The scar is a jagged hole
ripped through his arm ten years ago.
That scar is matched by others
on his chest and
his back,
holes torn through flesh and bone
punched through his body
by bullets and despair
and into which
bitter hopelessness
might have been poured
and yet!
and yet,
in spite of it all
a dangerous strength and determination
lives on
believing
that maybe
maybe
MAYBE
these scars will serve to prove that
refuge is reasonable and
welcome is warranted
and the opportunity to
simply
live
can be afforded.
As for me?
Any person who can walk through
hundreds of miles
and dozens of bullets
asking for the simple chance to
live
can be my neighbor, any time.
In fact, I don't think we need to demand
that sort of price of anyone,
and shame on those who do.
35 comments:
A rather curious method of vetting. So glad you have no role in the process.
Really? Looking at hard data like the BULLET WOUNDS a person has suffered... the FAMILY MEMBERS KILLED is a "rather curious method of vetting..."?
On the contrary, IGNORING such evidence would be a rather criminal way of NOT vetting, of ignoring the obvious and a rather cowardly way out.
Are you a coward?
That's "hard data" of wound...quite possibly a bullet wound...but of nothing else. How one came to receive such a wound can easily be falsified so as to draw sympathy from another to achieve a desired end.
And what of stories of family members killed? Are their dead bodies brought along for proof? Are they really the bodies of family members, or of someone else in the same way some are claiming the children with them are theirs when they're not.
My point was, and is, that you presume every claim of victimhood is legitimate simply because it is rendered. You do this as if you have the psychic ability to know when a tale is true rather than tall, simply so you can posture as caring, claim moral high ground, but suffer nothing for being wrong.
You've got one final chance, Marshall, so respond carefully...
1. The bullet wounds are one bit of evidence. Presumably, this gentleman was treated by a doctor or medical staff somewhere. That would be a second bit of evidence. Investigators look at the data available to form conclusions. NOT just a scar.
2. Do you recognize that this is how it works? Are you aware of how such investigations work?
3. How many investigations have you led in such matters?
4. How much experience do you have dealing with refugees and this sort of violence?
5. Are you aware of the on-the-ground reality of the violence in Honduras?
6. Are you suggesting we should IGNORE the evidence and just return them to their country (likely to be killed) or actually investigate and, when the evidence supports their stories, accept them as refugees?
7. You stupidly suggested that I "presume every claim of victimhood is legitimate..." Where is your evidence of that? Or did you just make it up based on nothing but sheer audacious stupidity and ignorance?
There are processes for investigating such claims. I support giving the people the chance to seek refuge and not making the process so onerous as to be prohibitive. The reason I support that is because I'm not a dick, nor a coward, nor a racist who presumes that all the brown people are lying when they tell their horror stories of what's happening in their lives.
You?
What EVIDENCE do you have that this gentleman I was speaking with was lying?
Can you admit that you don't know a goddamned thing about him and his story?
Begin with that last pair of questions, first. Or go away.
Is it safe to say you begin with a guilty till proven innocent attitude towards refugees? Is it also fair to say that you're a coward who'd rather err on the side of sending people back to their deaths than err on the side of saving lives?
"You've got one final chance, Marshall, so respond carefully..."
HA! As if doing so is going to prevent you from deleting my comments rather than demonstrating honor, integrity, courage and this so-called, undefined "embrace grace" philosophy your ultimatum doesn't imply. But I no longer care about being deleted. We both know I've had your number for years, and you're no longer able to maintain your false facade of "love they enemies" Christianity. So instead of "carefully", I'll just do what I always do and concentrate on direct and honest responses.
"What EVIDENCE do you have that this gentleman I was speaking with was lying?"
I don't. I don't even have any evidence the guy actually exists. My response was directed at YOUR story, not the story of the character in your story.
"Can you admit that you don't know a goddamned thing about him and his story?"
Oh absolutely. After all, you're the one telling it and you say so little...again, assuming the guy actually exists, which is in doubt given I've only your word. Now for the rest, because I answer questions directly:
1. Is this a question? No matter. It raises a few:
"The bullet wounds are one bit of evidence."
Assuming they actually are bullet wounds...and that assumes you're competent to know 100% without fail just by looking, and that you're competent enough to know when someone is honest and not just a really, really good liar who isn't beyond threatening even his mother into backing his story...assuming all that, they are no more than evidence of bullet wounds. Nothing more.
"Presumably, this gentleman was treated by a doctor or medical staff somewhere. That would be a second bit of evidence."
