Text of the tweet:
And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US. People like you are the scum of the earth. I hope you're the next victim
(Please leave any comments at Triablogue.)
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A courteous advocate of gun control
Text of the tweet:
And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US. People like you are the scum of the earth. I hope you're the next victim
(Please leave any comments at Triablogue.)
Monday, June 18, 2012
The Reasonable Doubtcast's dismissive attitude
What follows is the recent Twitteraction between Dave Fletcher, of the Reasonable Doubts podcast (@DoubtcastFletch), the Reasonable Doubts account (@doubtcast), and me.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @DoubtcastFletch Hey, lookie here - another review you'll probably mock rather than rebut!
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/reasonable-doubts-podcast-on.html
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch we have a response on the way. We promise to be nice!
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Doesn't have to be nice. Does need to be substantive.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@doubtcast @Rhology I make no such promises of niceness, but I have much less tolerance for people who intentionally miss the point.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch "Missing the point"; like when ppl claim they're doing internal critiques & proceed to do only external critiques?
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology A perfect example of what I'm talking about. You ignored everything you couldn't refute and focused on small tangents.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology We did an internal critique. You choose to ignore that because you cannot refute the arguments.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch Ah, right, even though Beahan made sure we knew multiple times that the strength of the show was that you were doing...
...INTERNAL critiques; you're refuted but don't want to admit it, so suddenly that question is 'tangential'. Right, sure.
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch They were largely based on misunderstanding. We will do a written response instead of dedicating episode to straw.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Written is fine; whatever suits you. But I should think a Christian is a better judge of whether a critique...
...is internal or not. You've shown no significant familiarity with the Bible. I'm not "ignoring" anything.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology @doubtcast And this is the point where I vote for not responding at all. No reason to dignify every asshat with a response.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology The point is, you didn't respond to our points and you believe yourself entitled to an official response from us. You are not.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch @doubtcast I love how I respond reasonably to your points, pointing out errors, and I'm an "asshat". Well played.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology Unless you were making relevant points or were an apologist of note, I see no reason why your ramblings should get a response.
================================
Well, I'm certainly not an apologist of any note, but I honestly don't know what these Doubtcasters are talking about.
They claim they did an internal critique. I've not seen more than a couple of isolated examples of internal critiques; most of their critiques were well-seasoned with their naturalistic assumptions, or at best, most charitably speaking, by simple ignorance of the Scripture. I've pointed out several examples and reasons for those examples of critiques that were simply not internal.
They claim that I "focused only on small tangents"; wut?
I identified the main themes of their show, I did my level best to write down and interact with their most prominent arguments, I am going to deal with every single biblical passage they mentioned in the "God is a liar" excerpt and episode and in my most recent post dealt with one of the principal ones. It would appear that asking them to clarify what "small tangents" they have in mind, however, will simply result in more insulting language and small-minded well-poisoning. That's cool with me; these reviews are not primarily for the Doubtcasters' benefit anyway. It's just sort of funny how we see a pattern developing with these guys. They're not the fair-minded reasonable chaps they make themselves out to be. My initial opinion of them has turned out to be more favorable than was merited by reality.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @DoubtcastFletch Hey, lookie here - another review you'll probably mock rather than rebut!
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/reasonable-doubts-podcast-on.html
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch we have a response on the way. We promise to be nice!
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Doesn't have to be nice. Does need to be substantive.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@doubtcast @Rhology I make no such promises of niceness, but I have much less tolerance for people who intentionally miss the point.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch "Missing the point"; like when ppl claim they're doing internal critiques & proceed to do only external critiques?
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology A perfect example of what I'm talking about. You ignored everything you couldn't refute and focused on small tangents.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology We did an internal critique. You choose to ignore that because you cannot refute the arguments.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch Ah, right, even though Beahan made sure we knew multiple times that the strength of the show was that you were doing...
...INTERNAL critiques; you're refuted but don't want to admit it, so suddenly that question is 'tangential'. Right, sure.
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch They were largely based on misunderstanding. We will do a written response instead of dedicating episode to straw.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Written is fine; whatever suits you. But I should think a Christian is a better judge of whether a critique...
...is internal or not. You've shown no significant familiarity with the Bible. I'm not "ignoring" anything.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology @doubtcast And this is the point where I vote for not responding at all. No reason to dignify every asshat with a response.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology The point is, you didn't respond to our points and you believe yourself entitled to an official response from us. You are not.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch @doubtcast I love how I respond reasonably to your points, pointing out errors, and I'm an "asshat". Well played.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology Unless you were making relevant points or were an apologist of note, I see no reason why your ramblings should get a response.
================================
Well, I'm certainly not an apologist of any note, but I honestly don't know what these Doubtcasters are talking about.
They claim they did an internal critique. I've not seen more than a couple of isolated examples of internal critiques; most of their critiques were well-seasoned with their naturalistic assumptions, or at best, most charitably speaking, by simple ignorance of the Scripture. I've pointed out several examples and reasons for those examples of critiques that were simply not internal.
They claim that I "focused only on small tangents"; wut?
I identified the main themes of their show, I did my level best to write down and interact with their most prominent arguments, I am going to deal with every single biblical passage they mentioned in the "God is a liar" excerpt and episode and in my most recent post dealt with one of the principal ones. It would appear that asking them to clarify what "small tangents" they have in mind, however, will simply result in more insulting language and small-minded well-poisoning. That's cool with me; these reviews are not primarily for the Doubtcasters' benefit anyway. It's just sort of funny how we see a pattern developing with these guys. They're not the fair-minded reasonable chaps they make themselves out to be. My initial opinion of them has turned out to be more favorable than was merited by reality.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Helping @dreamspeak with consistency
Here I'd like to review a tweetversation I've been having with @dreamspeak.
