Intelligent Design

Quote of the Day

Spread the love

We — yes, we — are the new barbarians, the new nazis.

We who dunit, we who enabled it, we who funded it, we who voted for it (and those who did not bother to vote or speak), we who did not stand up against it, we who tolerated it, we who looked the other way, we who allowed other interests to crowd out the critical issue of integrity in leadership, we who went along with a civilisation setting out on a bloody march of folly. We who occasionally said something but allowed this to drift off the agenda of issues . . . this is the new slave trade, no it is worse, it is direct mass killing of the helpless, in numbers that dwarf the slave trade.

From now on, I will entertain no one who tries to play the slavery-racism card who does not instantly pass the abortion holocaust test.

Every last one of us, me too, is guilty.

God, forgive us.

How can we ever find forgiveness for the bloodguilt that stains not only our hands but our hearts, minds and souls?

We are as the White Rose martyrs indicted Germany: guilty, guilty, guilty.

We should be deeply ashamed at high tech cannibalism in our midst.

Of, the new Dr Mengeles and their blood-guilt tainted research.

How can we hope to profit from the slaughter of the innocents?

This is worse than how can we sweeten our tea with the blood, sweat, toil and tears of the enslaved.

It is our want of shame that is the most deeply telling point of all.

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Let us seek the grace of penitence and forgiveness in the face of the ghosts of the dead from the global abortion holocaust, easily the worst holocaust of all time.

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Let us turn back before it is forever too late.

Thank God, someone has forced us to face what we are doing, and where it is heading.

Let us turn back before it is too late.

From our own KF

I would add that no longer will I treat someone who advocates the slaughter of innocents as merely misguided or mistaken. I will treat them as evil and name them as such.

55 Replies to “Quote of the Day

  1. 1
    SLeBrun says:

    Just to be clear then . . .

    You would absolutely condemn the mass killings of innocent women and children during the Siege of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099))

    You would unconditionally deplore the senseless slaughter of innocents during the Albigensian Crusade (1209 – 1229) wherein the Pope sanctioned the extermination of those he considered heretics? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)

    And you would clearly decry the Massacre of Merindol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Mérindol) in 1545 where, again, religious dissidents were put to the sword.

    Just checking.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes

    SLeBrun

    Now that I’ve answered your questions SL, perhaps you will answer mine.

    Will you absolutely condemn the slaughter of innocent boys and girls by Planned Parenthood?
    Will you unconditionally deplore the actions of those who chop those boys and girls into pieces while their heart is still beating?
    Will you clearly decry the sale of those pieces like meat?

    Just checking.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    How about this quote from a certain PZ Meyer, Barry!

    ‘Or P.Z. Myers’ “brave” defense of abortion:

    [T]he standard bullying tactics of waving bloody fetuses might cow the squeamish, but I’m a biologist. I’ve guillotined rats. I’ve held eyeballs in my hand and peeled them apart with a pair of scissors. I’ve used a wet-vac to clean up a lake of half-clotted blood from an exsanguinated dog. I’ve opened bodies and watched the intestines do their slow writhing dance, I’ve been elbow deep in blood, I’ve split open cats and stabbed them in the heart with a perfusion needle. I’ve extracted the brains of mice…with a pair of pliers. I’ve scooped brains out of buckets, I’ve counted dendrites in slices cut from the brains of dead babies.

    You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.’

    … from here:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog.....ue-courage

    That’s the second of my quotes of Mark Shea in 2 days, and I’ve fell out with the guy, just before the first! He’s often brilliant, but a twerp at times.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    Barry, you forgot to say in #2, ‘chopped them up ALIVE.’

    I wonder if he’d used them as live bait for fishing. I can’t imagine it would be a problem for PZ Meyer.

    [#2 updated, Barry]

  5. 5
    Roy says:

    SLeBrun @ #1:

    You forgot Moses and Samuel.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    SLeBrun asked us to repudiate evil done hundreds of years ago by people who call themselves Christian. I did.

    I asked SLeBrun to repudiate evil done ten minutes ago.

    [crickets]

    That makes SLeBrun selective about the evil he condemns. And that makes him a hypocrite. How utterly predictable. I knew he would slither back into his hole the minute he saw the challenge.

  7. 7
    anthropic says:

    BA 2 “Will you absolutely condemn the slaughter of innocent boys and girls by Planned Parenthood?
    Will you unconditionally deplore the actions of those who chop those boys and girls into pieces while their heart is still beating?
    Will you clearly decry the sale of those pieces like meat?”
    —————————————————–

    But all this is fine. Because CHOICE!

  8. 8
    SLeBrun says:

    That makes SLeBrun selective about the evil he condemns. And that makes him a hypocrite. How utterly predictable. I knew he would slither back into his hole the minute he saw the challenge.

    First of all, I do not live in the US so was asleep.

    Secondly, my opinion of procedures deemed legal by a majority of Americans is meaningless since it’s not my country and I have no say.

    Thirdly, your vain attempts to segregate participants on this blog is laughable; if you really want to change thing in America why aren’t you trying to change the laws, participate in the proscribed process of determining what is and what isn’t allowed? Maybe you are but from what I can tell you are just beating your drum and declaring yourself ethically and morally correct with a cheap ploy. As well you should know, in a modern democratic society no one book or person or opinion rules the day.

    Fourth, I find your abandonment of any attempt at a dialogue about science and ID crass and repulsive. Your grandstanding will only serve to drive moderates away and Uncommon Descent will further descend into a mutually shouting match. Maybe that’s what you want.

    And finally, since you clearly have no intention at all of treating others with respect and dignity I’m not going to feed your need for attention.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    SL,

    I first note that your remarks above are little more than a diversion of attention, in the teeth of what is plainly the root moral issue and reformation challenge of our time.

