Christians don’t agree even among themselves? Why is there nothing in the bible against abortion and nothing against slavery?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Medieval monarchs had constant competition from nobles and the church, just ask King John. The ideal was feudalism, which implied a hierarchy in which lower nobles had legitimate spheres of power. Walled cities tended to have lots of independence from king and nobles. Royal power was not consolidated in France until the 17th century, in Germany until the rise of Prussia, Austro-Hungary till Joseph II, in England only briefly under Henry VIII.
Your reading of NT references to politics is so partisan and juvenile I’m not sure I can help you. Jesus and Paul are both acknowledging a legitimate sphere of politics that is separate from the religious, quite novel in their day. Would you rather they have said, “don’t obey laws or pay taxes because the emperor is a pagan” or “obey the emperor even in religious matters”? That would be absolutist: it would be a logic that does not distinguish the religious and political spheres.
If race is so central to Christianity, please name one race that is not to be baptized. If non-Christians are not human, what are they? Why are they able to be baptized? Maybe you are trying to make a point, but I can’t see it for all the hyperbole.
In prophetic literature you have constant condemnations of the rich and powerful and of kings. For Elisha the last straw with Ahab was the killing of Naboth, the idea being that the King cannot treat citizens as property.
Is your objection to the very concept of monarchy? That was simply how countries were run. Is the Bible supposed to have predicted the rise of democracy or communism or whatever political system you personally prefer?
Where does the Bible lay out an ideal society? Maybe parts of the Pentateuch, but Christians have never taken that as applicable to them. Even ancient Jews didn’t see it as political program but a remote ideal, given the fact that it was never put into practice.
And I never cussed at you. I asked what the hell planet you were on. Get off your high horse.
And why have Christians generally been against abortion even though the Bible does not mention it?
Because the Bible isn’t a rule-book.
LikeLike
Medieval monarchs were absolute rulers, just as you want to claim that modern despots are. I do like how you now are trying to shift the goalposts. Christians do that often. If you wish to claim that medieval monarchs had constant competition from nobles and the church, then one can point out that modern monarchs also had competition from their bureaucracies (high ranking bureaucrats do much what nobles did) and/or the church.
Things like the Magna Carta came about because monarchs were indeed absolute rulers; if they weren’t, no need for a Magna Carta (It happens to be its 800th anniversary this year). The nobles didn’t like that and forced a change,, which didn’t stick very well. Walled cities did not have “lots of independence from king and nobles”. If this is so, then evidence for it please. Lots of walled cities so give one that was really independent”. If this were true, then there would not be things like taxes and tax collectors. There were dozens if not hundreds of individual rulers all over Europe, calling themselves lots of different names, and all ruling absolutely. Royal power in western Europe (France and Germany) was consolidated back when Charlemagne was in power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne) if you recall in the Holy Roman Empire (see that “holy” sure seems like he was working hand in glov with the church). Quite a bit before Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And royal power only briefly under Henry the 8th? Guess you forgot about Elizabeth I and Henry the 7th among others.
Do you really think that no one knows history and you can claim things willy-nilly?
No, my reading of the NT is not “partisan”. It is what the NT says, word for word. It’s not juvenile either. It is different from your interpretation, and I am still waiting for you to show your version is the only true one. You now say that JC and Paul are “acknowledging” politics, which does seem to indicate that they are indeed concerned with them, which you have insisted that that they weren’t. Which is it, DP? If they truly weren’t concerned with politics, as you have claimed, they would have indeed said don’t pay taxes or observe laws because you are not supposed to be concerned with politics. Paul has that one should obey the rulers of the earth no matter what because the Christian god put *all* of them in their seats of power. There is no exceptions given by either JC or Paul, are there, DP? Those commands are indeed absolutist, that God is in charge and one should do what God commands, no questions. That is indeed “a logic” that is demanded in both religious and political spheres.
Race is very important to Christianity. I do love how you try to ask a question “name one race that is not to be baptized’. JC says that his word is only for the Jews (at that point, only Semetic peoples), no one else (Matthew 10, Matthew 15, John 4), so there are quite a few groups of people not to be baptized (Paul does disagree, so who do we believe?) I do suppose it makes a different on how one defines race. That is a good question, if non-Christians are not to be treated as humans, then what are they? Well, per your bible, they are property if they are slaves, no more than animals, though perhaps worth a bit more from the prices in the OT. Evil to be destroyed, deserving of death, as per Luke 19, Romans 1, Romans 9, and Revelation.
Please do show where I used hyperbole, DP. All I see is a false claim made so you don’t have to acknowledge what I have pointed out.
You make this claim: “In prophetic literature you have constant condemnations of the rich and powerful and of kings.” Okay, where? I’ve been kind enough to give you citations, surely you can give some of your own. Again, the prophetic books only have that they have bad kings, they never say that kings are all bad nor that they shouldn’t have kings. You have tried to claim that the divine right of kings didn’t’ come from the bible, and I have shown that to be wrong and what seems to be an intentional lie told by you. I have no idea why you are trying to claim I am objecting to monarchies. I haven’t at all. I’ve pointed out that your bible has your god approving of monarchies, giving absolute power to earthly rulers, and approving of abortion and slavery.
Why yes, if your god is omniscient and omniopotent and is for democracies and/or communism as many Christians claim, I do expect that the bible that many Christians is a divinely given accurate document about what your god is and what it wants, does encourage the values we have now. I don’t expect the bible to do such things if it is just a bunch of stories invented by a group of xenophobic ignorant agrarians who want to pretend that they were more important than they ever were. It always amuses me that Christians must depower their god to excuse its impotence and evidence non-existence when questions are asked why it didn’t just start with the values they want to assign it.
The bible lays out what the ignorant people who wrote it thought was an “ideal” society. That’s what all of those laws in the OT that JC says should still be followed were for. Every little niggling bit of activity gets covered, from what fabrics one should wear, to what one should eat, to who is allowed in the temple, to what one should do on days of the week to how much you can sell your daughter for. Christians have indeed taken those laws to apply to them, they just pick and choose them. If your claim that “Christians have never taken that as applicable to them” then why do so many Christians take a fit if the commandments aren’t required to be in courthouses, in schools, and forced on everyone? Why do Christians cite those laws when they want to force them on others if they “never” have taken them as applicable to them?
I do love how you presume to speak for ancient Jews. They certainly did see it as a political program since the rabbis and tannaim spent thousands of years discussing them and applying them. That’s what the Talmud is. It’s such wonderful ignorance that you show when you claim that “it (the laws of the Pentateuch) was never put into practice.”
And asking me what the hell planet I am on is cussing at me. If you were not, it would be “what planet are you on”. Tsk.
Again, where in the bible does it have a moral stand against abortion and against slavery? Christians have not been “generally against abortion”. You need to show that they have been and that Christianity is the source of this stance. Since Christians claim that their god and the bible is the source of their morality, one needs to show where this god or this bible says anything about these issues. The bible is indeed a rule book: the commandments, Jesus saying one should follow the commandments, Jesus giving more laws, that one should take care of the weak in society, one should take communion, Paul also giving commands per his god, who should be silent, who should be wearing their hair and clothes in a certain way, how one should worship, and who should be killed.
LikeLike
I have to hand it to you, you are the first person to ever wear me out in one of these internet arguments. You are not stupid, but you are such an idiot. Even for a missionary atheist, you’re an unusual crank.
If you make statements like “The Holy Roman Emperor was an absolute Monarch” or “the Prophets never condemn the rich or the monarchs”, or “Jesus was really into politics”, there is no place for me to even begin.
Read some books, OK?
LikeLike
Still no evidence for your claims, DP? I don’t think you are worn out at all. It is that you have nothing to support your claims and expected everyone to accept what you said without consideration. Now want to blame everyone else for your failure.
Love to see those insults when you have nothing else.
If I am a “crank”, why is it that I have evidence for my positions and you do not? If your positions are true, it should be no problem for you to support them. Why haven’t you?