It all began when someone else referenced #atheisthotline about how evil a position I hold is, or something, and I said:
@Rhology also challenges #atheisthotline to demonstrate that ANYthing is objectively morally wrong.
@dreamspeak then jumped in and asked why anyone would need to do that. What emerged from what followed was that this individual believes that our morality should be based on empathy that people have for each other. I have of course dealt with this at length beforehand, and I linked him to that article, but surprise surprise, he doesn't appear to have read it.
I proceeded to perform a reductio ad absurdum on his assertion:
Rhology: @mysickbones Empathy-I prefer pain myself so figure others like pain too. @dreamspeak bases morality on empathy. Ergo infliction of pain=OK
dreamspeak: @Rhology You are a moron. You keep assuming that an individual is what defines morality. It is a collective bargain, agreement in society.
Rhology: @dreamspeak It is a collective bargain, agreement in society>>How do you know?
dreamspeak: @Rhology I read studies of human behavior. Professional scientific analysis of sociology, psychology, even animal behavior for comparison.
Now, let's stop for a moment to take stock.
He didn't answer the question, first of all. Also, he conveniently forgets that societies are composed of individuals. And "studies of human behavior" are just that - compilations of studies of individuals. Also, as I pointed out to him, this is an is, not an ought. What ought follows from this is?
dreamspeak: Seems @Rhology's primary problem is that what he thinks is empathy, is actually called "projecting."
Rhology: @dreamspeak's primary problem is that what he thinks is empathy, is actually called "what I like". As if everyone is always like him.
Rhology: @dreamspeak How do you get from "X behaved thusly and thought thusly about it" to "X's behavior was morally unjustified"?
dreamspeak @Rhology I don't know how to explain it to you in a way that will breach your thick skull. You keep returning to this because you're stuck.
dreamspeak @Rhology Empathy will never be "what I like" no matter how many times you insist that it is, and I've never used it to mean that.
dreamspeak @Rhology If you could be less stupid for a moment and think about what "empathy" means you would see that it informs how we treat others.
dreamspeak @Rhology The majority of humanity does not enjoy suffering, and through empathy can "get" what it means to inflict it, & want to lessen it.
Note here how he just two tweets ago denied that empathy reduces to "what I like" and then here says that "the majority of humanity does not enjoy suffering". So it sure seems to me that he has gone back on what he said earlier, seemingly without realising it.
If you don't enjoy suffering, and that's your argument for why one shouldn't do something, then no matter how many times you deny it, it does come down to what you like and what you dislike.
His lame point about "projecting" is precisely what he is guilty of. When one empathises with someone else, one is attempting to understand an experience. @dreamspeak is telling us to ask ourselves whether we enjoy pain. He assumes most will say, "No, I don't like pain." He'll then go on to say, "OK, so don't inflict pain."
But what if someone does enjoy pain? Then the answer would be, "Yes, I do like pain." If @dreamspeak is to be consistent, he should answer "OK, so inflict pain," b/c he wants us to act on our empathy.
This is what he has not grasped.
If he objects that most people don't like pain, he is moving the goalposts, b/c he was telling us that empathy is the basis, and now he wants us to listen to the majority. This is nothing more than might making right, morality by popularity. The obvious question is whether @dreamspeak is willing to say that about 1940s-era Jews in Germany, France, and Poland. The majority thought they were better off dead or in labor camps. Guess it was the right thing to do.
Thus he shows that he doesn't really think that empathy is the basis for morality. He thinks that thinking like he thinks is the basis. But he hasn't scanned and uploaded his Pope of Morality ID badge yet.
dreamspeak: @Rhology If you can't even understand what it means to imagine someone else's suffering then you can't get past this part.
dreamspeak @Rhology So you can stop acting like you're making any kind of sensible point here. You're not. People are reasonable & empathetic creatures
It all began when someone else referenced #atheisthotline about how evil a position I hold is, or something, and I said:
@Rhology also challenges #atheisthotline to demonstrate that ANYthing is objectively morally wrong.
@dreamspeak then jumped in and asked why anyone would need to do that. What emerged from what followed was that this individual believes that our morality should be based on empathy that people have for each other. I have of course dealt with this at length beforehand, and I linked him to that article, but surprise surprise, he doesn't appear to have read it.
I proceeded to perform a reductio ad absurdum on his assertion:
Rhology: @mysickbones Empathy-I prefer pain myself so figure others like pain too. @dreamspeak bases morality on empathy. Ergo infliction of pain=OK
dreamspeak: @Rhology You are a moron. You keep assuming that an individual is what defines morality. It is a collective bargain, agreement in society.
Rhology: @dreamspeak It is a collective bargain, agreement in society>>How do you know?
dreamspeak: @Rhology I read studies of human behavior. Professional scientific analysis of sociology, psychology, even animal behavior for comparison.
Now, let's stop for a moment to take stock.
He didn't answer the question, first of all. Also, he conveniently forgets that societies are composed of individuals. And "studies of human behavior" are just that - compilations of studies of individuals. Also, as I pointed out to him, this is an is, not an ought. What ought follows from this is?
dreamspeak: Seems @Rhology's primary problem is that what he thinks is empathy, is actually called "projecting."
Rhology: @dreamspeak's primary problem is that what he thinks is empathy, is actually called "what I like". As if everyone is always like him.