"Presumably"? That word doesn't inspire confidence in your argument, and it doesn't suggest relevance to it, either. But even if that is the case, so what? It's only evidence that he was treated. Nothing more.
"Investigators look at the data available to form conclusions."
What "investigators"? Are you now saying that this guy went through the proper U.S. protocols for the granting of asylum? If so, then what the hell are we talking about? What more haven't you said about this case, because there's no way in hell that a few bullet wounds means the dude was fleeing for his life. They only mean he was shot.
"2. Do you recognize that this is how it works? Are you aware of how such investigations work?"
I recognize by your first point that YOU have no idea how this works. My response clearly shows that. Real investigations are far more in depth than looking at a scar or two and proclaiming, "OH YEAH!! THIS DUDE'S TOTALLY TELLING THE TRUTH!!! LET HIM IN!!" Uh uh. Doesn't work like that at all.
"3. How many investigations have you led in such matters?"
None, and that's totally irrelevant. I don't need to have done so in order to question YOUR version of events. I can tell you this, though: No investigation I would ever lead would be as flimsy as the one you describe. Not when the welfare of my fellow Americans are at stake!
"4. How much experience do you have dealing with refugees and this sort of violence?"
Very little, but another irrelevant question that in no way makes my initial response unreasonable, irrational or unintelligent. This question #4, however, does make for a nice diversionary tactic of "don't defend yourself, but attack the person asking questions". Very feo-like.
"5. Are you aware of the on-the-ground reality of the violence in Honduras?"
Yes, and it doesn't matter here, nor in the legitimate process of vetting asylum seekers.
"6. Are you suggesting we should IGNORE the evidence and just return them to their country (likely to be killed) or actually investigate and, when the evidence supports their stories, accept them as refugees?"
Absolutely not, nor has anything I've said, either in total or specific to this post so much as hint at such a thing. But those who deal with asylum claims know what they're doing, I would wager, and investigations take place as best they can be. In this case, you've offered scant little in the way of evidence. Only your word that this dude is what you say he is. YOU'RE credibility is lacking, and as such I've no confidence that you're competent with regard knowing when a desperate man is telling the truth or not. So, until you bring ACTUAL evidence...or a better story...there's nothing that confirms anything about this alleged victim. Don't shoot my dog over it. That's just the reality here.
"7. You stupidly suggested that I "presume every claim of victimhood is legitimate..." Where is your evidence of that? Or did you just make it up based on nothing but sheer audacious stupidity and ignorance?"
There's that "embrace grace" we keep hearing so much about! First, there's nothing stupid about my "suggestion". It is based on years of dealing with you, particularly the fact that you've never so much as hinted at having dealt with someone who proved to be lying. Every anecdote you expect us to believe insists perfect angels running for their lives. Also, you have done next to nothing (I'm being generous here) to acknowledge the well documented FACT that people lie about being refugees in order to fast track as much as possible their entry into the US. The most notorious piece of evidence is past discussions about Nicaragua, where again, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any of the well documented atrocities of the ruling Sandinista government, preferring to believe the sad stories that only implicate the Contras and that most evil of benefactors, Ronald Reagan. Said another way, you're not a reliable source for anything related to these issues.
"There are processes for investigating such claims."
As I'm well aware. They're supposed to take place before granting entry. Not before regardless of how well one relates his sob story. I leave it in the capable hands of those tasked with the job...not some socialist Anabaptist who cares little for the welfare of his own people in order to posture as "Christian".
"I support giving the people the chance to seek refuge and not making the process so onerous as to be prohibitive."
The process has been corrupted and overwhelmed because of asshats like yourself, who believe every asylum claim is true or should be considered true and damn the consequences. Too bad if Americans suffer just so you can pretend to be holier-than-thou. It is because of people like you that so many believe they, too, have the chance to scam our system in such a way that they will gain entry and never be found among the general population. This hurts real asylum seekers like those you claim you know to be legitimate. It isn't the process, the laws or people like me. YOU did this.
"The reason I support that is because I'm not a dick, nor a coward, nor a racist who presumes that all the brown people are lying when they tell their horror stories of what's happening in their lives."
Ah, but you are a dick, a coward and a racist by presuming, in your "embrace grace" sorta way, that I am any of those things because I respect the rule of law, have a regard for my country and people and am not so gullible that I would simply believe every story told me by those with a desire to come here without the burden of following the rules.