If I am wrong about such things as ““The Holy Roman Emperor was an absolute Monarch” you certainly should be able to show this.
I do love your strawman arguments, trying to make believe that I said “the Prophets never condemn the rich or the monarchs” and “Jesus was really into politics” when I did not say such things. It’s a shame that you have ended up relying on outright lies. Thank you for showing that you have no more respect for your religion than I do.
LikeLike
I simply don’t see the point in arguing with someone with such a bizarre perspective. I’m not going to write a treatise on how medieval feudalism was different from early modern absolutism when anyone who can read can look it up himself. Nor am I going to argue with someone who reads the NT in a way that is exactly the opposite of common sense. Other atheists I’ve argued with at least occupy more or less the same mental universe. You are weird.
Cranks always have evidence. It is their incapacity to evaluate that evidence in broader contexts that renders them cranks.
Bye bye.
LikeLike
still waiting for you to support your claims. You don’t need to write a treatise, you just need to provide evidence. Your claims are the usual nonsense, making claims and then hoping someone else will do the work to show that you are right. No, DP, anyone who can read doesn’t agree with you. If it so easy, then show the evidence.
Claims of “common sense” are also typical of a Christian who wants to pretend that all Chrisitans agree with him and that everyone else should agree too. Again, still no evidence, and nothing to show that how I read the NT is wrong.
It’s hilarious to watch you claim that somehow cranks always have evidence. Really? Then where is the evidence that the US didn’t go to the moon? That Queen Elizabeth 2 is a reptiloid? That the Illuminati control the world?
All you have done is whine that since I don’t agree with you, I must be wrong, and have yet to show it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sincen you mentioned walled cities, I thought you’d be interested in this: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150827-living-in-the-worlds-greatest-walled-cities
LikeLiked by 1 person
The moral argument for pro-choice is that it would lead to less underground/unsafe abortions, likely less abandoned children, less burdens on the poor and destitute which in turn brings less burden on society. Add all of this up and include better sex education and availability to contraception, and you may actually find that abortions are reduced.
Forced birth advocacy actually seems quite un-Biblical. It is a very judgemental and unforgiving position to take. Besides, wouldn’t these sinless unborn children get a free pass to heaven? When people are judged harshly, they tend to find more secretive ways to do what they feel they need to do. Unless there are social safety nets to help those who are being forced to give birth, an abortion ban is all the more troublesome. Prohibition doesn’t tend to work out too well in practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Unless there are social safety nets to help…” And we don’t have numerous social programs? We don’t have adoption as an alternative to abortion? Honestly, Why is abortion the preferred option for “unwanted” babies? Why have we outsourced adoption to other countries?
As for underground/unsafe abortions, we have no way of knowing how valid this argument is. Given the advancement of education and contraception the number could honestly go either way, we simply don’t know. And there is no way to know. If we provide further education, social programs, and the option of adoption the number of underground/unsafe abortions may not see as drastic an increase from what already occurs today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a good question, why have we outsourced adoption when there are so many children bouncing around in the foster care system here that no one will adopt.
Adoption demand does not seem to be able to keep up with supply as it is, at least I am yet to see any evidence that it is. Forcing births will make this situation worse as well.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment Simple. Other people appear to have picked up some of your points. I agree though that Christians aren’t following in the Bible when they campaign to end slavery or abortion. That’s the whole point. Your ‘morality’ is made up based on what you see around you and what you instinctively feel about issues, and for Christians it often has little to do with what is written in the Bible. If only you would use logic.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I did not agree with your. My comments are not as you say the are: That “Christians aren’t following the Bible when they campaign to end slavery or abortion.” Please do not put words in my mouth. And further to suggest that “If only [I] would use logic” is disingenuous of you. We are both using logic. It’s just that we have come to different conclusions based on our logic and understanding of the Bible and nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So I take it you still cannot answer my question, Violet? You are still trying to point fingers at God, a god you claim to not even believe in, as if you are involved in some kind of moral plea bargain arrangement or something. God is not the issue here, I was hoping for a secular argument against women using their bodies for the purpose of fetal tissue donation, but you’ve simply validated what I already knew to be true. There simply isn’t one.
That doesn’t bode well for women in the 3rd world or poor women, not when the “shipping costs” of a few stem cells begin at 24,000 US dollars.
LikeLike
You’re just angry your mother’s abortion attempt went wrong and caused you permanent damage.
LikeLike
That seems like a low blow to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very low! 🙂
LikeLike
Pink, please refrain from stupid insults. Jokes about abortions aren’t funny, it is a serious issue. And such mindless personal attacks should be beneath you.
LikeLike
You know what should really offend you? The notion that any person can utter an argument pushing the notion that a woman does not or should not have the autonomy to make the decision for herself.
Being offended by dark humour rather than that is something you should ask yourself about.
LikeLike
I didn’t see any humour there, just really poor quality playground bullying lines. Maybe you should ask yourself why.
LikeLike
You don’t get to define humour for anyone else, just for yourself.
Interesting that a joke is bullying, but proposing that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose is dandy. Haven’t noticed you calling any of those comments offensive.
LikeLike
You’re confusing a ‘point of view’ with a ‘mindless insult’. It’s like apples and pears …
LikeLike
A point of view that can have devastating if not deadly consequences. Considerably more than ruffled feathers.
That’s where you make the same mistake as Katy Faust. It’s not just about ideas- it’s about people’s lives and well-being.
LikeLike
Whatever Pink. A ‘sorry’ to Insanity would be nice, but continue rambling nonsense if you prefer.
LikeLike
Rambling nonsense? That’s rich. This is a perfect picture of what I’ve been saying all along. Often you’re not pushing any cause or idea forward. Rather you’re creating a platform for extremist Christians to spread their ideology.
I’m not apologizing to IB. I think her kind is dangerous and detrimental to society- as is Katy Faust, and also some of the other people commenting around these parts.
Treating them and what they say with deference only prolongs the illusion that what they’re promoting has any merit.
LikeLike
Oh come on! Katy Faust was your best friend last month and NOTHING she’s said has changed. I treat none of them with deference, just simple respect as fellow human beings with opinions. They all mean well, and perhaps through sensible discussion of their views at some point the light bulb moment will come. Your childish insult was meaningless and silly, worthy of a snort from Beavis or Butthead, but no help to any kind of dialogue that could aid society. You can admit this among friends.
LikeLike
Just so we’re clear, I’ve never met Faust. We exchanged something between 5 and 8 emails in the past 15 months.
I’ve done my mea-culpa. I thought I’d be able to soften her tone. At first it looked like that was working.
As soon as I took Pink Agendist offline, she took advantage and embarked once again on her appalling efforts.
In any event, my childish insults are designed to stop the pearl-clutchers from feigning respectability.
LikeLike
Did you see she just posted her Post-Australia post?
LikeLike
Glad you said that, I would have missed the opportunity to have a good laugh that “To ensure that this is “a place where ideas, not people, are under attack” I am halting comments for a while. Unfortunately I don’t have time to devote to moderation right now. Maybe we’ll try it again sometime soon.”
Someone’s hit the Bigot Big Time – no time to be flustered with annoying questions she can’t answer, and too many out of control flunkies saying embarrassing things.
I’ve totally gone off Tim Tams.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad she didn’t mention meat pies.
LikeLike
Isn’t it delicious how she’s blocked comments all together! 😀
From some of the search terms that landed people on my blog this past week, I think I know why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This reminds me of the comment *I think* that tildeb made on yours regarding respect and tolerance. It was about confusing the two and calling people out, I suppose. Just as I moan at you for every remotely sexist comment you make 🙂 which, you invariably take with good grace.
I think the other aspect to consider, is that Violet doesn’t have such a laissez faire policy on her blog as others do. Neither of you like swearing, me I don’t care. If I think someone’s been rude and passes the mark I’ll step in. David has been rude to John on mine. But I doubt John will lose sleep.
