Saying "Pro-Life" (video)

Sir, follow the bouncing ball:

If God exists, and if said God is Jesus, it follows that what said God revealed is true--which also means anything that conflicts with this is false.

If there is a God, and if that God is Jesus, it is reasonable, then, to believe what that God revealed and also reasonable to reject anything that does not conform to it.

If there is a God, and if said God is Jesus, said God is what grounds all of reality.

I thought I explained already that religion does not work like Science. Science works on discovery. Religion on revelation.

Unreasonable huh? Why? Because I believe climate change is a problem--but won't panic and run around like the sky is falling? Because I believe COVID is a problem--but there also--refuse to ruled by fear?

Sir, was the COVID virus a problem? Sure! I acknowledge that. My POINT is that---the response of the medical community----was not reasoned or rational. The response was to panic and overreact. No one had a problem with reasonable measures to keep people safe. We had a problem with panic and overreaction. The same with climate change. No one has a problem with a certain amount of reasonable measures to help curb climate change where possible. We have a problem with panic and overreaction. We do not yet have star trek technology. Until such time as we develop star trek technology we have to rely on what we do have. That means Fossil Fuels will be in use until we develop something practical that can replace them. I am all for that--but we aren't yet there.

You think I am unreasonable because I refuse to be ruled by fear and panic both with climate change and COVID.
It's precisely because religion relies on personal revelation, that it's unreasonable. Once your personal revelation has convinced you about God and the necessary adjuncts to His existence, any data interpretation that casts doubt on those adjuncts is dismissed. The chance of discovery is lost.

I think that you are allying yourself with those gripped by fear and panic over the reasonable measures suggested and put in place, both over COVID and climate change. When people are more fearful of a vaccination than they are of the disease it protects against, unreason is in play. When people are more fearful of protecting unsustainable jobs in the coal industry, rather than the future of their grandchildren, unreason is in play.
 
It's precisely because religion relies on personal revelation, that it's unreasonable. Once your personal revelation has convinced you about God and the necessary adjuncts to His existence, any data interpretation that casts doubt on those adjuncts is dismissed. The chance of discovery is lost.
Or--maybe--we look at discoveries in Science and attempt to harmonize them with our Faith where possible? As you admitted, Science is always changing. What that means is that in 100 years----we may find that scientists are now saying "We were wrong about the whole more than two sexes thing. Don't know what we were thinking there...." In 100 years, they may see our time as equivalent to bloodletting and leeches.

But you have given me no good reason--as to why the conclusion "There are more than two sexes" is justified becasue in some rare cases the sex indicators do not agree.
I think that you are allying yourself with those gripped by fear and panic over the reasonable measures suggested and put in place, both over COVID and climate change.
Endless lockdowns that actually caused more harm than the pandemic--that was reasonable? Forcing 3 year-olds to wear masks was reasonable? Forcing experimental vaccines on people in the name of "Science" was reasonable? (Note, I got 3 of the shots. I am not anti-vaccine.) But I am against forcing experimental vaccines on people.

You and I, sir, clearly, have a different understanding of "reasonable."
When people are more fearful of a vaccination than they are of the disease it protects against, unreason is in play.
Not when the vaccine is experimental and rushed. It is quite reasonable to resist a vaccine that has not sufficiently been proven or tested.
When people are more fearful of protecting unsustainable jobs in the coal industry, rather than the future of their grandchildren, unreason is in play.
Sir, until we develop star trek technology----we still have to rely on Fossil Fuels. Once such technology is developed and we no longer need Fossil Fuels, then--yes, it would become unreasonable to protect the coal industry.

Do we have star trek technology yet?
 
Last edited:
I am seeing a lot of HONESTY and HUMILITY. Perhaps he has a better chance than you do.
NOBODY has a "Better chance". you're either IN (and know it by FAITH based on God's Word - Heb 11:1, Rom 10:17), or you're OUT and don't even have a clue what's going on. He's the one that used "IF", not me.
 
NOBODY has a "Better chance". you're either IN (and know it by FAITH based on God's Word - Heb 11:1, Rom 10:17), or you're OUT and don't even have a clue what's going on. He's the one that used "IF", not me.
Thanks for confirming that heaven, if by any mischance it exists, will be full of arrogant, entitled little gits, and that there is no chance of me ending up there be mistake. As I've said elsewhere, the difference between heaven and hell is what exactly?
 
Thanks for confirming that heaven, if by any mischance it exists, will be full of arrogant, entitled little gits, and that there is no chance of me ending up there be mistake. As I've said elsewhere, the difference between heaven and hell is what exactlY?
Comfort level.
 
You hope. Annihilation is the fervent hope of the non-Christian. Personally, I don't believe that's what happens at physical death.
Not so much a hope, as a confident expectation. Just like your confident expectation for life after death, but with more evidence.
 
Is "pro-life" identical to "anti-abortion"?

If so, why don't they just call themselves the latter?

You catch more flies with vinegar than honey, when you are protesting something - "anti-apartheid" works better than "pro-<something>".
 
Is "pro-life" identical to "anti-abortion"?

If so, why don't they just call themselves the latter?

You catch more flies with vinegar than honey, when you are protesting something - "anti-apartheid" works better than "pro-<something>".

Pro-life is better. The so-called party that touts itself as going by the science is averse to showing the public what an actual abortion looks like.


The Liberty Party and the Free-Soil Party were anti-slavery parties.
 
Pro-life is better. The so-called party that touts itself as going by the science is averse to showing the public what an actual abortion looks like.
Most abortions look like a person taking medication in their own home. Lots of people are averse to lies suggesting that most abortions involve the death of a fully formed foetus. If you told the truth about what abortions look like, most people wouldn't be that bothered. In fact, most people are not that bothered already.
 
Lots of people are averse to lies suggesting that most abortions involve the death of a fully formed foetus.
Which, or course IS the case in some instances, and we both know it. The pro-choice/death folks are pushing for full term abortions, which you already know.

"What it looks like", of course is totally unimportant. when you murder a fetus, your murdering a PERSON, regardless of what it looks like. I didn't murder any of my unborn babies, so I have children. Simple as that.

Murdering babies as a method of birth control, just because you don't choose to bother with them should be seen as dead wrong, instead of "Sensible" or even "praiseworthy".
 
The pro-choice/death folks are pushing for full term abortions, which you already know.
Do you acknowledge the difference between

pushing for abortions, and
pushing for the right to abortions

?

Who, exactly, is standing outside maternity wards with placards reading

"HAVE AN ABORTION"

? Because that would be "pro-abortion".
 
Which, or course IS the case in some instances, and we both know it. The pro-choice/death folks are pushing for full term abortions, which you already know.

"What it looks like", of course is totally unimportant. when you murder a fetus, your murdering a PERSON, regardless of what it looks like. I didn't murder any of my unborn babies, so I have children. Simple as that.

Murdering babies as a method of birth control, just because you don't choose to bother with them should be seen as dead wrong, instead of "Sensible" or even "praiseworthy".
As legal abortion isn't murder, never had nei and never can be murder, your point is rather muddled. However, I agree with you that what it looks like is irrelevant,and indeed misleading. But not as misleading as using weasel words and outright lies to describe what is happening in an abortion. A human foetus is destroyed. There's no baby, murder. Abortion is never good, but it may well be better than any of the alternatives, in which case it is sensible. Abortion isn't ever praiseworthy. We don't consider amputation or chemotherapy to be praiseworthy. What is praiseworthy is the courage of those who continue to provide abortion services to women who need it, in the teeth of lies and intimidation.
 
Back
Top