And by the way, speaking of rules, those from South and Central American can't easily get here without first passing through Mexico, whose asylum laws are more lenient than ours and who, by international law, are supposed to seek asylum at the first country they come to who abides international law regarding refugees. The fact that they make no such effort, but instead come straight here compels a reasonable and rational suspicion for those who attempt to claim asylum. You've never responded to this fact, either, so I'm not at all impressed that you know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to dealing with alleged refugees.
Anyway, I don't much care what color or nationality the "asylum seeker", "refugee" or "sojourner" who disregards our laws regarding immigration or travel to here. Only a dick and a coward would throw out the race card rather than address the concerns raised as if they're not wholly legitimate, rational and reasonable...all of which describes mine.
"Is it safe to say you begin with a guilty till proven innocent attitude towards refugees?"
No. It's not safe to say that at all. It is safe to say that the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here.
First, is the claimant seeking asylum legitimately...that is, through proper channels and protocols? In such cases, this guy claiming his gunshot scars are the result of oppression could actually be the result of having tried to rob a bank. How does our investigators know one way or the other with only wounds by which to judge? How do we know the guy isn't coming here to kill others who fled? The point here is that vetting is not a matter of judgement or guilt or innocence, but of verifying a claim. Your very question further validates my concern that you simply believe everyone who makes such claims.
Second, if the dude was caught being here without benefit of proper immigration protocols and THEN makes his asylum claim, then there is a suspicion of guilt because he broke the law and THEN made his claim when caught. This is reasonable, rational and practical. To say otherwise is not.
"Is it also fair to say that you're a coward who'd rather err on the side of sending people back to their deaths than err on the side of saving lives?"
No. But it's cowardly to abide the law rather than be seen by some joker as a coward for not doing so. There may indeed be legitimate claimants turned away for legitimate reasons related to the limitations of the investigation. That's unfortunate, but such possibilities doesn't justify letting them in and hoping for the best at the expense of fellow citizens. That only encourages even more people trying to enter through the method of claiming asylum. Once again, this untenable situation at our border is because of people like YOU, not the law or people like me. If you really want to condemn Reagan, condemn him for his amnesty and falling for the lies of the Dems who did not address the concerns regarding border security.
Now, are you going to be your usual jerk self and delete me, or will you borrow a spine and actually consider my comments like a man...responding with something a bit more substantive than you've provided thus far? I won't be holding my breath.
Just realized a mistake in that second to last paragraph. It should read,
No. But it's cowardly to ignore the law rather than be seen by some joker as a coward for not doing so. The point being that the law is there for a reason, and not liking it is not justification for ignoring it. If the law is not working as planned, get the law changed. Until you can, abide it like a actual Christian is required to do.
It has nothing to do with not liking that all. It has to do with the system being broken which results in people not being able to seek Refuge who should be able to seek Refuge. If you were trying to escape violence in another country and we're blocked at the border the United States, would you try to go around or would you just go back to get killed? The question is how stupid are you or how immoral and irrational are you?
Why are you trying to change abortion law? Why don't you just let people do what's legal? Is it the case that you think some laws and practices are worth changing? Hypocrite.
So... Craig pastes a poem with a made up voice to oppose a real one.
There’s your theology of the human person in a nutshell.
"It has nothing to do with not liking that all. It has to do with the system being broken which results in people not being able to seek Refuge who should be able to seek Refuge"
But again, the system is not "broken". It's overwhelmed due the masses of people attempting to cross without regard to our laws and procedures. This, again, is the result of people like you enabling that disregard for our borders, laws and sovereignty, that leads these people to believe they have a right to come here simply because they want to, aided by the assumption that they can eventually disappear among the general population with a high probability of getting away with it. They also know that should they get caught, they can always claim asylum and this "broken" system will likely afford them greater opportunity to get away with it.
"If you were trying to escape violence in another country and we're blocked at the border the United States, would you try to go around or would you just go back to get killed?"
I would likely believe that I have not been fortunate enough to be persuasive in my plea. This assumes I ignored the asylum opportunities of all the countries between my home and the US, which wouldn't help my case. The international standards by which you would suggest we are obliged doesn't require we ignore that fact. It also obliges, I believe, the asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first country they come to that offers it. Yet, most of them are passing through such countries...such as Mexico, who's asylum laws are much more lenient than ours...to come here. That casts doubt on the veracity of their stories regarding the dangers from which they claim to flee.
"The question is how stupid are you or how immoral and irrational are you?"