Personally I think IB spouts rubbish. I don’t find an iota of sense in what she writes. And I agree, her rhetoric is damaging.
Suppose it depends how we all work and what we are trying to achieve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, Tildeb was very right. It’s a common enough mistake.
That’s how these people have been faked their way to the podium.
Faust’s tagline is “a place where ideas, not people are under attack.”
Actually, when an lgbt person gets beaten to near death or a woman gets an infection because she had no alternative but to induce an abortion with a wire hanger or by inserting misoprostol into her vagina- people are very much under attack. But, oh no- the terribly bad taste of dark humour!
LikeLike
Exactly. I think we need to avoid the pretty parlour room scenarios.
But to be fair, Violet isn’t promoting LGBT hate crimes or illegal abortion.
She likes to be all things to all people and have an open forum. I don’t know anyway, you ask her.
LikeLike
Hey, it’s her blog- she’s free to do and say whatever she wants. She’s also welcomed to block me, should she choose. She certainly won’t be the first or the last. What I’m not going to do is mince words.
That ‘simple theologian’ kid is a jack-ass. An ignorant, under-educated, imbecile who’s pushing his ridiculous religion onto everyone else.
Insanitybytes is the female version of the aforementioned.
I don’t regret for a second calling them what they are. They’re real life intellectual abortions.
LikeLike
You know I don’t ban anyone, Pink. I ask people to stay civil and avoid personal attacks. If they can’t stick to such a basic formula for productive discourse, I think it says more about them than striking their comments could ever do.
LikeLike
I don’t want to be civil anymore. I’m tired.
LikeLike
Childish, unsubstantiated personal insults directed at a believer do little if anything to persuade any believer that they are mistaken. Most often, it causes them to become defensive – to see you as an asshole, which many will extend to the rest of us (nonbelievers / atheists / antitheists / whatever), which reinforces their belief of us as depraved, and them as correct and righteous.
Stop it. It does more harm than good.
I think you ought to reserve your jeering insults for the beliefs, if you think that’s productive. (“Productive” as in persuasive to believers, cathartic to non-believers, or the like.) And if you’re going to insult someone, at least include some evidence for your claim about the person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to agree with you. However, Ark had a post with an interesting message from someone he’d regularly personally insulted who thanked him for calling him a ‘dickhead’ so many times because it helped him see the light. Go figure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for sharing this – it is informative. Still seems like a different kind of thing from MM’s so-called dark humor.
LikeLike
Agreed. It was a particularly childish and pointless insult. Actually, I’d even hesitate to call it an insult …
LikeLike
IMO.
LikeLike
P.S. we should all be celebrating today. Now it seems Askthebigot no longer allows comments.
Perhaps that has something to do with her visit to Australia causing my blog to have a record number of visitors 🙂
Did you ever see this video (it’s partly about you, although I remember the story differently):
http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=iS8AXZdfq1g&start=594.41&end=919.24&cid=6624190
LikeLike
Did you ever see this:
http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=iS8AXZdfq1g&start=594.41&end=919.24&cid=6624190
LikeLike
Horrid Dropbox won’t open it for me. Faust’s post on Aus is sickening. I could have vomited, mate. I’d like to have dragged her round The Cross in the 80s 😈 to the brothels and coke dens.
LikeLike
Once it cuts off press the play button again, then it works.
LikeLike
Just tested, this link definitely works:
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/6624190
LikeLiked by 1 person
That vid link you posted was amazing. DR TV is pretty yuck though. Two sanctimonious presenters and KF should come with a severe health warning.
So, you were a cheerleader? And a group of people outed her? I thought you did all the work?
Seriously though twenty five minutes of unadulterated KF without Dastyari or di Natale to interrupt requires one very stiff drink.
LikeLike
Isn’t it insane? I’m still wondering which one of you told her you didn’t want your mother to know you blogged 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mum died more than ten years ago 🙂 not guilty.
LikeLike
It’s just so very implausible. None of us are teenagers. That sort of fantasy/lying is interesting. I’m guessing she’s actually much more unbalanced than I first imagined. The whole performance was very odd.
LikeLike
She’s very hyper and nervy. Nerviosa. And illogical.
LikeLike
I’ve just watched it. I think she came across pretty well and didn’t make anything up at all. You really were good friends, eh? What specifically made you change your mind again?
LikeLike
Didn’t make up anything? Who was the group who found her identity? I found her identity on my own- I also took full responsibility for it at the time.
And no, we weren’t good friends. Someone sent me that video and I was absolutely shocked. Someone I’ve never met was talking about me/using me as evidence they weren’t homophobic. It’s outrageous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This didn’t come on my notifications, only just saw it. Yes, you found her on your own. She’s not inaccurate about the sharing of IP addresses, and the discussions we were having about her. You were both playing best buddies for a while. Just because you realised she is really harmful (months later) doesn’t mean everything she says is lies. Swing too far one way, then the other …. sigh. Her agenda is exceedingly harmful, I’ve been consistent in my stance against her.
LikeLike
Were you not listening carefully? Listen to how she describes the incident again, then get back to me. That’s you again being ridiculously contrarian.
LikeLike
Just heading to bed. If I get a chance tomorrow, I’ll listen again. We shared IP addresses and chatted about it on various posts – I can see why from her perspective it seemed like a conspiracy.
Did you really give her hair care tips and tagging tips?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I gave her a number of blog tips. The first of which was to tone it down. Not to let the Lopez/Rivka crowd onto her blog. Also how to title appropriately. As I said, all this happened over the course of 6 to 8 total messages.
LikeLike
And the hair? If you’d been playing close attention you would have noticed her salivating with excitement when Motherhood came on with her vile accusations. She was falling over herself to embrace anyone with clearly homophobic outlooks.
LikeLike
I told her her hairstyle didn’t suit her. And I’ve been mostly offline since autumn of last year.
LikeLike
And (I’ll just add) that this just goes to show yet again what I’ve been saying about you. Your first reaction to any statement is primarily based on your perception of the identity of the speaker. Not the statement itself.
I can say something you agree with, but because I’m the one saying it you’ll find a way to disagree. This all leads back to a religious, hierarchical, tribalist thought process.
Notice how you’ll defend IB but not the others saying more or less the same things she does. Even when I attack them with the same violence.
LikeLike
That is so much rubbish I can scarcely be bothered to respond. Your comment to IB (once again) was ridiculous. Swallow your pride and admit it. Flinging mud at me to avoid acknowledging this serves no purpose. You’re a smart guy Pink, but incredibly impetuous and insecure (apologies for the personal nature of the observation).
LikeLike
LOL. Violet, my dear, you’re the one who gets all hot and bothered if I speak honestly about my life. You took it as a personal insult that I was concerned about moving from one community to another. Who’s actually insecure? You’ve got a giant chip on your shoulder. You always have and it’s always been rather obvious.
I didn’t accept Faust’s advances because I thought she was a clever, lovely woman. I did it because I had a goal. You on the other hand play ‘blog-buddies’ with IB because you’re both limited idiots- of equivalent intellect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You took it as a personal insult that I was concerned about moving from one community to another.” I did? No idea what you mean.
“You on the other hand play ‘blog-buddies’ with IB because you’re both limited idiots- of equivalent intellect.”
I guess quite a lot goes over that inflated head of yours. 🙂
LikeLike
Over-inflated, my dear, would be if I couldn’t back it up. I don’t need anyone’s opinion, I’ve got the results to prove my competence.
LikeLike
Yawn. Insecure, like I said.
LikeLike
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. I still remember your rant when I talked about leaving Spain and living in the real world.
LikeLike
Wasn’t your line something about privileged people thinking they’re better than everyone else? I’ll look for it to confirm.
LikeLike
Here it is, your words: “Wow, I’m amazed how nice everyone is being to Mr. Privilege and his fear of Common People.”
Was that based on your self-confidence, or on your perception/decision that I don’t merit the life I have?
LikeLike
Can I see a link to the post?