    And no, this is not about attention-getting behaviour, it is about mass bloodguilt and our need to wake up and turn back before it is too late.

    The time for neat little rhetorical games and clever talking points is over.

    The pictures and words on the table devastatingly indict us and demand an appropriately sober and serious, face the unwelcome, awful truth, response.

    Namely, the root, catastrophic failure of our whole civilisation to recognise, respect and protect innocent life. Driven by the folly of willfully turning our backs on patent truths and patent moral issues.

    We have discarded the first, foremost right of all.

    The one without which all other rights claims fall to the ground.

    Life.

    That, we must face first and foremost.

    Then, we can face how our general moral problem is that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed or even self-deceived.

    The moral hazard of being human.

    So, yes, I have no problem acknowledging and deploring that in the history of Christendom, there have been some pretty awful moments — as is so for all significant movements in history. (BTW, in the first of your examples, the massacre, I understand, was in defiance of the wishes of the commanders — who had intended and promised to protect, and a key provocation was earlier massacres of pilgrims to holy sites in the 1060’s. Another was the culmination of 400 years of jihad expansionism and depredations including raids on Rome and as far as Ireland.)

    What I find deplorable, is that at the same time, too many of those who (far too often, with an unholy bear-baiting glee . . . ) trot out litanies of the sins of Christendom cannot find it in themselves to acknowledge the major contribution of Christians to reform of law and society, by contrast with say Bernard Lewis in his 1990 epochal essay on The Roots of Muslim Rage:

    . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

    . . . not to mention the even more significant contribution to the rise of modern liberty and democracy, starting from literally the opening words of Alfred’s Book of Dooms, as I recently discussed here at UD.

    But, for cause, I have to tax you with enabling behaviour by way of agenda-serving distraction by way of attempted immoral equivalency. (Even, as I did not realise just how bad things are and failed to speak out enough, often enough.)

    For, right in front of our eyes, we find laid out a great horror, the worst all-time holocaust.

    One, that taints our increasingly post-Christian civilisation with mass bloodguilt, one of the most corrupting influences of all.

    For, how can one pay compensation for innocent blood, given the yardstick set for us, a single soul outweighs the wealth of a planet. (The only relevant currency for blood is blood, then, and therein lies the doctrine of atonement at the heart of the Christian gospel. and the implication that those who insist on being a plague upon the earth reach a point where the cup of iniquity runs over and in defence of humanity such a destructive power must be shattered. Which, is what happened to the nazis. And, I fear, I tremble, it is the terrible logic that our civilisation is now looking at.)

    In the USA alone, subsidised by the taxpayer at 1/2 bn per year, we have over 1 mn unborn children killed in abortion clinics per year . . . an unreported 9/11 per DAY. Many of these are now leading to the sort of high tech cannibalistic harvesting for tainted so-called medical research that condemned Mengele and other medical doctors forever.

    The global willfully induced abortion total in the past generation is at least many hundreds of millions, at a rate of maybe 40+ mn per year. In Asia, leading countries to dangerous sex imbalances due to selective killing of daughters in the womb. Something that itself speaks with chilling force.

    We are all nazis and nazi enablers now, guilty, guilty, guilty.

    The ghosts of the White Rose martyrs cry up against us.

    We have become what we once paid an awful price in blood to stop.

    For shame!

    This is and must be the first civil rights crisis of our time, as the right to life is the premise of all rights.

    And, it is directly connected to all the other warped agendas, starting with sex without responsibility and with addictive, too often morally dubious pleasure as a god. The willful breakdown of freedom of expression (think, the porn plague), the manipulation of thought on rights, the breakdown of marriage the mentality that says, I deem the tail of a sheep a fifth leg and if you object that a tail cannot be a leg you are a bigot to be robbed of livelihood, reputation, home and more are all connected. Voting for politicians who will put in judges who will warp law to support perversities and bloodguilt, is also connected.

    And more, a march of willful folly to ruin.

    Let us wake up and try, at least try to recognise what we have done and seek forgiveness and reformation.

    If we do not, we will commit suicide as a civilisation.

    Actually, on our birth rates [directly connected, again], we already are doing so.

    And no, this is decidedly not an “American” issue.

    The guilt is global, the cry to heaven of the ghosts of hundreds and hundreds of millions is against us all.

    And the same folly is bringing us to the brink of nuclear-armed global war as we speak, directly implicating the sort of people we have been voting into office for years and years, the media who have manipulated us, and we the public who love it so.

    Guilty, guilty, guilty.

    Folly, folly, folly.

    Let us wake up, seek forgiveness and cleansing, turning back before it is too late.

    The time for clever talking point games is over.

    We are the new nazis and nazi enablers.

    God help us.

    KF

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: The matters in question here are directly connected to the imposition of the lab coat clad worldview-level ideological agenda of a priori evolutionary materialism, as long since warned against 2350 years ago by Plato in the Laws, Bk X:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.

    So, yes, there is a debate over matters of science –on which I find that the all too commonly seen refusal of ever so many to soundly address the source of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is a telling indicator that the core of the issue is not mere seminar room discussion of scientific themes but the imposition of a worldview level ideology dressed up in a lab coat, with serious and wide ranging consequences, one of which is the undermining of the value of life as perceived.

    Which is a decisive issue not only for science in society, but for us all in it own right, as the right to life is being undermined before our eyes.

    While we sit by enabling, or worse.

    That has to stop, and the people who have now forced us to face the awful truth should be thanked.

    Instead, they are already being investigated, following the well known shoot at the unwelcome messenger to silence the message tactic.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Imposed? Yes, let us again pay close attention to Lewontin’s notorious remarks in the NYRB, 1997:

    . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: The issue is moral foundations, and the consequences of undermining such.

