PDA

View Full Version : Roe v Wade sf is death penalty appropriate?



Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2009, 02:36 AM
So you are saying that judges are qualified to interpret the consititution, if they aren't then who is?
Interpreting the Constitution is one thing; claiming that it is "evolving" to fit whatever a judge wants to support is quite another.


I'd say it you who is confused perceiving the check ands balances as judical supremacy when it is no such thing.
Checks and balances include those upon judges. In practice, American judges are treated as philosopher-kings, hence the struggle for who gets a right to appoint them.


Can you demonstrate a case for claiming judical supremacy, e.g. a clear example of the US Supreme Court making an intrepretation of the Constitution that blatantly misrepresents its intent?
Heaps. Roe v Wade was judicial tyranny; for 200 years, states had laws against abortion, so such laws were hardly contrary to the meaning. Banning the Bible from schools was contrary to the original meaning, because when it was written, schools taught from the Bible, and no one saw any conflict. Court rulings allowing "affirmative action" when the civil rights legislation explicitly ruled out quotas.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a judge who opposes this "living constitution" nonsense, and in dissenting from the majority decision in Roper v Simmons (2005), stated:


What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 08:22 AM
Roe v Wade was judicial tyranny; for 200 years, states had laws against abortion, so such laws were hardly contrary to the meaning.

Firstly, the amount of time a law has been in existence has no bearing on whether it is consitutionally valid or not. To make such an arguement shows a lack critical analysis.


Secondly, Roe vs Wade is controversial. Some see it as a decision that protects a woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body without State interference. Whilst others see it violating the rights of an unborn child. IRRC polls show that the decision had majority public support.

Considering one of the primary roles of the Consititution is to protect the rights of the individual from being infringed upon by the State. I hardly see this as evidence of blantant misintrepretation of the Consitution. Rather a difficult situation about how to define a what point a foetus ceases to become part of the mother's body and assumes an individual identity. I believe the court relied upon medical experts to define the period they believed that foetus became "viable" and thus assumed individual rights.

If that is the best example you have of so-called "judicial supremacy" then you don't have very strong grounds for your arguement.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2009, 01:19 PM
Firstly, the amount of time a law has been in existence has no bearing on whether it is consitutionally valid or not. To make such an arguement shows a lack critical analysis.
It means that neither legislators nor judges saw any constitutional violation. Rather, modern activist judges claim that the Constitution is a "living document" that "evolves" its meaning--towards the judges' view of what it should have said.

At one time, people were honest enough about the meaning of the Constitution, and amended it when they didn't like it (slavery, women's role, income tax, prohibition and repeal).


Secondly, Roe vs Wade is controversial. Some see it as a decision that protects a woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body without State interference. Whilst others see it violating the rights of an unborn child. IRRC polls show that the decision had majority public support.
Not so. Many would like the states to decide what to do; if it were repealed, abortion would not be banned everywhere. Even some abortion supporters think that the decision was bad even if they agreed with the results, calling it an exercise of ‘raw judicial power’, and saying that it was hardly a constitutional issue.


Considering one of the primary roles of the Consititution is to protect the rights of the individual from being infringed upon by the State.
It is, by specifying enumerated powers of Congress, beyond which Congress should not go. Hence "Congress shall not... " But after FDR threatened to pack the court, the "interstate commerce" clause was used to justify unprecedented government interference in the economy.


I hardly see this as evidence of blantant misintrepretation of the Consitution. Rather a difficult situation about how to define a what point a foetus ceases to become part of the mother's body and assumes an individual identity. I believe the court relied upon medical experts to define the period they believed that foetus became "viable" and thus assumed individual rights.
No, Roe v Wade allows abortion even after "viability.

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 02:10 PM
It means that neither legislators nor judges saw any constitutional violation.

It's doesn't prove that it wasn't in violation of the consitution. And the judges probably wouldn't have even consider the leglislations consitutional merits until it was challenged in court. SO at best its a feeble arguement.


At one time, people were honest enough about the meaning of the Constitution, and amended it when they didn't like it (slavery, women's role, income tax, prohibition and repeal)..



Not so.

Well according to the Gallup Polls I have seen the Roe v. Wade decision has majority public support.



Even some abortion supporters think that the decision was bad even if they agreed with the results, calling it an exercise of ‘raw judicial power’, and saying that it was hardly a constitutional issue.

Even the diseenting judge called it such. Like I sadi it is a controversial issue and certainly not clear cut case of judical supremacy, especially when considering that pools point to the fact that the decision had majority public support.


It is, by specifying enumerated powers of Congress, beyond which Congress should not go.

And by specifying the that the individual has certain rights which cannot be infringed upon by the state legislation.


No, Roe v Wade allows abortion even after "viability"

I believe it prohibits the State from intervening in abortions in the first tri-mester, allows them limited intervention in the second tri-mester and to prohibit aborition in the final tri-mester.

On a side note, I'd say it would be a pretty hard task to show that the rights defined in the constitution were orignally intended to apply to unborn foetuses.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 03:17 AM
Like I sadi it is a controversial issue and certainly not clear cut case of judical supremacy, especially when considering that pools point to the fact that the decision had majority public support.
Then prove it by letting the public vote!


I believe it prohibits the State from intervening in abortions in the first tri-mester, allows them limited intervention in the second tri-mester and to prohibit aborition in the final tri-mester.
You believe wrong. It allows open slather.


On a side note, I'd say it would be a pretty hard task to show that the rights defined in the constitution were orignally intended to apply to unborn foetuses.
Yet abortion was outlawed when the Constitution was written and for almost 200 years after that. Even the founding feminists opposed abortion (http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm), calling it "child murder".

Goughfather
24-11-2009, 03:46 AM
You believe wrong. It allows open slather.

Have you actually read Roe v Wade?

Given that you have no kind of training in the law and have no expertise to analyse such judgments, how have you come to this understanding? Is it just something that you happened to read on a pro-life website?

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 03:52 AM
Have you actually read Roe v Wade?

Given that you have no kind of training in the law and have no expertise to analyse such judgments, how have you come to this understanding? Is it just something that you happened to read on a pro-life website?
Then prove me wrong instead of spouting off, or possibly regurgitating something on a leftychurchian website. Sounds like more invention on your part, like your fondly imagined words in the LXX.

TheJoker
24-11-2009, 08:09 AM
You believe wrong. It allows open slather.

Really :eek:

That's interesting because here is part of the actual Supreme Court Ruling (http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html#162):


(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 410 U. S. 163-164; 410 U. S. 164-165.


Then prove me wrong instead of spouting off.
Done

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 03:06 PM
Done
Not so, when the "the preservation of the life or health of the mother" is in practice interpreted so widely that it's open slather. Missing a skiiing holiday or not fitting into her prom dress would be allegedly damage to the mother's mental health. So in many hospitals, in one room, physicians are fighting with all their might to save a very premature baby; in another room, a baby of the same gestational age is being aborted.