Rhology: @dreamspeak How do you get from "X behaved thusly and thought thusly about it" to "X's behavior was morally unjustified"?
dreamspeak @Rhology I don't know how to explain it to you in a way that will breach your thick skull. You keep returning to this because you're stuck.
dreamspeak @Rhology Empathy will never be "what I like" no matter how many times you insist that it is, and I've never used it to mean that.
dreamspeak @Rhology If you could be less stupid for a moment and think about what "empathy" means you would see that it informs how we treat others.
dreamspeak @Rhology The majority of humanity does not enjoy suffering, and through empathy can "get" what it means to inflict it, & want to lessen it.
Note here how he just two tweets ago denied that empathy reduces to "what I like" and then here says that "the majority of humanity does not enjoy suffering". So it sure seems to me that he has gone back on what he said earlier, seemingly without realising it.
If you don't enjoy suffering, and that's your argument for why one shouldn't do something, then no matter how many times you deny it, it does come down to what you like and what you dislike.
His lame point about "projecting" is precisely what he is guilty of. When one empathises with someone else, one is attempting to understand an experience. @dreamspeak is telling us to ask ourselves whether we enjoy pain. He assumes most will say, "No, I don't like pain." He'll then go on to say, "OK, so don't inflict pain."
But what if someone does enjoy pain? Then the answer would be, "Yes, I do like pain." If @dreamspeak is to be consistent, he should answer "OK, so inflict pain," b/c he wants us to act on our empathy.
This is what he has not grasped.
If he objects that most people don't like pain, he is moving the goalposts, b/c he was telling us that empathy is the basis, and now he wants us to listen to the majority. This is nothing more than might making right, morality by popularity. The obvious question is whether @dreamspeak is willing to say that about 1940s-era Jews in Germany, France, and Poland. The majority thought they were better off dead or in labor camps. Guess it was the right thing to do.
Thus he shows that he doesn't really think that empathy is the basis for morality. He thinks that thinking like he thinks is the basis. But he hasn't scanned and uploaded his Pope of Morality ID badge yet.
dreamspeak: @Rhology If you can't even understand what it means to imagine someone else's suffering then you can't get past this part.
dreamspeak @Rhology So you can stop acting like you're making any kind of sensible point here. You're not. People are reasonable & empathetic creatures
Some people are reasonable, sometimes. Most people are at least some of the time. Nobody is reasonable all the time. Further, he is living in a fantasy realm filled with unicorns and butterflies. "People are empathetic creatures"? Without qualification?
There are sociopaths out there, @dreamspeak. Are they "empathetic" (by which he means, of course, "people who think like I think")? Murderers, pædophiles, thieves, addicts, rapists... all of those are out there. Do they consult their empathy before committing what some of us consider to be criminal acts?
And what if they grew to outnumber the "good, reasonable, empathetic" people? Since might makes right, I suppose morality would change, wouldn't it?
And what if they grew to outnumber the "good, reasonable, empathetic" people? Since might makes right, I suppose morality would change, wouldn't it?
As the ironically-named @PlzThinkHarder said to me: yesterday it was immoral for a woman to speak out of turn. Today it is not. Tomorrow could hold anything. It's human nature.
I just swap in different objects and my point is made.
Yesterday it was immoral to commit genocide. Today it is not. Tomorrow could hold anything. It's human nature.
Yesterday it was immoral to rape little girls. Today it is not. Tomorrow could hold anything. It's human nature.
Yesterday it was immoral to hunt down and kill all atheists. Today it is not. Tomorrow could hold anything. It's human nature.
Yesterday it was immoral to enslave all non-Christians. Today it is not. Tomorrow could hold anything. It's human nature.
What answer does an atheistic outlook have to any of this?
Now, if this is your first time seeing this kind of argument, or if you need a reminder, please know that I do not actually hold any of these conclusions. They are consistent with an atheistic, naturalistic outlook, but I am not an atheistic naturalist. I am a biblical Christian.
B/c God has spoken and has authority, I know that these things are objectively evil. But how can the atheist know any of that? There is no authority, no normative standard. Who says that we must obey or consider our empathy when weighing moral options? Why should we? Who is @dreamspeak to tell us to do that? If we disobey, will he punish us? If he had the power, would he enforce such? What authority does he have?
Hopefully he'll stop by to let us all know who crowned him Pope.
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and an unproven contradiction
Fresh from the last post, which dealt with an alleged contradiction in the Bible, @AtheistOK tweeted the following to me: Pick any five you like http://t.co/J5Xrq65 meaning, of course, that I should pick any 5 from the list to resolve.
Me: And if I do, what will you conclude? What's in it for me?
Him: I thought you only argued for the sheer joy of disputation itself. It never actually convinces anyone, does it?
Me: Yes, it does convince people. Not incredibly biased folk such as those who take the SAB seriously, tho. And it's your move.
Him: Um, knight to queen's bishop 5
Me: Right, well, thanks for that. Unsure why you originally tweeted me, actually.
Him: I'm always unsure of that myself. I take it you aren't up explaining to ANY of the 31 Biblical contradictions, then?
Me: https://twitter.com/#!/Rhology/status/71188920561451008
Him: You can choose any five you want, I don't really care which. I doubt you can deal with any of them.
Him: Come to think of it, Rho, just pick one to start off. We can get into the details better that way.
So, I guess I'll forge ahead.
Look, though, first let me echo what JP Holding has said about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
Here's a great example. Is soteriology and the relationship between faith and works not a subject that's, you know, sort of wide and deep in the Bible? Yet there you go! Just throw it out there like a Catholic Answers stooge, as if context has no meaning or import. I myself have filled numerous pixels on this very topic, here, here, here, here, here, and here among many others.
I'm not saying consult with me; I'm saying consult with someone.