LikeLike
By the way, are you drinking? You seem to be more argumentative in the evenings. I’m off to bed definitely now, I’ll respond to any further insults you leave at some point tomorrow. Bon nuit.
LikeLike
I work during the days.
LikeLike
I have no idea, I’d have to see it in context. As you have access to the words, why don’t you paste the original post here and I can formulate a more appropriate response.
LikeLike
I was talking about my fears of moving out of a community where everyone had more or less the same sort of lifestyle to the outside world. That I wasn’t sure how to react or how people would react to me.
LikeLike
Haha, that’s me! My mother knows I blog and that a lot of it is arguing with Christians, but I don’t want to make her cry with some of the content. Old religious people of delicate disposition and all that. I might look back at the conversation I had with Bigot about that, if I can find it.
LikeLike
I’ve found it. We had a long conversation about her unmasking. My favourite bit is when she tries to scare me with the notion that you’ll turn on me and I tell her that we’ve never got on – how things change, eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And incidentally, I understand why abortion confuses so many people. It’s not a pleasant thought to end the growth of the little wriggling human form dependent on your body. I just think it’s obvious that some of the consequences of continuing in certain situations are more unpleasant. Only the woman can make that decision. We don’t convey the logic of the argument by engaging in personal attacks, you know that.
LikeLike
It wasn’t just “dark humor” (if humor). It was a personal insult. You even admitted it was a low blow when I called you on it.
LikeLike
Not sure what gave you the impression I needed your permission to say whatever I want to say. I do not.
IB is an ‘activist’ against the rights of other free citizens. I believe her to be a fool, and I will continue to say so; And the manner in which I do so is my prerogative.
LikeLike
Congratulations on your epiphany that I’m not actually the boss of you.
Care to actually address my point that such unsubstantiated personal character attacks as you made earlier actually work against even your own stated purpose?
LikeLike
I don’t need to address anything you say or think. See what I implied about your egocentrism? I don’t care what you think. You don’t need to like or approve of what I say.
You do things the way you want, and that’s your own problem- and the same goes for me.
LikeLike
How well-reasoned of you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your welcome. What in the world gave you the idea that anyone needed to explain their reasoning to you? Is it a throwback to the authority/conformity thing from your religious days?
LikeLike
I just thought maybe you were a skeptic who would actually care about the effect of his actions.
Sorry to see that you’re still so butt hurt over my emphatic suggestion.
LikeLike
My actions are measured; including attacks.
I think it’s time people stop showing deference to stupidity. Anyone who advocates against women’s or LGBT rights is a fool. And I will repeat that as many times as I choose.
So take your emphatic suggestion and apply it to the way you behave while not interfering with the rights of others to pursue their own methods.
LikeLike
I can see how calling someone a fool might sometimes be productive. I don’t see how saying someone is “just angry your mother’s abortion attempt went wrong and caused you permanent damage” might be.
LikeLike
Long story. People like IB and some others from her crowd are bomb throwers. Their attacks are veiled, dissimulated.
I have no illusions I’m going to change what they think. I know I won’t. What I can do, is lessen the damage they do by curtailing their efforts to spread their nefarious message.
A debate is only worth having if people are willing to listen and learn something. Open to the possibility their message might not be the whole truth. That’s certainly not the case for these anti-abortion activists. Or for most of the anti-lgbt activists.
An honest (ethical) debate about abortion would be one about timing. At what point does one life become as important and/or valuable as the other?
LikeLike
“own methods” being embarrassing playground insults. I suppose it’s worth a try…
LikeLike
Darling, the difference is I actually have methods, an approach, a plan.
I don’t waste my own energy or anyone else’s analyzing the superficial semantics of any religion.
LikeLike
As we say up here, oh aye.
LikeLike
Can I ask what you think is gained by this? Quotes from the religious, a superficial counter-argument, a question. The same people commenting ad nauseum.
Who comes out of it knowing more? Doing better? It looks like an exercise in futility. Do you think your post forwarded the cause of women’s right to choose?
LikeLike
Indeed. I’m quietly confident it will lead to the downfall of the anti-abortion movement within the month. Although perhaps if I’d included mindless, childish insults I could slash that time frame by a day or two. Hmm, something to chew on…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re as thick as a plank. You don’t have the basic intelligence to see the difference in how insulting anti-abortion arguments are as opposed to ‘playground insults.’
I suppose you can’t help it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And just for future reference. If you don’t want to look like you have a chip on your shoulder it’s probably best not to criticize the size of someone’s house. How often they go out to lunch or dinner, or the fact that they buy paintings. Especially if all the person is doing is talking about their day.
If you do decide someone else’s life is ‘offensive’, that’s really more about how you feel about your own.
LikeLike
Oh I agree. If you would be kind enough to provide the context for the comment, given you clearly still have access to the original text, perhaps it will jog my memory. Maybe you could reblog the original post, or simply copy the text here. Thanks.
LikeLike
Go fuck yourself you nitwit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Drink typing? 🙂
Pink, if I could delete this comment for you, I would.
LikeLike
More like honest commenting. I’ve put up with enough from VW. In reality her mindset is exactly the same as a classist. The only difference is she believes it’s okay if she does it in reverse.Criticizing people for what they have is the same concept as criticizing people for what they don’t have. The reality is there’s no context that justifies her comments on my former home or how I spend my time.
She also thinks me criticizing someone’s education or thinking method is ‘snobbery’; except thinking and education are very much based on merit and effort. Putting together a well founded logical argument is based on work, not on social class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You think you might be confusing mischievous, Scottish-style needling for classism? I’ve heard there’s a northern wall drawn across that green isle, above which the people tap dance under the banner, “You cannot take our cheek!” 😉
LikeLike
Not really. I’m a great fan of sarcasm, needling and the like. I also don’t have an issue with well founded criticism. In fact, I wouldn’t dream of disputing the fact I’m a snob; in many ways I am. What I dispute is that that affects the quality of what I say.
Criticizing someone’s (lack of) education or logical method isn’t ‘snobbery’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, and I for one adore your argumentative style, and am often in awe of your historical knowledge. Wasn’t though V jabbing you for calling Inanity a failed abortion?
LikeLike
This time, yes, and that’s exactly what brought me back to this issue. I think VW lacks perspective. She only looks at the surface. Substance is much more important than semantics or political correctness 😉
What’s worse, advocating that a whole collective of people have no rights or aggressively ridiculing the people who do that? I know where VW stands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps this book cover would have been a more appropriate lambasting of Inanity 🙂
LikeLike
Let’s have a quick summary of what happened here:
Pink: Your mum had a failed abortion and that’s why you’re stupid! (*Beavis and Butthead snigger*)
Violet: Please don’t be so childishly rude to people on my blog.
Pink-the-Puffed-Up-Pufferfish-who-can’t-deal-with-criticism: I hate you! I hate you! You’re stupid and I’m really clever! And you posted something on my deleted blog in 2013 that really offended me but I won’t provide the context in case it was justified!
Violet: I think I’ll just summarise that.
LikeLike
Could you stop the selective pearl-clutching?
We’re all adults here. Not sensitive 8 year olds. Most adults I know don’t get terribly offended and cry if someone calls them a fool, ridicules them or uses a four letter word.
I enjoy dark, cruel humour. I especially enjoy employing it to knock people off balance.
LikeLike
But seriously, feel free to paste that post with the comment that upset you so. Any time.
LikeLike
Are you curious about the post or your comment(s)?
I don’t see the need to drag it out, and I’m not ‘offended’. I was just pointing out your attitude.
You decided that if I criticized someone’s education or thought process that was snobbery.
You didn’t criticize me once or twice, you did it a number of times. Always related to what you perceive as my ‘privilege’. That’s fine. My point is that shouldn’t be the measure you use to decide if what I’m saying is right or wrong.
LikeLike
I don’t remember. I’ve asked five times to see the context which you clearly have easy access to. I’d like to see the post and the comments.
