Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Invitation to a Blog
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 27 (446380)
01-06-2008 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
01-05-2008 2:59 AM


so... many... pratts... brain.... exploding....
and did he SERIOUSLY just cite stephen jay gould AND richard dawkins for creationism? wtf.
edit: i posted. let's see if he lets it through.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 01-05-2008 2:59 AM taylor_31 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by taylor_31, posted 01-06-2008 5:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 27 (446663)
01-06-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by taylor_31
01-06-2008 5:33 PM


holy crap he posted my comment.
and look at all the typos! awesome.
edit: and here it is:
quote:
mr. comfort,
do you not realize how incredibly dishonest it is to attempt to quote someone like stephen jay gould or richard dawkins in support of creationism? both have written at least a half dozen very lengthy books on [the] subject of evolution, and they are both very much on the "pro" side. to quote dawkins on the cambrian explosion, but not the bit that follows is about like quoting the bible to say "there is no god." clearly, the context matters.
stephen jay gould, i might understand out of ignorance of his books... but how can anyone think for one second that the author of "the god delusion" is advocating creationism? i think not!
when, exactly, did it become ok for [a] christian to bear false witness? this is not what my copy of the bible says.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by taylor_31, posted 01-06-2008 5:33 PM taylor_31 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 27 (446670)
01-06-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 6:02 PM


Any idea how long it usually takes?
I posted a completely inoffensive comment last night and it has yet to appear.
I simply provided support for your assertion that Einstein believed in Spinoza's god by posting 3 references.
if the references contain links, your comment will not be posted. i think they have a very strict screening scipt that automatically weeds out message with links, lest they be spam.
otherwise, porn-spamming would be a real hoot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 6:02 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 27 (446722)
01-07-2008 12:26 AM


ray comfort responds to me!
found here
original post writes:
3. Abraham: True, God told Abraham to offer his only son, and when he was about to kill him, God stopped him. It is important to understand that this incident is a picture of God actually giving His only begotten Son to suffer on the cross for our sins. Such is His love and mercy for rebels such as us.
quote:
abraham... let's look at that a little more closely. it says that god told abraham to — , —— or ha-alehu sham l'olah. literally, "raise him up for a burnt offering" or "bring him to be a burnt offering" "offer" isn't exactly the right word in the sense of "hey, you want this?" the implication of the sentance is that isaac will be a sacrifice. the word itself means to "lift up" or "bring" and is the same word used when god brings the plagues upon egypt. and the "burnt offering" part is the rather standard sacrifice one can read all about in the books of exodus and leviticus.
it's really the same as any other offering -- done of a willing heart, not god's demand. the test was of abraham's heart, not his obedience. i'll refrain from any comment on interpretation, but you do have to get the sense of the words right before you can examine the meaning of the text.
ray comfort writes:
<< it's really the same as any other offering -- done of a willing heart, not god's demand. the test was of abraham's heart, not his obedience. >>
Could you explain the above. I can't seem to separate the two. Thanks.
ray comfort writes:
<< abraham... let's look at that a little more closely. it says that god told abraham to — , —— or ha-alehu sham l'olah. literally, "raise him up for a burnt offering" or "bring him to be a burnt offering" "offer" isn't exactly the right word in the sense of "hey, you want this?" >>
You make a good point. That is the implication.
my forthcoming response, once it gets through the filters:
quote:
<< Could you explain the above. I can't seem to separate the two. Thanks. >>
yes, i would be happy to.
You gave me to understand that
You do not desire sacrifice and meal offering;
You do not ask for burnt offering and sin offering.
Then I said,
'See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me.'
To do what pleases You, my God, is my desire
Your teaching is in my inmost parts.
(psalm 40:7-9)
our god is a merciful and loving god. he is not a wrathful god, concerned about the letter of his law. to prove this to us, he gave his only begotten son, who died on our behalf. the point of the law and of sacrifices is not appease a god who desires blood, but to demonstrate a willing and giving heart. god isn't asking for our blind obedience, and when we mess up, our animals (or our sons). he's asking that we love him, and honor him. it is not right to simply follow the law, one must have a heart that is freely given to god. this what jesus taught us, to put our hearts in the right place. and this is why paul says that no man can be justified by the law alone.
the miracle of salvation by christ is that god has said the heart was enough, and there was no need for further sacrifice. this is, in effect, what we see with abraham. the sacrifice itself was not necessary. similarly, we do not have to lay down our lives, either.
maybe i'll blow his mind with the backwards interpretation next. we'll see...
Edited by arachnophilia, : formatting


  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 27 (446727)
01-07-2008 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by taylor_31
01-07-2008 12:30 AM


Lately he's posted a load of crap about his personal doctrines and how most of America's Christians are not "real" converts. I might post something tomorrow in reply if I can.
i'm thinking of responding to that. i'll have to be very careful. but brenna recently potmed me for a similar topic here, so...
i'm thinking it might be fun to invite him here. what do you guys think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by taylor_31, posted 01-07-2008 12:30 AM taylor_31 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 12:33 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 15 by taylor_31, posted 01-07-2008 12:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 27 (446739)
01-07-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by taylor_31
01-07-2008 12:47 AM


Heh, I think that would be a lot of fun. I don't see how we could possibly persuade him to visit, however; I'm sure he receives similar invitations all the time.
But if he really is so confident about his beliefs, what does he have to lose?
well, i'm currently posting jesusy stuff, with a bit of a scholarly edge. i'm gonna ease into scholarly criticism, i think... but he seems somewhat agreeable to my posts so far (see above), as they're only slight tweaks to his ideas using proper context.
maybe... maybe i can convince him by telling him that we're in dire need of more creationists here. because, well, we are. and he seems like he'll be somewhat civil, right?
and he was willing to publically debate the RRS (and get stomped all over by them). he seems to have a lot of free time from the massive number of posts he generates daily there, so he probably wouldn't mind a little laid back discussion here...
Edited by arachnophilia, : quote added because my post wrapped to page 2


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by taylor_31, posted 01-07-2008 12:47 AM taylor_31 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 27 (447052)
01-07-2008 9:27 PM


i made the front page
ray comfort writes:
Inconsistent Laws
Pedophilia (molesting children), illegal. Abortion (killing children), legal. Fornication with a 17 year-old, illegal. Fornication with an 18 year-old, legal. The sale of pornography in public places, legal. The displaying of the Ten Commandments in public places, illegal.
Words of Comfort -- Ray Comfort's Blog: Inconsistent Laws
quote:
displaying the ten commandments (either set) or any other religious symbol is entirely legal and protected by our constitution, so long as it is done on your own or public property.
however, since we have a secular government, it becomes highly questionable when they show support of any one religion over others. that count as establishment. as such, religious displays on government buildings or property have to at least provide equal opportunity to all religions, if not necessarily equal time. you cannot have the ten commandments and only the ten commandments without allowing support for more minority religions.
additionally, abortion in the strictest legal terms is neither legal nor illegal. the ruling of roe v wade states that it is not under the government's jurisdiction to legislate medical procedures that occur within the confines of a person's body, under the 4th and 14th amendments. it's not a question of ethics, it's a question of government authority. and roe v wade rules in favor of a smaller government with less authority to invade a person's privacy. (which, in reality, if you are a republican, you should support)
however, the case does provide the right of the government to outlaw late term abortions, which are generally illegal because no one argues that terminating a fetus that could be viable outside the womb is, indeed, murder.
(more at the source above, including the quote found below)
ray comfort writes:
Now You Know
Sinned34 (for some reason you haven’t given a profile. God knows your name). These are my words: “Pedophilia (molesting children), illegal. Abortion (killing children), legal.” This is your response: “Protecting children from predators is something most people can agree on. Preventing a collection of cells from being removed from a woman's body is not something most people can agree on.” This is a photo of a your “collection of cells.” It's a five-month baby in the womb. Now you can see what you are advocating killing. There's blood on your hands . . .
Words of Comfort -- Ray Comfort's Blog: Now You Know
quote:
mr comfort,
sinned34's statement is quite factual. it's not something most people can agree on. if you read my post in the same thread, i specifically elaborate on how in this case consensus is reached gradually, and that a fetus that looks like your pictured example cannot be terminated legally.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.
please note the last clause. it goes on to elaborate:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
this is all found on the very first page of roe v. wade (1973) 410 us 113. i would provide you with a link, but your filters would eat my post.
note, above, that only first trimester abortions are deemed within the woman's rights to privacy. second trimester is left up to the state to regulate, and third trimester may be outright outlawed. and is, to my knowledge, in every state.
in other words, ain't nobody aborting babies that look like that.
and now he quotes me:
ray comfort writes:
Blood is on Your Hands
<< only first trimester abortions are deemed within the woman's rights to privacy. second trimester is left up to the state to regulate, and third trimester may be outright outlawed. and is, to my knowledge, in every state. in other words, ain't nobody aborting babies that look like that.>>
You are gravely misinformed. Pictured is a 12 week child.
Words of Comfort -- Ray Comfort's Blog: Blood is on Your Hands
quote:
mr comfort,
i think you are missing my point. my statements were purely factual. now, you may happen to think a 12 week old fetus looks like a human being. maybe i even agree. other will disagree.
but this does not change the unconstitutionality of the government legislating medical procedures. emotional appeals can be very persuasive, but they do not change the fact that third trimester abortions are illegal -- and that posting a picture of a late term fetus as a representation of the "blood on someone's hands" is entirely disengenuous.
i also rather resent the implication that there any blood whatsoever on my hands because i insist on honesty. further, i do not find such accusations compatible with the teaching of christ, who taught us to not judge or place blame on our fellow human beings. the right of judgement belongs solely to god, and not to you, mr. comfort.
indeed, when i stand before my god on judgement day, the only blood on my hands will that of my lord and saviour. that blood is on your hands as well, mr. comfort, and praise god we are all washed clean by it.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 10:04 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 27 (447057)
01-07-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-07-2008 9:27 PM


Re: i made the front page
continued:
ray comfort writes:
<< arachnophilia said... but this does not change the unconstitutionality of the government legislating medical procedures. emotional appeals can be very persuasive, but they do not change the fact that third trimester abortions are illegal -- and that posting a picture of a late term fetus as a representation of the "blood on someone's hands" is entirely disengenuous.>>
That's the mentality of Nazi Germany: the State says it's okay. The picture is of a five-month child in the womb, not nine months. Go to some of the pro-life sites and look at photos of babies aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy. Shame on you, professing to be a Christian and advocating the right to kill a child, no matter at what stage. Your use of the word "fetus" speaks volumes
my forthcoming reply:
quote:
mr comfort,
That's the mentality of Nazi Germany: the State says it's okay.
or perhaps the roman empire? i think you misunderstand the point, ray. nobody is arguing that we should kill babies, fetuses, embryos, etc. especially not me. if you have interpretted my posts to say that, you are in grave error.
the point is rather simple, actually. if you think abortions are murder, don't have one. i won't either. i think, since we are both men, that's a relatively easy decision. it is up to the individual to be moral, not up to the state to force people to be. and it is certainly not up to the christian to force morality on anyone else. the moment we start doing that, we become like nazi germany, or the roman empire.
christ said that are to give to caeser what is his, and give to god what is god's. it is wise to keep the two separate. in christ's day, the jews were actually quite fortunate in that the roman empire did not force them to engage in practices that violated their religion, and allowed them their own holy currency for temple use. these allowances were made to no other groups. when christ talks about the coin with caesars image, this fact is very important. as christians, we can remain pure without having to force the roman empire to use our currency.
The picture is of a five-month child in the womb, not nine months. Go to some of the pro-life sites and look at photos of babies aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy.
i do not need to. the argument is still disengenuous -- late term abortion is quite illegal, as i have pointed out numerous times. i asked you previously, and i am still curious, where in the bible it tells christians to bear false witness in jesus's name?
Shame on you, professing to be a Christian and advocating the right to kill a child, no matter at what stage.
you still have not read or understood my posts. there is no right to kill a child. there is, however, a right to privacy that the government cannot trample over simply to appease one group's morals. and that right to privacy includes the good and the bad. just like our right to profess our faith in public also allows such evils as the KKK and neo-nazism. the government cannot discriminate between such things without creating double standards.
and really, ray, there should be no shame in telling the truth. the shame, however, should be in professing to be a christian but changing christ's good news of redemption into judgement and hellfire. what sort of christian walks around calling people, especially fellow christians, sinners and murderers instead of preaching salvation?
Your use of the word "fetus" speaks volumes.
that is the correct medical term for a prenatal human child between 8 weeks and term. again, sorry for being accurate.
how long until i'm banned, you think?
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 9:27 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by taylor_31, posted 01-09-2008 1:32 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 21 by Omnivorous, posted 01-09-2008 6:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 27 (447373)
01-09-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by taylor_31
01-09-2008 1:32 AM


Re: i made the front page
Gosh, arach, I don't know; you're really stirring them up over there!
well, afterall, i'm a freakin' babykiller. or something.
You're making great points, though, especially when in the face of such zealous and numerous Christians. I tried to lend you a hand today, but they just ignore my posts; I feel like an annoying fly that buzzes around while people are trying to talk about politics (or shout, in this case). But yeah, you're doing really good.
don't feel bad, i've had lots of experience. and they've really only got two posts. they're not really doing so good against "i'm a christian, and i disagree." their responses are either "BABY KILLER!" or "you're not a christian [if you don't agree with ray comfort]!"
By the way, how do you use italics in the comments section? I can't figure that out.
html tags. italics produces italics use "b" for bold and "u" for underline.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by taylor_31, posted 01-09-2008 1:32 AM taylor_31 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 27 (447783)
01-10-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Omnivorous
01-09-2008 6:13 PM


Re: i made the front page
for some reason, i have one comment that i have posted repeatedly that's just not getting through:
"matthew 5:22."
i'm really not sure why he's censoring bible references, except that it makes him look really bad for calling people fools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Omnivorous, posted 01-09-2008 6:13 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 27 (448107)
01-12-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
01-10-2008 7:39 PM


Re: Biblical Christianity cannot exist in an open market.
So ask why it is being censored?
i did. the posts just don't go through.
it's funny, he'll let the most vehemently atheist posts through, but not a bible reference.
But his blog like Faith's is a classic example of the bankruptcy of Biblical Christianity. Ray, like Faith, simply cannot allow open discussion of their position. It is the avoidance syndrome; since you cannot support your position, retreat to a protected area where you cannot be challenged.
it's then quite ironic that he's retreating to a place his position cannot be challenged by the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 01-12-2008 8:36 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 10:18 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024