Here's another good example. The speaker isn't taken into account. The purpose, the context, the question asked, the surrounding situation; none of that is dealt with. None of the theology is explored, none of the prophetic portent of what it means to say that Elijah was to precede the Messiah. No exploration of the fact that John the Baptist was interested solely in pointing people to Jesus at all times, and to zero degree in any fascination with himself, or the fact that he was actually John the Baptist, not Elijah. Yet as the fulfillment, the antitype, of Elijah, it is also fair to call him Elijah.
But at AtheistOK's request, I picked out one that had me scratching my head for about an hour, so I'll delve into that one here.
Did Jesus baptise?
Yes - John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
No - John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.
So first, is it best to start off when reading an author with the presumption that he had zero short-term memory and had the intellect of a cricket? Did he simply totally forget what he wrote a few sentences above? Why not assume the same thing of @AtheistOK? He may protest, but that's OK - he's protesting because he doesn't remember what happened before. Fair's fair, right?
W. Hall Harris III makes an excellent point in his exegetical commentary:
Now, to prove a contradiction, the skeptic has to demonstrate that none of the proposed harmonisations to a given difficulty is sufficient. Any harmonisation that is possible means that no contradiction is provable from the standpoint of the modern reader of an old text. You weren't there, you don't know. I wasn't there either. I have a decent grasp on what is possible and what isn't possible, so though most everyone and even I might consider a certain event highly unlikely, weird stuff happens sometimes.
Given that, one more point. New Testament Koine Greek did not contain much punctuation, if any. No quotation marks, no periods, no question? marks, no parentheses.
Here's an example image of a manuscript copy from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Notice how there are English sentences in there, but they all bleed together in Greek. Thus, when translating, the translators have to place English punctuation according to what works best in English, taking the Greek meaning into account. Obviously, it's difficult, but these guys are pros.
With respect to this passage, I believe that may very well be what happened: a slight oversight by translators. Here is the text as it appears in the modern NASB:
John 4:1Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), 3He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.
Here is my proposed re-punctuation, with the changed punctuation marked in red boldface:
1Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that "Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were," 3He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.
There is no way to know from the Greek text whether this is the proper English-translated punctuation or not. I would hold that it very possibly is, and that the translators simply didn't consult the SAB during their translating. I know, it was a huge oversight to not consult a shallow skeptical website, but there you go.
The message transmitted to the Pharisees by those who were reporting about Jesus' and His disciples' activities was slightly mistaken. The messengers were wrong; perhaps they saw Jesus in the water and assumed He was baptising. Perhaps they themselves heard about it secondhand and embellished the story a bit b/c they didn't like Jesus, or b/c they wanted to tell the Pharisees what they thought they wanted to hear.
Also, it is a continuing theme throughout the Gospels that Jesus explicitly conferred His authority on the disciples, to go out and do ministry as His shaluach, His apostoloi, His sent ones. A messenger like that at that time, when he spoke, it was as the man himself speaking. Thus, when the disciples of the Lord baptised, it's as if He Himself was baptising for it was under His watch and with His authority, though He didn't physically immerse people with His own hands.
One thing for sure - God knows all the ins and the outs of this passage, and He knows far better than I, or the author of the SAB, or @AtheistOK. Even if I didn't have an answer for this difficulty, that is not a sufficient reason to surrender my faith in Jesus or in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Why? B/c bottom line, atheism reduces to utter absurdity, and if everything is absurd, trying to find the truth that the Bible is errant is absurd. Seeking truth is absurd. You found the truth? Meh. So what?
The Bible is shown to be true again:
1 Corinthians 15:16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied...32If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Me: And if I do, what will you conclude? What's in it for me?
Him: I thought you only argued for the sheer joy of disputation itself. It never actually convinces anyone, does it?
Me: Yes, it does convince people. Not incredibly biased folk such as those who take the SAB seriously, tho. And it's your move.
Him: Um, knight to queen's bishop 5
Me: Right, well, thanks for that. Unsure why you originally tweeted me, actually.
Him: I'm always unsure of that myself. I take it you aren't up explaining to ANY of the 31 Biblical contradictions, then?
Me: https://twitter.com/#!/Rhology/status/71188920561451008
Him: You can choose any five you want, I don't really care which. I doubt you can deal with any of them.
Him: Come to think of it, Rho, just pick one to start off. We can get into the details better that way.
So, I guess I'll forge ahead.
Look, though, first let me echo what JP Holding has said about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
Editorial commentary in the form of pictures and one-sentence comments are not arguments. SAB is the Internet equivalent to a brick wall scribbled with graffiti. It performs no analysis of the social background, the literary data, or context. It is merely "instant reaction" from an angry Skeptic, and that sort of arguing isn't arguing at all. We feel no more obliged to offer a response than they would feel obliged to respond to a preacher whose only argument was, "You're a sinner bound for hell!"...By estimate perhaps 40-50% of SAB's comments are either "argument by outrage" or places where SAB takes moral offense, usually against a cultural norm. Most of the rest are easily answered by links, and I would encourage readers to spend their time better reading other material on this site that, while answering SAB's claims, has nothing to do with them directly...Overall, almost none of SAB deserves detailed response and many cases require no more than a "So?" as a response.Quite so.
Here's a great example. Is soteriology and the relationship between faith and works not a subject that's, you know, sort of wide and deep in the Bible? Yet there you go! Just throw it out there like a Catholic Answers stooge, as if context has no meaning or import. I myself have filled numerous pixels on this very topic, here, here, here, here, here, and here among many others.
I'm not saying consult with me; I'm saying consult with someone.
Here's another good example. The speaker isn't taken into account. The purpose, the context, the question asked, the surrounding situation; none of that is dealt with. None of the theology is explored, none of the prophetic portent of what it means to say that Elijah was to precede the Messiah. No exploration of the fact that John the Baptist was interested solely in pointing people to Jesus at all times, and to zero degree in any fascination with himself, or the fact that he was actually John the Baptist, not Elijah. Yet as the fulfillment, the antitype, of Elijah, it is also fair to call him Elijah.