That's not at all the question, though I'd have to be stupid to presume you're being totally honest and that you're as knowledgeable and competent to make the judgements you insist must be made for the anecdotal cases you try to make as compelling as possible. There's nothing at all immoral or irrational about my position in the least. Nothing you've been able to identify as yet. You ask your questions as if other details do not exist...details that immediately come to mind and need to be resolved. Your latest tale of woe is rife with them, as I've already pointed out.
"Why are you trying to change abortion law? Why don't you just let people do what's legal? Is it the case that you think some laws and practices are worth changing? Hypocrite."
Jeez, Dan! This is plainly idiotic! We're not talking about you changing the law. We're talking about you ignoring it. I've been suggesting for a long time that if you believe our current laws or systems are "broken" or in any way impractical, that you should seek to have them changed...not to seek ways to enable foreigners to ignore them.
However, I seek to change abortion law (outlaw abortion) because the practice is the unjust taking of human life...AS IT'S PRIMARY OBJECTIVE!!! You're trying to pretend our immigration laws are an intelligent parallel?? That's textbook absurdity! Abortion was legalized on false premises...not because it in any way had some Constitutional justification. Thus, it should never have been legally allowed in the first place.
No, there's not really a parallel between actual living in the here and now human beings and potential "one day" human beings/fetuses.
Refugees are humans needing support in the here and now and are part of the marginalized that God and Jesus are recorded as saying we have an obligation to defend and side with and support IF we're going to be followers of God.
There is no such command from God or Jesus about fetuses.
SO, certainly from the Biblical literalist point of view (IF they were actually being true to the Bible's teachings), there is no comparison.
But then, we know that biblical literalists are not so much interested in following God as they are in cherry picking verses to reinforce their human prejudices and intolerance and gracelessness.
Thus, it has always been with the Pharisee class.
No one picks and chooses more than you, with the added bonus of distorting what you pick. You focus on general urgings to treat well the foreigner...which we do as evidenced by the numbers welcomed through legal protocols every year...while ignoring encouragements to obey the laws of the land, because rulers rule by God's will.
No one is more marginalized than the unborn, who are written off as "not fully human" out of shear convenience. The day old fetus...indeed, the just formed zygote...are fully human and actually LIVING, as ANY biologist would confirm, in the here and now. So you not only pick and choose (and distort) Scripture, you do the same with scientific fact, being complicit in the unjust, willful killing of people in the process.
God, through Scripture, tells us "Thou shalt not murder". How corrupt does one have to be to suggest He must list every stage of human development for one to know that refers to all people regardless of their current stage of development?
You compound your error by suggesting prejudice or racism is at play in demanding our laws and sovereignty be respected by foreigners seeking entry, because it serves your own disregard for such to do so. The only intolerance at play from my side of the divide is for lawbreaking and the cheap attempts to rationalize them perpetrated by those like you.
How many times in the Bible did God tell you not to abort fetuses? Ten times? Two?
Isn't it more like, Zero?
Answer that specific question directly.
Do you know how many times God commanded God's followers to be kind to immigrants, refugees, etc?
Ten? 50? 60?
Answer that question directly, please.
God, through Scripture, tells us "Thou shalt not murder". How corrupt does one have to be to suggest He must list every stage of human development for one to know that refers to all people regardless of their current stage of development?
How corrupt and arrogant does one have to be to assume that THEY are the ones who get to decide for God when human personhood begins?
Do you recognize the reality that GOD NEVER ONE TIME TOLD YOU when personhood began?
Answer that question directly, please.
On whose authority, then, do you insist it begins at the moment of conception?
Your own?
Who died and made you god, you little arrogant man?
"How many times in the Bible did God tell you not to abort fetuses? Ten times? Two? "
What is an abortion, Dan? It is the termination of a pregnancy. And what is a pregnancy? It is the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a woman. And what is an "offspring"? It is a person's child or children. So, an abortion is not merely the termination of a pregnancy, but more specifically and accurately, it is the termination of one's child. How many times in the Bible did God tell you not to abort fetuses? He didn't need more than once for real Christians ("Thou shalt not murder"). For all are made in His image, and in saying so, Scripture does not equivocate as you do by suggesting any are not simply because of their age, size or location.
You will now pretend that is not a direct answer, because you have the arrogance to believe you can dictate who is or isn't human enough to be protected as one created in God's image. Who gave you that authority? Where in Scripture is there anything that suggests you could possibly have such authority?
"Do you know how many times God commanded God's followers to be kind to immigrants, refugees, etc?"
