₦airaland Forum

frosbel: I am ready to be very unpopular because of the Truth.

Abeg shut up there. Judas was also unpopular amongst the apostles. Being unpopular does not equal truth

frosbel: I think when it comes to evading the truth, ALL will agree that this is your trademark.

Besides, I will not indulge your ego with a response, I think this article suffices for a discussion with other brethren.

Thanks.

Lol, I asked you precisely what you claimed you wanted to discuss and suddenly discussing what you said you wanted to discuss = indulging Mr anony's ego? I see.

When you are ready to repent and submit to God's revelation through scripture and not force it under your feet perhaps then we might have a discussion as brothers. In the meantime I will continue to do the bitter job of pointing out to you that you have gone astray. I will also continue to warn other Christians of your heresies lest you lead them into sin.

Uyi Iredia: Can't watch the video so I can't comment. So sorry.

Guy you for watch am. You go laugh.

thehomer: Notice that you've just made a statement not an argument. In fact, one can create a slope between alive and dead using the same sort of reasoning you've been using.

I'd very much like to see you try.

You do realize that this insertion of "natural potential" makes your entire enterprise suspect. It would make your skin cells human or deny that test tube babies aren't human and everything else between.
Then you also smuggle in the word "essence". What exactly is it supposed to refer to? Some spirit?
To show you the absurdity of this position, would you prefer to save 1000 cryopreserved zygotes to one 30 year old person in an emergency? Would you prefer to save 1000 thirty year olds to one thirty year old person in another emergency?

I don't see how my preference makes the zygotes or 30 year old any more or less human Furthermore, when saving a person in an emergency, it is not necessarily his humanness that determines whether or not he ought to be saved first. Note that the is is a totally different case when it comes to actually murdering a person. The fact that he or she is a human being makes murdering him/her evil.

For instance, If President GEJ was in a meeting with 1000 people and there was a fire, saving GEJ first does not make any of the other people any less human same would apply if the 1000 people were saved before the president. Yet murdering another human being is evil.

Apply the same to an emergency scenario where the women and children are prioritized for safety before the men. Does this make the men less human? Absolutely not! and still yet, murdering another human being is evil.

I'm afraid your contention is a non sequitor and has really shown nothing.

I'm sure this creator and the rest of us humans would agree that killing a human being isn't simply evil.

If I recall correctly, I said: "to murder a human being is simply evil". Do you think otherwise?

My argument is simply that a woman has complete rights to her body. Since she has this right, then she is perfectly permitted to deny its use to anyone else.

As you can see, it doesn't appeal to whatever you think about when the life of a human being starts.

Interesting. It seems to me that you are proposing rights without responsibilities. Since you have made your argument clear, it would follow that:-

1. She has the right to her finances and her time and thus is perfectly permitted to neglect her 2 year old toddler regardless of whether it starves to death

2. She doesn't have the right to decapitate the limbs of the baby or stop it's heartbeat while it is in the womb. She must deliver it alive and then let it survive by itself. (She does not have the right to actively kill the person who needs her body to survive she only has the right to deny such a person the use of her body)

Evil Brain: No.

If you want a fair representation of what I'm saying then read my post again.

That's what I got from reading your post. Reading it again hasn't told me different. You are always welcome to elucidate further.

Seriously Why?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

It's not about the nail . . . . or is it?

frosbel: what do you know about truth ? I think not a lot , going by the content of most of your articles.

Lololol, I won't grace this with a reply.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to defend/explain your "truth". Why do yo think Christ did not exist before he was physically born?

I'll bet that as usual, you will try to evade the question again even though the question addresses precisely what your thread is supposed to be about.

frosbel: Truth is , throughout history thousands of heretics were killed , tortured and exiled by the 'authentic' religion of the day , which by some magical coincidence propagated many of the creeds and dogmas , you so fanatically hold on to.

This doesn't change the fact that you've been spewing heresy left, right and center.

frosbel: We all know what the catholic church and Calvin who you support did to 'Hereticks'.


https://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii260/DMcFadden/BurningHeretics.jpg

erhm...I'm neither catholic nor calvinist.

honeychild: stop d name calling please.....talk scripture or stay out of the conversation

You are talking as if you don't know that frosbel is a heretic.

thehomer: How is it not true?