But at AtheistOK's request, I picked out one that had me scratching my head for about an hour, so I'll delve into that one here.
Did Jesus baptise?
Yes - John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
No - John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.
So first, is it best to start off when reading an author with the presumption that he had zero short-term memory and had the intellect of a cricket? Did he simply totally forget what he wrote a few sentences above? Why not assume the same thing of @AtheistOK? He may protest, but that's OK - he's protesting because he doesn't remember what happened before. Fair's fair, right?
W. Hall Harris III makes an excellent point in his exegetical commentary:
So John’s disciples come to him troubled about an apparent contradiction in doctrine though the explicit problem they mention is that Jesus was baptizing and multitudes were coming to him. (Whether Jesus was or was not baptizing really wasn’t the issue though, and John knew that because he didn’t mention it in his reply. In 4:2 we are told that Jesus was not baptizing, but his disciples. That reference would seem to cover this incident as well, and so the disciples of John are just reporting what they have heard, or think they heard.)Matthew Henry's relevant comments:
We read of Christ’s coming into Judea (ch. 3:22), after he had kept the feast at Jerusalem; and now he left Judea four months before harvest, as is said here (v. 35); so that it is computed that he staid in Judea about six months, to build upon the foundation John had laid there. We have no particular account of his sermons and miracles there, only in general, v. 1.I. That he made disciples; he prevailed with many to embrace his doctrine, and to follow him as a teacher come from God. His ministry was successful, notwithstanding the opposition it met with (Ps. 110:2, 3); mathetas poiei —it signifies the same with matheteuo —to disciples. Compare Gen. 12:5. The souls which they had gotten, which they had made (so the word is), which they hadmade proselytes. Note, It is Christ’s prerogative to make disciples, first to bring them to his foot, and then to form and fashion them to his will. Fit, non nascitur, Christianus—The Christian is made such, not born such. Tertullian.II. That he baptized those whom he made disciples, admitted them by washing them with water; not himself, but by the ministry of his disciples, v. 2The preceding commentaries provide, in my estimation, the true meaning of the passage and a good deal of what we're supposed to take from it. That is, if we weren't so busy suppressing the truth about God that we know, for the sake of our evil desires.
Now, to prove a contradiction, the skeptic has to demonstrate that none of the proposed harmonisations to a given difficulty is sufficient. Any harmonisation that is possible means that no contradiction is provable from the standpoint of the modern reader of an old text. You weren't there, you don't know. I wasn't there either. I have a decent grasp on what is possible and what isn't possible, so though most everyone and even I might consider a certain event highly unlikely, weird stuff happens sometimes.
Given that, one more point. New Testament Koine Greek did not contain much punctuation, if any. No quotation marks, no periods, no question? marks, no parentheses.
Here's an example image of a manuscript copy from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Notice how there are English sentences in there, but they all bleed together in Greek. Thus, when translating, the translators have to place English punctuation according to what works best in English, taking the Greek meaning into account. Obviously, it's difficult, but these guys are pros.
With respect to this passage, I believe that may very well be what happened: a slight oversight by translators. Here is the text as it appears in the modern NASB:
John 4:1Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), 3He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.
Here is my proposed re-punctuation, with the changed punctuation marked in red boldface:
1Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that "Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were," 3He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.
There is no way to know from the Greek text whether this is the proper English-translated punctuation or not. I would hold that it very possibly is, and that the translators simply didn't consult the SAB during their translating. I know, it was a huge oversight to not consult a shallow skeptical website, but there you go.
The message transmitted to the Pharisees by those who were reporting about Jesus' and His disciples' activities was slightly mistaken. The messengers were wrong; perhaps they saw Jesus in the water and assumed He was baptising. Perhaps they themselves heard about it secondhand and embellished the story a bit b/c they didn't like Jesus, or b/c they wanted to tell the Pharisees what they thought they wanted to hear.
Also, it is a continuing theme throughout the Gospels that Jesus explicitly conferred His authority on the disciples, to go out and do ministry as His shaluach, His apostoloi, His sent ones. A messenger like that at that time, when he spoke, it was as the man himself speaking. Thus, when the disciples of the Lord baptised, it's as if He Himself was baptising for it was under His watch and with His authority, though He didn't physically immerse people with His own hands.
One thing for sure - God knows all the ins and the outs of this passage, and He knows far better than I, or the author of the SAB, or @AtheistOK. Even if I didn't have an answer for this difficulty, that is not a sufficient reason to surrender my faith in Jesus or in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Why? B/c bottom line, atheism reduces to utter absurdity, and if everything is absurd, trying to find the truth that the Bible is errant is absurd. Seeking truth is absurd. You found the truth? Meh. So what?
The Bible is shown to be true again:
1 Corinthians 15:16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied...32If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Timna
I keep a rule around here that when a skeptic claims there are contradictions in the Bible, I allow 5 chances to prove it. I figure that if s/he can't get it done with his/her favorite 5, there's no reason to look any further with that person - s/he has nothing to offer.
So, with that in mind, I asked one @BeMoreCynical for evidence of his assertion that the Bible has flaws. You'll note that I tried to cut him off at the pass by asking for actual flaws. "The Bible commands something that I find morally reprehensible" is not a flaw unless you can prove that your moral standard is correct, something which no atheist can possibly do. Much less is "The Bible records an event I find morally reprehensible" a flaw, though many, many careless skeptics make exactly that contention, and all the time.
Anyway, then @piisalie responded: 1Chron 1.36 The Chronicler mistakes Timna for a son instead of a concubine. (Gen 36:12)?