Goughfather
24-11-2009, 03:12 PM
Missing a skiiing holiday or not fitting into her prom dress would be allegedly damage to the mother's mental health.

Source?

Desmond
24-11-2009, 03:38 PM
Not so, when the "the preservation of the life or health of the mother" is in practice interpreted so widely that it's open slather. Missing a skiiing holiday or not fitting into her prom dress would be allegedly damage to the mother's mental health. So in many hospitals, in one room, physicians are fighting with all their might to save a very premature baby; in another room, a baby of the same gestational age is being aborted.Oh yeah? What gestation stage is that?

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Oh yeah? What gestation stage is that?
23 weeks or thereabouts. "Viability" is a crass criterion; what was unviable 30 years ago can be saved today.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 08:38 PM
Question to all participant of he thread:
"When does the life begin"?

Goughfather
24-11-2009, 08:55 PM
Question to all participant of he thread:
"When does the life start"?

50?

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 09:02 PM
50?
Original question edited.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 09:23 PM
Question to all participant of he thread:
"When does the life begin"?

I agree with New Scientist 189(2543):8–9, 18 March 2006:

The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.

TheJoker
25-11-2009, 10:55 AM
Not so, when the "the preservation of the life or health of the mother" is in practice interpreted so widely that it's open slather.

Any hard evidence of that?

TheJoker
25-11-2009, 11:39 AM
I agree with New Scientist 189(2543):8–9, 18 March 2006:

The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.

You mean you agree with the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion that the New Scientist article was quoting. The actual New Scientist article comes to no conclusion and also provides an alternate scientific opinion including following quotes:


While the fertilised egg holds the DNA needed to create a human being, that alone cannot be said to give it the status of a person. A hair follicle or some nail clippings also contain their owner's complete genetic fingerprint, yet these objects are clearly not human beings...

The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can settle...

If biology tells us anything, it is that nature does not hold the fertilised embryo in particularly high regard. The vast majority of fertilised eggs are discarded naturally, through miscarriage.

Desmond
25-11-2009, 11:54 AM
:lol: caught with your hands in the cookie jar, Jono?

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 02:18 PM
:lol: caught with your hands in the cookie jar, Jono?
Not at all. In fact, since I knew it was a pro-abort source, it was a hostile witness to support my case. When it comes to the science, there is no dispute. They have to introduce airy-fairy quasi-religious notions of "personhood". And to prove that I knew this very thing, here is an extract from my article Legalized Cloning in Australia: What are the issues? (http://creation.com/legalized-cloning-in-australia-what-are-the-issues) (15 December 2006):


The Prime Minister
Science
Mr Howard said:


I am not convinced, based on the evidence that has come forward in this debate, that the reasons why this parliament near-unanimously—or was it unanimously—voted in a particular direction some years ago. I do not think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view, and for that reason I am going to vote against the bill. [ref.]

This is certainly true. Indeed, if anything, science has further strengthened the reasons to vote against it, in that science has strengthened the case for life beginning at fertilization and for adult stem cell research (science can’t tell us whether something is right or wrong though). For example, for the beginning of life, a New Scientist report on an abortion task force stated [ref.]:


The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine

But New Scientist has a long history of anti-Christianity and liberal politics; it had to obfuscate with:


The point at which life acquires personhood is not something biology can settle…

It is ironic that it is usually the pro-aborts who avoid the science and spruik forth with such airy-fairy quasi-religious concepts as when a ‘person’ begins. Yet the pro-aborts blast opposition to abortion as ‘religious’ (although it is in the sense that science can’t tell us it’s wrong to murder) when they are the ones appealing to religious concepts, while the pro-lifers point out scientific facts.

....

The Leader of the Opposition
Mr Rudd stated:


I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life.

Desmond
25-11-2009, 02:57 PM
Not at all. In fact, since I knew it was a pro-abort source, it was a hostile witness to support my case.Except that it doesn't.


The Leader of the Opposition
Mr Rudd stated:


I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life.[/INDENT]
Got a source for this one? Sounds more like he's talking about stem cell reseach.

Goughfather
25-11-2009, 03:20 PM
Not at all. In fact, since I knew it was a pro-abort source, it was a hostile witness to support my case.

I didn't know that quotations worked that way. You mean that I could quote my own words, subsequently quoted by you and then quote yourself as a hostile witness to support my case? For instance, in a discussion on pacifism, I could quote instances where you've quoted me and say that I'm using a pro-death, pro-violence Christian to support my case for pacifism.:hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
25-11-2009, 03:59 PM
Question to all participant of he thread:
"When does the life begin"?
Jono: at fertilization
Gouphfather: 50

Any other answers?

ER
25-11-2009, 05:21 PM
Jono: at fertilization
Gouphfather: 50

Any other answers?

for vampies and zombs certainly after life! :P

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 06:59 PM
I didn't know that quotations worked that way.
Good, you've finally learned something.


You mean that I could quote my own words, subsequently quoted by you and then quote yourself as a hostile witness to support my case? For instance, in a discussion on pacifism, I could quote instances where you've quoted me and say that I'm using a pro-death, pro-violence Christian to support my case for pacifism.:hmm:
New Scientist is a hostile witness to my argument that the scientific beginning of life is at fertilixation, and runs away from this to resort to quasi-religious arguments. I cited myself to prove that I was perfectly aware of the fact that NS is a hostile pro-abort source, despite Joke and Boris accusing me otherwise.


Except that it doesn't.
It supports my scientific case.


Got a source for this one? Sounds more like he's talking about stem cell research.
As stated, it was about human cloning. My original article has the source.

Desmond
25-11-2009, 07:23 PM
It supports my scientific case.Of course it doesn't. All it does is show that you provide quotations out of original context. It is not the finding of a New Scientist article, but rather the article quoting another source. You should have indicated that in yor original. You didn't. Joker called you on it. Hands. In. Cookie jar.



As stated, it was about human cloning. My original article has the source.So why, pray, are you introducing that separate issue into the discussion?

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Of course it doesn't. All it does is show that you provide quotations out of original context.
As shown in my 2006 article, I knew perfectly well what the context was: they had to concede the scientific case that life begins at fertilization, and resort to non-scientific notions to keep their pro-abort agenda.


It is not the finding of a New Scientist article, but rather the article quoting another source. You should have indicated that in yor original. You didn't. Joker called you on it. Hands. In. Cookie jar.
Don't be silly. My quote clearly indicated that NS was quoting a task force, and it was endorsing the scientific conclusion.


So why, pray, are you introducing that separate issue into the discussion?
What are you on about now? I provided more context from my 2006 article. There's no pleasing the pro-aborts; sometimes there is too little context, other times too much.