That's just it. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply every time one says there is no difference between two states that are different. There has to be a blurred range of values (a slope) between the two states for it to apply.
Consider this statement for instance: "there is no difference between alive and dead" can you show the slippery slope fallacy?

Human being: A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

You still don't see what is right before you. Being human isn't a magical shield that protects a person from having their life ended besides since you like definitions so much, I've not seen you actually define human. Why don't you go ahead and do that.

Good, a human being is the kind of being that is or has the natural potential to be sapient, bipedal hairless primate that stands upright and has a relatively complex language. A human being however, is not necessarily define by what it's body looks like rather he/she is defined by it's essence i.e. an unconscious human being incapable of exhibiting sapience at the moment would still be human, same applies to one that doesn't stand upright or has two of it's legs chopped off. Human beings are not necessarily defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes. The life of an individual human being starts at it's conception and continues until whenever it dies.
Furthermore, all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with the right to life. To murder a human being is simply evil.

You've not actually defined human beings and you're still ignoring what I've said which is that my argument doesn't hinge on how you wish to define humans. You do realize that there are other ways of making an argument for abortion without resorting to some funny gymnastics.

This is just wrong. I don't need to have my own definition in order to show you that you're committing a logical fallacy. Anyone with eyes and some knowledge of biology can see that a zygote is very different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

Again, my own argument doesn't need that but yours does so you should try to justify your position without recourse to logical fallacies.

You haven't made any argument, you haven't told us when you think the life of a human being starts. Without making this clear, you cannot talk about when it ought not to be ended.
...Or perhaps I've missed what your argument is and you might want to tell us exactly what it is.

Evil Brain: No sane person thinks that denying yourself or your child a lifesaving treatment because of some religious delusions is a good thing. The only reason why society allows it is because the alternative of taking away people's autonomy over their bodies is far worse.

Imagine if the government or some other third party could force you to have a surgery you didn't want. Imagine if they could allocate one of your kidneys to someone else who needed it without your consent. Imagine if someone could graft a foetus into your body and force you to suffer the nausea, the back and joint pain, having to urinate every 30 minutes, constant tiredness, hypertension, the risk of liver, kidney, and brain damage; not to talk of the bloody, painful and dangerous climax at the end all against your will, would you be happy?

Your body is your property, and yout should have the final say over what happens to it. If you're not capable of making decisions due todullness, insanity or immaturity, then your parent or spouse should decide for you (hence the poor Jehovah Witness children). This is the most basic of human rights. Potential human Not coming to be is a sad consequence, but it's better than turning half of humanity into biological slaves.


Unlike you, I recognise that the decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or have an abortion is not an easy one. But the only person with the right to decide is the woman herself, not the government, and certainly not some religious fanatics determined to tell others how to live their lives. The woman is the one who will make all the sacrifices to bring the child to term and she should get to decide if she wants to.

I'm not going to demonize the women who are unfortunate enough to end up in that situation. People like you who do so usually have no clue what it means to have that kind of reresponsibility on your neck.

Good, it appears that we now both agree that abortion is evil. The point of argument it seems to me now is that the Government should not have the right to prevent people from doing evil. i.e people have the right to choose their actions and the Government ought to respect that including when these actions (or inactions) lead to the death of other people.

Is this a fair representation of what you are saying?

mazaje: Sure the gospels are not authentic because NOBODY knows who actually wrote them. . .If the early church fathers decided to ascibe the name of Peter to the gospel of Matthew, it would have been know as the gospel of Peter instead of Matthew. . .You can't trust a book if you don't even know who wrote it. . .Authouship is very impoartant. . .Even books with known authurs can not be trusted talk more of books whose authours remain unknown. . .

I have shown why this doesn't necessarily hold true for historical documents.

As for Paul's letters, they are nothing but embellished propaganda. . .By the way he did not claim authorship to all of the letters ascribed to him. .

I have asked you over and over again and you have repeatedly dodged the question. Which of Paul's works do you think are authentic? Do you accept that the ones where Paul claims authorship are his letters? Perhaps we can start from there.

You are not bringing any evidence any where. . .You are just trying to defend a theological position. . .

This is just funny. All you have done so far is claim that the evidence I have provided is not evidence.