The conversation has now lasted quite some time, mostly because piisalie and BeMoreCynical have demonstrated their inability to understand what a contradiction is.
Genesis 36: 9These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. 10These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Esau’s wife Adah, Reuel the son of Esau’s wife Basemath. 11The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho and Gatam and Kenaz. 12Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the sons of Esau’s wife Adah. 13These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were the sons of Esau’s wife Basemath.
1 Chronicles 1:34Abraham became the father of Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel. 35The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam and Korah. 36The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna and Amalek.
I responded to piisalie and BMC, and a selection from our conversation follows here:
Me: There were 2 ppl named Timna.
piisalie: But you made it up. (Edit: BMC actually said that.)
Me: U have no idea whether I made it up. Did you have anything better, or was that your best shot?
piisalie: so you assert he had both a concubine and a son named Timna?
Me: You assert that Timna was 1 person, no proof. I assert they were 2 w/ same name. Neither have proof. No contradiction.
Me: Yes, kinda like how a guy could have a wife and a male friend named Pat, or Tracy.
piisalie: both verses cite the line of Eliphaz, one has Timna as a son, one has Timna as a concubine, neither has both...
Me: I sometimes refer to my wife and in other contexts to my friend, sometimes not both.
piisalie: you know, that argument could make sense, if we weren't talking about sacred recorded geneologies...
Me: I don't take those genealogies as necessarily exhaustive.
piisalie: so a perfect God, wrote a perfect book, with incomplete blood lines, containing names/persons to be easily confused?
Me: Sry, didn't realise " @piisalie is confused" = "untrue or contradictory". Where is that definition written?
Me: I blv the guy who was there, not the guy 6K yrs later claiming better knowledge
piisalie: Which guy was there? The author of Genesis, or Chronicles?
Me: Both are closer to it by far than u r. Do u *know* the auth of Chron didn't have other supplement info? No, u don't.
It's mind-boggling to me that this has taken so much interest in these two tweeters' minds. By necessity, for communication to be possible with anyone, we must begin with the presumption of harmonisation for texts and speech. Otherwise, we end up deconstructing everything, and in total absurdity, for any communication or text that advocates for rampant deconstruction assumes that it itself is exempt from the deconstruction it advocates, and we know nothing, ever.
How much more must this be the case for ancient documents, when we, the modern readers/critics, are so far removed from the events that took place! We have virtually no information about the minutiæ, the specific contexts, surrounding events, and surrounding people of these textual references. If you don't want to take the authors' word for it outside of some high standard of corroboration, then to be consistent, you must deny that you know much of anything about history, even modern history.
Besides all that, for the Christian who recognises that God is really, really smart, and @piisalie and @BeMoreCynical are of evidently average intelligence, we have to weigh the priorities. Whom to believe? The God Who cannot lie and Who has proven His reliability over and over again and indeed predicted Jesus' resurrection from the dead and then carried it out? Or some guys on Twitter who don't realise that sometimes people have the same name?
To prove a contradiction, there must be no possible harmonisation for the texts cited. I obviously don't know with certainty whether there were two people named Timna, since I wasn't there, but it is a perfectly reasonable solution to the proposed problem. Where a perfectly reasonable option exists, no contradiction does, and that's just the way it is. I'm sure this disappoints my skeptical friends, but my suggestion is to find a better example of "contradiction".
Finally, @piisalie said something I find to be contemptible and worthy of a serious amount of discredit:
he'll just misquote me, and mock me on his blog like the last time :P
Anyone is welcome to look over the last time @piisalie and I had a blog discussion, and I challenge anyone to find where I misquoted him. Whether I've engaged in mockery of him personally is open to discussion, but misquotation is a serious charge. But the thing is, when @piisalie is happy to falsely accuse me of misquotation, some third-rate blogger, what level of credibility should we lend to his accusations of contradiction?
So, with that in mind, I asked one @BeMoreCynical for evidence of his assertion that the Bible has flaws. You'll note that I tried to cut him off at the pass by asking for actual flaws. "The Bible commands something that I find morally reprehensible" is not a flaw unless you can prove that your moral standard is correct, something which no atheist can possibly do. Much less is "The Bible records an event I find morally reprehensible" a flaw, though many, many careless skeptics make exactly that contention, and all the time.
Anyway, then @piisalie responded: 1Chron 1.36 The Chronicler mistakes Timna for a son instead of a concubine. (Gen 36:12)?
The conversation has now lasted quite some time, mostly because piisalie and BeMoreCynical have demonstrated their inability to understand what a contradiction is.
Genesis 36: 9These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. 10These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Esau’s wife Adah, Reuel the son of Esau’s wife Basemath. 11The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho and Gatam and Kenaz. 12Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the sons of Esau’s wife Adah. 13These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were the sons of Esau’s wife Basemath.
1 Chronicles 1:34Abraham became the father of Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel. 35The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam and Korah. 36The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna and Amalek.
I responded to piisalie and BMC, and a selection from our conversation follows here:
Me: There were 2 ppl named Timna.
piisalie: But you made it up. (Edit: BMC actually said that.)
Me: U have no idea whether I made it up. Did you have anything better, or was that your best shot?
piisalie: so you assert he had both a concubine and a son named Timna?
Me: You assert that Timna was 1 person, no proof. I assert they were 2 w/ same name. Neither have proof. No contradiction.
Me: Yes, kinda like how a guy could have a wife and a male friend named Pat, or Tracy.
piisalie: both verses cite the line of Eliphaz, one has Timna as a son, one has Timna as a concubine, neither has both...
Me: I sometimes refer to my wife and in other contexts to my friend, sometimes not both.
piisalie: you know, that argument could make sense, if we weren't talking about sacred recorded geneologies...