LikeLike
In case you hadn’t noticed the blog is down. I’d have to go through hundreds of posts to find it.
LikeLike
You ARE welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much! I would’ve never caught that had it not been for your profound insight! Like much of what you write, absolutely life-changing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was going to pick you up on that, but I thought I’d leave it to Roughseas 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Once again (I’m getting tired of repeating this), people shouldn’t be buying or selling any body parts as it creates a dangerous market. Women shouldn’t get pregnant on any kind of whim because pregnancy and abortion are both dangerous, and abortion is something that if taken lightly is likely to be a cause of regret and distress, given that biologically it’s a nice feeling to have children. I personally do also think it’s not fair or pleasant (respectful? as Clare said) to the growing human to deny it life in the absence of compelling reasons for doing so – BUT I think that decision is the woman’s alone. Pregnancy and birth are too complex and overwhelming for others to make the decision on behalf of women. These are all reasons that would make a ‘moral’ argument. Or explain to me why they aren’t.
AND STILL, I’m waiting for your moral argument from the Christian point of view. Do you disagree with your god’s design? Do you disagree with his planned abortions?
LikeLike
“With full bravado, Insanity rejected the many clearly presented reasons why woman would logically be unlikely to choose to do such a thing, and also why it should never be condoned in society if someone did.”
I did no such thing, Violet. It was a question that could have been answered “yes or no.” Instead the question was evaded by claims that it would be unlikely, illogical, and not condoned by society. That is not an answer.
LikeLike
See my answer above …
LikeLike
I personally changed my stance from pro- choice to pro life not due to any religious objections based on the text of the bible. As a matter of fact at the time I was an agnostic. For me personally it came down to personhood. I never really believed an fetus was a valuable form of human life until I saw my first daughter on the ultra sound at 10 weeks (about 2 weeks further along than the child my girlfriend and I had decided to abort about a year before) I had a sudden moment of realization that what we had terminated out was now in my mind a real human being. I really think there are very few who would willingly and knowingly kill another human being they felt had value. I don’t know of any real sound biblical arguments for the pro life stance that I would personally use. Although I’ve heard many attempt to use scripture to back up their stance. I think the bottom like is so long as there is debate regarding when a person becomes a person there will be debate about the morality of abortion.
LikeLike
So it’s a time issue? How about the morning after pill? After all, conception alone takes a couple of weeks.
LikeLike
I’m not stating it’s a time issue. Im not sure how you conlude that from my comment, it’s an issue of the perception of what a human life that has actual value looks like. Generally speaking people who have a pro life stance value the fetus as human, those with a pro choice stance do not.
LikeLike
How about a zygote?
LikeLike
Are you asking me for my personal definition? If so why?
LikeLike
I’m asking you when you think life begins and if you think that decision is yours or should be up to doctors or to the mother?
LikeLike
Personally at conception. The mother ultimately decides whether it be legal or not. Making law against such will only push abortion underground like prohibition of alcohol or drugs it would be a far worse affair than anything we could imagine now I think. I don’t have the right to control what someone else does to themselves but I do feel it would be the equivalent of infanticide for one to get an abortion. So I’m opposed to it. On a side not if women can opt out of a pregnancy with it without the father’s consent should father’s be able to opt out of any possible financial responsibilities as well? It gets very complicated pretty quick. At what stage can we claim complete bodily autonomy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conception is a process. It’s not something that happens during the sexual act.
LikeLike
Hi my friend, I just want to say I fully support what you have written here.
Where I struggle on the issue is in cases of rape and deformity.
LikeLike
I’ll try not to sound irritated and patronising. NOTHING is a black and white morality issue. You don’t need to struggle – if a woman is raped and doesn’t want to bring a pregnancy to term, it shouldn’t even be a question.
LikeLike
I think you’re wrong. I have two kids, I’ve had two miscarriages. I value human life immensely. I’m completely pro-choice, because life isn’t just about potential life, it’s about the living and breathing human being who (for whatever reason) cannot face going through with a traumatic pregnancy, giving birth, or knowing that their biologically unwanted child might never be provided for in the way every human being deserves. It’s about avoiding the situation where women suffer horrendous injuries and die because they try to self-abort. Unfortunately humans are unlikely to ever escape unwanted pregnancies, the best we can hope for is limiting them through comprehensive sex education programmes and free contraceptives.
LikeLike
You may be misreading me I’m not asserting that anyone does or does not car about human life. By all apearances there seem to be multiple definitions about what a valuable human life consists of. This seems to be clearly demonstrated by your response. It’s seems you value the life of the mother, her choices, the subjective standards of what everyone deserves, and a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy if she feels the child’s life wouldn’t be of a high enough quality. Say in the case of severe handicap etc. More so than the life of an unborn child. The heart of what I was stating originally is that so long as the there are varying definitions of what a valuable human life is there will be dispute about these types of things.
LikeLike
There is no easy explanation for many of the questions presented here. Just in the case it is east for a pacifist to declare they are vehemently opposed to physical violence that stance can change when they for a example witness somebody brutalizing a loved one and their only out was to use physical violence to stop them. I can really only speak for myself and what I believe to be just and right on this subject. As I stated my stance has changed on the subject so it’s not really as simple as some might make it out to be.
LikeLike
I think you’re wrong. I have two kids, I’ve had two fourth-terms. I value human life immensely. I’m completely pro-choice, because life isn’t just about potential life, it’s about the living and breathing human being who (for whatever reason) cannot face going through with raising a difficult child, nursing, adjusting social schedules, or knowing that their biologically unwanted infant might never be provided for in the way every human being deserves. It’s about avoiding the situation where women suffer horrendous stress and inconveniences when they self-attempt fourth-trimester abortions. Unfortunately humans are unlikely to ever escape unwanted children, the best we can hope for is limiting them by requiring responsible people to pay for programmes to educate our surviving children about how not to have unprotected sex unless they want children and then ensuring that NHS pays for the fourth trimester abortion of any unwanted infants who get in the way of our important and fun-filled lives.
LikeLike
I think you’ve misunderstood the conversation Higharka. No-one is suggesting it would be okay to murder sentient and independent human beings. Also, your understanding of why women would seek an abortion seems rather trivial. Thanks for trying to join the conversation without being racist though.
LikeLike
I think you’ve misunderstood the conversation Violetwisp. No-one is suggesting it would be okay to murder sentient and independent human beings. Fourth trimester abortion ONLY affects fetuses that have been ejected from the womb but still have incomplete neurological development and are COMPLETELY dependent upon adults for food, shelter, etc.
Also, your understanding of why women would seek a fourth trimester abortion seems rather trivial. Perhaps you are unaware of how difficult some people find it to have to pay for a baby’s food, diapers, or health care costs? It isn’t fair to ask someone to make that decision until they’ve had the fetus outside the womb for a few months to consider how keeping the fetus will impact their freedom by restricting how much they have to spend on important things INCLUDING future children’s food, shelter, education, development, etc.
Thanks for trying to join the conversation without being Talmudist though.
LikeLike
I guess my main point was, one need not be a Christian to have a moral objection to abortion, or anything else for that matter
LikeLiked by 1 person
sub
LikeLike
Violet, I think you raise a great challenge here. If the God of the Bible allows miscarriages to take place, it would seem that he is OK with it. I don’t know what the annual number is, but it has to be huge. That is a lot of dead babies that an all-powerful God could have saved yet doesn’t. If he doesn’t seem to care about unborn developing humans in the womb, then why should we?
Does that make this God a staunch pro-abortionist? It would probably be more accurate to say that he is not against miscarriages.
I think most people, whatever they believe about abortion, would like to live in a world where less and less abortions take place. I haven’t met anyone who is pro-choice or an atheist who wants there to be more abortions. So it doesn’t require a faith in anything to think less abortion is a better thing than more. I think we would agree on that.
It seems that most of the Christian’s commenting here won’t acknowledge your challenge and try to dismiss it. It is a good one and it definitely makes me think about things.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Jim.