The church fathers are all biased and are not fair arbiters. . .They all had their own interest. . .Christianity as we know it today is their own handiwork. . .

This too shows your naivete. ancient Roman historians were also all biased towards promoting the glory of the empire. What we know of ancient Rome today is their handwork. Yet that doesn't mean that therefore the events they recorded are false.

Are you sure you want to seriously have a discussion or are you only interested in screaming "they are all liars" until your face turns blue?

mazaje: Sure, we can trust that every thing that tacitus wrote about Ceacer Augustus is true. . We CAN'T. . .We know Ceaser Augustus ruled Rome because we have his coins, bust and other things, so you are streaching things too much here. . .We can not trust everything written about him by people that were not around him. . Same with the bible. . .We can not trust what was written in the bible about Jesus because the writers did not know him or have meet him and they wrote very long after he died. . .

In other words you are saying that we simply can't trust any events of history before the invention of the radio and television because all history before then was based on 'hearsay'. You are taking a very irrational position

We can NOT trust ancient history completely, most hgistorians AGREE to this. . .Ancient history can not be trusted completely because of many reasons. . .Most things were written long after the happened, oral traditions are mostly changed over time and embellished etc. . .That is a fact. . .Historians go though and try to seperate the embellishments from the real or plausible events. . .But that is not the point the point here is that major events are recorded by multiple sources and that is how historians accept their veracity. . .If the story of Jesus is true as reported in the gospels, then they extra biblical sources should corraborate them. . .That's my point. . .

But then, here lies the problem with your thinking and the difference between you and actual historians. Actual historians compare writings against other writings on the same issue. For instance the person of
1. Pontius Pilate can be reconstructed from comparing texts of Josephus, Luke, Tacitus etc. Some will say more about him while others will say less about him.
2. The person of Socrates can be reconstructed by comparing writings of Aristotle, Plato and Xenophon again, some will say less about him and some more about him.
3. The person of Jesus Christ can be reconstructed by comparing texts like Mark, Josephus, John, Acts of the Apostles e.t.c. Again some will say more and some less.

The only thing that happened with Christ is that a number of those texts were combined into one volume called the bible. In a similar way, one could just as well have combined ancient Greek texts into one volume.

You see your argument that "extra-biblical" stories must talk in the same detail as biblical stories is simply naive. It is just like saying extra-greek sources should talk about Socrates in the same detail that Greek sources do.

Now assuming that the church decided to add Josephus' writings into the bible as some sort of Jewish history document similar to Chronicles. I am sure you will be here denouncing the work of Josephus and demanding other "extra-biblical" sources to be provided. See the problem with your argument now?

Sure, who is Mark?. . .I am talking about the book ascribed to Mar not Mark the individual. . .Yopur evidence to show that Mark the individual wrote the book of Mark is what?. . .Where did he claim authurship in the book?. . .

Again this shows more naivete because you assume that for a book to be authentic the writer must name himself. But then you forget that many of the writings we have from ancient history are anonymous some are even reconstructions of sparsely scattered bits and pieces of parchments copied and recopied by many scribes, some ancient texts are even written by people in the name of other people. It is from texts like these that we form the narrative we call ancient history.
Now I'm not saying that it is Mark who definitely wrote that gospel however, the fact that there is no name claiming authorship does not make the text false by historical standards.

I am more interested in the vericity of the claims of the Jesus story, so far all the story is nothing but fiction written by people based on hear say, people that do not know him or have ever meet him. . .

By saying this, you have condemned all history written before the invention of the TV and radio to fiction because all of them are equally 'hearsay' by the same standards. Are you sure you are really interested in the veracity of anything at all?

For the Sanhedrin I was just going by what was reported in the story not its veracity. . .

Ok. However, you didn't meet any of my other challenges to your claims

Evil Brain: I don't know how to say it again so that you can understand. A term baby can be cared for by others if the mother chooses to withdraw her services, but a preterm baby (less than 22 weeks) can't. Nobody should be forced to compromise his or her own bodily integrity for another person's sake. Even if your own child needed one of your kidneys, you can't be forced to donate it against your will. In fact, even if another kidney is available, you can't be forced to give consent for surgery if you don't want to.

Even when Jehovah's Witnesses deny their kids even free, lifesaving blood transfusions because of their beliefs, the law recognizes their autonomy. Yet you want to deny that same autonomy to a woman whose life health and future are at stake.

This is why we draw the line between immoral and illegal. Do you think the actions of a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to let their kids receive lifesaving blood transfusions have done something morally right?

Also, I find your attempt to trivialize the issue by claiming women want abortions for flat stomachs misogynistic and very offensive. You sound just like a US republican religious nut. I wonder if you have any sisters, or a mother.

This accusation is just ridiculously silly especially since it was you who was arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill a baby that "messes up her body"

thehomer: Actually, the slippery slope fallacy applies whenever one says there is no difference between two states that are different.

This is simply not true.

No humans aren't defined by that but how can you refer to a zygote as a person and automatically grant it all rights that accrue to people while ignoring other entities that are more developed?

Since you disagree with how I define humans, how then do you define humans? You can't just disagree in a vacuum

I don't care about how you wish to define a human being because that isn't pertinent to my own argument. Since you're the one basing your argument on that, then it behooves you to do that to your satisfaction.

Lol, since you have shied away from telling us what you think a human being is or when you think the life of a human being starts, you have successfully excused yourself from making any objections as to how I define humans because you have provided no concept of human beings upon which your objections can be based.

As I said earlier, until you can tell us how you define a human being and when the life of a human being begins, you cannot make the argument as to whether or not a day old zygote is actually different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

To make that argument will be to assume an initial point which you haven't justified.

Logicboy03: Lol.....
1) Luke 1;1-4 is only stating that he gathered information from eye witnesses and others who had works on the faith.

Lol, are you serious? What did you expect an intention to write history to look like?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4

Compare with

1. To bequeath to posterity a record of the deeds and characters of distinguished men is an ancient practice which even the present age, careless as it is of its own sons, has not abandoned whenever some great and conspicuous excellence has conquered and risen superior to that failing, common to petty and to great states, blindness and hostility to goodness. But in days gone by, as there was a greater inclination and a more open path to the achievement of memorable actions, so the man of highest genius was led by the simple reward of a good conscience to hand on without partiality or self-seeking the remembrance of greatness. Many too thought that to write their own lives showed the confidence of integrity rather than presumption. Of Rutilius and Scaurus no one doubted the honesty or questioned the motives. So true is it that merit is best appreciated by the age in which it thrives most easily. But in these days, I, who have to record the life of one who has passed away, must crave an indulgence, which I should not have had to ask had I only to inveigh against an age so cruel, so hostile to all virtue. (Writen by Tacitus Agricola Book 1:1)

Writing History is simply giving an account of things as they happened so that people will know how the events took place. Did both Luke and Tacitus declare this intent? Yes they did!

Perhaps you are requiring that every historian should come out and announce "Hey guys I wanna write history!" before you will believe it is history.

Logicboy03: 2) An excellent point was made in the wikipedia article I read on luke as a historian;

Beautiful. It is funny how you failed to notice this

A medieval Armenian illumination, by Toros Roslin.
Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography.[10] The preface of The Gospel of Luke[11] drawing on historical investigation identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.[12] There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.
Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." It should be noted, however, that Ramsay makes no claims about the events described by Luke.[13] Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[14] New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.[15]
On the purpose of Acts, New Testament Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has noted that "Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography."[16] Such a position is shared by most commentators such as Richard Heard who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information."[17] However, during modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, although that depends on one's a priori view of the supernatural. A materialist would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history. His intention was to proclaim and to persuade. Many see this understanding as the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin.[18] Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke (5:36-7)'[10

The part I've highlighted in red is really where the problem lies. It is not Luke as a historian that is the issue rather it is your materialist presuppositions that is the issue.

thehomer: This line of argument commits the slippery slope fallacy. There are significant differences between you as a zygote, you as a foetus and you as a teenager. e.g as a zygote, you had no skin, no brain, no eyes etc but as a teenager, you had all these features.

If your argument is that life starts at conception, that too is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that life continues at conception because both the sperm and egg are alive. I also don't think you'll want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion because it isn't only humans that are alive. Other vertebrates too are alive and many of them also have sperm and eggs yet unless you're a vegetarian, I suspect you would be fine with killing them.

First of all, that line of argument does not commit the slippery slope fallacy because what it is defining cannot be represented on a slope. It is either one is a person or one isn't. There is no slope of values ranging from non-person to person. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply here.