Me: I don't take those genealogies as necessarily exhaustive.
piisalie: so a perfect God, wrote a perfect book, with incomplete blood lines, containing names/persons to be easily confused?
Me: Sry, didn't realise " @piisalie is confused" = "untrue or contradictory". Where is that definition written?
Me: I blv the guy who was there, not the guy 6K yrs later claiming better knowledge
piisalie: Which guy was there? The author of Genesis, or Chronicles?
Me: Both are closer to it by far than u r. Do u *know* the auth of Chron didn't have other supplement info? No, u don't.
It's mind-boggling to me that this has taken so much interest in these two tweeters' minds. By necessity, for communication to be possible with anyone, we must begin with the presumption of harmonisation for texts and speech. Otherwise, we end up deconstructing everything, and in total absurdity, for any communication or text that advocates for rampant deconstruction assumes that it itself is exempt from the deconstruction it advocates, and we know nothing, ever.
How much more must this be the case for ancient documents, when we, the modern readers/critics, are so far removed from the events that took place! We have virtually no information about the minutiæ, the specific contexts, surrounding events, and surrounding people of these textual references. If you don't want to take the authors' word for it outside of some high standard of corroboration, then to be consistent, you must deny that you know much of anything about history, even modern history.
Besides all that, for the Christian who recognises that God is really, really smart, and @piisalie and @BeMoreCynical are of evidently average intelligence, we have to weigh the priorities. Whom to believe? The God Who cannot lie and Who has proven His reliability over and over again and indeed predicted Jesus' resurrection from the dead and then carried it out? Or some guys on Twitter who don't realise that sometimes people have the same name?
To prove a contradiction, there must be no possible harmonisation for the texts cited. I obviously don't know with certainty whether there were two people named Timna, since I wasn't there, but it is a perfectly reasonable solution to the proposed problem. Where a perfectly reasonable option exists, no contradiction does, and that's just the way it is. I'm sure this disappoints my skeptical friends, but my suggestion is to find a better example of "contradiction".
Finally, @piisalie said something I find to be contemptible and worthy of a serious amount of discredit:
he'll just misquote me, and mock me on his blog like the last time :P
Anyone is welcome to look over the last time @piisalie and I had a blog discussion, and I challenge anyone to find where I misquoted him. Whether I've engaged in mockery of him personally is open to discussion, but misquotation is a serious charge. But the thing is, when @piisalie is happy to falsely accuse me of misquotation, some third-rate blogger, what level of credibility should we lend to his accusations of contradiction?
Friday, March 25, 2011
False certainty
The tweeter/blogger @KushielsMoon, the "Christian" pro-choicer, and I have been engaging via tweets on the topic of whether very young babies can think or feel. I confess - it's difficult to deal with these kinds of things via Twitter. The 140 character limit is constraining, to be sure.
Anyway, I'd like to flesh out why I've been pursuing this line of argumentation. First, some of the tweets.
Let's take a look at the first of those articles. Kudos to @KM for coming up with the goods, at least through the first round, but if the first article can't keep up the goods and I conclude after reading the others that they're similar in (lack of) quality and relevance, I'm not going to bother with the others.
As we read through them, let's keep our eyes peeled for unargued-for assumptions. @KM is telling us that brain functionality = mind. This is physicalism, and it's hardly commendable for a so-called Christian to hold to such kind of things.
Does this "Christian" pro-choicer think that people have souls? If so, when do they get them and how does she know? Will she appeal to scientific studies again to prove when people get souls? What does it look like or smell like when a soul is received? Does it increase, even a little bit, the mass of the person at that moment of ensoulment? Does an imaging scan display different colors when the soul is in residence?
What about a mind capable of feeling? How does @KM know for sure that brainwaves = thinking and feeling?
If she replies: We scan brains of adults and even children while they're thinking and feeling stuff, note how the scans look, and extrapolate backward.
...then how does she know for sure that such data is relevant for the very young?
And how does she know for sure that such is the only means by which thinking/feeling occurs and even can be detected? Does she remember back when she was a blastocyst? Can she perform a mindmeld with blastocysts to see if there's any mind to access?
Answer: She doesn't know for sure. She is perfectly willing, however, to kill that which she doesn't know isn't human. Sadly, she doesn't seem to care.
Before we dive into the 1st article, the third one begins with this amazing sentence, which destroys @KM's argument. The very first sentence!
--The evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.
Not sure what else needs to be said here. Moving on.
When I quote excerpts, assume the emphasis is mine unless indicated otherwise.
The first one:
--Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity.
--the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality
How do they know the absence is there? How can one prove a negative? If they say that they haven't found any evidence of it, how do we know they're looking in the right place with the right tools and methods?
--It is rather obvious that the neonate is able to scream and cry and can even slightly lift the corners of the mouth as if smiling. However, these do not appear to be true emotions
You know, I think I'll just apply the same reasoning to 19th-century Negro slaves. They appear to experience pain when I lash them and hunger, fatigue, and nascent despair when I work them 24 hours without a break, but these do not appear to be true emotions. I know that b/c science says that they're not really human. How do the scientists know? Just ask them! Besides, you can ask one of my Negros. See if you can understand the nonsense bababababaa that comes out of their mouths. Pfff, Negros human. Please.
--In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction
The irony is delicious. Why didn't they come to the conclusion that there might be more going on there than meets the eye or the imaging tool, that resides in the cells of the brain? Because of their physicalist presuppositions, that's why.
--Given its exceedingly long and ancient evolutionary history, not surprisingly, many brainstem functions are present before birth and occur without the aid of thinking, reasoning, or even forebrain/neocortical participation
See? It's not argued for. It's just assumed, and you better believe them because they're scientists.