Goughfather
25-11-2009, 08:08 PM
New Scientist is a hostile witness to my argument that the scientific beginning of life is at fertilixation, and runs away from this to resort to quasi-religious arguments. I cited myself to prove that I was perfectly aware of the fact that NS is a hostile pro-abort source, despite Joke and Boris accusing me otherwise.

You seem to contradict yourself when you are claiming that your position has the support of New Scientist, a hostile witness, then suggest that New Scientist introduces an "airy-fairy quasi religious notion of personhood" (as if personhood was the exclusive province of religion).

This article doesn't give you the support of a hostile witness - the only thing that it shows is that this so-called hostile witness is providing air time to different views along the ideological spectrum, unlike creationist tabloids.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 08:22 PM
You seem to contradict yourself when you are claiming that your position has the support of New Scientist, a hostile witness,
Only a seeming contradiction: I was invoking a pro-abort source in support of the scientific beginning of life.


then suggest that New Scientist introduces an "airy-fairy quasi religious notion of personhood" (as if personhood was the exclusive province of religion).
Hence quasi-religious. It is not a scientific concept.


This article doesn't give you the support of a hostile witness -
It does: a pro-abort source agreeing the individual life begins at conception, in answer to IG's question.


the only thing that it shows is that this so-called hostile witness is providing air time to different views along the ideological spectrum,
It said nothing to refute the scientific evidence of the task force; it merely obfuscated


unlike creationist tabloids.
Not that I'm aware of any "tabloids", since CMI's publications are smaller than the tabloid size of 430 mm × 280 mm (17 by 11 inches). But we actually give far more time to opposing views than the evolutionists (and global warm-mongers, as the leaked emails show), or liberal theologians for that matter.

Goughfather
25-11-2009, 08:41 PM
Only a seeming contradiction: I was invoking a pro-abort source in support of the scientific beginning of life.

But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it.


It does: a pro-abort source agreeing the individual life begins at conception, in answer to IG's question.

But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it. Otherwise, whenever I quote your ravings about just war, one could claim that I love violence.


It said nothing to refute the scientific evidence of the task force; it merely obfuscated

Goughfather
25-11-2009, 08:41 PM
Only a seeming contradiction: I was invoking a pro-abort source in support of the scientific beginning of life.

But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it.


It does: a pro-abort source agreeing the individual life begins at conception, in answer to IG's question.

But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it. Otherwise, whenever I quote your ravings about just war, one could claim that I love violence.


It said nothing to refute the scientific evidence of the task force; it merely obfuscated.

Irrelevant. Quite patently you would not know this, but balanced articles and journals frequently publish alternate points of view when they are sufficiently interesting.


Not that I'm aware of any "tabloids", since CMI's publications are smaller than the tabloid size of 430 mm × 280 mm (17 by 11 inches). But we actually give far more time to opposing views than the evolutionists (and global warm-mongers, as the leaked emails show), or liberal theologians for that matter.

If by giving far more time to opposing views, you mean referring to them by insulting distortions of their names and positions, as well as representing them in all their strawperson glory, then perhaps so.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2009, 08:46 PM
But New Scientist has a long history of anti-Christianity and liberal politics; it had to obfuscate with:


The point at which life acquires personhood is not something biology can settle…

I have not been able to find the original article online free in full. But I have found what appears to a plagiarised quote from it here (http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Genetics/176001) in which the above appears as follows:


The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can settle, says David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, California. The task force pointed to evidence that it says shows that "the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one-cell stage". This, however, fails to take account of recent developments in epigenetics, which suggest that the expression of some genes can be reprogrammed at any...

Without seeing the article in full I cannot see whether Jono's claim of obfuscation is correct but I greatly doubt it is given that (i) what Jono claims to be the magazine's obfuscation is in fact a comment by a source (ii) there is nothing inherently obfuscatory about the comment. Indeed, it is right to the point: the presence of uniqueness, genetic identity and programming for subsequent development at fertilisation is not alone necessarily sufficient to demonstrate the status of "a whole human being" (since there are other factors, such as physical autonomy, to consider), let alone a whole living human being, let alone a human being living in such a way that preventing it from being born should be ranked alongside killing someone who has been born.

I also do not see why Jono is invoking this article as a case of "hostile witness" when all it is apparently doing is acknowledging a presentation of an opposing viewpoint and a claimed basis for that viewpoint. It does not appear to be endorsing it although if I was writing the article I would have phrased the reporting of the taskforce findings more carefully to avoid creating the impression that certain of the taskforce's claims were discovered facts.


It is ironic that it is usually the pro-aborts who avoid the science and spruik forth with such airy-fairy quasi-religious concepts as when a ‘person’ begins.

Do you have any specific examples of this (let alone evidence that it is the general tendency)? And what causes such concepts to be "quasi-religious" in your view?

Desmond
25-11-2009, 09:02 PM
What are you on about now? I provided more context from my 2006 article. There's no pleasing the pro-aborts; sometimes there is too little context, other times too much.Why introduce talk of cloning? We were talking about abortion to suit the needs of pregnant mothers.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 11:45 PM
Why introduce talk of cloning? We were talking about abortion to suit the needs of pregnant mothers.
Because that is what my article was about, but the beginning of life is relevant. The point was to show the scientific beginning of life as admitted by NS, and disputed only because of "personhood" waffling.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 11:54 PM
But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it.
No evidence that they did anything but endorse it from a scientific viewpoint, then went on to deny that science could settle "personhood". So much for the claim of many pro-aborts that only science matters and religion should stay out of it.


But one can only invoke an authority if that authority actually endorses the position. Quoting something does not mean that you endorse it. Otherwise, whenever I quote your ravings about just war, one could claim that I love violence.
Undoubtedly you would have followed some of your fellow liberal theologians and appeased Hitler and refused to fight against him (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256902/posts).


Irrelevant. Quite patently you would not know this, but balanced articles and journals frequently publish alternate points of view when they are sufficiently interesting.
Not relevant at all, when there is now damning evidence of global warm-mongers pushing their agenda and trying to deny airtime to the opposition.


If by giving far more time to opposing views, you mean referring to them by insulting distortions of their names and positions, as well as representing them in all their strawperson glory, then perhaps so.
What would you know? At least when we make a claim about the Hebrew or Greek words in the originals we get it right, unlike you and your fellow liberal Spong (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#9).

