Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


From Pre-Born to Already Born

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Not surprisingly, we have such a different view about fetuses and their alleged “rights” that we haven’t resolved the issue of coverage of “reproductive health” and abortion in the healthcare bill. You would grant constitutional rights to what the Religious Right calls the “preborn.”

Let me ask what your view is on the “already born.”  News accounts this morning chronicle the beginnings of a second-degree homicide trial for a father who allegedly allowed his young daughter to die from juvenile diabetes.  (The mother has already been convicted.)  His defense, in part, is that he didn’t know his daughter had a serious illness and that he was praying for her recovery, whatever she had.  Do you believe that his presumably authentic and deep-rooted spiritual belief in divine intervention in curing illness should be a legal defense in a criminal trial?

Most of your colleagues are avid supporters of “parental rights” — choosing what school a child attends (even if it is a private religious school and you still want me to pay for it via school vouchers); helping shape the curriculum in a public schools by eliminating sex education or inserting “intelligent design” alongside evolution in the biology class.  Do parents have a right to believe in prayer so strongly that they leave the health care of their children up to God?  Or, do young children have a “right” to be free from potentially dangerous forms of belief held by their parents?

I do support the right of informed adults to choose to forego potentially lifesaving treatments on the basis of religious or other deeply held philosophical views. The courts generally support that view. With minors, though, whose claims ought to be paramount?

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(132)
post a comment
Your Name

posted July 27, 2009 at 3:13 pm


fetus=baby
I am know dummy. If you want to let others kill babies under your administration, well, it is just that.



report abuse
 

Tiffany

posted July 27, 2009 at 3:26 pm


This is really funny. The same people that are saying no to abortions, say no to free healthcare, no to welfare, no to any kind of assistance from the state. Lets be logical, If women give birth to babies they can not feed and the state will in no way help them and the baby stave to death will you put the mother in prison for neglect? What if the child has a health problem but the mother is not allow to get treatment for the child because she can not afford it, will she go to prison also. What are you going to do take her child away from her and give it to some well to do republican to raise? I don’t think any of us look at both sides of a situation before we began to process it and make a stab at a solution. O to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. I am pro-choice not because I support abortion I know it is murder, but because God gave all of us free will.



report abuse
 

John Lofton, Recovering Republican

posted July 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm


Our will is not free until the Lord Jesus Christ saves us and sets the will free. No “free will” for the unsaved — NONE!
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted July 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm


Question: Do babies and underage children have a right to be protected against potentially harmful beliefs held by their parents and forced on their children?
Yes they do. Prayer and believing in Gods power to heal is used all the time by religious believers along with their care by doctors.
As far as the analogies given by a poster. A hospital will always take a child or an adult with no insurance to help them if they are direly ill. People who have financial problems have Churches to go to and organizations to help them. These little ones in Oregon depended on their parents to love and take care of them. They let these children down, God did not.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm


No “free will” for the “saved” — NONE! They have knuckled under to absurd man-made religious dogma, lies and nonsense. Only atheists have free will.



report abuse
 

Planetspinz

posted July 28, 2009 at 1:51 am


TheocRATS believe in the rights of the fetus, but once that fetus is born he or she loses rights one by one. If that person realizes that they are gay, lesbian or transgender, then they have no rights at all, to marry, adopt, see their partners in the hospital, make medical decisions for their loved ones. If that person decides to terminate a pregnancy, the TheocRATs want to put her in jail. If that person decides not to follow the bronze age sun rotates around the flat earth bible, theocRATs condemn them, too.
The problem is that TheocRATS believe that only the people they agree with, approve of or accept should have equal constitutional rights, at least after they leave the womb and enter this cold, cruel, theocRAT run world.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm


Tiffany speak for yourself. Well, according to my book we are supposed to walk in the light and shed light on darkness, not give way to a doctor’s clinic of murdering children, miss. pro-choice. Yes God gave us free will, and yes it does not make any sence to let people murder their children and at the same time give them legal ways to do so by way of your ticket during the election process. Jesus came to destroy darkness, not let it germinate with our tax dollars and election process. The same funds which are killing children through Embryonic Stem-Cell can be used to help people find an adoption agency and a place to care for their child while the adoption process is being preformed. If you are going to use the excuse of money or resources as a way to justify legally killing children, then I would have to say that you should look yourself dead in the mirror because the deadness is what you are contributing to in America if you are pro-choice. Yes, I understand we are given a gift of pro-choice, but I also understand that you are given a pro-choice will power to stop abortion and the likes of which. C p.s. No need to subscribe to pro-murdering policy holders. They can call it what they want, but they are giving people the ability to kill their children. Why does inside the womb a difference as to it being legal format or not? Ourside of the womb would be what, criminal? Does air in the lungs make in criminal, while amniotic fluid make it a valuable resource to kill children? NO C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm


Ow, I see. You want to confuse the American public by acting as if Health care makes up for killing millions of people world wide.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm


Pippy thinks abortion stinks and the people who made it legal are real dummies. Including the administation for not protecting those lives in our country. Pippy sees children as being completely innocent in the matter of given way to live in the womb. Why give them a death sentence? Pippy needs a distaction to take her away from people who hurt people and people who hurt her for that matter. She finds the world to be very materialistic. She does not understand why people care more about places and objects and job status over loving people with your heart. She likes to have fun with others and enjoy conversation, not get stuck in all the competative nature of the world as if looks and money are what make a person successful. Yes money and looks can be a big part of success, but love is what makes a person successful, without it, life is the most horrible place to be. A lonely tavern of dishonest people caught up in their web of sadistic behavior or nothing other then selfishness. That my dear friends would be hell in my eyes. I of which do not want to be a part of the world of nothing matters other then what people have . I would like to a part of a place where people have genuine conscern for loving people and saying I love you enough to be a part of your life. c



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm


Where are you rejects coming from? Is it too much to ask to write a coherent sentence?
“Pippy thinks abortion stinks and the people who made it legal are real dummies. Including the administation for not protecting those lives in our country. Pippy sees children as being completely innocent in the matter of given way to live in the womb. Why give them a death sentence?…”
Pippy needs to stop drinking so early in the morning. WTF is Pippy? Are you completely daft? Drink some cool-aid you pathetic fool. Someone should have aborted you.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm


“I of which do not want to be a part of the world of nothing matters other then what people have .”
Huh? That’s pretty clearly the rant of what? An imbecile.
“Our will is not free until the Lord Jesus Christ saves us and sets the will free. No “free will” for the unsaved — NONE!”
Drink some cool-aid already imbecile! Is it too late to abort you?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:07 pm


==You would grant constitutional rights to what the Religious Right calls the “preborn.”==
“Preborn,” as in person who is yet to be born.
==TheocRATS…==
Sorta like DemocRATS.
==… believe in the rights of the fetus…==
No, we don’t. The Constitution protects persons. The law treats the unborn as persons. It’s just that nobody has brought up those laws yet.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm


==Only atheists have free will.==
(Joh 8:32) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(Joh 8:36) If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
(Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
(Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
(Gal 6:9) And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
(1Jn 2:27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm


==Our will is not free until the Lord Jesus Christ saves us and sets the will free. No “free will” for the unsaved — NONE!==
You nailed it! Absent His Knowledge, there is no Freedom and there is no free Will. The free Will of the scoffers’ school is the free “Will” of the animal kingdom.
(2Pe 2:12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
(Jud 1:10) But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:35 pm


==Question: Do babies and underage children have a right to be protected against potentially harmful beliefs held by their parents and forced on their children?==
Where is this “Right”?
The parents have the legal responsibility to rear their children according to THEIR values. The parents have no Right to tell their children to murder, though. Another harmful thought to drive into kids is that they should feel free to kill unborn children. The kids have no legal standing to tell their parents how they will rear them.
If you believe in the so-called “separation of Church and State,” then it’s none of your, nor the State’s, business that I rear my kids in Christianity.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm


==Do babies and underage children have a right to be protected against potentially harmful beliefs held by their parents and forced on their children?==
What are “potentially harmful beliefs”? Name the ones that apply to all at all times and forever. Who decides? You want the job?
Who defines “forced”? What about “forcing” your beliefs on parents? You’re “forcing” your beliefs on us right now.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:44 pm


“If you believe in the so-called “separation of Church and State,” then it’s none of your, nor the State’s, business that I rear my kids in Christianity.”
No business at all. You just keep abusing your kids and filling their minds with scripture. That’s sure to prepare them for modern society, and I’m sure they will contribute even less than you do.
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:45 pm


==Jesus came to destroy darkness…==
He came to destroy the WORKS of darkness, and, at the Cross, He did.
Darkness is not an entity. It is the absence of light, or, biblically, Light. That’s why God couldn’t have created darkness; and, since He couldn’t have created what was nothing to begin with — a void — He couldn’t have created evil cuz evil emanates from darkness which has no light, or no Light. God spoke light — Light — into the void, not the other way around, and the darkness comprehends it not.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm


Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Not sure what quoting your “good book” is supposed to do other than convince me that you are incapable of independent thought. Here’s a quote that seems to indicate any form of killing is OK as long as your god condones it.
“If you believe in the so-called “separation of Church and State,” then it’s none of your, nor the State’s, business that I rear my kids in Christianity.”
Sure, feel free to abuse your children. Why sugarcoat it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm


==You just keep abusing your kids…==
I don’t, of course.
==… and filling their minds with scripture [sic].==
Whose “scripture”?
== That’s sure to prepare them for modern society…==
Yes, it will!
==… and I’m sure they will contribute even less than you do.==
Translation: “They will not do as I want them to do.”
==”Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.” (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)==
That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are not under the Old, rather the New.
Through Christ, God offers Reconciliation with Man, and, through Him, offers love, not wrath. The only question is whether you will receive it, and, if you don’t, you’ll keep on reminding us of what doesn’t apply to us. Remember Romans 8:1 KJV.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm


==Not sure what quoting your “good book” is supposed to do…==
We know that: 1 Corinthians 2:14
==… other than convince me that you are incapable of independent thought.==
That’s the way you gotta justify your ignorance and pain therefrom.
== Here’s a quote that seems to indicate any form of killing is OK as long as your god…==
I don’t hae any “gods”: (Exo 20:3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
==… condones it.==
He doesn’t condone it. YOU do.
==”If you believe in the so-called “separation of Church and State,” then it’s none of your, nor the State’s, business that I rear my kids in Christianity.”
Sure, feel free to abuse your children. Why sugarcoat it?==
I don’t need to “sugarcoat” what doesn’t happen.
Anyways…If you believe in the so-called “separation of Church and State,” my rearing of my kids in Christianity is none of your business.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm


The same funds which are killing children through Embryonic Stem-Cell can be used to help people find an adoption agency and a place to care for their child while the adoption process is being preformed.
Excuse me, but if I hear one more time about how people need to have their babies and then place them for adoption I think I’ll scream.
There are literally thousands of children in foster care right now that are waiting for a permanent home. They are the former babies of those women who actually paid attention to your rants. Go adopt them!
About ten years ago there was a Uniform Adoption Act going around the country that would have eliminated most of the safeguards that protect infants from possible abuse and would have made it easier for everyone to adopt, but this bill did nothing to address the needs of the children already available for adoption.
To me, this indicates that people really don’t want a child who really needs them. They want an infant. In fact, they insist on an infant. And the more that infant looks like them, the better all around.
Sorry, but if you are so anxious to have a child, you need to be anxious to have a child… not an infant whose individuality and personality are unformed as yet. That’s the coward’s way out.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm


==”Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.” (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)==
It’s what He is willing to do in an evil world:
(Isa 13:11) And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
You didn’t bother to post that, huh.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm


“(Isa 13:11) And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
You didn’t bother to post that, huh.”
Nope. No point really. It’s all nonsense. I guess all who disagree with you are evil. Is that your point? Your ignorance and gullibility are laughable. Run get your bible now; I’m sure there’s some ridiculous bronze age BS you can mine to TRY and make a point. You can only speak in riddles because your mind is diseased with your pathetic religionist viewpoint. Your hate contributes to the greater good not one bit. If you were slightly thoughtful, you’d be ashamed of the nasty, nonsensical trash you spew.
“It’s what He is willing to do in an evil world:”
He is not willing to do anything. Grow up.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm


==From Pre-Born to Already Born==
Regarding the nature of the baby and his physical characteristics, what’s the difference between one who is one minute from birth and one who is one minute after birth? Only change of address? But that’s not a characteristic of the baby; nothing of his makeup changed. So, if you say the born person — not the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way — is a person, then the unborn person a minute away from birth is a person.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
“(Isa 13:11) And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
You didn’t bother to post that, huh.”
Nope. No point really.
——————————————–
Translation: “It proved me wrong. So, I wanted to distract from it.”
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
It’s all nonsense.
——————————————
And, yet, you tried to use what you call “nonsense” as “proof” of your points.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
I guess…
——————————————-
That’s the problem: You are guessing.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
… all who disagree with you are evil.
—————————————-
God says all who disagree with Him are evil. I agree with Him.
It’s not about me, rather about Him.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Your ignorance and gullibility are laughable.
—————————————
A scoffer laughs at me. Gee. There goes another night’s sleep.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Run get your bible now; I’m sure there’s some ridiculous bronze age BS you can mine to TRY and make a point.
——————————————-
I don’t need to “try.”
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
You can only speak in riddles…
—————————————————-
You see them as riddles cuz you are confused:
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
…because your mind is diseased with your pathetic religionist viewpoint.
———————————————
Except that the Pharisees and Muslims are “religionists.” I’m not cuz Christianity is not a religion, rather relationship.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Your hate…
——————————————–
Romans 8:1 KJV
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
… contributes to the greater good not one bit.
———————————————
The DEvil says that, too!
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
If you were slightly thoughtful, you’d be ashamed of the nasty, nonsensical trash you spew.
—————————————————–
(Mar 8:38) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
(Luk 9:26) For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.
(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(Rom 5:5) And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
(Rom 6:21) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
(Rom 9:33) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(2Co 10:8) For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
(Php 1:20) According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
(2Ti 1:8) Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
(2Ti 1:12) For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
(2Ti 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(1Pe 3:16) Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
(1Pe 4:16) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
(1Jn 2:28) And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
“It’s what He is willing to do in an evil world:”
He is not willing to do anything.
————————————————-
He already did. You reject what He did.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Grow up.
—————————————————
Translation: “Be like me!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:56 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
It’s all nonsense.
——————————————
You rely on the Word of God as “proof,” then call your “proof” “nonsense.” Ok, we get it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:00 pm


==Your ignorance and gullibility are laughable. ==
Translation: “I am the savior of the world, and all those who don’t think like me are gullible and laughable. I’m goin’ to get another beer and some crack.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 2:34 PM
“It’s what He is willing to do in an evil world:”
He is not willing to do anything.
————————————————-
He says that He was and is.
You say the He wasn’t and isn’t.
Whom do YOU think I believe? Three guesses — since you’re fond of guessing; the first two don’t count.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:39 pm


“Whom do YOU think I believe? Three guesses — since you’re fond of guessing; the first two don’t count.”
Wow you have all the answers.
MR. INCREDIBLE, THIS IS GOD. KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND MAINTAIN IGNORANCE AT ALL COSTS. YOU MUST BELIEVE THE MYSTICAL MUSINGS OF SOME CAMEL HERDERS AS FACT. ONLY BY SAYING RIDICULOUSLY STUPID THINGS AND BELIEVING YOU KNOW MY WILL CAN YOU BE SAVED. REMEMBER, NO ONE WILL RECOGNIZE CIRCULAR LOGIC AS NONSENSE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOUR CHILDREN.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 3:39 PM
“Whom do YOU think I believe? Three guesses — since you’re fond of guessing; the first two don’t count.”
Wow you have all the answers.
———————————————-
I get them from the Word of God. I know the Truth, and He sets me free.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 3:39 PM
MR. INCREDIBLE, THIS IS GOD.
———————————————–
No, you’re not. You’re the “other one.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm


==…CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOUR CHILDREN.==
I give them Light — that is, the Word of God. The Word of God is not a lie, for God cannot lie. Lying emanates from evil, and evil from darkness. God did not create evil cuz He didn’t create darkness. He spoke light, or Light, into the darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 3:39 PM
…CONTINUE TO LIE…
————————————-
Interesting that you tell me to lie. Gee, that’s what the Devil says, too! I don’t listen to him, either.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 3:54 pm


So, instead of making accusations and failing at creativity, try, for once in your life, pointing, with evidence, to the places where we are wrong. Make the case. Go ahead.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm


No, you’re not. You’re the “other one.”
Zeus? Cernunnus? Help me out here Einstein.
“I give them Light — that is, the Word of God. The Word of God is not a lie, for God cannot lie. Lying emanates from evil, and evil from darkness. God did not create evil cuz He didn’t create darkness. He spoke light, or Light, into the darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not.”
Translation – bla bla bla bla bla…
“He spoke light, or Light..”
Or LIGHT, or lite, or LITE.
==…CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOUR CHILDREN.==
Yeah that’s what you’re doing when you preach to them.
“Christianity is not a religion”
Not a religion huh? Nice that you can have a relationship with a myth. Kinda like a good book huh? You can snuggle up and feel all warm knowing your sky zombie is looking out for you. How touching.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 4:10 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
No, you’re not. You’re the “other one.”
Zeus? Cernunnus? Help me out here Einstein.
———————————————
Take a guess.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
“I give them Light — that is, the Word of God. The Word of God is not a lie, for God cannot lie. Lying emanates from evil, and evil from darkness. God did not create evil cuz He didn’t create darkness. He spoke light, or Light, into the darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not.”
Translation – bla bla bla bla bla…
———————————————-
We know you don’t get it.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
“He spoke light, or Light..”
Or LIGHT, or lite, or LITE.
————————————————
Darkness doesn’t comprehend.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
==…CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOUR CHILDREN.==
Yeah that’s what you’re doing when you preach to them.
—————————————————-
I’d be lying to them if I preached what you write.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
“Christianity is not a religion”
Not a religion huh?
——————————————–
Yeah, that’s right.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
Nice that you can have a relationship with a myth.
——————————————————-
Except that He’s not a myth.
So, you’re not into all that stuff about pointing out where you say an argument goes wrong, huh.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm


“So, instead of making accusations and failing at creativity, try, for once in your life, pointing, with evidence, to the places where we are wrong. Make the case. Go ahead.”
I see why they call you incredible. A few posts and you know everything about me. Fasinating.
“with evidence, to the places where we are wrong. Make the case. Go ahead.”
Wow, you are confident for an imbecile. I’d say that the earth is not the center of the universe, not 6,000 years old, jesus never existed, evolution has, does and will shape life as we know it, etc, etc. Why bother though? No amount of fact, logic or reason could convince you of the obvious. You believe whatever your precious pastor/priest/idiot tells you. Good for you, have at it. It’s just amusing that you and those like you act like you should be taken seriously, and can only post bible quotes as though it was logic or fact. You are a comedian, but think you have a valid point. You don’t. It’s hard to believe you are for real.
You do type fast though. A gift from on high maybe?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 5:57 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
“So, instead of making accusations and failing at creativity, try, for once in your life, pointing, with evidence, to the places where we are wrong. Make the case. Go ahead.”
I see why they call you incredible. A few posts and you know everything about me. Fasinating.
————————————————-
All I did is ask you to make a case instead of hurling accusations and grade-school attempts at creativity. All I did is ask for specifics: where am I wrong and why, with evidence. So far, you’ve come up with none of this.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
“with evidence, to the places where we are wrong. Make the case. Go ahead.”
Wow, you are confident for an imbecile.
—————————————
Well, everybody,, there he goes again, even when given the chance.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
I’d say that the earth is not the center of the universe…
———————————————
Where does God say that the Earth is?
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
… not 6,000 years old…
—————————————————–
Where does God say it is?
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
… jesus never existed…
————————————————
On-scene eyewits say He did. I believe them.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
… evolution has, does and will shape life as we know it, etc, etc.
————————————————-
What “evolution”?
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
Why bother though?
————————————————
Don’t. But don’t complain when people point out that you fail to prove your case.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
No amount of fact, logic or reason could convince you of the obvious.
———————————————–
YOU say it’s obvious. To YOU, it’s obvious cuz you wanna believe what you write.
Still, all you got is assertions.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
You believe whatever your precious pastor/priest/idiot tells you.
———————————————-
I don’t believe when other humans tell me, unless it aligns with what God says.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
It’s just amusing that you and those like you act like you should be taken seriously…
———————————————–
You, too, since you can’t even back up what you write.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
… and can only post bible quotes as though it was logic or fact.
——————————
You post assertions as though they are logic and fact. At least I can post a line of thought.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
You are a comedian, but think you have a valid point.
———————————————-
At least I can show WHY I think such’n'such. You post only assertions and don’t back them up.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
You don’t.
———————————————–
God says that I do. I believe Him.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
It’s hard to believe you are for real.
————————————————–
If you can believe in evolution and the rest of that crap you write, it should be difficult for you to believe I’m real.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 4:12 PM
You do type fast though. A gift from on high maybe?
—————————————————-
The credit goes where it should.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 6:00 pm


Anywho….
If so-called “evolutionists” can say that all life started with one cell, even though they weren’t there to see it, why can’t they also say that human life begins in the womb with one cell, even though they can with their Science??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 6:07 pm


Boris, in another thread [ http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2009/07/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html ] says,
“Making abortions illegal won’t deter women from getting them…”
In other words, he agrees that making abortion illegal WILL NOT stop the so-called “Right to choose.” That’s a significant admission.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 6:13 pm


In other words, they say that evidence they say they see shows all life began with one cell, but that no evidence they can see, even what’s before their faces, shows life begins in the womb with one cell?
Can YOU say, “inconsistent”? You can always get’em, at least, on inconsistency.



report abuse
 

Surrounded by idiots

posted July 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm


“You post assertions as though they are logic and fact. At least I can post a line of thought.”
Crazyass nutbag religious diatribe, but yeah you did have to think it to write it.
“God says that I do. I believe Him.”
Soo now you are speaking with god? Me too. He says your wrong. That should be all the evidence you need. He also told me he’s real sorry for all the self-professed christians who have perverted his intentions by saying they know what he wants. Oh and he really likes the smell of burning sacrificial goat flesh in the morning.
“If you can believe in evolution and the rest of that crap you write, it should be difficult for you to believe I’m real.”
What I said was, “It’s hard to believe you are for real.” I know your real, just hard to believe you believe the nonsense you spew. Have you any education beyond your religion?
“If so-called “evolutionists” can say that all life started with one cell, even though they weren’t there to see it, why can’t they also say that human life begins in the womb with one cell, even though they can with their Science??”
Your use of the phrase, “so-called “evolutionists”" is quite bizarre. Why do you attempt to speak for those you obviously know nothing about? This argument is strange indeed. Who argues that human life doesn’t begin in the womb as a collection of cells? It’s just not a freakin human yet.
You seem hostile to science. Are you willing to forgo the use of medicine and technology (including the computer your using to read this), and just pray to have that bone mended and pray your airplane pilot knows where he’s going and not use GPS?
How old is the earth?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 29, 2009 at 7:42 pm


Surrounded: Ask him why he thinks the earth moves.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 9:59 pm


Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
“You post assertions as though they are logic and fact. At least I can post a line of thought.”
Crazyass nutbag religious diatribe…
——————————————————————–
what you write is crazy ass nut bag secularist diatribe.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
… but yeah you did have to think it to write it.
“God says that I do. I believe Him.”
Soo now you are speaking with god?
——————————————————————–
I don’t speak with “god.”
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Me too.
——————————————————————–
That’s not God you’re speaking with.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
He says your [sic] wrong.
——————————————————————–
My wrong what?
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
That should be all the evidence you need.
——————————————————————–
Well, again, all you have are a surgeon’s and accusations. You offer nothing to back them up. That’s cuz you have nothing to back them up.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
He also told me he’s real sorry for all the self-professed christians who have perverted his intentions by saying they know what he wants.
——————————————————————–
That’s not God telling you that. That’s the “other one.”
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
“If you can believe in evolution and the rest of that crap you write, it should be difficult for you to believe I’m real.”
What I said was, “It’s hard to believe you are for real.”
——————————————————————–
Yeah, I know. As I say, if you can believe in evolution and the rest of that crap you write, it shouldn’t [correction] be difficult for you to believe that I’m real.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
I know your real, just hard to believe you believe the nonsense you spew.
——————————————————————–
The Devil says that, too.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Have you any education beyond your religion?
——————————————————————–
Islam is an example of a religion. It relies on external change, not internal change. Christianity relies on internal change, not an external change. Therefore, Christianity is not a religion.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
“If so-called “evolutionists” can say that all life started with one cell, even though they weren’t there to see it, why can’t they also say that human life begins in the womb with one cell, even though they can with their Science??”
Your use of the phrase, “so-called “evolutionists”" [sic is quite bizarre.
——————————————————————–
Yeah, but it gets the point across.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Why do you attempt to speak for those you obviously know nothing about?
——————————————————————–
I’m not speaking for anyone I don’t know about from the writings.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
This argument is strange indeed.
——————————————————————–
Then, stop being strange.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Who argues that human life doesn’t begin in the womb as a collection of cells? It’s just not a freakin human yet.
——————————————————————–
If it isn’t human, yet, what is it? A horse? A cat? Is it dead?
46 chromosomes = human. Humans have 46 chromosomes at conception.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
You seem hostile to science.
——————————————————————–
It’s not my fault that things seem to you any particular way. That “seeming” is according to YOUR perceptions, not mine.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Are you willing to forgo the use of medicine and technology (including the computer your using to read this), and just pray to have that bone mended and pray your airplane pilot knows where he’s going and not use GPS?
——————————————————————–
Not at all. I don’t have to. After all, Science is in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is Christians who first developed the scientific method.
Surrounded by idiots
July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
How old is the earth?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:13 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 7:42 PM
Surrounded: Ask him why he thinks the earth moves.
——————————————————————–
We thought it’s people like you who say that people like me don’t think. So, which is it?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:21 pm


Therefore, Christianity is not a religion.
Why Christianity is Absurd says: To set Christianity apart from other religions, some like to use this line when witnessing to others. They will say that Christianity is not a religion in the dictionary sense that involves a system of impersonal rites, rituals and worship to an abstract impersonal deity. But rather, it involves a personal one-one-one relationship with Jesus Christ. And that’s what makes it special because you are having a personal relationship with a living being.
However, if you look at the American Heritage Dictionary definition for “religion”:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:22 pm


And, still, after virtually pleading with “Surrounded by idiots,” to offer something other than accusations and assertions, to back them up, we are left with accusations and assertions without backup. It’s really too bad. They, themselves, say they are sooooo intelligent and logical and scientific and reasoning, and this character, given such humongous opportunity to put all his evidence out on the table, doesn’t. If he had all this evidence he indicates he has, he would be ever so eager to put it all out there for everyone to see. Why the secret? Why hold back? Why the reluctance to share what he says will convince the world and the universe? It’s a scam, that’s why. They are gamers.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:29 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 10:21 PM
Therefore, Christianity is not a religion.
Why Christianity is Absurd says…with zeal or conscientious devotion.
——————————————————————–
The dictionary is not a lawgiver. It is merely a history of usage.
In any case, the common dictionary — a secular instrument — is not in the position to decree anything. It does not distinguish between, say, Islam and Christianity in that it doesn’t contemplate that a religion like Islam is concerned with external change while Christianity, a relationship with God through Christ, is the result of internal change. The common dictionary doesn’t make that distinction cuz it’s no authority on the matter of “religion.” It is a mere general discussion of the history of usage. In order to get this kind of distinction, you have to study it out, and, when you do, you find it out to be the way I describe it.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:32 pm


Where’s your scriptural evidence that the earth moves Mr. Unthinkable? Show us all in the Bible where it specifically says the earth moves, spins and orbits the sun, Mr. science in the Buybull. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:36 pm


Hear that Sekulow? Christianity does not qualify as a religion. Your religious tax exemption is hereby revoked (it’s about to be anyway). No more special treatment for religious hoaxers. Without that tax exemption Christianity disappears within two years. It isn’t a religion it’s a business with no tangible merchandise to sell or services to render. The ultimate hoax.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:37 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Where’s your scriptural evidence that the earth moves…
——————————————————————–
It’s not important to the spiritual journey. Scoffers don’t understand that. They can’t discern between what’s necessary and what is not. They are very confused.
Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Show us all in the Bible where it specifically says the earth moves, spins and orbits the sun…
——————————————————————–
It’s not important to the spiritual journey. Scoffers don’t understand that. They can’t discern between what’s necessary and what is not. They are very confused.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:50 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Hear that Sekulow? Christianity does not qualify as a religion. Your religious tax exemption is hereby revoked…
——————————————————————–
I didn’t say that Christianity “does not qualify as a ‘religion.’” The world says that Christianity is “religion.” The world, of course, is wrong cuz of John 1:5. Worldlings want to call Christianity of “religion” cuz they have a hard-on for it, and they wanna lump it in with the likes of Islam and deliver a guilty verdict based on association.
For legal purposes, Christianity is a “religion,” in that it qualifies for tax-exemptions. The law makes no what YOU people would call, “religious” claims. That’s not its purpose. Just cuz, for tax purposes, Christianity is “religion,” doesn’t mean that it’s “religion” for all purposes.
For all other practical purposes, Christianity is a relationship with God, through Christ. We understand why you people want to make it out to be something else.
Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
(it’s about to be anyway).
——————————————————————–
Not a chance. You people are gonna have to get by the Constitution, first.
Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
No more special treatment for religious hoaxers.
——————————————————————– What happened to “separation of Church and State”?
Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Without that tax exemption Christianity disappears within two years.
——————————————————————– You people think that Christianity is a club that relies on having membership. That’s your problem.
As a matter of fact, the latest polls show that Christianity is growing.
Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
It isn’t a religion it’s a business with no tangible merchandise to sell or services to render. The ultimate hoax.
——————————————————————–
The Devil says that, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:54 pm


Anywho…
How is the child that was born one minute ago different in makeup from the child who will be born a minute from now?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:56 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
It isn’t a religion it’s a business with no tangible merchandise to sell or services to render. The ultimate hoax.
——————————————————————–
You’re talking about the Catholics, not Christianity. See, you can even get THAT straight.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 10:59 pm


you can even get THAT straight. — – >you can’t even get THAT straight.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm


How is the child that was born one minute ago different in makeup from the child who will be born a minute from now?
Boris says: There isn’t much difference at that point, at least not according to the law. Late term abortions are illegal unless the mother’s life is in danger. In the majority of abortions the fetus is about the size of a raisin or smaller. Like most people, I think the woman’s right to choose ends after six months. Then it can only be up to a doctor who if, he performs an unnecessary abortion at that point should be indicted.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:11 pm


There are three ways to tackle abortion:
1. Persuade Congress to define “personhood” as beginning at conception, and/or
2. Persuade state legislatures to define “personhood” as beginning at conception, and/or
3. Use current law that already treats the unborn as persons in a court of law in an abortion case.
We’re not gonna persuade this Congress. Actually, we don’t need to persuade Congress. So, I don’t care about Congress until things change in 2010, when Congress goes Republican again.
We go to state legislatures, part of the defining branch of government, to define “personhood” as beginning at conception. This will conform to what Justice Blackmun said in Roe:
“If this suggestion or personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
In other words, had it not been for the fact that nobody presented the unborn as persons according to law, he says that SCOTUS would’ve had to rule the other way. This is a gift to us. It shows us how to do it. Let state legislatures define “personhood.” Several of them are already on their way doing it.
Inheritance law says that “future interests” begins at conception. In other words, the unborn are “jural persons.” They are treated AS persons, just like corporations. The Constitution protects persons. Therefore, the State is required to protect the survival of these persons.
This is easy stuff.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:16 pm


Boris
July 29, 2009 11:02 PM
How is the child that was born one minute ago different in makeup from the child who will be born a minute from now?
Boris says: There isn’t much difference at that point, at least not according to the law.
——————————————————————–
Then, what makes the one-minute-born baby a person that is not present in the baby that is unborn by one minute?
Boris
July 29, 2009 11:02 PM
In the majority of abortions the fetus is about the size of a raisin or smaller.
——————————————————————–
So, if that “raisin” is separated from the mother, it’s a person, right?
If it’s a person then, what is different about it, itself, that doesn’t make it a person in the womb?
Boris
July 29, 2009 11:02 PM
Like most people, I think the woman’s right to choose ends after six months. Then it can only be up to a doctor who if, he performs an unnecessary abortion at that point should be indicted.
——————————————————————–
However, if it’s a person at conception, and the Constitution protects all persons, the woman’s undue burden becomes a due burden.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:20 pm


All we have to do is define “personhood” and/or use, in court, law that already treats the unborn as persons.
Boris has already said that laws will not stop women from abortion. In other words, he agrees that laws will not stop women from exercising their so-called “Right to choose.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 3:23 am


Boris
July 29, 2009 11:02 PM
Like most people, I think the woman’s right to choose ends after six months.
——————————————————————–
What happens at six months which is a trimester and a half?
Is what you and, as you say, “most people,” think a medical opinion, legal opinion, a legislative opinion, a judicial opinion, or a mere personal guess based on a dream?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 3:25 am


==In the majority of abortions the fetus is about the size of a raisin or smaller.==
So, the value we should put on a human life is based on its size, is that it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 3:55 am


Roe does not say that the State may not regulate abortion. It says that the State must have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion.
However, no one in Roe claimed, by law, that the unborn are persons. So, the only person was Jane Roe.
Due Process is a legitimate, State interest. The Constitution says that ALL persons get Due Process.
Since, in Roe, Jane Roe was the only person, she is the only person who was entitled to Due Process. Justice Blackmun said, in Roe, though,
“If this suggestion or personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
In other words, SCOTUS would have had to rule the other way had it not been for the fact that no one claimed, by law, personhood of the unborn. Justice Blackmun, thus, gave us a gift, how to get role reversed. That’s why I want Roe not to be overturned just now.
So, according to law, if we have an unborn person, is protection by the Constitution of ALL persons still an undue burden on the woman, or does it switch to a due burden?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 3:57 am


to get role reversed — – >to get Roe reversed



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 30, 2009 at 9:11 am


“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.”
Mr. Incredible, these things are happening throughout the world today.
I don’t suppose you were too concerned when these things were happening in El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s and 1990s just as I don’t suppose you are too concerned about reports of these things happening in Darfur and Somalia today and just as I don’t suppose you are concerned about those things happening back in the 1400s and all the way up to the 1900s to the American Indians.
So tell me, did these people have too many abortions?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 30, 2009 at 9:17 am


Most of your colleagues are avid supporters of “parental rights” — choosing what school a child attends (even if it is a private religious school and you still want me to pay for it via school vouchers); helping shape the curriculum in a public schools by eliminating sex education or inserting “intelligent design” alongside evolution in the biology class.
And if Mr. Sekulow does support these “parental rights” why does he not support the parental right to terminate a pregnancy?



report abuse
 

James

posted July 30, 2009 at 10:51 am


Mary-Lee,
You can’t have it both ways. Either the fetus is a life – a person – or it is not. Parental rights imply life. You can’t be a parent to a blob of tissue.
If it is a life – a person – then yes, his/her mother is a parent. And yes, we are in favor of parental rights. No parent, though, has the right to kill their child.



report abuse
 

Jimbino

posted July 30, 2009 at 11:59 am


But don’t forget that, even if Roe were overturned, the woman would have the right to kill the fetus in self-defense.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 30, 2009 at 1:40 pm


A few questions for the anti-choice folks:
1) Should the state have the power to regulate and mandate a woman’s diet while pregnant?
2) Could the state also restrict a woman from engaging in higher risk sporting activities while pregnant?
3) Can a fetus identified via medical procedures as already dead in the womb be aborted before delivery?
4)If a pregnant woman attempts suicide, will we charge her with attempted murder?
5) Is it ever acceptable to proceed with a bombing mission in a war, let’s say Iraq, where the likelihood of children being killed is certain? We call this “collateral damage”.



report abuse
 

Mary Kretzmann

posted July 30, 2009 at 1:50 pm


If life happens to begin WAY before the fist breath – then it changes all of these discussions.
Interesting about the inheritance laws…
Mary



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm


Here is one for all you believers in the big magic man that we can simply call “How to make God jump”.
Imagine that I work in a fertility clinic. I have a pertri dish with an egg and a syringe with some sperm. I can choose to add the sperm to the egg at 10:30am or 2:15pm. My choice. However, since it is the standard belief of the anti-choice crowd that God imbues each zygote with an immortal soul at some particular point in time called the “moment of conception”, it turns out that I get to control the actions of God. He can do his imbuing business on my schedule, not until I am darn good and ready. Heck, I can even play him for a sucker. I can be all set to do it and then back off at the last second. This would be like teasing the family dog, throwing a ball repeatedly and then only pretending to throw the ball. Fetch, God, fetch!
I like this, God has to do what I want and when I want.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 30, 2009 at 2:31 pm


Pippy does not drink, because she does not want to hit the bottle to much drownding out her feelings of how people are so cruel. For then she would be constantly drinking or taking drugs to get over all the incredibly cruel people in the world.
Pippy stayed out too long in the sun when she was a teenager and she can’t stand spots even though she has them. So, she is always putting on sunblock and lightening cream to prevent and correct.
Now, for the bickering part of these blogs, she finds people who don’t protect people forming as being not only insensitive but truely
incapable of love because they are so caught up in their own world and beliefs that they don’t value humen existance.
She still likes sandwiches tuna with pickle relish of course and let us not forget the old fashioned turkey with avocado sandwiches.
She has a bit of a sweet tooth and she puts alot of sugar in her coffee of course to drowned out her feeling of society at large. For she fears abandonement and that of course is what she has recieved in the past because I suppose others were caught up in their own little world of this or that for whatever reason.
So she takes care of her animals and hopes for a better day of rememberance and meaningful moments of the future. Wrather than some reckless idea of if she only looked alittle bit more this way or acted a little bit more that way then everything would turn out better or for it to be a better place to live.
Why do I write these things, I don’t know I suppose, I am entertaining myself. I have hit a wall with pro-choice activist in their mindsets as to protecting children from murderous policies. I have found some friends not to be friends and have saught refuge in my own thinking or my conseption of who God is through personal exsperience, The Bible, and others. I have been disappointed in people I suppose and I know others are out there which truely are kind and compassionate. So no, I will not be drinking today to drowned my disappointments away.
Love to the future,
Pippy



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm


Too much this and too much that for whatever reason of insanity plea bargaining, the view of how others can murder children under pro-choice policies.
Pippy wants to get some rest to take care of her terrible headache of people composed of view which she find idiotic and cruel. Let the sadistic personalities hang out together and get far away from them, because they are sowing their field of dreams in selfishness.
Pippy



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 5:03 pm


A woman eight months pregnant was killed recently. The killer cut her open and took the child. The child was found the other day. Alive.
Regardless of the method, the child was born. Is that child a person? YES!
Had the child been taken at one month and lived ten minutes, the child was a person for ten minutes.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm


If the child, taken at one month, is a person outside the womb, he is a person inside the womb cuz there is no difference in HIS makeup whether he is inside, or outside.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm


If the unborn child is a person — and the law DOES treat the unborn as persons — and a woman says, “I still have choice and control over that child — though not my body, but his” — she makes herself a slaveowner cuz that child, by the woman’s decree, is under the control and dominion of the woman.
If the unborn child is a person, that woman usurps the dominion of the unborn person, and that amounts to slavery.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm


Half the stuff that goes into making a baby belongs to the man. That stuff — his, shall we say, “essence” — is HIS property. He does not lose his property Rights when he “hands” over that property. The property and the Rights to that property are two, different, though related, things in law. The Rights don’t necessarily go to the woman with the property.
The woman accepts his property, not as a gift, rather as something borrowed. It’s still his property, and the transaction is a bailment; and she is not legally entitled to convert it to her own property to do as she wishes. That would be conversion.
The man has the Right to expect his property returned to him in the condition he expected it to be when he gave it, not his property Rights, to her. He expected it to turn into a child, an heir. Law says that the man has a Right to that heir. If he has a Right to that heir, the State must see to it that the child is not destroyed.
The law gives the father the Right to expect an heir, and, as far as probate goes, the State expects him to have an heir.
Law also says that the child, beginning at conception, enjoys “future interests.” The law treats the child as a person. He is a “jural person,” just like a corporation. As a person, he has the Right to survive in order to enjoy the benefit of law. The State’s legitimate interest is to see the child survive.
Roe says that the State may not regulate abortion UNLESS the State has a legitimate interest. That legit interest is Due Process, process that is due. Only persons get Due Process. The unborn didn’t get Due Process in Roe cuz nobody argued, from law, that the unborn child is a person.
However, Justice Blackmun, in Roe, said that, had a suggestion of the stablishment of “personhood” been shown, SCOTUS would have had to rule the other way.
The pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd chokes on this. They hope and pray that we don’t notice things like this. Their incantations, enticements and vexations, however, don’t work on me.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm


a suggestion of the stablishment —> a suggeston of the establishment



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:23 pm


Rich
July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
1) Should the state have the power to regulate and mandate a woman’s diet while pregnant?
———————————————————
Obammycare considerations include taxing fat intake, or a person’s avoirdupois. So, it’s happening already.
Rich
July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
2) Could the state also restrict a woman from engaging in higher risk sporting activities while pregnant?
———————————————————
Libs already argue that parents should be stopped from driving “harmful” ideas into the kids’ heads. This can be extended, as a kinda precedent, to stop a pregnant woman from “harming” her child.
Rich
July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
3) Can a fetus identified via medical procedures as already dead in the womb be aborted before delivery?
———————————————————–
One who is dead is not a person.
Rich
July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
4)If a pregnant woman attempts suicide, will we charge her with attempted murder?
———————————————————–
The Lacy case in California shows that the woman carries another person inside her. The trier of fact, with these and other facts, would have to decide that.
Rich
July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
5) Is it ever acceptable to proceed with a bombing mission in a war, let’s say Iraq, where the likelihood of children being killed is certain? We call this “collateral damage”.
———————————————————-
Are the children, as in Veet Nam, engaged in killing people, primarily Americans? If they are, yes.
We try to avoid killing innocents. We don’t do it purposely. Al-Q and Taliban do it purposely.
Sometimes, as it turns out, it cannot be avoided. There are simple accidents. There are times when the mission is just too important, for the good of all.
You DO know that we are the good guys, right? Or is that some fuzzy area for you?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm


Get this through your skull. Even if you claim a fetus is really a person, two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights. One will always have veto power over the other. A fetus cannot be given rights that conflict with the mother’s rights. Rights must be considered as a whole. Besides once a person is born right wingnuts like you want to take away their rights.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm


Mary-Lee
July 30, 2009 9:11 AM
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.”
Mr. Incredible, these things are happening throughout the world today.
———————————————————–
Not according to the Will of God, however, cuz He doesn’t do THAT any more. Where He was a God of wrath, He is now a God of love.
Those things, today, are happening by the Will of men, of the flesh.
Mary-Lee
July 30, 2009 9:11 AM
I don’t suppose you were too concerned when these things were happening in El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s and 1990s just as I don’t suppose you are too concerned about reports of these things happening in Darfur and Somalia today and just as I don’t suppose you are concerned about those things happening back in the 1400s and all the way up to the 1900s to the American Indians.
———————————————–
I was and am concerned that those people don’t know God through Christ, and act on their own impulses, as suggested by the Devil.
Mary-Lee
July 30, 2009 9:11 AM
So tell me, did these people have too many abortions?
————————————————-
Dunno. Maybe.
Now, for those who are not born again, who reject God and His Son, God is still a God of wrath for disobedience. He doesn’t set out to kill anybody; He just doesn’t help those who turn their backs on Him, except to help those who have received Him through Christ.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm


==Even if you claim a fetus is really a person, two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights.==
The mother would be a guardian ad litem with legal responsibilities. The Constitution protects ALL persons, unles, of course, you are arguing what slaveowners argued last century and before.
==One will always have veto power over the other.==
The unborn child, under healthy circumstances, is a person. The mother has a due burden.
== A fetus cannot be given rights…==
ALL persons come under constitutional protection.
==… that conflict with the mother’s rights.==
Privacy Rights do not trumpt the Right of a person to life.
== Rights must be considered as a whole.==
ALL person get Due Process and Equal Protection.
== Besides once a person is born right wingnuts like you want to take away their rights.==
Not at all. I want everybody to have the Right to choose, but not at the expense of the Right to life under the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thanks to Justice Blackmun in Roe, itself, we have that consideration.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm


Roe does not say that the State may not regulate abortion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:40 pm


As a matter of fact, with a Republican, state legislature and a Republican governor, I am lobbying my district delegation to get the legislature to establish, per Justice Blackmun in Roe, itself, at least a suggestion of “personhood.”



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:41 pm


Not according to the Will of God, however, cuz He doesn’t do THAT any more. Where He was a God of wrath, He is now a God of love.
Boris says: Huh? What happened to “God is in control” and “God never changes?” I love how Christians all make up their own interpretations of the Buybull. They have to since the Buybull contradicts itself on very page. ROFL! When Incredible gets cornered by his own stupid remarks he calls on one of his imaginary cheer leaders. Harryoutdoors or Boscoe may very well be called upon soon to defend himself, uh, I mean Mr. Incredible.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm


==two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights.==
Who says? Certainly not OUR Constitution.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:52 pm


Boris
July 30, 2009 6:41 PM
“Not according to the Will of God, however, cuz He doesn’t do THAT any more. Where He was a God of wrath, He is now a God of love.”
Huh? What happened to “God is in control” and “God never changes?” [sic]
———————————————-
He is in control where one receives Him through Christ. The world is controlled, for now, anyway, by Satan. That’s why we receive God through Christ, for protection of that.
God didn’t change. Man changed.
Now, men will have to change back in order to be saved.
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:41 PM
I love how Christians all make up their own interpretations of the Buybull.
———————————————–
Too many do. I don’t. The Word of God is of no private interpretation.
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:41 PM
They have to since the Buybull contradicts itself on very page.
——————————————-
The only contradictions are in your head.
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:41 PM
When Incredible gets cornered by his own stupid remarks he calls on one of his imaginary cheer leaders.
—————————————————-
I cast down vain imaginations. God is real!
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:41 PM
Harryoutdoors or Boscoe may very well be called upon soon to defend himself…
——————————————-
We don’t justify ourselves; God, through Christ, justifies us.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 7:08 pm


No contradictions in the Buybull? Sure, that idea is only in your head. Hahahaha
1. What kind of creature swallowed Jonah? A fish or a whale?
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jonah of the Old Testament was called Jonas in the New Testament, but they are clearly the same man. The Book of Jonah says he was “in the belly of the fish three days and three nights,” but Matthew says he was “three days and three nights in the whale’s belly.”
Every school kid should know that a whale is not a fish; it is a mammal. Fish and mammals are very different animals.
Should we suppose that Jonah was swallowed twice? Once by a fish and once by a whale? Or doesn’t God know the difference between a fish and a mammal?
Note: I understand that some other versions of the Bible correct this contradiction by simply referring in both passages to a great sea creature. I’ve also read that’s what the old manuscripts still available say in their own languages. I have made no effort to verify or deny this, because this particular article refers specifically to the KJV. Regardless what any other version says in English or any other language, this is a very clear contradiction in the KJV. Either God made a mistake, or the KJV is NOT His perfect message to humankind.
2. Does God ever repent of anything?
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.
I Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:
Genesis 6:6 and two separate references in I Samuel clearly describe God repenting of something He had done. He repented of even creating mankind, and we are told twice (once in His own words) that he repented for making Saul the king of Israel. Then Numbers 23:19 tells us that God is not one to repent.
Which is it? Does God ever repent or not?
3. Abraham lived a long life, according to the scripture; and he had many wives. But was Keturah one of his wives, or was she a concubine?
Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
1 Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
Genesis says she was his wife; I Chronicles calls her his concubine. I’m very sure somebody will say she must have been his concubine first and then he married her, but there is no mention of this. The very first time we hear of Keturah, we are told that Abraham is marrying her.
4. Who sold Joseph into slavery?
Genesis 37:33, 36 And he (Jacob) knew it, and said, It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. … And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard.
Genesis 39:1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites, which had brought him down thither.
So, was it the Midianites or the Ishmaellites who sold Joseph to Potiphar? In case you’re wondering, the Midianites and the Ishmaellites are not two names for the same people, though both groups were supposed to be descended from Abraham.” Midian was one of his sons by Keturah. Ishmael was his son by Hagar.
These people were all distant cousins. The whole thing was a family matter. Obviously, dysfunctional families are nothing new.
But the question still remains: was it the Midianites or the Ishmaellites who sold Joseph to Potiphar?
5. Who inscribed the ten commandments on stone?
Exodus 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Exodus 31:18 And he (God) gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exodus 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he (Moses) came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
Exodus 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
Deuteronomy 4:13 And he (God) declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he (God) wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Deuteronomy 10:1-4 At that time the LORD said unto me (Moses), Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. And he (God) wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.
Exodus 34:27-28 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
According to the story, the ten commandments were written on two stone tablets. And not once, but twice! Exodus 24:12 and Exodus 31:18 both refer to the first time, and clearly tell us that they were “written with the finger of God.” There is no contradiction here, but that’s not the end of the story.
When Moses brought the commandments down from Mt. Sinai and found the people worshipping a golden calf, according to Exodus 32:19 he became so violently angry that he threw down the stone tablets and broke them. I can believe it. I’ve known people with tempers like that. Incredibly, God was so patient He gave them the commandments a second time.
In Exodus 34:1 the LORD commanded Moses to make two new stone tablets and promised “I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Deuteronomy 4:13 says He did just that. Deuteronomy 10:1-4 confirms the story.
According to Exodus 34:27-28, the LORD told Moses to write the words; and he did.
So who actually wrote down the words of the ten commandments the second time? Did Moses chisel them into the stone? Or were they written again by the finger of God?
Does it even matter? Certainly, it matters. Whether God wrote it or told Moses to write it, it would be God’s words either way. The problem is that the whole Bible is supposed to be “God’s word.” Then why can’t God get it right about who did the actual writing?
6. How many sons did Jesse, the father of King David, have?
I Samuel 16:10-13 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent, and brought him (David) in. Now he (David) was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.
I Chronicles 2:13-15 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
According to I Samuel, Jesse had seven sons older than David; so David was the eighth. I Chronicles tells us David was the seventh. I dunno. Your guess is probably as good as mine.
7. How much did David pay for his wife?
1 Samuel 18:27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
2 Samuel 3:14 And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.
We could wonder why God’s anointed future king of Israel was using dead body tissue to buy the current princess for his wife. If human flesh was required for some barbaric reason, we might still wonder why severed ears or thumbs from the enemy wouldn’t be acceptable. Why the sick fascination with penises and foreskins?
For that matter, neither severed foreskins, thumbs, or ears would prove the enemies were dead. Only temporarily defeated. Maybe severed heads would have made more sense, even though they would have been more difficult to haul around. Or gouged-out eyes showing the enemies were either dead or blind. They would have been light and portable.
Regardless, the real issue here is not why, but how many. One passage says 100 foreskins; the other says 200 foreskins.
Once more, God can’t seem to remember how many men David mutilated.
8. How old was King Ahaziah when he began to reign over Judah?
II Kings 8:25-26 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
II Chronicles 22:1-2 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
So was he 22 as II Kings 8:25-26 says, or 42 as II Chronicles 22:1-2 says?
Notice these two passages refer to the same man – not two kings that just happen to have the same name. Both passages identify him as the son of Athaliah, who was the daughter of King Omri.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm


Mr. Incredible,
re: “There are times when the mission is just too important, for the good of all.”
Well, we are finally down to it. You state that sometimes the termination of innocent life is acceptable, when it is “important” and for the “good of all”.
Funny thing about all that. Somehow, you get to decide, no one else. When you think it is ok, it is ok. If someone else disagrees with you, that person is a murderer. What a shameless hypocrite you are!
You have set yourself up as the ultimate “decider” of all that is right and wrong. Has it occurred to you that others might have their own opinion about what is for the good of all? Probably not as you live in a clouded work of Christian self-righteousness.
And quite frankly, I feel a lot better about about the termination of a fetus too early in gestation to have any sensation than agreeing to drop bombs and pin innocent children under rubble where they can die a slow and agonizing death. I am glad that you feel that collateral damage is ok in all your phony pious Christian morality.
The truth here is that being anti-choice is just a thoughtless exercise for you. You aren’t really against the death of innocent children, sometimes you seem to be good with it. You are just another wind-up automaton, mouthing things you have been instructed to do without really thinking about the reality of things. Wow, how sad!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm


Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Mr. Incredible,
re: “There are times when the mission is just too important, for the good of all.”
Well, we are finally down to it. You state that sometimes the termination of innocent life is acceptable, when it is “important” and for the “good of all”.
——————————————————————–
Sometimes, a cost/benefit analysis may say that the risk of an accident is acceptable. I also said that we don’t purposely go out and try to kill innocents. Accidents happen.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Funny thing about all that. Somehow, you get to decide, no one else.
——————————————————————–
You asked the question. I merely answered it. If you didn’t want an answer, you shouldn’t have asked the question.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
When you think it is ok, it is ok.
——————————————————————–
I merely answered the question YOU asked. Had I not answered it, you would have ranted and raved and babbled on about my not answering it.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM If someone else disagrees with you, that person is a murderer.
——————————————————————– It’s funny how you make of arguments for someone and blame THEM for what YOU conjured up.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
What a shameless hypocrite you are!
——————————————————————–
Romans 8:1 KJV
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
You have set yourself up as the ultimate “decider” of all that is right and wrong.
——————————————————————–
YOU asked the question. I merely answered the question.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Has it occurred to you that others might have their own opinion about what is for the good of all?
——————————————————————–
Has it occurred to you that I might have my own idea about what is for the good of all?
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Probably not as you live in a clouded work of Christian self-righteousness.
——————————————————————–
God, through Christ, cleansed me of self-righteousness, as He promised.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
And quite frankly, I feel a lot better about about the termination of a fetus too early in gestation to have any sensation than agreeing to drop bombs and pin innocent children under rubble where they can die a slow and agonizing death.
——————————————————————–
Thanks for the over-dramatics.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
I am glad that you feel that collateral damage is ok…
——————————————————————–
there you go, again, misrepresenting what I wrote. Of course, you must do that in order to make yourself look justified.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
… in all your phony pious Christian morality.
——————————————————————–
Scoffers don’t know anything about it.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
The truth here is that being anti-choice is just a thoughtless exercise for you.
——————————————————————–
The truth here is that being anti-life is just a thoughtless exercise for you.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
You aren’t really against the death of innocent children…
——————————————————————–
I’ve already explained that I am. You, of course, twist what I write to make it look like it’s something else. Again, you must do that in order to try to justify your self.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
… sometimes you seem to be good with it.
——————————————————————–
What “seems” to the YOU is YOUR responsibility. I’m not responsible for what you think. I’m not responsible for your conclusions. You make them up for yourself.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
You are just another wind-up automaton…
——————————————————————–
Again, you have to talk yourself into believing that so that you can feel justified.
Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
… mouthing things you have been instructed to do without really thinking about the reality of things.
——————————————————————–
Nobody instructs me to say anything. However, you come back only with things that have been said thousands of times already and answer already thousands of times. You never come back with any substance, rather only accusations and assertions which you fail to back up.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
No contradictions in the Buybull? Sure, that idea is only in your head.
——————————————————————–
Too bad you couldn’t raise the bar on that one. The contradictions you say are in the Word of God are really only in your head.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
1. What kind of creature swallowed Jonah? A fish or a whale?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
Should we suppose that Jonah was swallowed twice? Once by a fish and once by a whale? Or doesn’t God know the difference between a fish and a mammal?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
God was laying out rules for a simple, uneducated people. Bats are flying animals, as are birds, it is a simple classification. Many people called whales fish until recently. Rabbits do appear to be chewing their cud. Moses was not going to give the people a zoologic anatomy lesson. The Bible does not say insects have four legs. It refers to some insects walking on four legs, which many do.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
… this is a very clear contradiction in the KJV. Either God made a mistake, or the KJV is NOT His perfect message to humankind.
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
2. Does God ever repent of anything?
——————————————————————–
According to whose definition of the word, “repent”?
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
3. Abraham lived a long life, according to the scripture; and he had many wives. But was Keturah one of his wives, or was she a concubine?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
4. Who sold Joseph into slavery?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
5. Who inscribed the ten commandments on stone?
——————————————————————–
Which set, the first, or the second?
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
6. How many sons did Jesse, the father of King David, have?
——————————————————————–
Jesus, the Man, came from Jesse. That’s the important part scoffers mess.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
7. How much did David pay for his wife?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:08 PM
8. How old was King Ahaziah when he began to reign over Judah?
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey
Scoffers choke on the fact that God is talking to different people at different times for different purposes. Scoffers can’t get that straight. They can’t keep the conversations straight. That’s why they imagine contradictions where, in the word of God, none exist.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 30, 2009 at 10:18 pm


Mr. Incredible,
So, again you claim to be against the death of innocent children but then claim there are cases where it is “acceptable” based upon a “cost-benefit analysis”. You, sir, have been a liar all along. You only care about some life. Other lives are expendable to you if it furthers a cause that you believe in. Don’t bother letting me know what a stellar guy you are with all your fawning piousness, it is all a sham and a crock from you.
BTW, re: your ridiculous comment “Thanks for the over-dramatics.” in response to my statement about collateral damage leaving some children trapped under tons of rubble to die slowly and painfully. I am so glad you think this reality is just a silly little statement. What a great and caring Christian you are! Since it is just silly drama for you, why don’t you go ask some friends to bury you in rubble and get back to me.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 10:58 pm


Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
Mr. Incredible,
So, again you claim to be against the death of innocent children…
——————————————————————–
It’s good that you’re finally getting it.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
… but then claim there are cases where it is “acceptable” based upon a “cost-benefit analysis”.
——————————————————————–
Killing innocent children is never acceptable. However, there are accidents and mistakes. There are people caught up in the action.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
You, sir, have been a liar all along.
——————————————————————–
Romans 8:1 KJV
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
You only care about some life.
——————————————————————–
I care about ALL life. We understand that you people must rearrange and, otherwise, warp the arguments of others so that you can feel justified.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
Other lives are expendable to you…
——————————————————————–
I never said that. In fact, I’m against death.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
… if it furthers a cause that you believe in.
——————————————————————– If somebody busts into my house, wavin’ a gun, yes, his life is expendable.
The military was ready to shoot down those airliners on 9-11, granting that some innocents would die. I would have supported that. The passengers on those planes would have supported that.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
Don’t bother letting me know what a stellar guy you are…
——————————————————————–
I haven’t yet. That would be unrighteous. Christ has cleanse me with His Righteousness.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
… with all your fawning piousness…
——————————————————————–
I have no piousness. Everything I have comes from God, through Christ.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
… it is all a sham and a crock from you.
——————————————————————–
That’s why you can’t see and won’t accept any proof of what we say. You’ve precluded yourself from anything that will show you that you are wrong about God and Christ. That’s cuz the Devil has more influence over your thinking than you do.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
BTW, re: your ridiculous comment “Thanks for the over-dramatics.” in response to my statement about collateral damage leaving some children trapped under tons of rubble to die slowly and painfully.
——————————————————————–
You were a bit over the top, and I merely recognized a reality.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
I am so glad you think this reality is just a silly little statement.
——————————————————————–
YOU’RE the one who went off the dramatic deep end.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
What a great and caring Christian you are!
——————————————————————–
I already explained that I’m against death. Of course, you people like to twist and mangle our arguments to say something they don’t say so that you can feel justified.
Rich
July 30, 2009 10:18 PM
Since it is just silly drama for you, why don’t you go ask some friends to bury you in rubble and get back to me.
——————————————————————–
What ever did your parents do to you, that you hate so much? Lookit all that anger in your posts. You really need to get a doctor to lookit it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 11:25 pm


Rich
July 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Mr. Incredible,
re: “There are times when the mission is just too important, for the good of all.”
Well, we are finally down to it. You state that sometimes the termination of innocent life is acceptable, when it is “important” and for the “good of all”.
——————————————————————–
Just to clarify…
The call is about risk.
There are times when the risk is acceptable, given the circumstances. No circumstances can change on a second’s notice, and people — innocent people — can get in the way. We can take all the precautions possible for humans to take, and, still, there is a slight risk of innocent people being caught in the middle. However, if there’s a chance, based on evidence/intelligence, that innocents won’t be there, in the target area, the mission goes on. If, at the last minute, while the bombs and rockets are falling, innocents wander into the area, what you want us to do???
By the way, I don’t see you saying anything against the terrorists and their purposely targeting civilians. One could take that to mean that you aren’t particularly concerned what terrorists do to us. Maybe you’d like to serve them tea and cookies.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm


You’re also not particularly concerned about life in its most innocent stage, in the womb.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 11:51 pm


==What a great and caring Christian you are! ==
What do scoffers know about it? Nothing.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 31, 2009 at 12:29 am


By the way, I don’t see you saying anything against the terrorists and their purposely targeting civilians. One could take that to mean that you aren’t particularly concerned what terrorists do to us. Maybe you’d like to serve them tea and cookies.
Come on, Incredible. That’s the oldest one in the book.
Americans are responsible for their own acts. They are not responsible for the acts of others. Stick to the point here.
You might also answer the questions asked of you instead of hiding behind statements like “What do scoffers know about it? Nothing.” All that hootchie mumbo jumbo convinces no one.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 31, 2009 at 12:30 am


Mr. Incredible,
re: “Lookit all that anger in your posts. You really need to get a doctor to lookit it.”
Now that is funny. This coming from someone who believes in invisible spirits and talks to these invisible ghosts. Dude, it ain’t me without a grasp on reality. As for anger, etc, I am plenty happy in my life thank you; married 33 years, two great kids, worked at the same company for the last 26 years, a senior and respected person in my field, at age 56 I can retire anytime I want. Life seems just fine to me. It is you with your incessant yearning for a life other than this one who is unhappy and has the problem. I figure John Lennon was exactly right we he said, “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”. And that is you, someone who needs lots of God because you have lots of unhappiness. I mean for crying out loud, all that moronic quoting of Bible verses. You have got to be kidding me. You sound like Sissy Spacek’s mother in the movie “Carrie”. I don’t know if you understand it or not but the average person think that kind of endless Bible quoting behavior is indicative of an unhealthy personality. So, nice try there buckaroo, but no cigar for you.
Every minute you spend immersed in your cult is a minute you will never get back. Throw that Bible in a cesspool where it belongs and go live your life, use your brain to discover what life is all about. You were born with a brain, go use it, you don’t need a book of fables written by primitive and paranoid people 2,000 years ago.
Why do you need all this God nonsense? Can’t you be happy in this life without a promise of another one after this one is done?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:23 am


Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Mr. Incredible,
re: “Lookit all that anger in your posts. You really need to get a doctor to lookit it.”
Now that is funny.
——————————————————————–
You got anger issues exploding at everybody who doesn’t agree with you, and you think that’s funny.
Seriously, dude, you need to take a copy of your posts to the nearest mental health professional for a diagnosis.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
This coming from someone who believes in invisible spirits and talks to these invisible ghosts.
——————————————————————–
“Love” exists, doesn’t it? However, you can’t see it, and, yet, you believe in it. Very interesting.
“Beauty” exists, doesn’t it? However, you can see that, either, and, yet, you believe in it.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Dude, it ain’t me without a grasp on reality.
——————————————————————–
And a bug doesn’t know it’s a bug, either.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
As for anger, etc, I am plenty happy in my life thank you…
——————————————————————–
Angry people can think that they’re happy.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
…; married 33 years, two great kids…
——————————————————————–
I might suggest that you don’t show them your posts to those with whom you disagree. I might suggest first that you take a copy of those posts to the nearest mental health professional.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
… worked at the same company for the last 26 years…
——————————————————————–
The workplace isn’t always aware of such anger issues. It springs on them all of a sudden. You could give them a warning by showing them your posts.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
… a senior and respected person in my field…
——————————————————————–
You keep your anger bottled up until you face off with those with whom you disagree here.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
… at age 56 I can retire anytime I want.
——————————————————————–
So what?
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Life seems just fine to me.
——————————————————————–
Yeah, until that anger of yours mixes with that hate and you go postal all of a sudden. There is no warning when, all of a sudden, somebody like you, with severe anger and hate issues, is triggered by some minor annoyance, or reminded of some unfulfilled, childhood trauma.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
It is you with your incessant yearning for a life other than this one who is unhappy and has the problem.
——————————————————————–
God, through Christ, gave me a new life, one of joy.
Problem? Not according to Romans 8:1 KJV.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
I figure John Lennon was exactly right we he said, “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”.
——————————————————————–
Of course you would. He was full of crap, too. Ever since he turned hippie.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
And that is you, someone who needs lots of God because you have lots of unhappiness.
——————————————————————–
I USED to be unhappy in unrighteousness. However, since being born again, I’m happy in God, through Christ.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
I mean for crying out loud, all that moronic quoting of Bible verses.
——————————————————————–
Your eyes burn, when you see them, don’t they.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
You have got to be kidding me.
——————————————————————–
What appears to you to be kidding is actually a confusion of YOUR mind.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
You sound like Sissy Spacek’s mother in the movie “Carrie”.
——————————————————————–
The Devil like to try to make those comparisons, too. I pay him no mind, thank God.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
I don’t know if you understand it or not but the average person think that kind of endless Bible quoting behavior is indicative of an unhealthy personality.
——————————————————————–
I don’t care what the world thinks. Before being born again, I worried about what the world thinks. I got nervous about what worldlings thought. Now, I care only what God, through Christ, thinks.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
So, nice try there buckaroo, but no cigar for you.
——————————————————————–
A scoffer doesn’t praise my efforts. Gee, there goes another night’s sleep.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Every minute you spend immersed in your cult…
——————————————————————–
Scoffers can’t tell the difference between what is and what isn’t a cult.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
… is a minute you will never get back.
——————————————————————–
Every minute I spend with God, through Christ, His Word, is a treasured minute.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Throw that Bible in a cesspool where it belongs and go live your life, use your brain to discover what life is all about.
——————————————————————–
Are YOU the example of using a brain? Then, no thanks.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
You were born with a brain, go use it…
——————————————————————–
I already do. What I you take your own advice?
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
… you don’t need a book of fables written by primitive and paranoid people 2,000 years ago.
——————————————————————–
And I don’t have such a book. I prefer the Word of God.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Why do you need all this God nonsense?
——————————————————————–
You have precluded yourself from understanding, even though I’ve told you. It goes right over your head.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Can’t you be happy in this life without a promise of another one after this one is done?
——————————————————————–
The Promises Christ, and I have Him in this life.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:24 am


The Promises Christ — – — > The Promise Christ



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:32 am


Mary-Lee
July 31, 2009 12:29 AM
==By the way, I don’t see you saying anything against the terrorists and their purposely targeting civilians. One could take that to mean that you aren’t particularly concerned what terrorists do to us. Maybe you’d like to serve them tea and cookies.==
Come on, Incredible. That’s the oldest one in the book.
Americans are responsible for their own acts. They are not responsible for the acts of others. Stick to the point here.
——————————————————————–
The point is that, if he criticizes Americans for doing the same thing terrorists do, he oughta at least make the slightest reference to the terrorists’ indiscriminate killings.
Mary-Lee
July 31, 2009 12:29 AM
You might also answer the questions asked of you instead of hiding behind statements like “What do scoffers know about it? Nothing.”
——————————————————————–
When people make statements — ignorant statements — about something they have rejected and do reject, there’s no point to it. The only statement for us to make, then, is to show that scoffers are writing out of ignorance. No amount of explaining is gonna change their minds. These “giant intellects” tell us about the greatness of the scientific, the logical and the reasoning, but close their minds. Have you noticed how they refuse to respond directly to the issues I brought up? They don’t want discussion. They don’t want information. They just wanna disagree and be disagreeable about it, too.
Mary-Lee
July 31, 2009 12:29 AM
All that hootchie mumbo jumbo convinces no one.
——————————————————————–
Then, tell them to stop it. Maybe they’ll listen to you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:35 am


Mary-Lee
July 31, 2009 12:29 AM
Stick to the point here.
——————————————————————–
Just the other day, I pointed out that these people are interested only in distracting and taking us off point. All you need to do is lookit their posts. I’ve tried to bring us back to point. They keep taking us off point. I’ve raised significant issues and questions. They refuse to answer them cuz they have no answers. So, you need to talk to them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 4:21 am


Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Why do you need all this God nonsense?
——————————————————————–
The Devil pokes and prods me with that question all the time. I pay no mind to him.
Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Can’t you be happy in this life without a promise of another one after this one is done?
——————————————————————–
There is no joy in darkness. We know you don’t comprehend that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 4:26 am


Rich
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
I figure John Lennon was exactly right …
——————————————————————–
Yeah, that figures. You sound like somebody who would trust Lennon, who DIDN’T do anything for you and who didn’t love you, over God Who loves you and sacrificed His Son to help you through this wilderness and to save you. Brilliant.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 31, 2009 at 9:40 am


… over God Who loves you and sacrificed His Son to help you through this wilderness and to save you.
If there is a God who loves all of us and is all powerful, that God would have set things up better from the beginning by creating a world that is not a “wilderness.”



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 31, 2009 at 9:40 am


… over God Who loves you and sacrificed His Son to help you through this wilderness and to save you.
If there is a God who loves all of us and is all powerful, that God would have set things up better from the beginning by creating a world that is not a “wilderness.”



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 31, 2009 at 10:16 am


His son? No God supposedly sacrificed HIMSELF to HIMSELF so that he could then do something else, forgive sin. Of course this is a bogus tautology (needless redundancy). A God that must do something so that he can then do something else isn’t acting much like a God is he? He’s acting like the man-made invention he really is. How slow and silly does one have to be not to see that?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 31, 2009 at 10:34 am


When people make statements — ignorant statements — about something they have rejected and do reject, there’s no point to it. The only statement for us to make, then, is to show that scoffers are writing out of ignorance. No amount of explaining is gonna change their minds. These “giant intellects” tell us about the greatness of the scientific, the logical and the reasoning, but close their minds. Have you noticed how they refuse to respond directly to the issues I brought up? They don’t want discussion. They don’t want information. They just wanna disagree and be disagreeable about it, too.
It reads to me like you are projecting.
You have rejected science, logic and reasoning in favor of belief in an entity whose existence you cannot prove except by reference to a sacred text in which that entity allegedly says it exists.
It seems that your mind is closed to all arguments based on science, reason, and logic.
The situation is as if you were speaking only Spanish and the rest of were only speaking Swahili. There is no possibility of understanding the other’s argument if you cannot speak the other’s language.
On the other hand, some posters have tried to speak to you in language that you understand, but you reject their arguments just as summarily as you reject the arguments of those who speak science, reason and logic.
As far as abortion is concerned, we all need to come to a common definition of personhood. You seem to see personhood as mere existence. Others seen personhood as something more than mere existence including at least an independent existence… separate from a total parasitic dependence on another for existence. Some others would also include a sense of self as separate from and independent of others. Whatever the case, until we can agree on the meaning of personhood, we are going to be talking at cross purposes.
Of course a fetus is living, and of course it is human. But is a fetus a person? How, precisely, do you define personhood?



report abuse
 

Weldon

posted July 31, 2009 at 12:50 pm


Mary-Lee says: Others see personhood as something more than mere existence including at least an independent existence… separate from a total parasitic dependence on another for existence.
Based upon the above statement it seems perfectly logical to conclude that the next time my dog becomes pregnant I declare it parasites and dispose it before it fully exits the birth canal. That way I will not have this live sucking parasite damaging the health of my dog. I wonder what the animal lovers would have to say about that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 31, 2009 at 1:59 pm


Poor Mr. Incredible,
You really got this jesus cult delusion thing pretty bad. No biggie. You likely deserve it.
You know, I really ought to do just as you suggest and take a copy of our posts to a mental health professional. I seriously doubt it would meet legal standards to get you committed for your own safety simply using your blog posts but it would be fun to try.
Anyway…
re: “Your eyes burn, when you see them, don’t they.”
Wow, do you also hold up a cross when you see a vampire? Do you actually repel evil demons by holding up a Bible and sprinkling them with Holy Water? Sorry there Mr. Kacynski but my eyes are just fine. The Bible is just bad literature, if you like long books in this vein, I would suggest ‘The Lord of the Rings’, far better written, the plot more believeable and the charachters more clearly delineated.
re: “Scoffers can’t tell the difference between what is and what isn’t a cult.”
Sorry again, Ted but you are in a cult. I know you would like to change the defintion of cult to exclude Christianity but hey, I thought you Christians were against changing definitions, you know like the one for ‘marriage’.
Finally, Mr. Ted “Incredible” Kacynski, you don’t seem to be doing a great job of acquiring converts. Isn’t that kind of a duty of all good Christians? I am afraid you are personally letting Jesus down.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 31, 2009 at 4:58 pm


Boris, well I don’t see why you have such a problem with another person having a right to protect themselves from the mother who is caring for them at the time of conseption? Why does this frighten you so much for every individual in this country of ours to being given the right to liberty and a chance at happiness in the world? Why do you not want to protect these children when they are being matured in the mother’s womb? Why do you not consider the Constitution phrases of posterity exactly that, posterity? Do you feel the air on the planet somehow gives children more lawful life existance than that of the amniotic fluid? Do they not both have oxygen in them? Does the blood in the womb carry oxygen in it also? Basically I see that the difference between the individual being outside of the womb and inside is the way of the life sustaining power is given? ———————————— Well, Pippy finds these arguements to be circles of insanity when there are people who just keep trying to say their life is more important than most. She finds that through laws things can be changed and the mother can be taken out of the veto power of anti-life sustaining power and control. These laws can be changed. I feel the whole case of Roe v. Wade was as if the child was not a child. So, the very nature of the case was not taking into consideration that these are children, our posterity. Well, enough about that. The question now arises with how do we care for these children who will be born without parents who can take care of them? Will we bring back orphanages or will the adoption agencies be able to care for them? Is this a non profit organization that our government can fund and support with necessary care? How much money is supporting the Embryonic Stem-Cell fund? Since this is a way of killing children, do you think for one minute that you can fund the children living instead? Maybe the adoption fees can fund people working at these care facilities? Well, first things first. let’s get the laws passed ladies and gentlemen which support our posterity having a defence in The United States Constitution. Pippy



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 31, 2009 at 5:22 pm


Based upon the above statement it seems perfectly logical to conclude that the next time my dog becomes pregnant I declare it parasites and dispose it before it fully exits the birth canal. That way I will not have this live sucking parasite damaging the health of my dog. I wonder what the animal lovers would have to say about that.
Weldon, I was using the word parasitic in a scientific sense… not passing any sort of judgement. Any creature that depends entirely on another creature for its existence is a parasite.
That said, I know it’s possible to get abortions for dogs and cats. I don’t know that much about them, but from what I do know I have no particular objections to them. I have a dog and a cat myself, but both of them are spayed/neutered.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 5:26 pm


==Any creature that depends entirely on another creature for its existence is a parasite.==
That’s how the Hitler gang justified killing, by changing the language so that it appeared almost desirable.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 5:43 pm


==You really got this jesus cult…==
Scoffers can’t tell what is and what isn’t a cult.
==… delusion thing pretty bad.==
Yes, I got Jesus real bad.
== No biggie. You likely deserve it.==
I got Jesus outta Grace, not cuz I deserve Him.
==You know, I really ought to do just as you suggest and take a copy of our posts to a mental health professional. I seriously doubt it would meet legal standards to get you committed for your own safety simply using your blog posts but it would be fun to try. ==
So, you don’t buy into this “raising the bar” thing.
==”Your eyes burn, when you see them, don’t they.”
Wow, do you also hold up a cross…==
I lift up Christ.
==… when you see a vampire?==
So, now, you believe in vampires. See, folks, that’s what I mean. It has to be street-pharm induced. Has-ta be.
== Do you actually repel evil demons by holding up a Bible and sprinkling them with Holy Water? ==
Scoffers don’t have any substance, and, so, they had to find some way to make the arguments of those with whom they disagree look ridiculous. Of course, anybody with two cells of brain can see this.
== Sorry there Mr. Kacynski but my eyes are just fine.==
But they burn when they see Scripture.
== The Bible is just bad literature…==
According to scoffers, of course.
==”Scoffers can’t tell the difference between what is and what isn’t a cult.”
Sorry again, Ted but you are in a cult.==
Sorry, Luc, I’m not Ted, and I’m not in a cult. You scoffers don’t know what is and what isn’t a cult.
== I know you would like to change the defintion of cult to exclude Christianity…==
How can I change what never was?
==…I thought you Christians were against changing definitions, you know like the one for ‘marriage’.==
Christianity never was a cult. Of course, scoffers are blind to that.
==…you don’t seem to be doing a great job of acquiring converts. ==
That’s God’s job. Not mine. Again, scoffers don’t get it.
Anyway, God says that He would like to save all, and He calls everyone to repentance, but that He will not save all cuz-a disobedience. He says that only few will find the gate. He will save only a remnant, and that the majority’s not being saved is their own fault.
== Isn’t that kind of a duty of all good Christians?==
No, but scoffers never did understand that.
== I am afraid you are personally letting Jesus down. ==
Present the line of scriptural thought that proves that. Of course, since a Scripture burns your eyes, I’ll put all my money down on “you’ll avoid at all cost area”
You’re not letting the Devil down.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 5:51 pm


Mary-Lee
July 31, 2009 5:22 PM
Any creature that depends entirely on another creature for its existence is a parasite.
——————————————————————–
So, a 92-year-old woman in a coma is a parasite. Okay, we get it.
A one-year-old child depends entirely on his parents for his existence. To YOU, he is a parasite. Okay, we get that, too.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 31, 2009 at 9:07 pm


Your Name,
Why do you want to force parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it? Every child deserves to be wanted by their parents. Why do you want to deny children the right to be wanted by their parents? Why do you want to turn women into government owned breeding pigs?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 31, 2009 at 9:19 pm


Hey there Mr. Ted “Incredible” Kacynski,
re: “find some way to make the arguments of those with whom they disagree look ridiculous.”
Indeed. Wasn’t hard. Your arguments are ridiculous.
re: “anybody with two cells of brain can see this.”
Yes, you saw it.
re: “So, now, you believe in vampires”
Well, not actually. I figure life forms all stay within the bound of physics. However, since we are on the topic, do you believe in demons?
re: “Christianity never was a cult. Of course, scoffers are blind to that.”
Boy, you love that word ‘scoffers’s. However, and back to reality, Christianity is a cult. Always has been, always will be. You know, you and I have been through this before. As I recall, I gave you the link to the Oxford dictionary site that clearly shows the primary and preferred definition of the word would include Christianity along with any other religion. Sorry there buckaroo but all religions are cults. Now the fact that you keep disputing this clearly shows your lack of ethics and overt dishonesty. Listen up buddy boy, I expect nuttiness and insanity from those who have divorced themselves from reality but I do expect self-professed “Christians” to not be liars. Guess when it comes to you I expected wrong.
Hey, this is fun and I hope you keep posting. I know you are likely real busy writing your manifesto and all but I do hope you find the time to keep posting. I just adore those Bible quotes, your sense of humor is just precious.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 31, 2009 at 9:26 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Here you go, from Oxford:
cult
• noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Ok, you see everything after the number 1 and before the number 2, that is the primary and preferred definition. Christianity is right in there. That fact that you don’t like the word cult being attached to your cult is, well, meaningless.
So, try to cut down on the whole liar for Jesus thing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 3:56 am


Rich
July 31, 2009 9:26 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Here you go, from Oxford:
cult
• noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Ok, you see everything after the number 1 and before the number 2, that is the primary and preferred definition. Christianity is right in there. That fact that you don’t like the word cult being attached to your cult is, well, meaningless.
——————————————————————–
You wasted your time considering it and getting that and posting it. It is meaningless cuz, in order to understand what Christianity is, you go to, well, Christians. Oxford is in no position to understand the nuances of Christianity. Therefore, Oxford is in no position to explain the nuances of Christianity.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:26 PM
So, try to cut down on the whole liar for Jesus thing.
——————————————————————–
Your eyes are burning, aren’t they.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:09 am


Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
Your arguments are ridiculous.
——————————————————————–
Your remarks are irrelevant.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
re: “So, now, you believe in vampires”
Well, not actually.
——————————————————————–
Well, yes, actually. After all, your question asking me whether I hold the Cross up against the vampires includes the admission that you believe vampires exist. Now we know why you write the things you do the way you do.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
… do you believe in demons?
——————————————————————–
I do not trust in demons. I trust in God, through Christ.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
re: “Christianity never was a cult. Of course, scoffers are blind to that.”
Boy, you love that word ‘scoffers’s [sic].
——————————————————————–
I use the terms from the Word of God that apply.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
… Christianity is a cult.
——————————————————————–
No, it isn’t. Scoffers don’t know what is and what isn’t a cult.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
Always has been…
——————————————————————–
Since it isn’t, it hasn’t been.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
… always will be.
——————————————————————–
Since it isn’t and never has been, it will never be.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
You know, you and I have been through this before.
——————————————————————–
Then quit repeating the same assertions and accusations, continuing to do so without backing them up.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
As I recall, I gave you the link to the Oxford dictionary site that clearly shows the primary and preferred definition of the word would include Christianity along with any other religion.
——————————————————————–
Dictionaries are not lawgivers. They are a history of usage, that’s all.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
Sorry there buckaroo but all religions are cults.
——————————————————————–
However, Christianity is not.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
Now the fact that you keep disputing this clearly shows your lack of ethics and overt dishonesty.
——————————————————————–
You’d like to think so.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
… I expect nuttiness and insanity from those who have divorced themselves from reality but I do expect self-professed “Christians” to not be liars.
——————————————————————–
Good thing, then, cuz I’m not lying.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
Guess when it comes to you I expected wrong.
——————————————————————–
You been guessing wrong all along. I’ve been trying to tell you that. You just won’t listen. I can’t help that.
Rich
July 31, 2009 9:19 PM
I just adore those Bible quotes…
——————————————————————–
B-b-b-b-b-but you were trying earlier to get me to stop posting them. So, which is it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:17 am


Boris
July 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Your Name,
Why do you want to force parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it?
——————————————————————–
They knew the risks when they engaged in be hate your that was most likely to result in a child. The child shouldn’t have to pay for the “crime” of their responsibility.
Boris
July 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Every child deserves to be wanted by their parents.
——————————————————————–
Then, either the parents shouldn’t engage in behavior that is most likely to result in a child, or the parents need to be encouraged to accept their responsibilities.
Boris
July 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Why do you want to deny children the right to be wanted by their parents?
——————————————————————–
The irresponsible parents are the ones who are denying the child’s being wanted.
Boris
July 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Why do you want to turn women into government owned breeding pigs?
——————————————————————–
These irresponsible women are built no different than other women, and they’re built for pregnancy. If they didn’t want to be pregnant, they shouldn’t have engaged in behavior that is most likely to result in a child. The child shouldn’t pay for their “crime” of your responsibility.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 6:17 am


They knew the risks when they engaged in be hate your —-> They knew the risks when they engaged in behavior



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 1, 2009 at 9:46 am


Mr. Incredible,
Well, my sick, sick deluded friend, I see that you unable to stop being a liar. Somehow, I am not too surprised.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm


Hi Boris, interesting to note that you refer to people who are pregnant as breeding pigs. I for one am not goint to downgrade any person to that terminology by any standard. Yes, yes, yes, people deserve to born into a world by two loving parents. Sometimes that is not the case for whatever reason that is. So the alternative to raising children by two people who choose not to want to raise their children is adoption. People who go to adoption agencies do want children. So that solves that one. The children need a place to stay when they are being considered for adoption this would meen bringing back the orphanages in this country. Children need a place to be loved not denied existance because some selfish person wants to take out there very existance. I feel bad for the young adults or adults for that matter who want to raise their children but can not for whatever reason because of financial matters or their homeless. There should be broader adoption policies for those individuals who still want to be a part of the childrens lives wrather than once a year. Pippy



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 2, 2009 at 3:39 am


Pippy,
A woman should not be forced to have to endure a 9 month pregnancy to bring a child into the world so someone else can raise them. As it is men have no reproductive rights. Take these rights away from women and you turn them into government owned breeding pigs.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm


Hi Boris, we meet again. Parting is such sweet sorrow. As for the women being forced to actually go through the gestational maturity period, well let me say this seems to be a fair practice instead of the alternative measure of murder. Yes, she to can double up on her birth control methods if pregancy is truely not what she wants to afford in her life of presence. So, let us face the facts here shall we, that yes this period of pregnancy can be down right awful, by any standards of the measure. She will get through it successfully and learn ways to endure the process. It is not always fun by any understanding. I still don’t see the relavence as establishing the phrase of maturnity as breeding pigs, government owned. Children do need to be protected from abusive parents. So if somebody with legal authority to make sure the children are not being abused by ways of drugs and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, then so be it.
Pippy



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted August 5, 2009 at 9:21 pm


https://www.discoveringjesusfishing.net
Prayer should be used in conjunction with potentially lifesaving medical treatments, but not necessarily solely by its lonesome. It really depends on the specific case. There are circumstances in the Bible where Jesus laid hands on a paralytic or touched a blind man and they were completely healed. Although I still believe in the spiritual gift of healing, I also think that God gave us medicine also as a gift and that to not use such when it has been provided for us is rather unfortunate, especially if it costs a life.



report abuse
 

Brenda

posted August 6, 2009 at 12:47 am


Would you want the courts deciding what you should or should not do with your kid if he is sick? Why would you want the gov’t involved in your family anymore than they already are? There are way more doctors misdiagnosing kids and giving prescriptions when they are not needed and causing more problems, than there are Christians who prayed for healing and the child died.I think that praying in conjunction with seeing a reputable doctor is not unreasonable, but I don’t put all my faith in doctors to heal either.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm


Unborn children are living human beings and are entitled to all the rights that humans normally enjoy. Because during the process of invitro fertilization the reproductive surgeon has to determine whether the human organism in the petri dish is alive. Otherwise if the organism were not alive then invitro fertilization wouldn’t succeed. Invitro fertilization is therefore scientific proof that humans are alive and living outside there mother’s bodies from the earliest moment of there existence.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2009 at 12:54 pm


Unborn children are living human beings and are entitled to all the rights that humans normally enjoy. Because during the process of invitro fertilization the reproductive surgeon has to determine whether the human organism in the petri dish is alive. Otherwise if the organism were not alive then invitro fertilization wouldn’t succeed. Invitro fertilization is therefore scientific proof that humans are alive and living outside there mother’s bodies from the earliest moment of there existence.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 6, 2009 at 1:13 pm


Your Name,
See if this can penetrate your skull. A fetus will never be given rights that conflict with a woman’s rights. Rights must be considered as a whole. So go find some other way to take away the rights of citizens and give them to the government. This case closed. You lost.



report abuse
 

Brenda

posted August 7, 2009 at 2:01 am


The way it is right now women have all the rights and unborn babies have none. It’s not a choice of either the gov’t having all the rights or a woman having all the rights. A woman can choose to put a baby up for adoption while pregnant, work the whole time she is pregnant, then give birth and hand the baby over to the new parents who “choose” to raise the baby. All this is done without the gov’t getting involved.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 7, 2009 at 10:04 am


That’s right a fetus will NEVER be given rights that conflict with a woman’s rights. Men have no reproductive rights as it is. We aren’t going force women to endure nine month pregnancies they do not want to endure just to spit out a baby and give it away. Your posts reflect the kind of evangelical Christian religious fanaticism that was so very popular in Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler. Oh yes Hitler was a Christian just like you and promoted the exact same ideas that Jay Sekulow does.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.