Now, let me explain the other side of this. I'm not saying that I'm 100% confident that very young babies in the blastocyst phase can indeed think/feel. In fact, I think it's sort of doubtful. But I don't base my argument on "scientific evidence" fundamentally, even though I am convinced that properly understood scientific reasoning is on my side.
But @KM is basing her position strongly on the assumption that the very young baby is not human, and one reason for that is that she thinks the baby can't think/feel. She doesn't know that, and so she assumes what she needs to prove. Thus most of her argument rests on something she simply assumes.
If you don't know for sure whether something deserves to live or die, whether you have the right to take that life, if you don't know whether you're aiming at a person or a tree or something, do you pull the trigger? Not me - I stop to wait and see what it is I'm aiming at. @KM fills it full of lead.
The problem is presuppositions, not facts.
Abolish human abortion. This "Christian" pro-choicer is a lead member of the culture of death.
Anyway, I'd like to flesh out why I've been pursuing this line of argumentation. First, some of the tweets.
@KushielsMoon that they can't think or feel. Prove they can't think or feel. Sheesh. Stupid #prochoice =#abolishhumanabortion
@Rhology You need a brain and specified cells to think or feel. A blastocyst does not have a brain or the specified cells.#prochoice
@KushielsMoon Prove that u need a brain & specified cells 2 think/feel. U don't know, and u don't care that u don't know. MUST KILL BABIES!
@Rhology SCIENCE. Individual cells don't think. Cells that aren't differentiated as brain cells don't let you think.
»
@KushielsMoon LOL reasoning fail. Science can't tell u whether or not. That's why I asked. So, show me the scientific study proving it. Go.
@Rhology Science can't tell us that cells don't think? Please, please, please tell me you're joking. #prochoice
@KushielsMoon Still waiting for the study that PROVES very young babies don't think/feel. Duh, I know u ASSUME it.#abolishhumanabortion
@Rhology I don't assume it. It's a scientific fact that cells don't think.http://ow.ly/4mqmf http://ow.ly/4mqou http://ow.ly/4mqqx
Let's take a look at the first of those articles. Kudos to @KM for coming up with the goods, at least through the first round, but if the first article can't keep up the goods and I conclude after reading the others that they're similar in (lack of) quality and relevance, I'm not going to bother with the others.
As we read through them, let's keep our eyes peeled for unargued-for assumptions. @KM is telling us that brain functionality = mind. This is physicalism, and it's hardly commendable for a so-called Christian to hold to such kind of things.
Does this "Christian" pro-choicer think that people have souls? If so, when do they get them and how does she know? Will she appeal to scientific studies again to prove when people get souls? What does it look like or smell like when a soul is received? Does it increase, even a little bit, the mass of the person at that moment of ensoulment? Does an imaging scan display different colors when the soul is in residence?
What about a mind capable of feeling? How does @KM know for sure that brainwaves = thinking and feeling?
If she replies: We scan brains of adults and even children while they're thinking and feeling stuff, note how the scans look, and extrapolate backward.
...then how does she know for sure that such data is relevant for the very young?
And how does she know for sure that such is the only means by which thinking/feeling occurs and even can be detected? Does she remember back when she was a blastocyst? Can she perform a mindmeld with blastocysts to see if there's any mind to access?
Answer: She doesn't know for sure. She is perfectly willing, however, to kill that which she doesn't know isn't human. Sadly, she doesn't seem to care.
Before we dive into the 1st article, the third one begins with this amazing sentence, which destroys @KM's argument. The very first sentence!
--The evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.
Not sure what else needs to be said here. Moving on.
When I quote excerpts, assume the emphasis is mine unless indicated otherwise.
The first one:
--Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity.
--the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality
How do they know the absence is there? How can one prove a negative? If they say that they haven't found any evidence of it, how do we know they're looking in the right place with the right tools and methods?
--It is rather obvious that the neonate is able to scream and cry and can even slightly lift the corners of the mouth as if smiling. However, these do not appear to be true emotions
You know, I think I'll just apply the same reasoning to 19th-century Negro slaves. They appear to experience pain when I lash them and hunger, fatigue, and nascent despair when I work them 24 hours without a break, but these do not appear to be true emotions. I know that b/c science says that they're not really human. How do the scientists know? Just ask them! Besides, you can ask one of my Negros. See if you can understand the nonsense bababababaa that comes out of their mouths. Pfff, Negros human. Please.
--In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction
The irony is delicious. Why didn't they come to the conclusion that there might be more going on there than meets the eye or the imaging tool, that resides in the cells of the brain? Because of their physicalist presuppositions, that's why.
--Given its exceedingly long and ancient evolutionary history, not surprisingly, many brainstem functions are present before birth and occur without the aid of thinking, reasoning, or even forebrain/neocortical participation
See? It's not argued for. It's just assumed, and you better believe them because they're scientists.
Now, let me explain the other side of this. I'm not saying that I'm 100% confident that very young babies in the blastocyst phase can indeed think/feel. In fact, I think it's sort of doubtful. But I don't base my argument on "scientific evidence" fundamentally, even though I am convinced that properly understood scientific reasoning is on my side.
But @KM is basing her position strongly on the assumption that the very young baby is not human, and one reason for that is that she thinks the baby can't think/feel. She doesn't know that, and so she assumes what she needs to prove. Thus most of her argument rests on something she simply assumes.
If you don't know for sure whether something deserves to live or die, whether you have the right to take that life, if you don't know whether you're aiming at a person or a tree or something, do you pull the trigger? Not me - I stop to wait and see what it is I'm aiming at. @KM fills it full of lead.
The problem is presuppositions, not facts.
Abolish human abortion. This "Christian" pro-choicer is a lead member of the culture of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)