I never counted. But there is no number that rationalizes the disregard for our laws based on subjective opinions...which can vary from person to person. You don't have the authority to do that, either.
"How corrupt and arrogant does one have to be to assume that THEY are the ones who get to decide for God when human personhood begins?"
That's really a stupid question, the purpose of which is to dodge the point that there is no authority granted to us by God to determine that it begins at any time past conception. We KNOW it's a person because it's the only way ANY person comes into existence. There is not other way by which one can come into existence except through the reproductive process, which results in a new person the moment sperm enters ovum. This is the science of how it works. I'm not deciding anything, but rather acknowledging the fact of it. It is YOU who is daring to decide, as if you have God-given authority, to decide that one is not a person if YOU say they aren't.
"Do you recognize the reality that GOD NEVER ONE TIME TOLD YOU when personhood began?"
He never had to. Remember? You talk about using reason. Here, however, you're trying to reason a way to make murder justifiable. I look at all the Bible says about the unborn and reason that they are people. There's no other honest way to look at it. All the early Christian leaders agreed and their writings are crystal clear on the matter.
But more importantly, God never one time told anyone they had the authority to dictate that personhood begins at some point later than conception. There are numerous points at which opinions vary and they can't all be right, and indeed, they are all wrong. A real Christian errs on the side of life, protecting those who can't protect themselves.
"On whose authority, then, do you insist it begins at the moment of conception?
Your own?"
Another stupid question which, actually, is answered in my comments above. And again, the mere asking suggests that you believe you have some authority to say it DOESN'T begin at conception. Who gave you that authority? God certainly didn't, and yet, you dare condescend to me when I stand firmly on the side of protecting the most innocent, the most helpless and the most unjustly marginalized simply because you're bigger than they are. Talk about "arrogant little men"!!! And to prove just how small you are, you will certainly delete this instead of confronting my responses like an actual man.
Sigh...
He didn't need more than once for real Christians ("Thou shalt not murder").
And precisely HOW MANY TIMES did God tell you that an abortion is the same thing as murder?
Answer the question, stop dodging, stop hiding behind false word manipulations.
Answer the question being asked of you.
How many times did God tell you abortion is wrong?
(The real, factual answer is zero. What is your answer?)
How many times did God tell you that abortion is the same as murder?
(The real, factual answer is zero. What is your answer?)
That's really a stupid question, the purpose of which is to dodge the point that there is no authority granted to us by God to determine that it begins at any time past conception.
No, the purpose of the question is precisely to understand WHEN "personhood" begins, because that matters. IF it begins with a sperm, then a condom is "murder" by your reasoning. Does personhood begin with the sperm, Marshall? If you think so, on whose authority did you decide that question?
If on the other hand, neither you nor I have a definitive, authoritative word on when personhood begins, then YOUR hunches don't matter a damn bit. Do you recognize that reality?
Here, however, you're trying to reason a way to make murder justifiable.
This of course is a diabolical, ghoulish and demonic attempt to make a false claim... and it fails horribly because it is a stupidly false claim. OF COURSE, I don't want to "reason a way to make murder justifiable. I'm not an evil person. That is a stupidly false claim.
Recognize that reality and apologize for it. Not for my sake, but for the sake of all those you demonize by making such a stupidly false claim.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, Marshall. Repent.
Failing an answer to these questions and an apology of that ridiculously stupidly false claim, you are entirely done here. I can't waste time with the delusional.
=====
there is no number that rationalizes the disregard for our laws based on subjective opinions...
? Says who? Did God tell you that?
I and many other people recognize the reality that laws can be unjust and even harmful/evil and of course, unjust and evil laws MUST be disobeyed.
Do you agree that evil laws - those that cause harm to innocent people, for instance - must be disobeyed? That we must obey God rather than humans?
OF COURSE, we must disregard laws that cause harm. That is the right answer. What is yours?
Marshal’s bad faith twisting of scripture makes God a murderer who willingly makes murderers and those willing to murder into kings and prophets.
“Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”
“Then the man of God wept. Hazael asked, “Why does my lord weep?” He answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel; you will set their fortresses on fire, you will kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their pregnant women.” Hazael said, “What is your servant, who is a mere dog, that he should do this great thing?” Elisha answered, “The Lord has shown me that you are to be king over Aram.”
“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband... if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,” —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge....”
“In course of time the wife of Judah, Shua’s daughter, died; when Judah’s time of mourning was over,[b] he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” she put off her widow’s garments, put on a veil, wrapped herself up, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. She saw that Shelah was grown up, yet she had not been given to him in marriage. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face. He went over to her at the roadside, and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” He answered, “I will send you a kid from the flock.” And she said, “Only if you give me a pledge, until you send it.” He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord, and the staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. Then she got up and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood. When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to recover the pledge from the woman, he could not find her. He asked the townspeople, “Where is the temple prostitute who was at Enaim by the wayside?” But they said, “No prostitute has been here.” So he returned to Judah, and said, “I have not found her; moreover the townspeople said, ‘No prostitute has been here.’” Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, otherwise we will be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her.” About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.”
And then, of course,
“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise.”
I fully intend and absolutely want to answer your questions as directly as I always do. I'm very strapped for time at present, yet I keep going over your last comment and it provokes me to respond almost beyond my ability to resist. Thus, I've decided that I will take it in bits so that I can address them properly. The problem is that while I could yes/no them all, leaving any at that has the potential of giving you a false impression. So, I'll take them on to the extent time allows and get to the rest as soon as possible.
"And precisely HOW MANY TIMES did God tell you that an abortion is the same thing as murder?"
I could act like your troll and pretend I'm totally in tune with The Spirit who tells me things no one else gets to hear, but I'll simply say, NONE, as in God did not "tell me that an abortion is the same thing as murder." But as you like to pretend you use reason to understand God's will "aright", as you often say, I actually do that. Reason can readily see that when two people engage in the act designed to bring about a new human being, a pregnancy can only mean that the woman carries a human being. Unjustly taking the life of that human being is what murder is...the unjust taking of a human being's life. Abortion is the termination of...well...I already went through this in my previous comment.
"How many times did God tell you abortion is wrong?"
Again, NEVER, but it's a deceitful question. You think you win because "abortion" isn't mentioned in Scripture. But because of the fact of biology, because of the fact of Scriptural references to the child in the womb we can reason easily that the unborn is the same as one of us born people in terms of valuing human life. I really like this particular article which contains what I find to be the most compelling argument from Scripture...Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was born in iniquity; I was sinful when my mother conceived me." The article goes on to say, rightly, "Each person has a sinful nature from the point of conception. Who but an actual person can have a sinful nature? Rocks and trees and animals and human organs do not have moral natures, good or bad. Morality can be ascribed only to a person. That there is a sin nature at the point of conception demonstrates that there is a person present who is capable of having such a nature." Go ahead. Try to "reason" that away. Among other very reasonable arguments it goes on to say, "The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would be “with child and give birth to a son” (Luke 1:31). In the first century, and in every century, to be pregnant is to be with child, not with that which might become a child."
Trying to argue by insisting "abortion" isn't mentioned in Scripture is childish, and another "arguing from silence" you actually think helps your claim of "reasoned" study on your part.
Out of time. Much more later. Two questions down.
“Trying to argue by insisting ‘abortion’ isn't mentioned in Scripture...”
Marshall thinks Caesarean section or uterine surgery was done 2000 years ago. Irrational madness. He’s worse after Trump than before.
What is mentioned in scripture is the fetus. As I have shown and as Marshal will ignore: because it’s not mentioned in the sacrosanct way Marshal’s Sharia interests desire. Too bad, Marshal. You’re bad faith reading of a book like it should be worshipped makes you lie. And lose all credibility.
"How many times did God tell you that abortion is the same as murder?"
The answer isn't necessarily zero, but since you're hinging your question on the absence in Scripture of the word "abortion", I will say "ZERO". But it is a deceitful question for the reasons already given regarding "reason", and of course, "honesty".
"No, the purpose of the question is precisely to understand WHEN "personhood" begins, because that matters."
That's what you say, but the reality is that you're playing semantic games in order to maintain your unChristian position protecting the murder of the unborn. I discussed how Scripture indicates "personhood" beginning at conception, and aside from that, biology/science does absolutely nothing to contradict it. Instead, it supports it. An honest "reasoned" extrapolation can only conclude it is true. Therein lies your problem. Nothing honest or logical about your "reasoning" that one can't know.
"IF it begins with a sperm, then a condom is "murder" by your reasoning. Does personhood begin with the sperm, Marshall?"
Why do you make this idiotic implication? On what basis, aside from total dishonesty and a total absence of "grace", do you suppose I would ever suggest such a thing. NEVER have I so much as hinted that I consider sperm, or ovum for that matter, to be a human being/person. It's absurd as it flies directly in the face of the science/biology I consistently cite in establishing when a new person comes into existence. This is no more than a direct and willful assault on me for the purpose of disparaging my position, intelligence and character and for which you should be totally ashamed. I'm guessing you lack the integrity and Christian "grace" to be ashamed at all.
"If on the other hand, neither you nor I have a definitive, authoritative word on when personhood begins, then YOUR hunches don't matter a damn bit. Do you recognize that reality?"
When you put it as an "if", I can fully agree. But as I've shown, we DO have a definitive and authoritative word on when personhood begins...from science, Scripture and Merriam-Webster (Person---human, individual).
Out of time. Apology follows soon.
Again, Marshal points out the tree in the distance but, because he doesn’t have the capacity to make the trip, remains ignorant that it’s a cell phone tower.
Merrimack Webster: Person: Human: “Individual: 1. being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity SEPARATE”
Therefore, obviously not a fetus. Much less any prior formation. Only when delivered from maternal dependency does human being achieve personhood.
According to a dictionary. Which is about 2% useful for moral decision making. Right at Marshal’s speed.
Your opinion, feo, is worthless as well as inane. A fetus IS a separate entity. Its reliance on its mother is inconsequential to that fact given "separate entity" does not require that it exist without any dependency whatsoever upon another person, which would then exclude all children and many disabled and elderly. But then, no doubt you reserve the "right" to dictate their degree of "personhood" as well. Brutalizer!
"Its reliance on its mother is inconsequential..." Marshal thinks prayer can save a human zygote out in the wild.
If the fetus is as separate as Aunt Mille or little Joey, then why can't the pregnant mother drink, smoke, ski, play hockey?
A separate entity. The fetus is in no way the mother.
A prayer may very well fail to save a ten year old out in the wild. It may also fail to save an elderly or disabled person. That's about as absurd an attempt to defend the willful and injust taking of innocent human life as any feo has thus far put forth. And that's saying something. Thanks for the laugh.
Each nonviable human organism in the womb is dependent upon the mother: each is an incipient, developing human being, not a full human being. These facts are simple truths and they negate your bizarre, irrational will to ignore reason. They do not exist as distinct, separate entities. Everyone knows this. Common language acknowledges this. Scripture acknowledges this. The preference given the mother's life in life-threatening situations of pregnancy acknowledges this.
Your Sharia insanity cannot stand. Your only strategy is terrorism. So far you restrict your terrorism to the rhetorical and to the destruction of your own mind.
Please keep it that way. Obviously there are others that crossed the line you stand on.
"Here, however, you're trying to reason a way to make murder justifiable.
This of course is a diabolical, ghoulish and demonic attempt to make a false claim... and it fails horribly because it is a stupidly false claim. OF COURSE, I don't want to "reason a way to make murder justifiable. I'm not an evil person. That is a stupidly false claim.
Recognize that reality and apologize for it."
My statement that has your panties in a twist IS the reality and thus, the only thing for which I can or should be rightly sorry is that it is true of you and all others who play this sordid game. You say "OF COURSE, I don't want to "reason a way to make murder justifiable" , but yet that's exactly what you're doing by pretending "GOD NEVER ONE TIME TOLD YOU when personhood began" is an honest and reasonable argument. At the same time, God never so much as hinted that any of us has any authority to suppose we can set that point after conception. For why would we EXCEPT to provide for ourselves justification for taking human life that is inconvenient to one's personal plans, notions or ideas.
Not an evil person? Even the truly evil doesn't typically walk around happily taking pride in being evil. Who actually aspires to evil? ("You know what I wanna be when I grow up?") And yet our sin natures draws us to evil while seeking to convince us we are not. The entire pro-abortion position is a reflection of this fact. It's falsely placed in the category of "health care", "reproductive 'rights'", and other rationalizations meant to deflect attention from what abortion is, rather than face why it is inevitably considered in the first place. It is heinous immorality meant to abdicate responsibility for a previous immorality...to erase it, and free one's self from the responsibility one should be accepting. It is making murder justifiable. And I point this reality out for the sake of you and all who pretend they are doing good by pretending there is true justification for abortion. "False witness"? Not at all on my part.
Another problem with your demand for an apology, apart from the factual and logical arguments that render it absurd, is your own behavior toward me on other issues. Most recently, your presumption in ascribing to me racist motivations behind my support for enforcing the righteous and reasoned immigration laws of our nation. You and your troll have never shied from accusing me of racism on the weakest pretenses; with far, far less legitimacy than what is so blatantly clear about what your support of abortion, your pretense of "where did God say" and other such cheap rationalizations. To you, the mere belief that despite one's claims of potential harm, one must obey the law...and that because I reject the childish assertion that "the law is an ass" and so you are not required to obey it...somehow makes me a racist? The point here is that you have far less justification for calling me a racist than I have for rightly saying that your position is no more than a justification for murder. Considering your own abhorrance for racism, suggesting my positions flow from some disregard for people based on their color ("brown people") or place of origin is itself abhorrant and for you, a horrible thing to be and thus to accuse another of being.
continuing...
Yet, no hint of an apology, even after constantly and consistently explaining clearly my position....which is based on fact, truth, reality and logic. In the same way, so is my accusation toward you. I KNOW that a person is that which begins from the moment of conception, so there is no perjorative nature to ascribing the term "murder" to the unjust taking of the life of even those just conceived in the last second. But you, with your attitude toward racism, merely throw that accusation because I refuse to accept your unproven anecdotal stories meant to suggest there is something wrong with our laws and systems...stories that fail to prove the problem is with the laws and systems rather than with all, including you, who wish to ignore them for whatever reason.
So apparently, it's OK for you to make horrible accusations with no justifiable reason, while I, with complete justification, am to apologize or be forever cast away? If that's the cut of your jib, so be it. There is nothing "delusional" in my position..."delusional" being another word you throw out when you have no legitimate counter argument, and thus of no more value than your defense of abortion.
"Do you agree that evil laws - those that cause harm to innocent people, for instance - must be disobeyed?"
If I felt that was actually true about a law, it would still not be my first course of action, just as war is not the first course of action for the right-wing, despite your implication that it is. Yet, at some point, that would be the right course.
However, it brings up the question of who gets to decide such things, and more to the point here, is it really the law that is causing the harm you wish to eliminate? The correct answer is emphatically, "NO!" It is NOT the law that is causing the harm. It is the rejection of the law that is causing the harm. Because our laws and systems were designed for something not akin to the masses of humanity seeking entry, the problems that arise from that is not an indictment of the laws. And despite the fact that even in the best of circumstances, some legitimate claim of asylum must still be rejected for lack of supporting evidence, that too is not an indictment of the law, but merely a sad fact of life...that sometimes shit happens. But YOU falsely claim the law is at fault and our system is at fault and thus our nation is at fault. It is a lie.
So there's the rest of my response. Do with it what you will. Your type of Christian grace will surely bring about a not unexpected response.
So, Marshall is done here, barring some indication that he understands reality and apologies for his many ridiculous false accusations. But, in summation...
1. Marshall recognizes the reality that God never told him that abortion is murder or when personhood begins.
2. Nonetheless, Marshall thinks that he knows authoritatively Independence play that God is opposed to abortion and that person Hood begins presumably at conception. Marshall isn't saying this is his opinion, he is making the mistake of thinking that these are facts.
3. Those are not facts. Marshall is delusional at least on these points and there can't be reasonable conversation when one party is delusional.
4. Marshall made multiple false accusations, including that we are "trying to make murder justifiable." Again, this is just a stupidly false and scandalous accusation. It's an accusation that he cannot support because of how stupidly false it is. No one reasonable would believe it. But again, Marshall has indicated his delusion on this point.
Given his scandalous false accusations and delusions, Marshall is finished here. Good luck in life.
The thing is, Marshall, you SAYING that "I supported my argument" is not the same as "therefore, it's a fact."
Especially when, in fact, your OPINIONS and CLAIMS that, for instance, we are "trying to make murder justifiable" gets to motives and they're just stupidly, demonically false. They're idiot claims of an idiot god. They are like the claims of a little boy with diarrhea all over his pants saying he didn't do it... false and just so soundly idiotically false as to be an embarrassment.
Now, if and when you can ever get around to apologizing for such an evil and stupidly false claim, recognizing it as false and apologizing for being so stupid as to believe it yourself (if that's the case), then you can comment again. The thing is, you're not banned. You're just blocked until you can admit some basic realities, like the reality of that false claim or the reality that your opinions are not the same as facts or God's Word.
Don't be the diarrhea boy, Marshall. Grow up. If you truly believe the diarrhea running all over your mind, then change your mind. Open up your head to new ideas and your eyes to simple reality.
Repent.
For my part, I am sorry if you're truly this deluded that you can't recognize your own delusion, but I can't help you with that. I've tried.
Post a Comment