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2009, 11:54 PM
The point was to show the scientific beginning of life as admitted by NS

Based on the excerpts I have seen so far I see no evidence whatsoever that the article "admitted" any such thing, except perhaps inadvertently through sloppy expression. The argument that it admitted any such thing seems to hinge on interpreting the word "finds" as meaning "determined to be fact" which in this context clearly does not appear intended.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 12:10 AM
Based on the excerpts I have seen so far I see no evidence whatsoever that the article "admitted" any such thing, except perhaps inadvertently through sloppy expression. The argument that it admitted any such thing seems to hinge on interpreting the word "finds" as meaning "determined to be fact" which in this context clearly does not appear intended.
What else would it mean in the context of:


The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.

It could have used a variant of the same verb with the verbosity beloved by lawyer types: "The findings of the task force are that ..."

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2009, 12:25 AM
What else would it mean in the context of:

Context is provided by the full article, not by just that quote itself, and it is plain that while summarising the task force "findings" the author goes on to present another side of the story thus showing that whatever the author's views of the facts presented by the taskforce, the author does not endorse the conclusions.

Indeed the apparent excerpt I posted a link to previously contains the following counter-argument:


The broader picture
While the fertilised egg holds the DNA needed to create a human being, that alone cannot be said to give it the status of a person. A hair follicle or some nail clippings also contain their owner's complete genetic fingerprint, yet these objects are clearly not human beings.

Assuming that is part of the original article, it clearly shows that the author does not consider the taskforce to have settled the question of personhood. It provides a rebuttal to the idea that it has that in no way depends on anything quasi-religious, and suggests that the author may well reject the concept of personhood promoted by the taskforce "findings".

The (primary) good reason is that the stated conclusions are not scientific facts but spurious conclusions drawn from data that are extremely insufficient to support them.

I propose that the word "finds" was used where a word like "argues", "claims" or similar would have carried the author's intended meaning without ambiguity. And I blame the sub-editor and not the author.

Goughfather
26-11-2009, 12:38 AM
No evidence that they did anything but endorse it from a scientific viewpoint, then went on to deny that science could settle "personhood".

Considering that the article goes on to quote an individual who speaks about the deficiencies of the task force's findings, I'd say that's fairly strong evidence that at the very least, New Scientist are not presenting it as their opinion.

Four people have called you out on your intellectual dishonesty and fraud now. You would have done much better to acknowledge in the first place that you were really just echoing the sentiments of a conservative thinktank.


Undoubtedly you would have followed some of your fellow liberal theologians and appeased Hitler and refused to fight against him (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256902/posts).

Not fond of Godwin's law, are you?


Not relevant at all, when there is now damning evidence of global warm-mongers pushing their agenda and trying to deny airtime to the opposition.

What's with the non-sequitur?


What would you know? At least when we make a claim about the Hebrew or Greek words in the originals we get it right, unlike you and your fellow liberal Spong (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#9).

Not sure why you would want to introduce Spong into the equation, given that I certainly don't find him to be particularly convincing. Probably just another one of your guilt by association gimmicks.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2009, 11:22 AM
Anybody has a link? Given such a heated debate I'd like to have a look.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 11:42 AM
Considering that the article goes on to quote an individual who speaks about the deficiencies of the task force's findings,
Which my original article acknowledged, to point out the problems with their obfuscations, i.e. that they were not based on science.


I'd say that's fairly strong evidence that at the very least, New Scientist are not presenting it as their opinion.
It was quoting a task force that had no doubt about the scientific beginnings of human life.


Four people have called you out on your intellectual dishonesty and fraud now.
And you whinge about MY aggression. Typical leftist mimophantism.

Four people have made accusations, but they were false. One would think that a lawyer type would know the difference between charge and verdict.


You would have done much better to acknowledge in the first place that you were really just echoing the sentiments of a conservative thinktank.
Which one was that? Should I have echoed the sentiments of a liberal thinktank instead?


Not fond of Godwin's law, are you?
Nope, just pointing out how liberal theologians were on the wrong side of history then too, and that it is consistent with pacifism—which is totally different from peacemaking.


What's with the non-sequitur?
What's with the poseur leading question?


Not sure why you would want to introduce Spong into the equation, given that I certainly don't find him to be particularly convincing. Probably just another one of your guilt by association gimmicks.
You're both leftist liberals who make blunders in Greek.

TheJoker
26-11-2009, 03:25 PM
It was quoting a task force that had no doubt about the scientific beginnings of human life.


According to this article Anatomy of a Bad Law (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/bans) the objectivty and methodolgy of the task force (a 17-member panel consiting of politicians, laywers, pro/anti-abortion campaigners and only 4 medical physicians) is questionable. I must admit I have no idea about the quality of this source, it came from a Google search.

The four medical practioners consists of a gynacologist, paedetrician, GP and a Chiropractor.

Moreover, the task force was commisioned by the government in an attempt to support its proposed legislation banning abortions. Jono, I would have thought you of all people, should be questioning the scientific findings of such a panel.


Four people have made accusations, but they were false. One would think that a lawyer type would know the difference between charge and verdict..

I hope you are no counting me in the that list. I made no accusations, I just put your quote into context, and let people judge for themselves.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2009, 04:57 PM
Four people have made accusations, but they were false.

If I'm one of the four and this is the thread being referred to in Goughfather's comment then I have certainly not accused you of "intellectual dishonesty and fraud".

I have, however, demonstrated that you have misinterpreted the New Scientist article (in particular with your grossly incorrect claim in #29 "a pro-abort source agreeing the individual life begins at conception") and the points I have raised in #38 (and also #32) have received no reply at this stage. TheJoker's post 18 is along very similar lines to my #38 and you didn't reply to that either.

So the above both incorrectly ties me in with Goughfather's claim and baselessly and incorrectly asserts that my claims were wrong.

Making a mistake does not make you guilty of intellectual dishonesty but continuing to stick by clearly discredited claims about the article beyond this point most certainly would. Furthermore any further misrepresentation of the article, deliberate or otherwise, would undermine your credibility as an interpreter of anything.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 06:44 PM
If I'm one of the four and this is the thread being referred to in Goughfather's comment then I have certainly not accused you of "intellectual dishonesty and fraud".
True.


I have, however, demonstrated that you have misinterpreted the New Scientist article
I have the article now. It reported on "the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion, a 17-member panel of senators, lawyers, doctors and campaigners from both sides of the abortion debate." The NS article also had sections about whether it was more dangerous to have a child or abort it, and whether abortion was bad for a woman's mental health. In all cases, it reported the task force's conclusion, evidence cited, and "the broader picture".


(in particular with your grossly incorrect claim in #29 "a pro-abort source agreeing the individual life begins at conception")
I agree now that it was not agreeing with it, since it also cites:


"Wherever you want to draw the line about where life begins, biology seems to suggest conception is a bad place to do it", Magnus says.


So the above both incorrectly ties me in with Goughfather's claim and baselessly and incorrectly asserts that my claims were wrong.
GF said that I have been accused of "intellectual dishonesty and fraud"; such an accusation is false.