Secondly, human beings are not defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes.

Thirdly, your argument against "life starts at conception" is another example of you muddying the water by tossing in things irrelevant to the discusion such as the lives of other veterbrates and their reproductive cells while pretending not to understand that striktlymi is referring to the life of an individual human being starting at conception. If I were striktlymi, I'd just ignore that red herring.

Perhaps the important question you need to answer is: How do you define a human being? and when does the life of a human being begin?

Once you have answered that, then we can start talking

frosbel: who cares about your opinion , lol.

Michael Servetus was also called a heretick and killed by Calvin ( so called Christian ), I would rather stand with the minority and the word of GOD than belong to the crowd who adhere to orthodox deception.

Lol, of course you stand by your version of "the word of God" that denies God completely

Evil Brain: Why do you refuse to acknowledge that pregnant women also have rights? Why should the baby's right to life nullify the woman's right to protect her own life and wellbeing??

I acknowledge the rights of pregnant women. I also acknowledge the rights of their babies. Babies are human beings too you know.

The fact that a patient is on lIfe suport means that doctors have gone to extraordinary lengths to save his/her life. You are comparing a doctor who makes the difficult decision to stop spending valuable resources on a hopeless case (usually so they can put someone else on the scarce life support machine; and always with the family's consent) to Joseph Stalin. If you insist on this foolish line of arargument, then I'm not going to waste any more time debating with you. Godwin's law applies to Stalin as well.

Ha...you see your analogy here is quite unrelated to an expecting mother. Where the person on life support is a "hopeless case" as you put it i.e. the doctors have tried everything they can to save the life and then gave up, for a fetus it's a different scenario because the fetus is not a hopeless case. It will most likely survive if it isn't murdered before maturity.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Very premature fetuses cannot survive without living inside the mother, messing up her body and endangering her life. Neither term babies nor adults have this problem. This is not a difficult concept.

Lol, you keep making this bad argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that likewise a newborn cannot survive without depending on the mother and messing up her finances. I really find it hard to believe that you will justify killing another human being because you want to have a flat belly. That has to be the height of narcissism

The mother is the one taking care of those basic needs at considerable cost to herself. If she wants to do so, then that's fine, but you shouldn't force a woman to sacrifice her life or health against her will.

Then I don't see why you should have a problem with women who abandon their babies in a dumpster or simply just leaves her baby to starve to death at home since according to you a woman shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her life or health (and might I add finances) against her will.

Also, it's interesting that you're demonizing doctors when its the pregnant women who ask for the abortions. A doctor's duty is to his patient. If the mother wants an abortion, and the doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy is likely to endanger her physically or even psychologically, then why shouldn't he offer one?

I actually blame both the doctors and the women who murder their children. A doctor's duty is to save life not destroy it.

No it doesn't, you are conflating two very different scenarios. If someone needs a new liver or a kidney to survive, you can donate yours if you like But you can't be forced to when you don't want. In fact, you can't even be forced to pay for the surgery. But refusing to donate your kidney to someone who can't live without one is very different from killing someone.

But I hope you do realize how this scenario changes when this someone is your son or daughter as is the case of pregnant mothers. It becomes a duty.
Let me ask you straight. If your little son needs a kidney to survive and you have the right kidney to save him. As his father, are you supposed to pay for the surgery and donate one of your kidneys to save him? Or are you under no moral obligation to do so?

deSika: The person who says frosbel is not a false prophet is only deceiving himself. There is a thin line between frosbel and atheism

Nah, frosbel isn't an atheist he's only a heretic

Evil Brain: Dumping a baby in a gutter or a dumpster is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die there. If you want to abandon your baby you're obliged to at least make sure it has a reasonable chance of surviving long enough to be found and taken care of, That means wrapping it up warmly and leaving it in front of a hospital, orphanage or police station. Doing this doesn't endanger your life or put your health at risk so its unreasonable to refuse. This is not an option for most feat uses because any baby expelled before 22 weeks will die no matter what you do. If your landlord wants you out of his house that you've been living in rent free, its not his fault if you can't find somewhere else to stay.

Lol, this is becoming quite funny.