“Does that make this God a staunch pro-abortionist? It would probably be more accurate to say that he is not against miscarriages.”
Perhaps, but he also couldn’t be described as opposing abortion.
“I haven’t met anyone who is pro-choice or an atheist who wants there to be more abortions. So it doesn’t require a faith in anything to think less abortion is a better thing than more. I think we would agree on that.” Absolutely.
And you’re right, no-one seems to be giving a reasonable explanation for their sense of morality on this subject specifically within the Christian faith context.
LikeLike
Jim, the plural of “Christian” is “Christians.” You would only insert the apostrophe if you wanted to indicate that a Christian possessed something. E.g., “The Christian’s Bible.”
Violet, I think this was an interesting topic. Why don’t you follow it up with a new thread: A CHALLENGE FOR AFRICANS: THE MORAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION.
A few days later, you can post a third thread:
A CHALLENGE FOR MUSLIMS: THE MORAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION.
and then:
A CHALLENGE FOR KIWIS: THE MORAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION.
or even:
A CHALLENGE FOR HASIDIC JEWS: THE MORAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION.
It may surprise you to know that more people than just Christians are against abortion. In fact, Africa is the continent most heavily weighted against abortion, with many nations preventing it even in cases of incest or rape. Yet somehow, all you want to argue against is Christians.
Anyway, I’ll leave now, and let you get back to throwing more rocks and interviewing more of your friendly friends.
LikeLike
Higharka,
I still haven’t figured out how to correct a comment once it is posted.
LikeLike
Higharka, please read this post and the one before. Christians specifically campaign against access to abortion within my society – Kiwis and Muslims, not so much. Christians also claim this is because it’s what their god wants, when their Bible (and his ‘design’) clearly indicate to the contrary. Please don’t try to drag more of your racism into my posts, there would be nothing more vile and tiresome.
LikeLike
The vast majority of Christians in the U.K. are White Caucasian peoples. When you single them out by saying “Christians” ONLY, and not referring to OTHER groups that are against abortion, it is RACIST. You know full well you are targeting White people, and just because you may yourself be White that does not mean that you are not a self-hating White who is bringing anti-Caucasianism into this issue.
Or maybe you don’t challenge Muslims or Hasidic Jews because you think they are not intellectually capable of engaging you? That would be even more racist, and I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. From what I’ve seen, committed Muslims are more than capable of discussing the issue with you. You are most welcome to find a gathering of young Muslims at a Tube station and begin a discussion with them about abortion rights, women’s rights, or gay rights, and you will probably find that they will treat you MUCH more kindly than the Christians you are always demeaning.
Of course it would be like you to think that Muslims have “no stance” on abortion issues in YOUR society. I assure you they DO have a stance, and if you weren’t so blinded by your privilege you would be aware of that stance. Goodness, look at how you worded that–“my” society. I assume you didn’t actually mean to write that. If you take it back, then I will withdraw my objection in this paragraph.
Whatever you think, Muslims DO have voices, opinions, and perspectives that they can offer, and you should investigate a few groups of young Muslims and engage them in a respectful dialogue.
LikeLike
Well that’s certainly food for thought. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
LikeLike
You’re welcome…but I still come away from this with the feeling that you think yourself so intellectually superior to Muslims that you won’t attempt to make outreach to them on the Tube or in a mosque to discuss gay rights and abortion. I hope I’m wrong about this…
LikeLike
Oh really? Perhaps you’d care to highlight a quote of mine that brought you to that conclusion. I’d hate to think you’re just fabricating more hateful nonsense.
LikeLike
Violetwisp: “in MY society” (emphasis added).
Your complete focus on White Christian society and your complete exclusion of engaging young British Muslims speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Interesting interpretation. Thanks for your perspective.
LikeLike
Higharka, I’m curious… where are you based?
LikeLike
Flying saucer in high orbit with Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. If my mission to destroy the world is successful we will dispatch additional Gideons to this planet before the hyperjump to Sirius 9.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Understood.
LikeLike
Malta is heavily Roman Catholic and only permits abortion in the case of the woman’s life being endangered, like Ireland, similarly San Marino and Liechtenstein. Andorra (Catholic) does not permit abortion at all. Not surprisingly does the Vatican City. Where I live, it’s irrelevant. There are no abortion clinics. Women have to travel to Spain or the UK.
In every single one of these places the dominant religion is Christianity, Catholicism to be specific. Why not link a post about abortion to Christian opposition? Seems valid to me.
LikeLike
’cause outta the whole world, she only picks Christians.
Africa is filled with Muslim, pagan, and atheist societies where women are slashed, stoned, and burned over abortion. And Europe is filled with countries where people are cruelly forced to give birth in sterile hospital rooms under medical care, then give children up for adoption.
Which situation is harder on women? Which situation constricts their options more?
And yet, Violetwisp is here arguing with Christians. What a joke! If she really cared about abortion rights for humans, she’d be dealing with the worst anti-abortionists in the entire world, the Muslims and others of Africa. But she doesn’t–she just wants to pick on easy targets.
LikeLike
Absolutely, I have to agree with you. There are many important issues we should all be taking up on a more global scale.
LikeLike
Just some historical observations. The general tenor of Christian teaching has always been that abortion is sinful. What was always disputed was whether or not an early abortion constituted murder, or was some lesser sort of sin. It was never considered a venial sin.
Whether or not it was legal in elder days is a separate issue: lots of things were legal that were considered sinful. Rather than look to civil law one should look to cannon law, old church penitentiaries or handbooks on confession. Wikipedia has competent entries on that stuff.
LikeLike
Just some historical observations. The general tenor of Christian teaching has always been that abortion is sinful.
And yet in Numbers 5 we have a formalised Abortion Ritual…
LikeLike
Yes, Christians have always been noted for their unquestioning adherence to Jewish law.
LikeLike
Right… For where else does the Evangelical hatred for gays, for example, come from but their adherence to Jewish laws 😉
Always amusing how one is milling to cite Leviticus for the things they want, but then ignore all the rest.
And BTW, aren’t the Ten Commandments Jewish Law, handed down by Moses?
LikeLike
Christians inherited first century Jewish attitudes about sex, except for the greater Christian disapproval of divorce. It does not much matter where those attitudes are written – ancient Christians were not fundamentalists citing chapter and verse for every little thing they believed – but they are summed up pretty well in some of Paul’s stock lists of sins to avoid.
In other words, Christian attitudes towards sex were not based in a text but in a culture.
Christians have always distinguished the moral law (Decalogue) from the positive law and ritual law which tend to overlap in the Pentateuch, which I am sure you know and don’t need me to explain.
LikeLike
Ahhh, “It does not much matter where those attitudes are written”
I see.
That’s some fancy footwork there, DP.
LikeLike
I’m just pointing out how these things developed historically. The early church had its moral teachings which were not based on a line by line study of the Pentateuch, but on more of an ethos or tradition. It was morally Jewish in many ways but without ritual law. The positive laws of the Pentateuch, like who to stone for what crime, were not much practiced by first century Judaism, and not at all by Christians.
Not complicated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks DP. Appreciate you telling me how to do my history. I think ecclesiastical courts count and they accepted abortion. OK?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem! Any time, I love to help.
Please clarify about the ecclesiastical courts: they accepted the practice of abortion as not sinful, or they rejected it, but did not always consider it murder.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant to say: “did they (according to your research) accept the practice of abortion as not sinful, or did they rejected it as sinful, but had differences of opinion as to whether it was murder.”
From what I know, the second seems to be the case.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be so much easier if everyone accepted that abortion will remain for the foreseeable future and agree that all available energy and funding be put towards prevention, with the aim of developing a medical/technological alternative to current methods of contraception that gives women total control over her reproductive system?
I wonder though, when such a breakthrough happens,will there still be ”moral” issues/objections from the religious quarter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There already is. Made in Sweden, I think, small metal rod thingy and it goes in the arm. Expensive, sure, but it’s guaranteed. It should be government subsidised.
LikeLike
You mentioned this before, if memory serves?
How ”safe” and reliable is it, John?
LikeLike
100%. It’s an implant, effective until removed.
LikeLike
I wonder how many women are aware of this?
And also is this available at all Family Planning clinics?
LikeLike
That’s where we heard about it. Before that moment it was a complete mystery to me.
LikeLike
Maybe if there was an online awareness drive it might get more people on board?
What d the Christians think about this form of contraception?
LikeLike
I asked David the other day if he and his wife used contraceptives… He never answered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She probably wouldn’t tell him! I mean, if you were his wife would you say anything? Hell, NO!
LikeLiked by 2 people
IUDs have been safe and effective and available for years. Until the government begins providing free sterilization at birth, and permitting reproduction only after obtaining a Party license, these unfortunate debates will continue.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Even just decent sex education would make a huge change. Try telling that to those in denial …
LikeLike
What are the (current) issues against/denying sex education?
This was never an issue with my two.
LikeLike
It’s the old ‘if you tell children about sex they’ll start doing it!’, as opposed to if you tell them how to do it responsibly and with respect, they’re likely to wait longer and less likely to have accidents.
LikeLike
I appreciate this explanation, and I’m glad to see that you are at least thinking about these things.
I still think that the comment I quoted was more likely to hurt than help your started purpose. My opinion is not the end-all, but if others agree, then I’d be right.
So consider me one data point.
LikeLike
Pingback: to ban or not to ban – dealing with difficult comments | violetwisp
John, perhaps you should reconsider your entire argument here.
Let’s look at the anti-abortionists quote that you so lovingly repeated a half a dozen times as you were trying to make your argument.
I took the liberty of highlighting key phrases that you’ve been ignoring during your “justification” for abortion.
There is no way to deny that a fetus is a human organism, or that it’s part of the continuum of human existence as Dr. Goldenring states from the start. Now, you’ve carefully removed the “full” whenever you refer to it as a “human organism.” You even admitted that organs are stopped by abortion:
Now the Goldenring quote, I located it on the NEJM website but don’t have access to the full article, so I wasn’t able to read the full thing. But the wording made by Dr. Goldenring quote appear that he is referring to the natural process where a “stillbirth” occurs if the brain does not fully develop and is integrated into the “full” human organism. And that in such cases where this naturally occurs, he views that the rest of the organs should be available for transplantation.
The argument “Abortion doesn’t really “kill” a fetus, because you’ve stop all of the functioning organs *before* the brain fully develops where there is a consistent EEG to determine whether the organism is “alive” or “dead;” is ludicrous.
If stop the heart of a fetus for long enough what will happen to it?
If you crush the skull of a fetus with a forceps to stop the developing brain functions [and the developed brain stem functions] what happens to the fetus?
I think Monte Python gives a suitable answer to those questions:
‘E’s passed on! This [fetus] is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!
‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! …’Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!
‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
LikeLike
This was put in spam for some reason, just found it.
LikeLike
ST,
I included the full quote. The first sentence, which you have highlighted, is Goldenring’s “opinion,” as demonstrated in his use of the word “suggestion.” Do you know the difference between “opinion” and “facts”? Of course he’s going to say that. I actually like that he said that because it frames the next part of his statement beautifully!
There is no way to deny that a fetus is a human organism, or that it’s part of the continuum of human existence as Dr. Goldenring states from the start.
Are you lying deliberately? Goldenring says the exact opposite. The human organism does not exist until the brain is On.
The argument “Abortion doesn’t really “kill” a fetus, because you’ve stop all of the functioning organs *before* the brain fully develops where there is a consistent EEG to determine whether the organism is “alive” or “dead;” is ludicrous.
If it’s ludicrous, then please explain how you can “kill” something that cannot “die.”
LikeLike
The most astonishing thing is that you’re being serious.
So, if you crush the skull of the fetus stopping the functioning fetal brain and brain stem, will the remaining organs continue to function or will they stop?
If the fetus is not a human organism before “full bilateral synchronization,” how are the organs that remain available for transplantation “human” organs?
And thirdly, if a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm, you are effectively saying that this does not result in a human zygote, that develops into a human embryo, which further develops into a human fetus, and finally birthed as a human child. The suggestion made regarding the human existence continuum is biological, not opinion. I’ve never seen where human fertilization has resulted in anything other than a human organism. Have you?
LikeLike
ST,
It’s clear you don’t know anything about foetal development.
So, if you crush the skull of the fetus stopping the functioning fetal brain and brain stem, will the remaining organs continue to function or will they stop?
There is no functioning brain until week 25, with full bilateral syynchronisation at week 27/28. If there is no brain before this moment, what do you think is making the heart, for example, pump? It is a muscle with action potentials performing a task.
The suggestion made regarding the human existence continuum is biological, not opinion
Yes, it is the opinion of Goldenring which he “suggests” others should consider. I’m not arguing that a potential human being is not developing, but don’t conflate “potential” with an actual “human organism.” As Goldenring then goes on to so clearly state:
ST, you can whine all you like, but until you can explain to me how you can “kill” something that cannot “die” you are just making annoying noise.
The only way you can open this subject up for debate is if you can prove one of either two things:
1) That the foetus was once inorganic and magically becomes organic, or
2) That the human soul exists and enters the foetus at a specific time.
Naturally, No. 1 is ridiculous, and as for No. 2, you should note that The Templeton Foundation, a Christian scientific research group, has spent the better part of the last 30 years and well over US$1 billion trying to find evidence of the soul, and their efforts to date have returned precisely zero positive results.
So, are you just going to keep making irrational noise?
LikeLike
Lol, nice dodge to my question.
Your response shows how little you know about biology in general. The action potential found in a beating heart, requires a functioning brain stem. Without a functioning brain stem the heart will not be able to function as there will be no electrical impulses being sent to the heart to excite the cells.
Let’s look at one of the definitions you provided for legal, medical, scientific death:
So I’ll rephrase the question: If you crush the skull of a fetus and stop the functioning brain stem, what will happen to the function of the heart? Will it’s “action potentials” continue or will they stop? What happens to the fetus?
You’re insistence that the “only way this can be open for debate,” is a false dichotomy. As they are not the only ways to open the discussion up. And quite honestly, the 2 ways you suggest are rather illogical and ill-conceived directions to take the subject.
LikeLike
ST,
You’re still just making noise.
Once again, if there is no functioning brain until week 25 then what do you think is making muscles work? The foetus develops a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks. This is not a brain.
And don’t cherry pick. The U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].” So tell me, at what stage can a foetus survive outside the womb without any artificial assistance?
Again and again, you are conflating a potential organism that can survive on its own and an actual human organism.
And so to repeat Goldenring’s statement:
LikeLike
Hahaha, look at what you highlighted after you falsely accused me of cherry picking. It enhances my argument. “Respiration, circulation, and swallowing.” I.e., the autonomic nervous system functions from the brain stem NOT the brain.
At what stage can a fetus survive outside the womb?
At 7 weeks when it has a minimally functioning brain stem. It will not survive for long outside of the womb as the organs and organ systems are too premature in their development to sustain the life that is present, but that does not mean that the fetus has not “survived” birth. Adding “artificial assistance” is done only to conflate your argument. If “artificial assistance” advanced to the point of simulating the womb, there is no reason to believe that a 7 week old fetus born prematurely could not survive in an artificial assisted womb. So adding this to your argument only addresses the lack of advancement when it comes to artificial assistance. The question regarding artificial assistance would then be if the fetus died in utero or if the organs are still functioning after the fetus is born.
It’s also remarkable that you mention it as “without artificial assistance” as this illustrates your opinion and not a medical policy. Artificial assistance is provided to try and save a life. So to mention this, especially with the word “without” only further enhances that a premature fetus can be born alive and denying the fetus artificial assistance would cause the fetus to die.
LikeLike
Adding “artificial assistance” is done only to conflate your argument.