Goughfather
26-11-2009, 10:11 PM
GF said that I have been accused of "intellectual dishonesty and fraud"; such an accusation is false.

I certainly did not suggest that three other individuals had "accused" you of anything. "Accusation" was your import on the situation. The important consideration was that I had suggested that four people including myself had "called you" on you consistently attributing the view of the South Dakota Task Force to that of New Scientist. "Intellectual dishonesty and fraud" was my specific assessment (and mine alone) in the context of you trying to defend your initial assertion in such a bloody minded manner.

Certainly, it would seem that Kevin was being more gracious than myself, although his suggestion that your continuing insistence on defending the indefensible "certainly would" [constitute intellectual dishonesty and/or fraud] is worth remarking upon. Indeed, given your consistently poor exegesis of Scripture, I was certainly of a more gracious disposition at first and simply believed that the inaccuracy was a result of your obvious and seemingly intractable linguistic difficulties, but after a while my patience wore thin.

Of course, as concerning as it is that you have only now read through the original secondary article in its entirety (some three years later, no less!), it's encouraging that you have now recognised the error of your ways. I am sure that you will issue a retraction for your previous misquotation (it is customary to quote the primary, rather than the secondary article) and will be much, much more careful in future.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 11:09 PM
"Intellectual dishonesty and fraud" was my specific assessment
Oh, but I am still the agressive one, aren't I? More evidence of lefty mimophantism.


Certainly, it would seem that Kevin was being more gracious than myself, although his suggestion that your continuing insistence on defending the indefensible "certainly would" [constitute intellectual dishonesty and/or fraud] is worth remarking upon. Indeed, given your consistently poor exegesis of Scripture,
You couldn't exegete your way out of a paper bag. A friend who is well qualified in Koine Greek was even less charitable about your efforts.


I was certainly of a more gracious disposition at first and simply believed that the inaccuracy was a result of your obvious and seemingly intractable linguistic difficulties,
:lol: :lol: :lol: Coming from one who made egrigious blunders in Greek, that's a joke. And you still haven't repented, just whinged that I didn't call you out on it earlier. I'll be more careful in future.

Goughfather
27-11-2009, 04:33 PM
"Intellectual dishonesty and fraud" was my specific assessment
Oh, but I am still the agressive one, aren't I? More evidence of lefty mimophantism.

Well yes, certainly the aggressive one in the context of you being seemingly unable to write consecutive posts without an ad hominem attack.

For what it's worth, I distinguish "intellectual dishonesty and fraud" from "academic dishonesty and fraud" and regard the latter as a much more serious offence.


You couldn't exegete your way out of a paper bag. A friend who is well qualified in Koine Greek was even less charitable about your efforts.

Obviously another literalist with far too much time on his hands.

Do remember that I will criticise your exegesis, you will criticise mine, the respective choirs will be preached to and the world will continue to turn around. You are no more the arbiter of truth than myself. Your pontifications and remonstrations to the contrary really come to naught in the scheme of things.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Coming from one who made egrigious blunders in Greek, that's a joke. And you still haven't repented, just whinged that I didn't call you out on it earlier. I'll be more careful in future.

I called you out on the fact that you were making commentary on the text without having read it yourself (something in the context of the New Scientist article seems to suggest you making a habit of), opposing my claim for no other reason other than the fact that your ideology dictated that you do so. You are every bit as culpable as myself.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 04:41 PM
Well yes, certainly the aggressive one in the context of you being seemingly unable to write consecutive posts without an ad hominem attack.
And you would never resort to that would you? Never mind a gratuitous and unprovoked dig about "Pope Jono" in the proposed Atheists v Christians chess match. Not to mention your self-confessed Schadenfreude, which indicates that annoying "conservatives" is more important to you than what is actually good for society or what is true. Your whole blog is filled with bitter attacks on Evangelicals, Calvinists, conservatives, anyone who dares to question warm-mongering or political correctness.


For what it's worth, I distinguish "intellectual dishonesty and fraud" from "academic dishonesty and fraud" and regard the latter as a much more serious offence.
Yet you're also a dogmatic supporter of warm-mongering, despite the recent emails indicating this "much more serious offence". Just proves my point: liberal theology is not "progressive", but just jumps on the trendy bandwagon-du-jour.


Obviously another literalist with far too much time on his hands.
Where? I don't know any of these "literalists"; what is wrong with becoming an expert in Koine Greek? And how politically incorrect of you to presume it was a "his"; it was not. :P

BTW, "literalist" is an ad hominem attack ... Lefties don't mind them, as long as they are from the Left.

But evidently you have plenty of time on your hands to run a blog.


You are no more the arbiter of truth than myself. Your pontifications and remonstrations to the contrary really come to naught in the scheme of things.
It is a question of truth whether a word X is in a passage in the LXX; you spoke falsely.


. You are every bit as culpable as myself.
Yet you have not retracted demonstrably false claims about the LXX words. Conversely, I write articles like Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use).

Goughfather
27-11-2009, 06:27 PM
And you would never resort to that would you? Never mind a gratuitous and unprovoked dig about "Pope Jono" in the proposed Atheists v Christians chess match.

I certainly don't resort to ad hominem attacks as frequently as yourself.


Not to mention your self-confessed Schadenfreude, which indicates that annoying "conservatives" is more important to you than what is actually good for society or what is true.

Just a bit of mischievous humour, I guess. Besides, when conservatives foam at the mouth, it seems to be more productive to see the funny side than to respond to their venom with my venom.


Your whole blog is filled with bitter attacks on Evangelicals, Calvinists, conservatives, anyone who dares to question warm-mongering or political correctness.

Certainly feel free to identify what you perceive as bitter. I don't know when I've ever talked about global warming or political correctness on my blog.


Yet you're also a dogmatic supporter of warm-mongering, despite the recent emails indicating this "much more serious offence".

To be honest, I don't know that I've really said much about global warming. As I've already conceded, I'm not trained in science. I'd point out, however, that the mischief of a few academics doesn't necessarily negate the position they hold. If certain academics censored correspondence from "gravity skeptics" for instance, this wouldn't disprove gravity.


Just proves my point: liberal theology is not "progressive", but just jumps on the trendy bandwagon-du-jour.

Well, not really. This just seems to be a non-sequitur and a strawperson to boot.


Where? I don't know any of these "literalists"; what is wrong with becoming an expert in Koine Greek?

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it whatsoever.


BTW, "literalist" is an ad hominem attack ... Lefties don't mind them, as long as they are from the Left.

That certainly wasn't lost on me at the time. I was just of the mind that since you liked labels and titles so much, you deserve one of your very own.


But evidently you have plenty of time on your hands to run a blog.

Again, less than thorough with your research, it seems. I haven't written a blog entry for at least six months (and the preceding article was some time before that), precisely because of the lack of time on my hands.


