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

"I create evil," not cause evil. In this sense, without God there would be nothing, neither good nor evil. This seems to be to be an almost philosophical exactitude being expressed. "I form the light," and consequently, "create darkness." I always understood this evil as the Hebrew would have it, the evils of sufferings, chastisements, trials and tribulations, etc. As you know, Christians do not believe in abandoning their belief even during the most difficult of times, but that these experiences can habituate us to good, to habitually choosing good even under great difficulty or duress, which is the classical definition of a virtuous person. In the school of evils we become good Christians, and Saints are made manifest. Daniel and his companions had to face the harrowing experience of being thrown into an oven because of their fidelity to God. Their fidelity to God caused them to be faced with that evil. God sends good and evil on both good and evil men, but here we are talking about purely physical goods and evils, which reveals the proper understanding of the sense of the text I believe. I can see how the boldness can trip people up. It is meant to. But if we want to get into primary and secondary causes, then we are going to need to list philosophical terms and stick to them. I, unless otherwise stated, am using evil in the strict sense of sin, of the human will's defection from what is right or good, and the consequences and depravity this resulted in and still results in. Evil, or more exactly, vice, is still contrary to nature, as nature itself confesses when we experience pain, suffering, sadness, etc. These experiences physically confess that something is wrong, something is disordered. Properly speaking, the source or origin of sin, and consequently evil, is in the will, in the defection of that will from God. Without sin there would be no evil or evils, nor its present, resulting regime. Pax, Tim

"Impelled by the law of its own impotence..." Now those be some choice words.

Words of advice : Asking people to hide and suppress their dearest beliefs by making use of a perverted analogy is not the wisest strategy. It actually lends itself as a reason to promote and enshrine those beliefs. You can either accept the Church in society as a guest in the house, or otherwise drive her underground or exterminate her outright. The former benevolence begets a share in blessings and facilitates open and civil dialogue and discussion, the latter options beget damnation.

There are a few misconceptions and contradictions here. I. "Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is the no one else's but the woman that is pregnant." This is not accurate. The woman necessarily (needs) the co-operative decisions of others to implement an abortion, commonly understood. She requires either pills or operations intended to facilitate her purpose ; therefore, she needs the consent of society, as society by no means is under duress to provide her with these things. A woman does not wave a magic wand, as it were, and the baby disappears ; she requires others to help her intervene to end the male or female child's life. II. "The government has no place interfering with a person's decision about her body. This is an imploding statement. Why is an adult female's decisions regarding her body sancrosanct, but the female child's body has no benefit ? We cannot possibly know whether the person in the womb wills to live or die, and it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that they are in accord with their mother's decision. Properly speaking, the subject matter is not the adult female's body, but the body of the human child (whether male or female) existing in her womb. III. "When life begins is a philosophical question that the government ought not to be legislating at the stroke of a pen." You are misinformed. The meaning of life is said to be restricted to being a philosophical question, certainly, and logic certainly plays its parts in many things, including science ; however, the presence of natural life is a measurable and easily, readily ascertainable phenomenon. Life self-propagates. It grows, expands, replaces, etc., and all natural life requires nourishment of some form or another, or else it ceases. At the moment of conception, life happens, gender is determined, and the DNA - the rubrics of the human being - of this new person is all determined. Everything needed is there, and life is actively happening, growing. We are never more "alive," in a measurable, biological sense, than when we are growing in the womb. It is very easy to see that the child is very much alive. Pax, Tim

I am not sure I follow. In my tract I tried to explain - to the best of my poor, very limited ability - that, in order for creatures to be able to authentically love, it was also necessary their free-will have a certain self-determination and originating capacity ; that is, the ability to reject that love, turn away from it, etc. For Christians, God created all that is, and it was all good (nature included), and evil is not, properly speaking, a creation or a part of nature : it acts within that creation, acts against that nature, and takes away from it. Returning to my analogy, evil is like to cold or darkness, wherein there is the absence of heat or light (truth or love). Hence evil and sin is said to consequently darken the intellect of man, to make us (spiritually) blind. You assert that this is a flaw, that our free-will's potential to reject what is right or good, to reject love or turn away from it, is a flaw. I don't find this tenable, because then we enter the circular argument of whether or not we can be said to even possess a legitimate free-will or be able to legitimately (i.e, freely) love if we didn't also have the potential to refuse that love. We could have been created in a permanent, fixed and perpetual state of adoration before God, with all the bliss and blessings that involves ; however, I would think this would be an inferior state of adoration as it would not have been freely given and rendered, as the possibility of refusing it would not have been, well, possible. Enamoured as we might have been, we could never be not enamoured and, therefore, never truly know the depth and extent of the goodness we enjoyed. Perhaps this lends weight to the proverb, "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all." God is not, therefore, the origin of evil. Free-will, defecting, is. The consequences of evil, of that defection from perfect love and truth, is astounding, perhaps humanly indescribable and incomprehensible, owing to the infinity of God, communion with whom was lost by our betrayal, our defection. It therefore follows that man has a legitimate potentiality in his own right, that of free will, for which he is himself exclusively responsible, and hence the need for redemption, salvation, forgiveness, etc. At times we feel compelled to inform people that something is not their fault, for they are blaming themselves for things that are not properly their responsibility. This crude, though common, example is at least roughly akin to the fallacy of blaming God for sin or evil. Sin and evil exists only in a turning away from God, who is perfect love and truth. Much as we might wish to conveniently or expediently expunge any and all guilt or responsibility for the consequences of our choices and actions, we nonetheless bear - insomuch as it is so - personal responsibility for the evil we do. Pax, Tim

Why should he be ? I think it's safe to say that the Prime Minister very much wants us to have that impression of him, and wouldn't be at all surprised if he found it humorous.

As utterly speculative and apocalyptic as the OP was, I am not sure at what point anything even remotely racist is said in it. Can you demonstrate what part of that post is racist? Pax, Tim

Pinko, Not sure what you are talking about. Regardless, I believe it is in the common good and interest to both resist Islam when or if it attempts to make gains, and repudiate Islam or myths about Islam when discovered. Traditionally it has always been a very violent and oppressive religion, and nothing today gives us any reason to imagine this underlying animus has changed. Pax, Tim

Thank you for sharing that link to the Star article. It was most interesting. TY.

Appearances are deceiving.