Please tell me the difference between the part of your comment I highlighted and this:

Expelling an 18 week old baby from the womb is tantamount to killing it since it all but certain that it will die

That is a false analogy and you know it. Stop with the cheap strawman tactics.

It isn't a strawman. It is exactly the same as the analogy of cutting off a man's life support and saying "if he breathes so be it"

A term baby can breathe by itself. It can digest its own food. If can control its own body temperature well enough to survive without others having to take edtraordinary measures. It can fight off infections to a reasonable degree.

Yeah but this is no different from how an adult human can also do these better than a baby. The same way a 16 year old is more developed than a baby so is a baby more developed than a fetus. Still all are human beings that deserve to live

A baby born at 26 weeks gestation needs millions of naira worth of treatment, tens of millions worth of medical equipment and a team of a dozen or more specialist doctors and nurses working round the clock for it to have a decent chance of surviving.

So what?

For a baby born at 20 weeks to survive is considered a miracle even if it was in the best hospital in the world with unlimited resources. And even then, it is guaranteed to leave the hospital blind and with severe brain damage at best.

The more reason why it is best for it to stay in the womb.

Meanwhile, a term baby only needs food, warmth, nappy changes and the occasional cuddle to survive and thrive

but the baby in the womb had these basic needs catered for before it was maliciously yanked out by murderous doctors

There is a huge difference between a term baby that can carry out its own basic biological functions and a premature one that can't. I strongly suggest that you abandon this line of argument. You will find no success with it.

There is also a huge difference between an person that can carry out basic biological functions and a disabled person that can't. It still doesn't give anyone the right to kill the disabled person. Same applies to the term baby and the premature one.

Evil Brain: Stop twisting my words.

He isn't

Term babies and late term premies are perfectly capable of surviving without their mother's involvement. If the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby, then someone else can. Therefore killing such a child is murder, same as killing a three year year-old or an old person with no income.

What about abandoning the child in the gutter in the hope that someone else comes to take care of it. Is that also murder if the baby ends up being eaten by a dog?

This doesn't apply to fetuses that are less than 22 weeks old. Therefore if a woman doesn't want the baby in her body for any reason, it is her right to kick it out. If a woman doesn't want to risk her lIfe going through labour or major surgery to deliver a baby, she shouldn't be forced to.

I wonder how you can say this and yet have a problem with a woman who abandons her six month old baby in a dumpster so that it starves to death. After all she shouldn't be forced to risk her hard earned cash to feed this 6 month old parasite.

Having an abortion is analogous to when doctors stop parenterally feeding someone in a persistent vegetative state. Or when they disconnect the life support for someone with irreversible brain injury. If the person keeps breathing after you turn off the machine then putting a pillow over his head is murder.

Lol, by your definition, it wasn't murder when Stalin starved 20 million Russians to death. All he did was withold his food supply. If they can survive without food, then good for them.

But if a person can't carry out his own vital functions by himself, then you're under no obligation to do it for him. And you definitely shouldn't be forced to do so at the cost of your own life or well-being.

But a baby in the womb cannot carry out her own vital functions by herself any more than a new born can.

Obi1kenobi: Damascus is a Syrian city. Why would the Hebrew Sanhedrin have the power to prosecute heretics and unbelivers of the Jewish faith in a foreign city by sending Saul? It's probably just my ignorance but can anyone shed light on this?

That's a good question. Let us start from what we know.

1. We know the Sanhendrin had the power to arrest and imprison people
2. We know that the Nabatean King Aretas IV was friendly to the Jews
3. We have reason to believe that Jews were very influential in Damascus and other parts of Syria at the time
4. When we read Acts 9:1-2 we see who the letters Paul was bearing was addressed to

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Now Paul was going from Jerusalem to Damascus and he was going to act by the permission of the Jewish authority of Damascus.

So yes I think it is a very plausible situation.

Kay 17: @strik

I strongly doubt if human ova and sperm cells are alien or animals. One thing is sure: they are not dead. The fact that they cannot develop into a bouncing new baby individually does nt imply they are dead nor alien.

I never said a new born baby wasn't senitent and hence not entitled to personhood. On the contrary, Roe vs Wade reveals that at some later stage during a pregnancy, a foetus acquires senitence (consciousness, some level of identity etc) in the womb. Therefore has personhood. And the mother had had a reasonable opportunity to abort the foetus prior to reaching that stage.