Really? Tell me, how do “facts” conflate an argument? Re-read the US Death Act: “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].”
Is a foetus breathing on its own? Can a foetus maintain the vegetative functions of life?
Here’s a hint as to that answer: No.
The foetus stands zero chance of surviving outside the womb until after week 21, and for it to survive it requires full life support. In your country, the Supreme Court weighed the scientific, legal and medical facts and ruled:
This, of course, corresponds to the beginnings of brain activity (week 25), and 28 weeks being bilateral synchronisation. There’s a very good reason why the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. National Library of Medicine call natural abortion after week 20 “preterm deliveries,” while before that date it is labeled “miscarriages.” There is a distinct line.
So, as the facts are clear you are left with two options. Arguing:
1) That the foetus was once inorganic and magically becomes organic, or
2) That the human soul exists
Which do you choose?
LikeLike
Oh my, back to raising your false dichotomy.
Anyways, thanks for sharing your opinions on the subject!
LikeLike
And I’ll take that to mean you concede to the fact that you cannot “kill” something that cannot “die.”
I can only hope you mediate on this revelation and adjust your thinking accordingly.
LikeLike
Lol, not in the least, I’m just getting tired of you driveling on about it.
LikeLike
If you believe you can answer the question then by all means, answer the question in a coherent, rational, and adult manner.
Until that moment, you are simply making irrational noise.
LikeLike
I have answered your question, repeatedly! And by all means in a coherent, rational, and adult manner.
Now it’s time for me to carry on. I’m freeing you from having to listen to my “irrational” noise any longer. But you seem insistent for me to continue, which if you feel that way, it really begs the question: “Why would you want me to?”
LikeLike
I don’t. I find you tremendously boring.
Keep well.
LikeLike
Lol, okay, if that’s what you have to tell yourself!
LikeLike
I can see from this thread that you’re not at all comfortable with facts, nor does it appear you’re at ease with interacting with evidence-based reality. I’m sorry for that, but I don’t make the facts of this world… merely present them as they are. As Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine so eloquently put it:
LikeLike
On the contrary John, on the contrary. But you seem to want to keep talking the the person that you find *so* remarkably boring. I wonder why that is?
It’s probably because you don’t find me boring at all, or perhaps you are more bored than I am boring, either way, the reason you would keep talking after I’ve given you the freedom to move along makes as much sense as your original arguments: NONE!
All you should be able to glean from the thread is someone {coughs} at least 3 people {coughs} do[es] not agree with your statements. They find flaws in your position and the interpretation of the “facts” and “evidence” as you’ve presented it. For you to ignore this, is not my fault, and I’m not the one who has to live with it: You do. So, I thank you for your time as it was very enlightening!
LikeLike
Be sure to get back to me if you ever think you can answer the question.
LikeLike
He is right, your argument is ludicrous.
The theory of brain death does not apply to organisms without brains, nor to one which is developing its brain.
From your argument there is no difference between a healthy embryo and a miscarriage. A corpse is in a state of disintegration, a live embryo is doing the exact opposite. An early-development embryo is obviously an organism – it is in the process of organizing itself, with the finality of becoming an adult human. A corpse has no finality, no unified process. No, the embryo is obviously alive – it is in a state of growing integration, not disintegration – and obviously human: its mother is not going to give birth to a fish.
The coherent pro-abortion position is to say simply that the value of human life is relative, and these particular ones are relatively worthless, at least compared to the burden it may put on others.
LikeLike
DP,
If you are aware of the legal, scientific and medical definitions of death then please explain to me how you can “kill” something that cannot “die.”
LikeLike
You are talking about brain death, which is how death is determined to have occurred in a human with a brain, correct?
By that definition, please define the difference between a healthy zygote, and a miscarriage.
Hell, describe the difference between a healthy tree and firewood.
LikeLike
No, I am talking about the definitions of “death.”
In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.” This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.” It was further still updated in 1995 (to present) to state, “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death.” This is mirrored in the U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) which states: “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].” And this is equally mirrored in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation, which defines death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person.
LikeLike
I know what brain death is.
It does not apply in this case, for the obvious reason that the living organism in question is still developing its brain. We know it is living because it is developing. Nor would it apply to organisms that do not have brains or even nervous systems.
Besides, the lack of brain function in living organism that will later develop a brain is not “irreversible cessation”.
One last time before I write you off: What is the difference between a healthy zygote and a miscarried one?
What is the difference between a healthy tree and firewood?
Answer is very, very simple.
LikeLike
DP
Do you even read comments?
I’m not talking about brain death. Never was. I’m talking about “death.” Period. As exampled in the titles of the acts I provided, namely: “Diagnosis of death,” “Uniform Determination of Death Act,” and “ANZICS Statement on Death.”
LikeLike
You still haven’t answered my questions.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should start with answering mine…
LikeLike
You assert that a fetus in early stages of development is not alive because it does not exhibit brain activity, cessation of brain activity being a criteria of death.
This is utterly moronic.
1) An organism whose brain has not yet developed brain cannot have its brain activity cease.
2) Organisms without brains, such as bacteria or plants, are in fact alive if they are organizing themselves.
3) Death is disintegration: the body has broken down to the point that it can no longer supply oxygen to the brain cells which begin to rot. A fetus is undergoing the exact opposite progress. It is organizing itself, integrating itself, with the finality of adulthood. Only a living thing does this. A corpse or a rock shows no such activity.
Now, answer me. Using your definition for death, what is the difference between a healthy zygote from a miscarried one?
(Hint: one is L…., the other is D….)
LikeLike
I hate to be agreeing with dp….
LikeLike
Don’t worry, it is not your fault.
LikeLike
You assert that a fetus in early stages of development is not alive because it does not exhibit brain activity, cessation of brain activity being a criteria of death.
That has nothing at all with what I have said. What’s the point in even talking to you if you can’t even follow the basic line?
What I have said, repeatedly, is Life never emerges in the foetus. Ever. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.
LikeLike
So what is the difference between a healthy zygote from a miscarried one?
LikeLike
Don’t distract DP. He’s trying to now understand where this conversation actually is, as opposed to where he “thinks” it is.
But to answer your question: the mother’s health, most probably. I’m guessing messed up genes also play a role in spontaneous abortion. Either way, no human organism is being lost.
LikeLike
Some of you might find this interesting. Apartheid and the Christian justification. Page 6.
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45241/Corrado%20Final%20Capstone.pdf?sequence=3
LikeLike
Thanks, this looks really interesting, I’ll try and read it later on (mental note to self).
LikeLike
In terms of the moral argument for abortion, here’s a link to an excellent article I recommend everyone reads written by a nurse who worked in an abortion clinic:
https://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/excerpt-from-we-do-abortions-here-sallie-tisdale/
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I called you “dense” it meant neither of the references you made. It was used in the sense of you being thick-headed. As you like to pretend that you are always right with as little evidence as you claim I provide, basically it means you are impossible to have a reasonable conversation with.
But I am glad to hear you float quite well, I guess that means you’re full of hot air 😉
As for the “word for word,” I hope you don’t attempt to claim I meant this in a literal way, as I was using it figuratively. Meaning that you were saying the same thing as me but in a different way.
I’ll highlight just one example:
Your quote:
Compared to my quote:
So I make reference to very few does not mean uniform or universal beliefs as there are “some” who may still practice a form a slavery. To which you attach it as if I referenced uniform or universal beliefs and use ISIL as an example of a group that still practices slavery. What I actually said and what you used as your argument *against* your uniform/universal strawman is referencing the same thing.
But this of course will not be “evidence” according to Vel. As she will continue to falsely assert that I’ve said things that I haven’t (namely that I meant uniform/universal in belief) and that she’s provided sound argumentation to support her claim, which she hasn’t. Two wrongs don’t make something right, however Vel will continue to insist that she is.
This is also a case-in-point of Vel’s density. That I have to exert this much time explaining to her something as simple as the fact that I’ve not said what she has claimed I said.
LikeLike