It is a question of truth whether a word X is in a passage in the LXX; you spoke falsely.

I think at the time I suggested that "arsenokoitai or a similar word" was found in these three passages. I certainly wasn't the first party to make this claim, but I do accept responsibility for being less careful than I should have been in checking the source. Of course, the word isn't arsenokoitai upon closer reflection, but I'm still getting to the bottom of this claim that a "similar word" is used, which may have some intrinsic merit, when it is considered that these passages are often mistranlated "sodomites" in the English, which is clearly incorrect when the Hebrew is considered, but may actually be faithful to the Greek.


Conversely, I write articles like Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use).

Although, I notice that you don't speak about the falsehood of attributing quotations to incorrect parties. I'd actually be more interested in finding out which arguments you'd used in the past for which you have subsequently repented.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2009, 01:36 AM
I certainly don't resort to ad hominem attacks as frequently as yourself.
Oh, so now it's just a question of frequency than principle.


Just a bit of mischievous humour, I guess.
It means joy at someone's misfortune.


Besides, when conservatives foam at the mouth, it seems to be more productive to see the funny side than to respond to their venom with my venom.
Any conservative defense is labelled "foaming at the mouth" by diehard lefties, who applauded the leftist Bush and Palin derangement syndromes, and really foam against conservative spokespeople.


Certainly feel free to identify what you perceive as bitter. I don't know when I've ever talked about global warming or political correctness on my blog.
You had a post whinging about climate change "deniers", wondering what motivates them. The obvious point that even a climate change acceptor can question the whether a costly tax would do more harm, or wisdom of huge taxes in Australia and NZ if the huge emittors don't follow suit.

As for political correctness, there are some pro-feminist diatribes, for example. Yet my friend, the one allegedly too much time on her hands, was the only girl in her undergrad Koine Greek classes, and beat all the blokes, without any help from feminism, and rejects affirmative action and token female positions.


To be honest, I don't know that I've really said much about global warming. As I've already conceded, I'm not trained in science. I'd point out, however, that the mischief of a few academics doesn't necessarily negate the position they hold. If certain academics censored correspondence from "gravity skeptics" for instance, this wouldn't disprove gravity.
Missing the point again. Many of the warm-mongers demand that dissenters publish in peer-reviewed journals. The leaked emails show a determination to censor out challenges to the ideology.


Well, not really. This just seems to be a non-sequitur and a strawperson to boot.
I documented it: German liberal theologians supported the Kaiser; American liberal theologians supported eugenics; later on they opposed the war against Hitler; now they jump on any leftist cause in favour with newsrooms and uni humanties faculties. Liberals never initiate anything constructive, unlike the conservative theology that abolished the Spartan and Roman version of eugenics (infanticide), caused science to flourish, end slavery, start hospitals. orphanages and the Salvation Army.


I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it whatsoever.
Implied with "too much time on his [sic] hands.


That certainly wasn't lost on me at the time. I was just of the mind that since you liked labels and titles so much, you deserve one of your very own.
I like only accurate labels. "Literalist" more fairly describes misotheists and their liberal churchian allies who scream about "contradictions", mainly by a hyperfundyliteralist eisegesis.


I think at the time I suggested that "arsenokoitai or a similar word" was found in these three passages. I certainly wasn't the first party to make this claim, but I do accept responsibility for being less careful than I should have been in checking the source. Of course, the word isn't arsenokoitai upon closer reflection, but I'm still getting to the bottom of this claim that a "similar word" is used, which may have some intrinsic merit, when it is considered that these passages are often mistranlated "sodomites" in the English, which is clearly incorrect when the Hebrew is considered, but may actually be faithful to the Greek.
"Sodomites" is incorrect, definitely. But the closest to arsenokoitai is the expression in Lev. 18:22. Taking your other examples:

1Ki 14:24 translates qādēš (cult prostitute) as syndesmos, meaning "that which binds together". It also has bdelugma = abomination. This is also found in Lev. 18:22, but is a general word.

1Ki 15:12 has teletas (followers of mystery religions) to translate qĕdēšîm (male cult prostitutes)

1Ki 22:46 that you cited doesn't even exist in the LXX

2Ki 23:7 just transliterates, as best it can, qĕdēšîm as kadēsim

Goughfather
28-11-2009, 06:56 PM
Oh, so now it's just a question of frequency than principle.


Not at all, but when your ad hominems occur a number of times in most posts and mine tend to be the exception rather than the rule, then this is of some relevance.


It means joy at someone's misfortune.

When the misfortune is simply that one did not get one's way in which political party was elected and is whinging as a result, I'm not particularly sympathetic.


Any conservative defense is labelled "foaming at the mouth" by diehard lefties, who applauded the leftist Bush and Palin derangement syndromes, and really foam against conservative spokespeople.

Bush and Palin Derangement Syndrome, also known as any criticism of Bush and/or Palin? I've always wondering who coined this phrase and whether they had any qualifications in psychiatry. And where does it fit on the DSM IV schedule? I've also wondered how it just happens to be the case that nobody has identified Obama Derangement Syndrome.


You had a post whinging about climate change "deniers", wondering what motivates them.

Oh yes, as I recall, this blog entry was just my musing about why climate change denialists happen to be so virulently angry about the issue, as evidenced by the need to call those who simply happened to disagree with them "global warm-mongerers". I can understand and respect calm, considered and dispassionate disagreement, but I didn't understand the emotional intensity of the opposition I was seeing.


Missing the point again. Many of the warm-mongers demand that dissenters publish in peer-reviewed journals. The leaked emails show a determination to censor out challenges to the ideology.

It seems like a bit of a lame excuse not to at least attempt to publish in peer-reviewed journals when we are talking about a small minority of misbehaving academics.


I documented it: German liberal theologians supported the Kaiser; American liberal theologians supported eugenics; later on they opposed the war against Hitler; now they jump on any leftist cause in favour with newsrooms and uni humanties faculties. Liberals never initiate anything constructive, unlike the conservative theology that abolished the Spartan and Roman version of eugenics (infanticide), caused science to flourish, end slavery, start hospitals. orphanages and the Salvation Army.

And the Reformed theologians and churchmen were at the forefront of supporting segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa. Am I now entitled to regard you as being a racist?


Implied with "too much time on his [sic] hands.

Not for pursuing knowledge in Koine Greek, but for snarling at somebody who has never claimed to be an expert in Koine Greek.


I like only accurate labels.

It is only a pity that you do not seem to be fond of employing them.


"Sodomites" is incorrect, definitely.

Which is certainly an interesting consideration in and of itself, don't you think?

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 08:28 AM
Not at all, but when your ad hominems occur a number of times in most posts and mine tend to be the exception rather than the rule, then this is of some relevance.
Except that it's no longer a matter of principle. And it's not lessened because of your ridiculous airs of baseless intellectual superiority, which are typical of lefties.