    Here is Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

    Without responsible freedom, both morality and rationality are utterly undermined, ending in self-referential incoherence. But as has been so often the case in marches of folly, self-falsifying agendas can be powerful tools in the hands of manipulators seeking to pull a community, state or civilisation down a path to their perceived advantage.

    But marches of folly typically end in chaos and shipwreck.

    And, as early as 1831, Heine warned in one of the most chillingly prophetic pieces in modern literature:

    Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [–> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

    The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

    Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world.

    At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [–> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [–> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]

  13. 13
    Virgil Cain says:

    SLe:

    Fourth, I find your abandonment of any attempt at a dialogue about science and ID crass and repulsive.

    LoL! What an ignorant thing to say. There is only so much to talk about wrt ID and science and all of it has been laid down. Too bad your position doesn’t have anything or we could compare.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    Barry,

    SLeBrun #8: ‘respect and dignity’! Love it!

  15. 15
    harry says:

    Barry Arrington, Kairosfocus,

    I am certain we agree that the one who is ultimately behind the contemporary assault on civilization, the one who is engineering the merciless, murderous and unprecedented assault on the image of God in innocent humanity, is the one Christ referred to as “the prince of this world,” the one who St. Peter assures us prowls the Earth “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

    It is obvious to me that both of you “hunger and thirst for justice” (Mt 5:6) and do so with an intellect and passion that is all too infrequently found in the members of the Body of Christ.

    As a Roman Catholic who was a Pro-Life activist before Roe, and one who has spoken in many Protestant Churches as a representative of a state-wide Pro-Life organization affiliated with the NRLC, I can say that I have personally experienced, through the immediate, positive response of various congregations, the Spirit of Christ in my Protestant brothers and sisters in the Lord. I eventually saw many of them practice peaceful, passive civil disobedience that landed them in jail and cost them their jobs. It was obvious to me that they possessed the Spirit of the One Who said, “For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” They had done what they did for His sake, the forgotten, neglected beggar Lazarus of our times, the helpless stranger the world refuses to make welcome: Christ in the least of His brethren, the innocent child in the womb.

    I assume that both of you see as I do that the prince of this world, that roaring lion in a perpetual rage, has used a “divide and conquer” strategy against his opponent, which is the Body of Christ on Earth. I assume both of you will agree with me that this strategy of his has, to our shame, been a significant factor in the success he has had up to now in his vicious, hate-filled assault on the image of God in innocent humanity.

    I further assume that both of you agree with me that there is such a thing as a moral, justifiable war, and that never has such a war, or any war, been fought without instances of unjustifiable behavior, except the one led by Michael against the fallen angels, against the prince of this world and his minions.

    To get the Church’s war against the Albigensians in its proper perspective I would refer you to the following article:

    Our New Albigensian Age

    It was addressed to Catholics and contains some not-very-diplomatic remarks about Protestants. I apologize for that. Not everyone sees the importance of the restoration of the wholeness of the Body of Christ on Earth. I recommend it to you anyway because it exposes the striking similarities between what brought about the Church’s war against Albigensianism and the enemy we face today. I beg you to look past the offensive remarks for the sake of the fact that all Christians need to understand that what we oppose today is not really new, it is a warmed over version of a previous assault on civilization and innocent humanity waged by the very same corrupt, evil prince.

    As for the crusades, Muslim jihadists had conquered two thirds of Christendom and were aggressively assaulting the last third. Again, I am not arguing that everything done in the crusades was justifiable. I am only pointing out that those of us who are glad they weren’t raised as Muslims should also be glad the Church launched the crusades. And what kind of enemy was the Church facing? I am confident that readers here are fully aware of the diabolical torture, crucifixions and sexual trafficking of Christians currently taking place in the Middle East. Evil similarly diabolical and ferocious is what the Church was facing back then, and it courageously did what it had to do in order to preserve Christianity for you and me. And yes, it is very difficult for those of us with fallen natures to wage a just war with the virtue of Michael.

  16. 16
    Barry Arrington says:

    harry,

    When I deplore events that occurred over 1,000 years ago, I should not be misunderstood. I am deploring the actions of those particular people at that particular time and nothing else.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    SLeBrun slithers out of his hole and hisses “The slaughter is legal! So I won’t condemn it.”

    Well. SLeBrun, the Holocaust was legal. Not a single internal law of Germany was transgressed. So, may I infer that since you are OK with everything that is legal, you are OK with the Holocaust?

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    So to review, SLeBrun asked if I would condemn certain atrocities. I did.

    I then asked him:

    Will you absolutely condemn the slaughter of innocent boys and girls by Planned Parenthood?
    Will you unconditionally deplore the actions of those who chop those boys and girls into pieces while their heart is still beating?
    Will you clearly decry the sale of those pieces like meat?

    SLeBrun’s responses @ 8:
    No I will not absolutely condemn the slaughter.
    No I will not unconditionally deplore the actions.
    No I will not clearly decry the sale.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that someone who gets all hot and bothered and indignant about atrocities that occurred 1,000 years ago, can’t seem to bestir himself to lift a finger of protest against atrocities occurring right under his nose?

    Strange that. And evil.

  19. 19
    mike1962 says:

    PeeZee Myers: You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat.

    This explains a lot.

    Nothing more needs to be said about someone like this.

    PeeZee would have made a great Nazi prison guard.

  20. 20
    SLeBrun says:

    No I will not absolutely condemn the slaughter.
    No I will not unconditionally deplore the actions.
    No I will not clearly decry the sale.

    No, I choose NOT to respond to you because of your attitude and your methods. You are using a particular ethical, moral topic to segregate people into crude categories and that’s divisive which is not the way to build bridges and, hopefully, consensus. I think you are too much enjoying your soap-box stance which is only widening the gulfs in the scientific landscapes.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that someone who gets all hot and bothered and indignant about atrocities that occurred 1,000 years ago, can’t seem to bestir himself to lift a finger of protest against atrocities occurring right under his nose?

    I consider it much different that the atrocities I referred to were done in the name of Christ. That interpretations of Holy Scriptures were used to justify those occurrences. I have a deep-seated uncertainty of how to predict reactions of Christians to situations considering the past history. I’m glad you seen those past events in the same way I do but I wonder . . . where were Christians like you when the Cathars were being burned to death? If Holy Scripture condemns their actions then how did they occur? How do I know that 20 or 30 years from now a Christian cabal won’t go back to persecuting what they consider to be heretics?

  21. 21
    Mung says:

    but I wonder . . . where were Christians like you when the Cathars were being burned to death?

    I am going to go way out on a limb here and say Barry wasn’t even born yet.

  22. 22
    SteRusJon says:

    SLeBrun writes:

    “Secondly, my opinion of procedures deemed legal by a majority of Americans is meaningless since it’s not my country and I have no say.”

    By that logic, he does not feel he has any right to decry any abusive behavior by anyone else on anyone other than himself since all others are in some other jurisdiction than his own. More than that, he perceives no obligation to do so. In other words, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” That is the mother of all cop outs. A diversion first used to thwart investigation into the first murderous act of mankind.

    Further on, SLeBrun writes:
    “No, I choose NOT to respond to you…” (referring to BA’s three challenge questions in #2)

    There is, in my opinion, no acceptable justification that can fill in the ellipses. Certainly not one as weak as the one given. For a practice, abortion, that has destroyed so many of my brothers, and more so, my sisters, all who decry its nonchalant acceptance should, I think, take any opportunity to let others know they stand in staunch opposition. SLeBrun’s serpentile excuse tells me where he really stands. SLeBrun stands on the side of evil. He could not care less about the needs of the most helpless among us.

    For shame, SLeBrun!

    Stephen

  23. 23
    SLeBrun says:

    SLeBrun’s serpentile excuse tells me where he really stands. SLeBrun stands on the side of evil. He could not care less about the needs of the most helpless among us.

    Prejudged again.

    When are you guys going to learn how to carry on a real ethical debate wherein people are not labelled and vilified ahead of time?

    When are you going to learn how to accept the opinion of others before you decide whether or not you agree with it?

    If I decide to offer my opinion it will be only after you all decide to NOT tag me with divisive and defamatory labels. I don’t mind you disagreeing with me. I do mind you NOT committing to carrying on a real debate when you’ve already made up your mind what is right and what is wrong.

    I’m not going to bother when there is no point. And all I’ve heard from you so far is: our minds are made up, you’re wrong and we’re right. And you haven’t even heard my opinion yet. You’ve just guessed. But your reaction is: if you don’t jump onto our bandwagon you must be against us so, you’re evil. You are closed minded and shut down to real debate. So, again, there is no point.

  24. 24
    Barry Arrington says:

    Not only is SLeBrun evil; he is an evil coward. I answered his questions with alacrity. I told him where I stand on the issues he raised. I condemned the atrocities he mentioned without reservation.

    Yet he is too cowardly to take a stand and condemn chopping little girls and boys into pieces and selling the pieces. Instead, he lies about the reason he refuses to answer to cover his cowardice.

    You are using a particular ethical, moral topic to segregate people into crude categories . . .

    I don’t know about “crude,” but yes I am trying to separate people into categories. I am trying to separate people into those who favor chopping little girls and boys into pieces and selling the pieces, and those who don’t.

    It is glaringly obvious that if you opposed that practice you would say so. Everyone knows the only reason that you don’t is because you in fact do favor the practice, and you know that admitting the truth will destroy your credibility.

    So you make up lies about why you don’t admit the truth. You are an evil little viper SLeBrun; you have spewed your venom. Feel free to crawl back into your hole.

  25. 25
    SteRusJon says:

    SLeBrun,

    I did not prejudge you. I judged you based on your actions after you acted. You were given an opportunity to stand up and defend the unborn. You found a way to avoid taking a stand with a lame, for me, unbelievable, excuse. I judged the person I was shown. If you wish me to judge you differently, show me a better person next time.

    I have witnessed diversions of all sorts here to justify positions that devalue various individuals. There is a very black and white line that defines a human being’s life and value. A human being’s life and full value begins at conception. At that instant, a complete human being has begun development. Anyone, except for self-defence (serious and unavoidable risk to the life or health of the mother), who ends that life, willfully, is morally (legality is beside the point) guilty of murder. Anyone, accidentally causing an end to that life, is morality guilty of manslaughter.

    If you don’t like my judgement of you, state what you believe as I just did. State your reasoning. Make your case for why you draw the lines you do and I’ll judge based on your words rather than your actions.

    Stephen

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    SL:

    Pardon, but your tactics of distractive red herring, led away to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems set alight to distract attention, cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere are all too drearily familiar.

    There is an issue of the largest holocaust in history ongoing as we speak on the table. Here, further manifest in a pattern of paid transfers of parts of the victims to biomedical establishments for the carrying out of alleged medical research.

    P Z Myers has made his position explicit, he sees only meat there and it is full steam ahead.

    In short, his amorality, a concommitant of a priori evolutionary materialism, is on full public display. We must at least thank him for being plain.

    Any person of good will and common decency, should wake up and do serious rethinking regarding what is on the table.

    Unborn human beings, yes earlier in development and far more innocent than we are, have been slaughtered by the hundreds of millions around the world with the complicity of the state, media and public — slaughtered in the main as they are inconvenient or undesired, under false colours of “rights” and so the whole discourse of rights, freedoms, responsibilities in public, law and courts has been increasingly warped . . . undermining the civil peace of justice. Where, the industry is now so benumbed that parts are being passed to carry out tainted research, which has now been exposed.

    Evasions, turnabout rhetorical gambits, attempts to smear and shoot at the messenger etc simply tell us that we are facing enabling behaviour.

    All I will say is that Medicine spent nearly a half century cleansing the track record of tainted research in order to restore its ethical credibility.

    This is kairos, and maybe even krisis.

    It is time for decision and sound action at a moment of truth.

    I suggest to you that when one faces a horror of this magnitude, involving mass bloodguilt, it is not the exposed holocaust that is in question, but us.

    I for one am done with this is a backburner issue, I was wrong to ever let it slip away from the forefront of my thinking on why we are in an age of a new barbarism.

    The right to life is the first, foremost right.

    I return this to its due place, up front centre.

    KF

  27. 27
    Mung says:

    P Z Myers has made his position explicit, he sees only meat there and it is full steam ahead.

    Then he should have no problem cooking it and eating it.

    Unless he’s just a pathetic liar.

  28. 28
    Axel says:

    I was thinking that. I was wondering if P Z Myers would baulk at throwing baby parts on a barbecue – lets say having killed it in the process of dismembering it or stabbing it or whatever.

  29. 29
    bb says:

    SLeBrun,

    If you can’t clearly and concisely answer the following, you have a problem with honesty. Should Jeffrey Dahmer have avoided prison if he bought his “groceries” at Planned Parenthood?

  30. 30
    SLeBrun says:

    So you make up lies about why you don’t admit the truth. You are an evil little viper SLeBrun; you have spewed your venom. Feel free to crawl back into your hole.

    Tried, convected, sentenced.

    You found a way to avoid taking a stand with a lame, for me, unbelievable, excuse. I judged the person I was shown. If you wish me to judge you differently, show me a better person next time.

    But you already made a judgement didn’t you? Now I have to work to change it?

    Pardon, but your tactics of distractive red herring, led away to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems set alight to distract attention, cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere are all too drearily familiar.

    Because you think I might not agree with you?

    Then he should have no problem cooking it and eating it.

    Unless he’s just a pathetic liar.

    You are just sick. But I see no one telling you off. Is that because you agree with Barry over his segregation issue?

    I was thinking that. I was wondering if P Z Myers would baulk at throwing baby parts on a barbecue – lets say having killed it in the process of dismembering it or stabbing it or whatever.

    The fact that any of you condone comments like this is pretty telling don’t you think?

    If you can’t clearly and concisely answer the following, you have a problem with honesty. Should Jeffrey Dahmer have avoided prison if he bought his “groceries” at Planned Parenthood?

    Again, sick, sick, sick.

    I tell you what I think. I think abortions should be pretty exceptional. I think they should be a last option. I think people should be a lot more careful about who they sleep with and should practice safe sex and birth control until they’re sure they want children.

    I think lots of women who decide to get abortions are pretty desperate and suffering. There have been lots of cases of Irish women going to back-street abortionists or using coat hangers because they are so desperate. Thereby putting their own lives at risk. Many of them have abusive husbands or boyfriends. Ireland is a Catholic country and divorce wasn’t even an option ’til recently.

    I hope someday there are NO abortions. I don’t know what else to do for the women who will risk killing themselves to get rid of a pregnancy. But the social workers who deal with them are pretty clear what they think. I’m not there, at the coal-face, counselling or performing any procedures. I don’t know what else can be done . . .

    It’s a bad situation all around. There is no good solution. And I think reducing the whole problem down to a single, divisive point isn’t helping. As a society we have to deal with this, we have to compromise and come to a consensus. We can’t just condemn people who disagree with us.

    But from what I’ve read here you folks don’t see it that way. And you’ll vilify any and all who see it differently.

  31. 31
    harry says:

    SLeBrun,

    Society doesn’t accept killing another human being, one who is a completely innocent victim, as being a legitimate solution to one’s personal problems, no matter how tragic one’s circumstances are — except in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

    Many, many women have found themselves in that situation who didn’t resort to abortion. Some received love and support from family and friends, others didn’t. Some had their baby and put it up for adoption and went on with life. Others kept their child, raised the boy or girl and were thrilled with their decision to keep their child. In any event, these women did not kill an innocent human being as a solution to their problem. What makes us so sure the women who obtained the “services” of “back-street” abortionists couldn’t have done the same thing? That they were “pretty desperate and suffering” and saw no other option means that society in general and Christians in particular needed to be more responsive and compassionate to those in tragic situations. That is the appropriate response to the problem. Just telling them they can always “legally” kill their own child is the height of selfish cruelty.

    What about the “hard cases”?

    — Life of the mother: Any women who is told by their doctor they must get an abortion to save their life needs to find another doctor who is up to speed with the advances of modern medicine. It is extremely rare that that situation really exists and if it does, an ethical physician will do all he can to save both mother and child. If it is only possible to save the mother, he does that, but doesn’t deliberately kill the child in the process.

    — Rape: Killing the child does not “un-rape” the woman. It only adds the trauma of the murder of an innocent child to the trauma of the rape. Why should children get the death penalty for the crimes of their fathers?

    — Incest: “Legal” abortion increases instances of incest. Abortionists aren’t known for asking who the father is when a minor is brought in pregnant. That wouldn’t be good for business. Dad can repeatedly impregnate his daughter and repeatedly bring her in for an abortion without being reported. Incest is indeed terrible. “Legal” abortion promotes it.

    Sometimes there just can’t be exceptions. What exceptions would be acceptable for slavery? There are no legitimate exceptions for slavery. It is the same with killing innocent human beings to solve our personal problems. That simply cannot be allowed and there can be no exceptions.

    What separates civilization from savage barbarism is that the state prohibits the powerful from trampling upon those who are less powerful. When the Supreme Court abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the child in womb, a protection that had been afforded to them for over a hundred years in America by state laws put on the books by the elected representatives of the people, it struck down not only the democratic process, but civilization as well.

    It is meaningful that the laws protecting the life of the child in the womb were put on the books in the era in which slavery was brought to an end. America had finally established in law what its Declaration of Independence proclaimed: that all humanity was created with equal rights and dignity, and that the very purpose of the state was to protect those rights. The Roe vs. Wade decision obliterated that progress.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    SL:

    I see, sadly but predictably, you studiously avoid addressing the substance and double down on attempted side tracking. Here, while going on to rhetorically project blame and then pretending to be the vilified, innocent victim.

    The only problem with that is, scroll up to comment no 1 and see that you threw the first punch (so have no right to claim, he hit back first), hoping to poison the well, hoping to poison, cloud, polarise the atmosphere, hoping to distract. (Where, you have never come back and acknowledged the force of responses, nor have you set the atrocity cases you picked from a thousand years past in reasonable context, say cf 9 above and the onward linked.)

    Precisely the tactics of those trying to rhetorically defend the indefensible.

    This, in the face of what is plainly the worst — and ongoing — holocaust of all time, dwarfing everything that has hitherto shocked the world. But then, I recall how, while the Communist mass murders were still in progress (especially the killing fields of Cambodia) there was a distinct lack of headlines and a refusal to connect dots.

    Okie, let me repeat from above:

    ___________

    >>Pardon, but your tactics of distractive red herring, led away to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems set alight to distract attention, cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere are all too drearily familiar.

    There is an issue of the largest holocaust in history ongoing as we speak on the table. Here, further manifest in a pattern of paid transfers of parts of the victims to biomedical establishments for the carrying out of alleged medical research.

    P Z Myers has made his position explicit, he sees only meat there and it is full steam ahead.

    In short, his amorality, a concommitant of a priori evolutionary materialism, is on full public display. We must at least thank him for being plain.

    Any person of good will and common decency, should wake up and do serious rethinking regarding what is on the table.

    Unborn human beings, yes earlier in development and far more innocent than we are, have been slaughtered by the hundreds of millions around the world with the complicity of the state, media and public — slaughtered in the main as they are inconvenient or undesired, under false colours of “rights” and so the whole discourse of rights, freedoms, responsibilities in public, law and courts has been increasingly warped . . . undermining the civil peace of justice. Where, the industry is now so benumbed that parts are being passed to carry out tainted research, which has now been exposed.

    Evasions, turnabout rhetorical gambits, attempts to smear and shoot at the messenger etc simply tell us that we are facing enabling behaviour.

    All I will say is that Medicine spent nearly a half century cleansing the track record of tainted research in order to restore its ethical credibility.

    This is kairos, and maybe even krisis.

    It is time for decision and sound action at a moment of truth.

    I suggest to you that when one faces a horror of this magnitude, involving mass bloodguilt, it is not the exposed holocaust that is in question, but us.

    I for one am done with this is a backburner issue, I was wrong to ever let it slip away from the forefront of my thinking on why we are in an age of a new barbarism.

    The right to life is the first, foremost right.

    I return this to its due place, up front centre.>>
    _______________

    It is time to wake up.

    KF

  33. 33
    harry says:

    kairosfocus

    This is kairos, and maybe even krisis.

    It is time for decision and sound action at a moment of truth.

    I suggest to you that when one faces a horror of this magnitude, involving mass bloodguilt, it is not the exposed holocaust that is in question, but us.

    I for one am done with this is a backburner issue, I was wrong to ever let it slip away from the forefront of my thinking on why we are in an age of a new barbarism.

    The right to life is the first, foremost right.

    I return this to its due place, up front centre

    Amen. Whatever brought you to those conclusions needs to be endlessly repeated for the sake of others. God bless you, kairosfocus!

  34. 34
    harry says:

    kairosfocus,

    I re-read my post. Let me clarify that if the horror of the situation is what “brought you to those conclusions” then I certainly don’t want those horrors to be “endlessly repeated.” ;o)

    What I meant is that whatever train of thought brought you to those conclusions needs to be proposed to others.

    You probably realized that. ;o)

    God bless you.

  35. 35
    EugeneS says:

    I think many Orthodox Christian priests can testify to the fact that abortion is a grievous sin that has tremendously negative consequences to the woman’s existence, to all aspects of it starting from physical health to mental and finally to spiritual well being. There are no exceptions. Even if physical health is not visibly immediately affected, it will show up sooner or later. A woman is designed to be a mother. That is a given.

    In Russia this problem is of the scale of catastrophe really. Only very recently did the country overcome what demographers had labeled as the ‘Russian cross’: the intersection of birth and mortality rates that happened under Yeltsin (obviously with birth rate plummeting and mortality rate shooting up as a result of this horrible man’s ‘reforms’). We are suffering what is due: Soviet Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

  36. 36
    Eugen says:

    Kairos

    your thoughtful comments may shake somebody and wake them up but will not help to those who are dead inside.

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EugeneS

    True. It has a very serious and damaging effect on men also. Directly, in cases where they are involved, and indirectly from the women in their lives they love and care for.
    Society itself suffers from ‘the culture of death’ and abortion causes a lot of guilt and harm, even among people who haven’t been involved in it at all.
    The simple demographic nightmare you mention is one consequence.
    It’s hopeful that as the Christian faith returns (however slowly) to Russia, the situation is improving there.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    Harry,

    Thanks.

    I have always understood abortion to be awful, the taking of the life of an unborn child. I have always understood that there has been an institutional coup that has entrenched abortionism and which we need to object to.

    I have always understood how corrupting bloodguilt is in politics, the media and thought, as there is just no compensation we can make for the willful taking of innocent life. (I come from a country where violence became entangled with politics, leading to a low scale civil war including murder of one of my unofficial aunts in a context of reckless political agitation.)

    But, I had thought, this is an issue that while we can object to, the balance of institutional power was such that apart from objection and addressing the wider breakdown of our civilisation there was little to do.

    The series of videos on the Dr Mengele culture among abortionists got my attention bigtime and changed my mind.

    The time for reckoning on which battles to fight, which to simply hold on is over.

    The Dr Mengele, high tech cannibalism of tainted medical research feeding off innocent blood is a decisive break-point, a krisis –> place, act, situation of judgement.

    My FIRST political position, acquired at mother’s knee was anti-fascism. (Which should help you understand just how outrageous is the attempt to push on Bible-believing Christians tags such as “Christofascist” is.)

    And, I know just what that monster Dr Mengele represents.

    Dark, demonic medicine and science dressed up in the false lab coats of vicious curiosity.

    These new Dr Mengeles — yes, betrayers of the Hippocratic Oath that is what you are and your own behaviour and words on camera prove it beyond any doubt . . . so don’t even try to pretend to wounded innocence and forget the shoot at the messenger game — demonstrate that we are dealing with implacable, demonically motivated, nihilistic enemies of humanity.

    Their agenda has to be decisively exposed, utterly discredited, broken, and then shattered into shards so small and scattered that this juggernaut cannot be reconstructed.

    And, along with several other nihilistic agendas, this is a parallel, front burner priority for our programme of action.

    Our civilisation is on a march of demonic, suicidal folly and evil headed straight over the cliff and we need to wake up and stop then turn back now, before the ground gives way underfoot and we fall into the yawning abyss.

    Let us seek that grace that enables us to repent and seek reformation, we are at the brink of the Rom 1 world abyss:

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

    KF

  39. 39
    bb says:

    The fact that any of you condone comments like this is pretty telling don’t you think?

    If you can’t clearly and concisely answer the following, you have a problem with honesty. Should Jeffrey Dahmer have avoided prison if he bought his “groceries” at Planned Parenthood

    SLeBrun,

    It’s a yes/no question, and only one answer is moral.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    bb, at this stage, it is plain that SL has been playing the threadjacking troll aiming to pull us away from focus on what to do in the face of — ongoing — the worst holocaust in history; which indicts our whole civilisation. It is time to put first things first and (having dealt with them) set distractions to one side. While we are at it we too need to be careful not to become overly angered or reckless and uncivil. KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    AS, Eugen & EugenS:

    Thanks for a reminder.

    Let us pray and work, that a critical mass will wake up from the bewitchment of folly in time that we can turn our civilisation back before the cliff’s edge disintegrates underfoot.

    God, is gracious.

    And, power to repent is a gift of that grace.

    KF

    PS: I think some people trying to suggest how dare you speak to us in strong terms need to understand what is on the table and what enabling such implies. So, let us restrain ourselves on tone but be unyielding on substance.

  42. 42
    EugeneS says:

    KF,

    I have a suspicion that I might have left some of your questions unanswered a while ago. Please tell me if that is the case. Thanks.

  43. 43
    SLeBrun says:

    If you can’t clearly and concisely answer the following, you have a problem with honesty. Should Jeffrey Dahmer have avoided prison if he bought his “groceries” at Planned Parenthood

    It’s a yes/no question, and only one answer is moral.

    I’m guessing that if I answer yes then you will say I’m an evil person. If I say no then you will ask me what the difference is between that scenario and what you perceive has been happening with Planned Parenthood. So why no be honest and just ask me about Planned Parenthood since there’s no way I’m going to say that Dahmer should/could have avoided prison? Or are you, like many others on this post, just trying to segregate posters into good and bad categories?

    Are you really wanting to talk about the issues or to just promote your opinion? It sounds like you’re set in your opinion and aren’t really open to a real conversation. But I’m happy to be proved incorrect.So I will refrain from deciding even though you framed the question in a very inflammatory fashion.

    You also pretend to ‘know’ what Dahmer’s real ‘turn on’ and motivations were. Which I think is a bit scary and assumptive. So, again, are you just playing the ‘shock’ question gambit in an attempt to back your ‘opponent’ into a corner? Are you really interested in a dialogue?

  44. 44
    Barry Arrington says:

    SLeBrun pops his head out of his hole and with his lying forked tongue hisses “Are you really interested in a dialogue?”

    The question cannot be answered in a vacuum. About some things there can be a good faith dialogue. About other things it is not possible to dialogue in good faith. Some things should be literally unthinkable. Sadly they are not. Here are some examples of things about which I am not open to dialogue:

    1. The relative merits of genocide.
    2. Whether the Holocaust was really so bad.
    3. Whether the Jews “had it coming”?
    4. Whether little boys and girls should be chopped into pieces and the pieces sold like meat.

    These things are not up for debate on this site. Nor should they be up for debate anywhere else. Indeed, raising any of these for debate as if there is something to debate is itself evil.

  45. 45
    SLeBrun says:

    SLeBrun pops his head out of his hole and with his lying forked tongue hisses “Are you really interested in a dialogue?”

    I actually agree with you about your four points. But you’re such a . . . jerk I’m not going to bother pursuing it further.

    Have fun slapping each other on the back because you outed another materialist. One who might have been willing to stand with you in certain situations. You could have built a bridge but you burned the supports before it even got started. Well done.

  46. 46
    Silver Asiatic says:

    SLeBrun

    It’s not just a question of arriving at an arbitrary agreement on various things. That’s like a random sort and then we happen to both like a certain color or favorite food.

    But it has to be a deeper recognition of the evil inherent in those 4 items. I think that’s the basis of a real dialogue.

    Otherwise, it is as you made it seem … everything is open for discussion. That’s the basic materialist viewpoint. We just saw Zachriel equivocating on the value of human life itself.

    It’s not ‘materialists’ that should be outed, but ‘materialism’. It’s that mind-set that necessarily results in an acceptance of any manner of evil.

  47. 47
    Barry Arrington says:

    SleBrun

    You could have built a bridge but you burned the supports before it even got started.

    Liar. You showed your colors from the start when you posed a challenge, which was met, and then skulked off like a coward when you were asked a simple question. We won’t miss you. If you agreed on point 4 you could have said so days ago. Instead, you refused. Telling.

  48. 48
    SLeBrun says:

    It’s not ‘materialists’ that should be outed, but ‘materialism’. It’s that mind-set that necessarily results in an acceptance of any manner of evil.

    Nice to see your prejudice out in the open. At least I know where I stand. And why I won’t bother trying to have a discussion with you.

    Liar. You showed your colors from the start when you posed a challenge, which was met, and then skulked off like a coward when you were asked a simple question. We won’t miss you. If you agreed on point 4 you could have said so days ago. Instead, you refused. Telling.

    I said I agreed on your four points in my last post. I guess you have reading comprehension issues.

    The reason I chose to delay offering my opinion is because of your confrontational and bias attitude. You have an unpleasant and acrimonious belligerent style which makes me wonder why anyone would bother trying to have a civilised discussion with you.

    It’s your call and your blog. But I can’t see why I should bother taking much time trying to explain my view to someone who has already decided I’m wrong.

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    SLeBrun

    Nice to see your prejudice out in the open. At least I know where I stand. And why I won’t bother trying to have a discussion with you.

    I don’t think it’s prejudice to simply state what materialism is. The strange thing for me is to see people who openly proclaim materialism, suddenly get upset when the amoral quality of materialism is mentioned.

    That’s something you need to reconcile for yourself. You seem quite upset to see moral criticisms of materialism.

    But it’s like an atheist getting upset because someone says that “atheism is Godless”. You chose materialism for a reason. You have to accept what comes along with it.

  50. 50
    Barry Arrington says:

    SLeBrun,

    The reason I chose to delay offering my opinion is because of your confrontational and bias attitude.

    Not only are you a liar; you are not a very good one. I invite readers to look at my question in comment 2. Not only is it not “confrontational;” its tone and format were an exact mirror of SLeBrun’s question at 1.

    You keep saying you are going away. Please do so.

  51. 51
    bb says:

    SLeBrun,

    I’m guessing that if I answer yes then you will say I’m an evil person. If I say no then you will ask me what the difference is between that scenario and what you perceive has been happening with Planned Parenthood.

    That’s right! Because the reality is there is no difference between Planned Parenthood, those they supply, and Jeffrey Dahmer. It really is that clear cut. No amount of demagoguing over the suffering of property owners, oops…. (see slavery), women, makes any difference to the clear moral violation that abortion is.

    So why no be honest and just ask me about Planned Parenthood since there’s no way I’m going to say that Dahmer should/could have avoided prison?

    What you indicate is you know it is true that there is no difference, but you refuse to concede possibly because you have a seared conscience, or self-interest, a fear of peers, the guilt of pressuring an inconveniently and embarrassingly pregnant girlfriend to kill her child for your sake, if you’re a male. That is all speculation on my part, but I don’t think I’m far off.

    Your morality is so pliable that you can justify Soylent Green with some twisted rationalism. It sounds like “rational”. It has the same root, but is the opposite. You’re a smart person, but very foolish simultaneously.

    Romans 1 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

    While you’re living, it’s never too late to repent, and ask God’s grace. According to the Old Testament, God forgave King Manasseh, who made worship of Baal, and other Canaanite gods, the state religion. Child sacrifice was the result, but Manasseh repented in the end. So can you. 2 Kings 21 (emphasis mine):

    … 6 Also he made his son pass through the fire[threw his son into the red hot arms of a bronze idol], practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritists and mediums. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.

    […]16 Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides his sin by which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the Lord.

  52. 52
    bb says:

    The reason I chose to delay offering my opinion is because of your confrontational and bias attitude. You have an unpleasant and acrimonious belligerent style which makes me wonder why anyone would bother trying to have a civilised discussion with you.

    It’s your call and your blog. But I can’t see why I should bother taking much time trying to explain my view to someone who has already decided I’m wrong.

    SLeBrun is now the victim. Admits no guilt for the mass butchery his worldview is responsible for.

  53. 53
    dl says:

    SLeBrun

    I’m pro-life, and I assume you are not.

    I’m not a Bible thumper. If you look through my limited posts on this board, you’ll see that I have serious problems with the Bible. I’m mentioning my opinion of the Bible only because your first comment seems to be targeting Christians.

    I’m definitely not a fan of Arrington. I agree with him on the ID issue (which to me is more important than the abortion issue), but I think he’s a bully and uses lawyer tactics to persuade without regard to the truth. I know I’m risking the “ban button”, but this is such a black and white issue that I’m willing to risk it.

    You asked him some questions that were meant to make BA (or whoever responded) hem and haw, but you were answered with clear, definitive, unequivocal responses. You were asked questions with the same tone, and you complained about the tone and intent.

    I know and love some people who have had abortions. I don’t think they are evil, unredeemable people, but the abortions were bad (I would say murder or at least negligent manslaughter) acts.

    If your initial comment was sincere, you should at least be willing to answer the questions that were asked. Just say “yes but”, or “no and”. Some people will disregard everything you say, but at least you would have a chance of making a point.

  54. 54
    EugeneS says:

    SA,

    Thank you very much for your kind words.

  55. 55
    EugeneS says:

    KF,

    “So, let us restrain ourselves on tone but be unyielding on substance.”

    Nicely put.

Leave a Reply