Timothy17

So does Planned Parenthood, but I don't see you doing anything about it, which makes it readily obvious that you really don't give a $#!+ about children, and the real reason for your protest is something much different.

That's why we build prisons, just for you: the law, after all, exists for criminals. Contrawise, if you believe in God and Heaven, then nothing on earth or of men frightens you - not the Law nor its prisons. That's true liberty, a liberty that never offends the law nor fears the plots and terrors of evil men. Those who do not believe in heaven or hell fear all these things, for they imagine that there is nothing beyond this life, and therefore prize and covet their short, miserable lives as being precious and of infinite worth, and like cattle are herded and manipulated with the trivial dainties of benefits and the threat of cruel punishments or even the deprivation of their quaint deserts. Must make it all the more easy to believe you are descended from a monkey ; after all, you and him share so much in common ; namely, nothing to look forward to or live for except the occasional satisfaction of a fleeting pleasure.

Right... because the bible says all these perverts whom God destroyed were, in actuality, really just innocent and saintly folks that God was just killing for sport. Yep, that's in Leviticus somewhere.

Let me get this straight. You think that someone invented hell in order to terrify people out of doing bad things, and this is a very silly idea. You're right. We should all sign a petition to the Minister of Justice to shut-down all the prisons, because scaring people out of doing bad things is just plain wrong and an obvious fraud to get people to behave in the way that the government wants them to. While we're at it, we better free that guy who murdered those women and took photographs of himself wearing their panties, just to show the world how in Canada we have progressed and advanced beyond simplistic and medieval forms of thinking, such as punishing criminals.

This coming from the guy who calls himself a toad.

You miss the point again. God destroyed - as you said - all those people, but you provide a damn good reason to do so, such as blaspheming God and perverting their own children's minds with vicious lies. You are not a priest. You are not a saint. So please tell me where you got your credentials to teach your daughter that "god is a murderer." I am curious Holmes, how did you and Watson come to your conclusions ? Did you personally know who those people were ? Were the Egyptians and Amalekites all perfectly good people who did nothing but work for the betterment of mankind ? Or were they so degraded and perverted as to be utterly unworthy of life or freedom even by atheistic standards ? Would those same people today, people who sacrificed their children alive in burning fires to appease some ridiculous invention of their own perverted minds, be suffered to live ? Find me the city where the citizens would not, themselves, rip to pieces any congregation of persons caught sacrificing their own children, for example. Now if human beings can hardly suffer their own to murder their own children so brazenly, on what grounds do you accuse God of being a murderer ? On what evidence do you condemn God for "murdering" the innocent ? Really, I would like to see your evidence that the people at the time of the flood, for example, were all saints who had done nothing but perfect good their entire lives, and also how you came to know this.

Congratulations. Not only did you miss the point of "the story" and fed your daughter a deadly batch of vicious lies, but you followed up by even demonstrating its rationale by actively assisting in ushering your daughter to eternal hellfire. Rest assured, your daughter was up a long time that night considering the weight, meaning and significance of it all. God destroyed the Egyptians' bodies, but you murder your own daughter's soul.

Tee-hee they taught you that in Hebrew school, and like a gullible little n3rd you bought it.

It's a Walt Disney movie.

Greenhouse @$$-gas emanating from Hollywood's h0rse$#!+.

More Walt Disney Bull$#!+.

Global warming is Walt Disney Bull $#!+.

Pursuant to August1991's Charlie Sheen quote, "Charlie Sheen, 45, American actor: "The bigger the lie, the more gullible the public when it comes to swallowing it. Wild. What a boost for poetry, though. T-Shirts. Mugs. Kegs. Key rings." - Astronaut Ron, while on a "space-walk" after being told to say hi to his fellow astronauts in the "space-ship," and then to his family "back on earth." Video taken from NASA's archive, "On the Shoulders of Giants."

There's enough hot air in that article to carry a directionless, large balloon for at least a few miles.

You fall into tricky water when you start habituating your mind to arbitrarily determining something so abstract as personhood and when it begins or ends. Personhood is an entirely legal recognition of something. I believe you realize it is a recognition ; that is, it is the Law recognizing some reality outside and independent of itself, and affirming its existence. You enter this problem : if personhood does not begin at the moment life begins, and demonstrably so (let's not kid, at conception there's an explosion of life and it's happening, and happening fast), when does personhood "happen" ? Is there some legal Incarnation happening ? Does personhood fall from heaven on a human being at some arbitrary point in time ? If so, pray tell what is the cause of this marvelous event, and when does it occur ? You touched on the danger and ambiguity of arbitrarily off-shoring this responsibility to a panel of experts or bureaucrats, for example, and the precedent of doing that is alarming. It puts terrifying powers in the hands of select individuals, powers of life and death, the rights of men or the abrogation thereof. But let's hold to human custom and convention : a lot of couples, upon discovering they are pregnant (as it were), are over-joyed, and at once begin to grant the child a name or names. They draw up names for a male or a female, for example. Already, for these parents, personhood is established, and the humanity of the nascent life is unquestioned. Age is not even a factor of consideration. What's material is that life is there. We know, for example, that at the moment of conception a child is always either male or female, so trying to reduce the child to some "it," for the purpose of justifying abortion, is a serious factual error not a little expedient to the ends of the argument. The child, the fetus, is always either a male child or a female child, and never properly an "it." Now Christians cannot, and will not, ever care for any of this brutish sophistry, for we have known the Truth far before scientists confirmed it. We know, according to our Scriptures and the Creed, that God "became incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, and was made man." That is, identity, gender, personhood - all of these questions were mute at the moment of the incarnation, which corresponds (biologically) to conception. That will not change for us. The teachings of our religion is that when man divorces himself from God he falls into errors such as rationalism, and the consequence of these errors are the battles we now face, where we feel compelled to demonstrate every moral truth and argument by the arbitrary and capricious determinations of any given set of men. It is this fallacy that undermines the moral order and lends itself to such evil regimes as the Soviets and Nazis, who were not a little opportunistic of the aggrandizement of the state's powers and jurisdictions afforded by the widespread loss of belief in objective truths and the moral dogmas of the Church. These being evaporated, they left a huge vacuum that philosophy and intellectualism are constantly trying, in vain, to fill. Now Liberalism then as now dogmatically dictates that we Christians need to conform to its own fallacious presumptions and appease its own altar of rationalism before being permitted into its holy of holies and receive the blessing of its recognition of our moral precepts. So far our appeasement of this process has already cost hundreds of millions of lives in labs and abortion clinics throughout the world. Let's be frank. Canadian law made a disastrous and dangerous swing by subjecting humanity to its fanciful curiosity - who or what is a human or who or what is a person ? My question is who or what is a Canadian court to determine who or what I so intimately am ? Needless to say, I reserve my right to rebellion against any government that presumes it will decide for itself whether or not I am a person or a human or whether or not my children may or may not be worthy of that right gone Animal Farm to a privilege. We are talking about legal errors and contradictions not a little reminiscent of those in the United States before the civil war. Apathy, at present, appears to me the only real difference, and for democracy that is a dangerous difference. Now in your final argumentation you compare the loss of innocent human life as being comparable to the loss of a certain amount of blood or the loss of organs following death. Seeing as how the loss of a little blood is not liable to kill me nor will my organs being taken from my body following death change the fact of my beind dead, I am not a little inclined to find such concerns spurious in contrast to rather more important considerations as the saving of innocent life from the death penalty. Pax, Tim