...and what stage is this?

mazaje: The gospels were NOT written by the disciples of Jesus, there were written very long after Jesus died, by Greek speaking christians in foreign lands. . . .No where in the gospels does Matthew, Mark or John claim authourship any where. . .I told you that it was the church fathers that decided to ascribe authourship to the anonymous documents(gospels). Noiw let me ask you a question. . .Take away the tittle assigned to the book of Matthew by the church fathers. How you you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew from reading the book?. . .Pls tell me. . .

You know what is weird about you? On one hand you claim that the gospels are not authentic because nowhere did the supposed author claim ownership then on the other hand when presented with Paul's letters where he clearly claims ownership. You also claim they are not authentic and it is all a big conspiracy.

As I have been saying and will continue to say, you are simply being irrational

You have started from the default position that it is all a conspiracy by Polycarp, Iraneus and co. so no matter where the evidence points. You'll just blame it on the church fathers.

PhenomenonVFX: Acts 9:1-9. Here Paul sees the light and hear's the voice of Jesus and the people with him didnt see the light but they heard the voice. And he was to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 22:6-10. Here the people with him didnt hear the voice but they saw the light. And he was still to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 26:14-19. Here Paul is told by Jesus himself what to do. And actually it was so beautifully stated that I think Paul embellished a little in order to impress Agrippa.

Thanks for making me read the bible again after a long time. I was beginning to forget why I dropped it. Now I remember.
I believe in Jesus (he was truely God-sent) and his philosophy and basic teachings. Not the magical stories u guys have created to propagate ur religion.

I have answered this in my response to mazaje here.

As for Acts 26 which I didn't cover, I don't see any contradiction rather what I see is the writer of Acts employing a summary so that he focuses on the words of Christ which are more important and omits the other details of going into Damascus and meeting Ananias etc which are not quite as important and hence not necessary to repeat

This is another example of you closing your ears and singing lalalala.

mazaje: What is all this epistle about that fails to address anything at all?. . .Paul clearly sort out to abolish the law of Moses and change many things like the dietary laws and laws of circumcision among other things. The main issue at hand here is who founded Christianity and if the people that founded Christianity as we know if today are following what Jesus said or made things up and created their own religion out of the Jesus character, a religion that actually involved some of the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings and theology that has nothing to do with him. Jesus and PAUL NEVER thought the same thing at least from the bible. The writings attributed to Paul are more propaganda & embellishment than reality.

This idea has already been comprehensively debunked. I put it to you that you cannot show anywhere that the messages of Paul and Christ contradict without selectively denying the bible and quote-mining scripture.

Firstly NOWHERE in the bible did Jesus ever claim that salvation was for everybody. . .. Jesus SPECIFICALLY said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel and claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted.(Mark 4). Jesus told those that followed him that they shall see him sit on the throne shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He makes no mention of the gentiles when he was talking about judgement in his heavenly kingdom, he only referred to the 12 tribes of Israel not the gentiles. Paul who never meet Jesus came and said he is an apostle to the gentiles. . .

So the claim is that Jesus was exclusively to the Jews and not the Gentiles? Let us test that claim

1. In John 4, Jesus preaches to a Samaritan woman and a whole Samaritan village.

2. In Matthew 24:14, Jesus says "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

3. In Mark 14:9, Jesus says of the woman who anointed him with the alabaster box of precious ointment: "Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her."

How about the prophecies concerning Christ?

4. Prophet Isaiah according to Matthew
This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope."
Matthew 12:17-21 (originally from Isaiah 42:1-4)

5. Simeon the prophet when the baby Jesus was presented to him he said:
"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel." Luke 2:29-32


My dear mazaje, you have no case!

Logicboy03: If the historians didnt mention it and there is no archeological/physical evidence then how do you know that it is true?

Luke is not an accepted historian. He never intended his works to be historical. Try again

This shows your ignorance because that is exactly what Luke intended for his work to be. All you had to do was read Luke 1:1-4

striktlymi: Morning Mazaje,

Now according to your logic...

When a writer is silent about meeting the object of his write-up then it means the writer never met the person.

Writing style determines whether the writer met the object of his write-up.

Can you provide evidence to show that Matthew and John NEVER spoke Greek?

Hope you do know that what you hold on to has very many implications as regards the history of a number of individuals, as Anony has pointed out already?

Another tiny fact: Even the historians Mazaje talks about (Josephus in particular) have multiple writing styles showing up in their writings. Does this mean they are not authentic? No. In those days it was commonplace for people to employ scribes and copyists to write on their behalf hence it wouldn't be surprising to see little variations here and there.

mazaje: Not written any where except in the gospel stories which was written by gentile christians who do not even know much about the Jews and how their judiciary operate. . . .

Yet the Jewish Encyclopedia written by Jews for Jews disagrees with you

There were NO christains in AD 30 any where. . .Jesus himself we are told died some where around AD 33, the cult of Jesus followers started after Jesus died, there were NO christians any where in AD 30, so what exactly are you talking about?. . .The accounts in the gospel of Mark(which is the first gospel and which all other gospels were copied from and embellished) about Jesus's trial by the sanhendrin remains very questionable and has been disputed by many scholars, the writer of Mark, clearly a gentile does not know how the Jewish legal system functioned. . . Mark's account is questionable in that had a trial before the Sanhedrin taken place as he described, it most likely would have been illegal under Jewish law. . . According to Jeiwhs scholars like Robert Maddox, Kelhoffer, and Rabbi Wilson the trial could not have taken place at night and would have required two separate hearings. Because that how was the sanhendrin functioned at that time. . .The gospel of Mark indicates that Jesus faced the charge of blasphemy, but nothing in Mark indicates that Jesus said anything that would actually constitute blasphemy under Jewish law Scolars like Rabbi Boteach have stated that the sanhindrin did not have the powers to persecute people based on what the gospels wrote about them. . .The early christians were not violating any Jewish laws as such could not be arrested by the sanhidrin. . .As for the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

I meant that by 30 AD, the Sanhendrin had such powers therefore they could easily have arrested and tried Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

So what am I to do with this propaganda?. . .This is pure fiction because the sanhendrin had no power to execute anybody as you rightly pointed out yourself. . .

As I said, they had power to arrest and try Stephen and I have just shown you that Stephen was killed in an outburst of rage rather than a formal judgment. Compare Stephen's trial in Acts 6-7 to Peter and John's trial in Acts 4 and 5:25-42. Notice the difference in the process of judgment.

One more thing, the Rabbi said that Paul was not even a member of the Sanhendrin. . . "And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). But it is fairly clear that Paul wasn't actually a member. So Paul going about persecuting christians is a myth. . .He had no such powers. . .

Are you serious? No one ever said that Paul was a member of the Sanhendrin. The Sanhendrin was a council of 70 elders of which Paul wasn't at the time. The point I am arguing is that Paul was given authority by the Sanhendrin to make arrests and enforce the law. You miss the point so badly it hurts

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

There is no contradiction there.

Act 9:7 The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Act 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (NIV)

The Greek word akouo can be interpreted as "hearing" or "understanding"

GEJ has the power to go after BH, Paul was a no body he was not a member of the sanhendrin as such does not have the power to prosecute any body. . .It made a lot of sense for him to be a christians because he wanted to teach his own theology to the gentiles. . .He even called himself the apostle of the gentiles. . .He wanted the gentile to follow his ways. . .Christian persecution in the hands of Jews in Jerusalem as I have stated was embellished according to historians. . .

Now this is just silly. I have shown you that the Sanhendrin did indeed have the power to prosecute and punish people and I have shown you that Paul was an enforcer empowered by the Sanhendrin. You have no case.

Logicboy03: You have started again!

Majaze simply said that Historians wrote about Jesus but never his miracles. Gbam. So you are just adding the part of "it didnt exist" to it.

That's exactly what I said. The fact they didn't mention the miracles doesn't mean they didn't happen. Argument from silence

Furthermore, if historians didnt write about the Miracles and there exists no physical evidence for it, then, there is no reason to believe they happened- this is my own argument.

By the way, Luke was a historian

Now, lets take it from a better perspective- everytime that historians and archeological evidence omits something that the bible mentioned, it has always been the case that the bible lied. Exzamples

Egyptian enslavement of Jews- biblical claim, historical falsehood
Adam and Eve- Biblical claim, historical, scientific and archeological falsehood

Red herring