When the misfortune is simply that one did not get one's way in which political party was elected and is whinging as a result, I'm not particularly sympathetic.
Yet there were many lefties who threatened to leave America when Bush was elected, and who hated Howard winning four elections, including over their darling Latham.


Bush and Palin Derangement Syndrome, also known as any criticism of Bush and/or Palin?
No, rather the vicious "I hate Bush" tirade, attacks on Palin's Down's Syndrome child and accusations that she was the real mother of her grandson, the "gotcha" questions singled out from long interviews compared with the softball Dorothy Dixers that Obamov had to field.


I've always wondering who coined this phrase and whether they had any qualifications in psychiatry.
I think Charles Krauthammer might have been the one who invented BDS, and he does have qualifications in psychiatry.


And where does it fit on the DSM IV schedule? I've also wondered how it just happens to be the case that nobody has identified Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I've certainly identified Obama Messianic Syndrome, e.g. Chris Matthews confessing that he got a thrill up his leg, and Newsweek saying that Obama was "sort of God", and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee (of Norwegian leftist politicians) awarding him the prize after only 11 days in office.


Oh yes, as I recall, this blog entry was just my musing about why climate change denialists happen to be so virulently angry about the issue, as evidenced by the need to call those who simply happened to disagree with them "global warm-mongerers".
I hadn't invented the term by the time of that blog post.


I can understand and respect calm, considered and dispassionate disagreement, but I didn't understand the emotional intensity of the opposition I was seeing.
It should be obvious: they don't want our economy crippled and thousands thrown out of work, esp. for measures that are just typical leftist gestures that would make no detectable difference to world CO2 levels anyway.


It seems like a bit of a lame excuse not to at least attempt to publish in peer-reviewed journals when we are talking about a small minority of misbehaving academics.
They often have attempted, but now we know that quite a number of the leading alarmists have been guilty of intimidation, censorship and hiding contrary data.


And the Reformed theologians and churchmen were at the forefront of supporting segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa.
Not in the US; a number of Reformed churchmen were opposed to slavery and segregation, given that the North was where the Puritans and their descendants settled.

Re apartheid, I've written before (http://creation.com/the-bible-vs-slavery-and-apartheid):


Yes we know that (and we also know that the South African Anglican Church always denounced apartheid as a heresy). However, the DRC's seminaries had accepted theistic evolution, effectively denying the authority of Scripture. Also, they developed a theology of separate development of different ‘races’ by misapplying Scriptural passages about the separation of the Israelite theocracy from the surrounding pagan nations. Of course, this was based on religion rather than ‘race’, and as shown in One Blood—the Biblical answer to racism (https://store.creation.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=158), individuals from different ‘races’ (or preferably, people groups) could marry Israelites if they converted to faith in the true God of Israel. The Biblical rules of separation applied only to the coming of Israel’s Messiah through whom all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). Since His death and Resurrection, the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14). Now both Jews and Gentiles can become one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, Col. 3:11). See the discussion in Separation from the nation (http://creation.com/genesis-correctly-predicts-y-chromosome-pattern#separation)s and Breaking down barriers (http://creation.com/genesis-correctly-predicts-y-chromosome-pattern#barriers).

But based on their faulty theology, which was not helped by the evolutionism at the top, and ignoring the above Biblical teachings, the DRC created a separate church for black believers. Persons of colour were not allowed to attend any services of the white church. The DRC never officially supported white supremacy, although this was the effect in practice of their faulty theology, with its corollaries of white-only beaches, amenities, etc.

The DRC did however lead the way out of apartheid in the early 80s when a committee paper, Kerk en Samelewing (Church and Society) was accepted by the annual general convention of the DRC (Algemene Sinode). This paper rejected the former position and effectively destroyed the theological foundation of apartheid—at a time when it was still firmly entrenched politically speaking. This paper in theory allowed persons of colour back into the DRC, and eventually led to a countrywide church split when the nationalist Afrikaanse Protestante Kerk (Afrikaans Protestant Church) was founded in protest. This paper undoubtedly had a great influence in dismantling apartheid, since >70% of white South Africans voted ‘yes’ in a series of referendums that led to the Nationalist government’s demolition of the apartheid system, which culminated in the first all-race elections in 1994. Therefore it was the Bible that corrected the previous errors, and as will be shown (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero), this was true of slavery too.

Note also, the ‘architect of apartheid’, Dr Hendrik Verwoerd (1901–1966, Prime Minister 1959–66), had undertaken studies as a psychologist in prewar Germany. There, he became enamoured with the Rassenhygiene theories and policies of the Nazis (first invented by the pre-Nazi eugenicists).


Am I now entitled to regard you as being a racist?
Nope; I've been on record as consistenly anti-racist in my job and here. -But re the selective moralizing about apartheid, as repugnant as it was, the Yes Prime Minister episode “The Bishop's Gambit”, had the following dialogue:


Sir Humphrey: He's [bishop candidate] also against oppression and persecution in Africa.

Hacker, Prime Minister: Well, so are we.

Sir Humphrey: But he's against it when it's practised by black governments as well as white ones.

Hacker: Oh... so he's a racist?


Not for pursuing knowledge in Koine Greek, but for snarling at somebody who has never claimed to be an expert in Koine Greek.
But at someone who spouted nonsense about Koine Greek.


Which is certainly an interesting consideration in and of itself, don't you think?
How so? That these passages about male cult prostitutes do NOT have anything like the word you claimed they did? So they can't be used as evidence for revisionism for what Paul meant.

Goughfather
29-11-2009, 11:58 AM
Except that it's no longer a matter of principle. And it's not lessened because of your ridiculous airs of baseless intellectual superiority, which are typical of lefties.

No, the point is that I don't make a practice of such attacks. You do.


No, rather the vicious "I hate Bush" tirade, attacks on Palin's Down's Syndrome child and accusations that she was the real mother of her grandson, the "gotcha" questions singled out from long interviews compared with the softball Dorothy Dixers that Obamov had to field.

And I've shown you an example of a charming man who likewise claims to "hate" Obama. Do you have a point?

It's all endemic of the type of hypocrisy among conservatives - criticise Bush and you have some BS "diagnosis" known as BDS; criticise Obama and you're an American patriot.


I've certainly identified Obama Messianic Syndrome, e.g. Chris Matthews confessing that he got a thrill up his leg, and Newsweek saying that Obama was "sort of God", and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee (of Norwegian leftist politicians) awarding him the prize after only 11 days in office.

What do you call someone who calls Obama the Messiah? A Republican.


I hadn't invented the term by the time of that blog post.

Yes, I'm simply providing some kind of insight into the type of immaturity I'm talking about.


They often have attempted, but now we know that quite a number of the leading alarmists have been guilty of intimidation, censorship and hiding contrary data.

Quite a number? Is this just a throwaway line, or do you have a source for that?


Not in the US; a number of Reformed churchmen were opposed to slavery and segregation, given that the North was where the Puritans and their descendants settled.

Re apartheid, I've written before (http://creation.com/the-bible-vs-slavery-and-apartheid):


Yes we know that (and we also know that the South African Anglican Church always denounced apartheid as a heresy). However, the DRC's seminaries had accepted theistic evolution, effectively denying the authority of Scripture. Also, they developed a theology of separate development of different ‘races’ by misapplying Scriptural passages about the separation of the Israelite theocracy from the surrounding pagan nations. Of course, this was based on religion rather than ‘race’, and as shown in One Blood—the Biblical answer to racism (https://store.creation.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=158), individuals from different ‘races’ (or preferably, people groups) could marry Israelites if they converted to faith in the true God of Israel. The Biblical rules of separation applied only to the coming of Israel’s Messiah through whom all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). Since His death and Resurrection, the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14). Now both Jews and Gentiles can become one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, Col. 3:11). See the discussion in Separation from the nation (http://creation.com/genesis-correctly-predicts-y-chromosome-pattern#separation)s and Breaking down barriers (http://creation.com/genesis-correctly-predicts-y-chromosome-pattern#barriers).

But based on their faulty theology, which was not helped by the evolutionism at the top, and ignoring the above Biblical teachings, the DRC created a separate church for black believers. Persons of colour were not allowed to attend any services of the white church. The DRC never officially supported white supremacy, although this was the effect in practice of their faulty theology, with its corollaries of white-only beaches, amenities, etc.

The DRC did however lead the way out of apartheid in the early 80s when a committee paper, Kerk en Samelewing (Church and Society) was accepted by the annual general convention of the DRC (Algemene Sinode). This paper rejected the former position and effectively destroyed the theological foundation of apartheid—at a time when it was still firmly entrenched politically speaking. This paper in theory allowed persons of colour back into the DRC, and eventually led to a countrywide church split when the nationalist Afrikaanse Protestante Kerk (Afrikaans Protestant Church) was founded in protest. This paper undoubtedly had a great influence in dismantling apartheid, since >70% of white South Africans voted ‘yes’ in a series of referendums that led to the Nationalist government’s demolition of the apartheid system, which culminated in the first all-race elections in 1994. Therefore it was the Bible that corrected the previous errors, and as will be shown (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero), this was true of slavery too.

It's profoundly insulting that the Dutch Reformed Church take any credit whatsoever for ending apartheid, considering how long they took an obstructionist stance and how long leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu strived for the end of apartheid.


Nope; I've been on record as consistenly anti-racist in my job and here.

Meanwhile, I haven't had the need to defend myself against any suspicion of racism, given that nothing that I've written has or could reasonably support that particular inference.


How so? That these passages about male cult prostitutes do NOT have anything like the word you claimed they did? So they can't be used as evidence for revisionism for what Paul meant.

But they do indicate some intent to impart an unjustified homophobic reading on the text.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 01:43 PM
No, the point is that I don't make a practice of such attacks. You do.
What a wuss. What's the worst thing I've said? Then compare it with attacks from mainstream lefties.


It's all endemic of the type of hypocrisy among conservatives - criticise Bush and you have some BS "diagnosis" known as BDS; criticise Obama and you're an American patriot.
And the reverse was true: dissent against Bush was "patriotic"; dissent against Obamov is "racist". And even before the election, there were articles claiming that Obamov would be doing even better were it not for white racist. The fact is, he did as well as he did because of black racists voting their skin colour (90% of blacks voted for him even against fellow liberal Dem Heilary).


What do you call someone who calls Obama the Messiah? A Republican.
Are you serious? Newsweek wrote that Obamov was "sort of God".
Why else would he be awarded a peace prize merely for holding the right (i.e. Left) political views? His chosen alliances with radicals, racists, terrorists and the demonstrably corrupt ACORN (http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/11/28/what_happens_when_a_pi_dumpster_dives_behind_a_san _diego_acorn_office) were also given a free pass.


Yes, I'm simply providing some kind of insight into the type of immaturity I'm talking about.
Not at all; you fail to address the point that one doesn't have to be a denier to be very critical of economy-hurting taxes/ETS that won't make a detectable difference to world temps. But the Left loves gestures more than results.


Quite a number? Is this just a throwaway line, or do you have a source for that?
The leaked emails show a pattern of such.


It's profoundly insulting that the Dutch Reformed Church take any credit whatsoever for ending apartheid, considering how long they took an obstructionist stance and how long leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu strived for the end of apartheid.
Yes, they took their time. But as I said, their leaders were quite liberal, not Calvinist.


Meanwhile, I haven't had the need to defend myself against any suspicion of racism, given that nothing that I've written has or could reasonably support that particular inference.
Me neither. But I am against racism whether practised by whites or by blacks.


But they do indicate some intent to impart an unjustified homophobic reading on the text.
Not at all. These male cult prostitutes were sodomites; it went with the territory; but this is just one attribute not the best translation of qedeshim. And once more, the actual Greek of the LXX destroys your revisionism of Paul's usage of Greek (and that of the liberal theologian you parroted—shame that you're not consistent and abandon liberalism, just like you abandoned your professed evangelicalism because of perceived faults of some evangelicals. All those without faults, raise your hands.).

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2009, 07:22 PM
Oh yes, as I recall, this blog entry was just my musing about why climate change denialists happen to be so virulently angry about the issue, as evidenced by the need to call those who simply happened to disagree with them "global warm-mongerers". I can understand and respect calm, considered and dispassionate disagreement, but I didn't understand the emotional intensity of the opposition I was seeing.


"global warm-mongerers" want to put a vacuum cleaner in my wallet, as well as anyone else who earns enough to pay tax. I am not aware of climate change sceptics proposing to do the same.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2009, 07:29 PM
Yet there were many lefties who threatened to leave America when Bush was elected....

Yep, remember that. How many put their money where their mouth was?

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2009, 07:34 PM
It's all endemic of the type of hypocrisy among conservatives - criticise Bush and you have some BS "diagnosis" known as BDS; criticise Obama and you're an American patriot.

Hypocrisy is the trait of the left.
I remember huge list of leftist hypocrisies compiled on this forum (by Jone, if my memory serves me correctly). Out of 20 or 30+ two or three were refuted.
An attempt to compile similar list of conservative hypocrisies failed to yield more then a couple.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Me neither. But I am against racism whether practised by whites or by blacks.

But racism by practised by blacks is not a racism, it's merely correcting injustice of the past:lol: :lol: :lol: