Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip I don't know how much money > they earned as a result of selling the body parts of aborted babies. Excuse me? Where's your proof that they ever did this? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > Hatter, > Because Jehovah is the one true God. Prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > There was a historian that was named Josephus (or something like that) > that mentioned Jesus in his history book. Well-know forgery. Next! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snp > > That's true--they even have a name for it--something like postpartum > depression. I honestly don't know whether the severe depression that some > women that have had an abortion have is different or the same. One woman > that had an abortion stated in her sermon that she could hear her baby > crying in the middle of the night. It was only when she was fully awake > did she remember the abortion. She said that she would cry for over an > hour related to missing her baby before she could go back to sleep. That > seems to be an even more serious problem than postpartum depression. So? She made her decision and has to live with the consequences. Her choice isn't any of your business. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snp > Let's get serious. Many women have had abortions. The advocates of Planned > Parenthood have convinced people that abortions are the solutions to their > problems. That's a blatant lie. Planned Parenthood provides the patient with ALL the options when someone comes in with an unplanned pregnancy. They don't "push" abortion, but will provide information upon request. >In many cases, an abortion is the solution to their problems. Yeah, and? > However, people like yourself are not aware of the damage that abortions > do to women. And that's the business of the women that have the abortions - NOT yours. I have heard them tell their stories in church services and > have seen them interviewed on Christian television shows. Those women are > victims. Oh bullshit. They made an informed decision - No one forced them to have an abortion. If they want to cry about it later, that's their problem. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In alt.atheism On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:05:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <a62l43de2d0aao9rehth8m39ljh1t19km4@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:55:59 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <I_OdnaqT0ujY4dfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan >> ><danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> Was it Jesus that Isaiah was talking about...or was it the Nation of >Israel? >> > >> >Isaiah 53:5 makes use of the word "He" which indicates that the scripture >> >is about a male person. >> >> No, it's actually about Israel. >> >> > Isaiah says--"he was pierced through". It's my >> >opinion and the opinion of Bible scholars that this scripture was a >> >prophecy about Jesus. >> >> And it's the known fact among jews that it's about Israel. >> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq005.html >> >> Question: Who is the suffering servant of the Lord? >> >> >> Answer: The fact is that the identity of the servant has already been >> established by Isaiah in previously stated passages. In Isaiah 41 >> :8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 the prophet identifies Israel as >> the servant. >> >> Moreover, the history of Israel, down through the ages shows that the >> servant is, none other than Israel personified. Chapter 53 reiterates >> this fact by providing an historic overview of the tragedies and >> triumphs of the servant, Israel, throughout its history. Who would >> believe that this exiled nation, this humiliated loathsome Jewish >> people would be fated to survive the vicissitudes of its historical >> sufferings to once more have a future entailing prominence, hope, and >> joy >> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq136.html >> >> 53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he >> was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." Whereas the nations >> had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for >> its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings >> stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further >> developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; >> Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed >> till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4). >> >Are you Jewish? How wonderful that you've conceded that Is 53 is not about jesus. Should you EVER decide to post the lie that Is 53 is about jesus, I will re-post this so that everyone can see what a liar you are. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2cpmv$m4u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Because in that state--it's the law. It's my understanding the ACLU is >>> trying to get the law overturned. Of course, if women wanted to get their >>> abortions in other states that do not have that same law--they would not >>> have to look at pictures of their babies. Believe it or not, back in the >>> 1960's (prior to ultrasounds), Planned Parenthood told the women that it >>> was just a "mass of tissue". They no longer tell that lie. >>> Jason >> Note the date and time of the below message. Then note that you wrote >> the above in the some of the SAME newsgroups on Tues morning. >> >> Your earlier post about "I have decided to not reply to any more posts >> in this newsgroup." wouldn't have been a LIE, now would it? >> >> >> Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:09:08 -0700 >> From: Jason@nospam.com (Jason) >> Newsgroups: >> > alt.religion,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn >> Hello, >> When I opened my newsgroup reader, I noticed that there were 53 new >> messages and it was my guess that most of them were responses to my recent >> posts. I have decided to not reply to any more posts in this newsgroup. > > I posted the message mentioned above in the jehovahs wit. newsgroup. If > you re-read my above message, you should note that I used the term "this > newsgroup" (not "these newsgroups") in my message. I did not realize that > my message was crossposted in lots of newsgroups when I posted the message > in the jehovah wit. newsgroup. Thanks for pointing out that my message was > crosspossed in several different newsgroups. Have you considered that I > might be a subscriber to one (or more) of the various newsgroups mentioned > above and that is the reason you have seen my post in whaterver newsgroup > you had in mind when you made the above post. And have you considered the fact that others might also be subscribed to other newsgroups other than the jehovah's witless group and thus your saying "this newsgroup" applied to what-ever newsgroup they're in? Not to mention the fact that you're STILL posting to the jehovah's witless group? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <s_v2i.2836$y_7.1239@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1179275917.939430.179610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 16, 5:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <gMn2i.75$H24...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, >>> b...@nonespam.com wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of >>>>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more >>>>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. >>>>>> What evidence do you have of their saying that? There is no reason to >>>>>> discuss this further if you don't have any. >>>>> I heard a lady from Planned Parenthood use that term when when she was >>>>> telling a high school class in 1975 about all of the services provided by >>>>> Planned Parenthood. You may want to google "mass of tissue" to find out >>>>> more information. In reason years, I have heard preachers mention that >>>>> term in relation to sermons about abortion. One reason that I am an >>>>> advocate of the Pro-Life is because listening to sermons preached by women >>>>> that have been the victims of abortion. One woman said that shortly after >>>>> the abortion, she would hear a baby crying and wake up to tend the baby. >>>>> After she was fully awake, she said that she would start crying for over >>>>> an hour because she realized that her baby was dead. This happened almost >>>>> every night for about one year. Other women have stated in their sermons >>>>> that they had severe depression related to abortions. >>>> That's because Christians like you have made them feel guilty. >>>> Wonderful. The irony is that if she had actually gotten an ultrasound >>>> she would have seen that it really was just a mass of tissue until the >>>> end of the third month when you would have started to see arms and >>>> legs. >>>> >>>>>>> It's much harder to >>>>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize >>> that they >>>>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and >>>>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to have the >>>>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D >>> ultrasounds >>>>>>> of their babies. >>>>>> No, it infringes on the woman's right to choose. That's why the law >>>>>> should be overturned. >>>>> They could still CHOOSE to have an abortion after looking at the pictures >>>>> of their unborn babies. >>>> And she probably would but the point is that the doctor could just as >>>> easily show her pictures of what her baby would look like at one >>>> month, two months, three months, etc. There's no need for them to go >>>> to that time and expense. The law is simply trying to make it >>>> difficult for a woman to have an abortion. >>>> >>>> Look, Jason, I was adopted. My birth mother was only sixteen when she >>>> had me. I realize full well that I could have been aborted, That >>>> doesn't change the fact that it would have been her choice. >>>> >>>>>> They know that once those women see those pictures, they >>>>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives >>> money from >>>>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have abortions. >>>>>> Do you have any idea of what you are saying? As noted earlier, Planned >>>>>> Parenthood provides reproductive counseling and other services. They do >>>>>> it without regard to income level. >>>>> You are correct. However, Planned Parenthood earns millions of dollars per >>>>> year as a result of abortions. I heard one preacher say that the net worth >>>>> of Planned Parenthood is over one billion dollars. One preacher referred >>>>> to money earned from abortions as "blood money". I heard one preacher say >>>>> that Planned Parenthood even earns money by selling body parts of aborted >>>>> babies. >>>> Your preacher is a liar, which is not surprising seeing as how your >>>> entire religion is based on lies. It's about time you woke up to the >>>> fact that you've been lied to for decades and you've naively swallowed >>>> every word as though it were the truth! >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> Let's get serious. Many women have had abortions. The advocates of Planned >>> Parenthood have convinced people that abortions are the solutions to their >>> problems. >> This sounds like another lie. On what do you base this? Do you even know >> what fraction of abortions are performed by Planned Parenthood? Do you >> know how they work? I told you in an earlier post what the bulk of their >> services actually is. Have you forgotten or are you simply ignoring it >> the way you ignore inconvenient facts? >> >> In many cases, an abortion is the solution to their problems. >> >> For example, parents or relatives who would murder them if they found >> out about the pregnancy. Or rape or incest, or threat to the mother's >> health. >> >>> However, people like yourself are not aware of the damage that abortions >>> do to women. >> By telling women that you know better than they do what is good for them >> you show patronizing arrogance of the worst type. >> >> I have heard them tell their stories in church services and >>> have seen them interviewed on Christian television shows. >> But you haven't talked to women who have had abortions and continued >> normal lives. You are basing your opinions on a very biased, >> unrepresentative and small sample. You are wrong to do so. >> >> >> Those women are >>> victims. They suffer from all sorts of psychological problems such as >>> severe depression and postpartum depression. >> And then they come to the pulpit and debase themselves further. >> >> Of course, not all women >>> suffer from psychological problems as a result of abortions. My heart goes >>> out to those victims of abortion. I believe that the abortion pill --it is >>> called RU-484--may help solve some of the these problems since the >>> abortions would (in most cases) occur during the first month of pregnancy. >> And the reproduction fascists are trying to get that banned as well. >> They want to stop all abortions, including IMO the spontaneous ones. >> >>> Do you agree that abortions that occur during the first month of pregancy >>> would in most cases reduce the number of cases of severe depression and >>> postpartum depression? >> No I don't. I think that making abortions illegal will drive desperate >> women to the back alleys as it did before Roe v Wade. Quacks and >> criminals will be the only ones performing abortions other than the >> women themselves. The results will be a high rate of complications >> including infection, sterility, and other potentially fatal >> complications. Banning abortions will exacerbate the situation. > > We both know that abortion will never be illegal in all states in America. I don't know that. So we must work to preserve a woman's right to choose, through legislation and stopping the reproduction fascists from making the service unavailable even where it is legal. > I read an article in either Time or NewsWeek indicating that even if > Roe... was overturned, at least a dozen states (or more) would pass laws > making abortion legal in those states. People in other states would rely > on RU486 even if they had to order is via the internet. They could also > travel to the states that allowed abortion. As I noted earlier (do you read my posts?), stating blithely that women could travel to other states discriminates against those without the means to do so. It's easy to find out what I said, you left it just below this. > >> It will discriminate against the youngest women and the poorest, who >> will not be able to afford a proper abortion (even an illegal one) or >> who cannot afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortions are in >> fact legal. >> >> It will increase the suicide rate among young women who cannot face the >> shame of their situation. It will cause them to leave their communities, >> it will force them to drop out of school and not live up to their >> economic potential. Women forced to bear children that they cannot raise >> will resent them and possibly mistreat them. The cycle will repeat. >> >> All this social cost for someone else's theology? If this is your idea >> of what Christianity is about, I want no part of it. >> What Jason, no response? Don't like what I said? You can't defend your views can you? That's because reality is not on your side, but you are too fanatically Christian to face the ugly facts of life. You live in a dream world. You are a religious lotus eater. Go stay on your island. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179291676.446593.281120@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of >>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more >>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to >>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize > that they >>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and >>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to have the >>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D > ultrasounds >>>>> of their babies. They know that once those women see those > pictures, they >>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives > money from >>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have > abortions. That's >>>>> why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does > anyone know >>>>> the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that > it's over >>>>> 1 billion dollars. >>>> And preachers never lie, do they? >>> I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar >>> number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned Parenthood has made >>> during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably be over a >>> billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the figures in >>> front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television told his >>> audience. >> Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to >> you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you >> yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians >> tell the truth? >> >> Martin > > Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the truth? No, it didn't because his facts were so obviously wrong. Do > you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion dollars > during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide > organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion > dollar number. That is dishonest. He should not have lied that way. It's not Christian. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179291566.537529.89630@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 16, 11:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179277189.984689.158...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 16, 5:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <xdo2i.6142$RX.3...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> b...@nonespam.com wrote: >>>>>> Your pastor was lying. Check out >>>>>> http://charityreports.give.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=626 >>>>> What is the net worth of Planned Parenthood? >>>> They are listed as a charity. >>>>> Do they money derived from >>>>> abortion? >>>> They offer COUNSELING. Doctors perform abortions. >>>>> You appear to think that Planned Parenthood is a social service >>>>> organization that does not make ANY money from the services that they >>>>> provide. >>>> They are a charity. >>>>> They may not money from some of the services they provide such as >>>>> counseling but they derive millions of dollars from the abortions. >>>> That's a lie. Obviously you believe everything your fellow Christian >>>> liars tell you. You don't realize that if you can lie so easily then >>>> maybe they can too. >>>>> You >>>>> claim that I am lying but the truth is that you are trying to > mis-lead the >>>>> members of various newsgroups by implying that Planned Parenthood > does not >>>>> make money from any of the services that they provide. >>>> You are trying to mislead people by either deliberately LYING or >>>> spreading LIES. >>>> The fact is that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organisation. If >>>> it were otherwise then it couldn't be listed as a charity. >>>>> The truth is that >>>>> they make millions of dollars from abortions. >>>> Stop lying! >>>>> It's my opinion that the end >>>>> goal of the free counseling programs are to convince women that abortion >>>>> is the best option for them. The reason they do that is because > they make >>>>> more money from abortions than they would make if women decided to have >>>>> their babies. Believe it or not, making money is the primary motivation >>>>> for lots of businesses. Let's get real--Planned Parenthood is a > business. >>>> It's a charity. Repeating your lies don't make them true. >>>>>> You appear to get your information from preachers who care less about >>>>>> the truth than you do. Your credibility is dropping by the nanosecond. >>>>>> Why don't you find the truth out for yourself instead of being > spoonfed >>>>>> questionable information by people with an agenda? >>>>>> You are acting like a spiritual zombie, brainlessly marching to > the tune >>>>>> banged out by some ignoramus with an axe to grind. >>>>>> Believe what you want, agree or disagree with what you want, but at >>>>>> least know the facts. Wake up, man! >>>>> You need to wake up and stop believing the words on the Planned > Parenthood >>>>> website that were probably written by someone that has a degree > related to >>>>> "public relations". >>>> You mean this website? http://www.plannedparenthood.org >>>>> The truth is that Planned Parenthood is a business >>>>> that makes millions of dollars from abortions. In the "Stated Purpose" >>>>> that you posted above, I looked for the word "abortion" and it was not >>>>> listed. Wake Up, Man:; Abortion is the number one service that they >>>>> provide and it's their "money maker" and most of the other free services >>>>> are geared to convince women to have abortions. >>>> Planned Parenthood are not the ones lying. You are. >>>> Martin >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Martin, >>> Be honest: >> I am honest. It is offensive that you would suggest that I am not >> being honest. >> >>> Does Planned Parenthood derive any funds related to abortions? >> They are not a business: they are a non-profit organisation. Without >> donations, they lose money. Any money received is going to pay the >> Doctor's salaries. > > You failed to answer my question--I repeat--Does Planned Parenthood earn > any funds related to abortion? > >>> (This includes any money related to referrals to doctors that do the >>> abortions) >> Please show evidence that the doctors give money to Planned Parenthood >> when Planned Parenthood brings somebody to their clinic. Planned >> Parenthood has their own clinics where abortions (presumably) take >> place but their primary function is to provide counseling and if a >> woman can't come to one of their clinics then the woman would go to >> another clinic. Planned Parenthood would not get any money from that: >> a doctor working at an independent clinic is not working for Planned >> Parenthood and nor would the doctor be paying for referrals. If you >> have evidence otherwise then please post. > > I don't have the evidence related to Planned Parenthood making money from > referrals. You don't get the facts do you. It's pretty easy. I seen an article about one city in the Bible Belt. You get one snippet of data from one biased source. This does not lead to truth. There was > only one doctor in that city that done abortions. As a result, all of the > Planned Parenthood offices in the city and nearby towns referred all > patients to that doctor. I don't remember whether the article mentioned > referral fees. The local Planned Parenthood office in my small city does > not have a doctor performing abortions inside that small office. They > refer patients to various doctors. I saw a prolife group holding signs > outside of one of those doctor's office. I stopped my car and gave them > some words of support. There was an article in the newspaper indicating > that someone wrote BABY KILLER on the walls of one of those doctor's > offices. That was a stupid thing to do since it hurts our cause. The sad thing is that everything these reproduction fascists do damages their cause. That > doctor stopped performing abortions as a result of the people that were > carrying signs outside his office. It's my guess that he was losing lots > of his regular patients as a result of the pro-lifers carrying signs > outside his office. That was a major victory for our side. And when you run all the doctors out of small towns, you will have achieved a major victory because you have achieved purity for those who don't get sick or have accidents, or carry their babies to term. Sick. > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <x0w2i.2838$y_7.2336@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> DanielSan wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <I_OdnaqT0ujY4dfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan >>>> <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> In article <1179282445.318098.21590@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Hatter23@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me >>>>>>>> whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the >>>>>>>> 1990's and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw >>>>>>>> lots of 8s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. >>>>>> But you also >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so >>>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about >>>>>> what the >>>>>>>>>>>>> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the >>>>>> SAME year >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate >>>>>> numbers from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. >>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>>>> Someone else made some good points about statistics related to >>>>>> prison >>>>>>>>>>>> populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three >>>>>> strikes >>>>>>>>>>>> laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison >>>>>>>>>>>> populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since >>>>>>>> MURDER is >>>>>>>>>>>> one of those crimes that has always been against the law. >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what >>>>>>>>>>> crime you >>>>>>>>>>> focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two >>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>> ranges of years. >>>>>>>>>> Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide >>>>>>>> quoted text - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which god? >>>>>>>> Jehovah >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other >>>>>>> God-Creators? >>>>>>> They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and >>>>>>> Jehovahs claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hatter >>>>>> Hatter, >>>>>> Because Jehovah is the one true God. >>>>> Who says? >>>>> >>>>>> Many of the prophesies mentioned by >>>>>> Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example: Isaiah 53:5 But >>>>>> he was pierced through for our transgressions. >>>>>> As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even >>>>>> pierced with a sword. >>>>> Was it Jesus that Isaiah was talking about...or was it the Nation of >>>>> Israel? >>>> Isaiah 53:5 makes use of the word "He" which indicates that the scripture >>>> is about a male person. >>> Not always. >>> >>>> Isaiah says--"he was pierced through". >>> In one translation. In the KJV, he was simply wounded, not pierced. >>> >>>> It's my >>>> opinion and the opinion of Bible scholars that this scripture was a >>>> prophecy about Jesus. >>> Some Bible scholars, you mean. >> No, Christians. No Jewish commentator has ever said that, mainly because >> they understand the original text. > > Good point--I should have wrote Christian Bible Scholars. So you will change what you say in the future? Maybe broaden your horizons to recognize that there are other types of scholarship? Obviously, > Jewish Bible Scholars would have different understanding about prophecies. We wrote the book. It's you all who misunderstand and misinterpret. > I have met some Jewish Christians. They were a member of an organization > called "Jews For Jesus". They came to our church and sang some traditional > Jewish Songs. They also gave told us about their lives as Jewish > Christians. They are apostates from Judaism. They are no more Jews than you are. They publicly violated the Second Commandment, and in so doing renounced their Judaism. They play at being Jewish for reasons that I cannot comprehend. > >>>> That prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was pierced >>>> through for our sins and transgressions. Are you talking about Isaiah 53 again? It has been explained to you that the text was taken out of context. >>> Or it was said that he was pierced through for our sins and >>> transgressions...AFTER THE FACT...in order to make the prediction correct. >>> >> Exactly right. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. >> >> >>> However, I still see nothing in here that says that this prophecy was >>> fulfilled. I don't even have contemporary evidence of this Jesus >>> character. > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <otw2i.2843$y_7.654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <tMv2i.2832$y_7.2175@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <m3s2i.256$C96.17@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <lc7k43p1947j5o50k665hvv1dtp4svhvm9@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>>>>>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In alt.atheism On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:04:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I heard a lady from Planned Parenthood use that term when when she was >>>>>>>>> telling a high school class in 1975 about all of the services >>> provided by >>>>>>>>> Planned Parenthood. You may want to google "mass of tissue" to > find out >>>>>>>>> more information. In reason years, I have heard preachers mention that >>>>>>>>> term in relation to sermons about abortion. One reason that I am an >>>>>>>>> advocate of the Pro-Life is because listening to sermons preached >>> by women >>>>>>>>> that have been the victims of abortion. One woman said that >>> shortly after >>>>>>>>> the abortion, she would hear a baby crying and wake up to tend > the baby. >>>>>>>>> After she was fully awake, she said that she would start crying > for over >>>>>>>>> an hour because she realized that her baby was dead. This happened >>> almost >>>>>>>>> every night for about one year. Other women have stated in their > sermons >>>>>>>>> that they had severe depression related to abortions. >>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>> So What??? You seem to have no sympathy for the women that suffer > severe >>>>>>> depression as a direct result of abortions. Don't you care about those >>>>>>> women? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Women often experience depression after giving birth. Brooke Shields was >>>>>> the most public example, but I know a number of women who also >>>>>> experienced it. It has to do with hormonal changes after the fetus is >>>>>> expelled. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> That's true--they even have a name for it--something like postpartum >>>>> depression. I honestly don't know whether the severe depression that some >>>>> women that have had an abortion have is different or the same. >>>> It is the same, hormonally induced. If you've ever been around a >>>> pregnant woman while paying attention you (and they) notice how hormonal >>>> they are from the beginning. >>>> >>>> None of the women that I know who had abortions felt good about it. They >>>> all felt some guilt, but they knew that what they did was necessary. >>>> It's an awful choice to have to make, and the reproduction fascists only >>>> make it that much worse. >>>> >>>> One woman >>>>> that had an abortion stated in her sermon that she could hear her baby >>>>> crying in the middle of the night. >>>> Guilt. You can even read about it in Tokugawa Japan. >>>> >>>> It was only when she was fully awake >>>>> did she remember the abortion. She said that she would cry for over an >>>>> hour related to missing her baby before she could go back to sleep. That >>>>> seems to be an even more serious problem than postpartum depression. >>>> Maybe, maybe not. Probably hormones laced with a bit of guilt. >>> I hope that the abortion pill that I believe is called RU-486 solves some >>> these problems related to postpartum depression and severe depression. Do >>> you believe that if an abortion happened during the first month of >>> pregnancy, that it would be less likely that women would suffer from >>> postpartum depression and severe depression than if the abortion took >>> place during the second or third trimester? >>> >> I don't know enough about the subject. I think it depends on the woman, >> her hormonal situation, and her situation. Third trimester abortions >> are certainly the most dangerous. > > > I agree. Is this the first time we have agreed on anything? > > Maybe. But agreeing on your ignorance is like agreeing that we both have fingers and toes. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179294078.449622.33660@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of >>>>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make > it more >>>>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to >>>>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize >>> that they >>>>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and >>>>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to > have the >>>>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D >>> ultrasounds >>>>>>> of their babies. They know that once those women see those >>> pictures, they >>>>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives >>> money from >>>>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have >>> abortions. That's >>>>>>> why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does >>> anyone know >>>>>>> the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that >>> it's over >>>>>>> 1 billion dollars. >>>>>> And preachers never lie, do they? >>>>> I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar >>>>> number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned Parenthood has made >>>>> during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably be over a >>>>> billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the figures in >>>>> front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television > told his >>>>> audience. >>>> Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to >>>> you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you >>>> yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians >>>> tell the truth? >>> Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the truth? Do >>> you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion dollars >>> during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide >>> organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion >>> dollar number. >> Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar >> industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over >> several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned >> Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but >> rather relies on donations. Period. >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie. If he had the figures to back it up it wouldn't be. But it is still dishonest because he implies that the money was earned strictly from abortions, which it definitely was not. > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion dollars > last year." That would be a lie. That would also be a lie. > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second statement. > Why do you say that? If he lied about one thing, there is no reason to believe that he didn't lie about the other. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <xyG2i.6221$RX.2853@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <s_v2i.2836$y_7.1239@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1179275917.939430.179610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On May 16, 5:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article <gMn2i.75$H24...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > >>> b...@nonespam.com wrote: > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of > >>>>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more > >>>>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. > >>>>>> What evidence do you have of their saying that? There is no reason to > >>>>>> discuss this further if you don't have any. > >>>>> I heard a lady from Planned Parenthood use that term when when she was > >>>>> telling a high school class in 1975 about all of the services provided by > >>>>> Planned Parenthood. You may want to google "mass of tissue" to find out > >>>>> more information. In reason years, I have heard preachers mention that > >>>>> term in relation to sermons about abortion. One reason that I am an > >>>>> advocate of the Pro-Life is because listening to sermons preached by women > >>>>> that have been the victims of abortion. One woman said that shortly after > >>>>> the abortion, she would hear a baby crying and wake up to tend the baby. > >>>>> After she was fully awake, she said that she would start crying for over > >>>>> an hour because she realized that her baby was dead. This happened almost > >>>>> every night for about one year. Other women have stated in their sermons > >>>>> that they had severe depression related to abortions. > >>>> That's because Christians like you have made them feel guilty. > >>>> Wonderful. The irony is that if she had actually gotten an ultrasound > >>>> she would have seen that it really was just a mass of tissue until the > >>>> end of the third month when you would have started to see arms and > >>>> legs. > >>>> > >>>>>>> It's much harder to > >>>>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize > >>> that they > >>>>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and > >>>>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to have the > >>>>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D > >>> ultrasounds > >>>>>>> of their babies. > >>>>>> No, it infringes on the woman's right to choose. That's why the law > >>>>>> should be overturned. > >>>>> They could still CHOOSE to have an abortion after looking at the pictures > >>>>> of their unborn babies. > >>>> And she probably would but the point is that the doctor could just as > >>>> easily show her pictures of what her baby would look like at one > >>>> month, two months, three months, etc. There's no need for them to go > >>>> to that time and expense. The law is simply trying to make it > >>>> difficult for a woman to have an abortion. > >>>> > >>>> Look, Jason, I was adopted. My birth mother was only sixteen when she > >>>> had me. I realize full well that I could have been aborted, That > >>>> doesn't change the fact that it would have been her choice. > >>>> > >>>>>> They know that once those women see those pictures, they > >>>>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives > >>> money from > >>>>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have abortions. > >>>>>> Do you have any idea of what you are saying? As noted earlier, Planned > >>>>>> Parenthood provides reproductive counseling and other services. They do > >>>>>> it without regard to income level. > >>>>> You are correct. However, Planned Parenthood earns millions of dollars per > >>>>> year as a result of abortions. I heard one preacher say that the net worth > >>>>> of Planned Parenthood is over one billion dollars. One preacher referred > >>>>> to money earned from abortions as "blood money". I heard one preacher say > >>>>> that Planned Parenthood even earns money by selling body parts of aborted > >>>>> babies. > >>>> Your preacher is a liar, which is not surprising seeing as how your > >>>> entire religion is based on lies. It's about time you woke up to the > >>>> fact that you've been lied to for decades and you've naively swallowed > >>>> every word as though it were the truth! > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> Martin, > >>> Let's get serious. Many women have had abortions. The advocates of Planned > >>> Parenthood have convinced people that abortions are the solutions to their > >>> problems. > >> This sounds like another lie. On what do you base this? Do you even know > >> what fraction of abortions are performed by Planned Parenthood? Do you > >> know how they work? I told you in an earlier post what the bulk of their > >> services actually is. Have you forgotten or are you simply ignoring it > >> the way you ignore inconvenient facts? > >> > >> In many cases, an abortion is the solution to their problems. > >> > >> For example, parents or relatives who would murder them if they found > >> out about the pregnancy. Or rape or incest, or threat to the mother's > >> health. > >> > >>> However, people like yourself are not aware of the damage that abortions > >>> do to women. > >> By telling women that you know better than they do what is good for them > >> you show patronizing arrogance of the worst type. > >> > >> I have heard them tell their stories in church services and > >>> have seen them interviewed on Christian television shows. > >> But you haven't talked to women who have had abortions and continued > >> normal lives. You are basing your opinions on a very biased, > >> unrepresentative and small sample. You are wrong to do so. > >> > >> > >> Those women are > >>> victims. They suffer from all sorts of psychological problems such as > >>> severe depression and postpartum depression. > >> And then they come to the pulpit and debase themselves further. > >> > >> Of course, not all women > >>> suffer from psychological problems as a result of abortions. My heart goes > >>> out to those victims of abortion. I believe that the abortion pill --it is > >>> called RU-484--may help solve some of the these problems since the > >>> abortions would (in most cases) occur during the first month of pregnancy. > >> And the reproduction fascists are trying to get that banned as well. > >> They want to stop all abortions, including IMO the spontaneous ones. > >> > >>> Do you agree that abortions that occur during the first month of pregancy > >>> would in most cases reduce the number of cases of severe depression and > >>> postpartum depression? > >> No I don't. I think that making abortions illegal will drive desperate > >> women to the back alleys as it did before Roe v Wade. Quacks and > >> criminals will be the only ones performing abortions other than the > >> women themselves. The results will be a high rate of complications > >> including infection, sterility, and other potentially fatal > >> complications. Banning abortions will exacerbate the situation. > > > > We both know that abortion will never be illegal in all states in America. > > I don't know that. So we must work to preserve a woman's right to > choose, through legislation and stopping the reproduction fascists from > making the service unavailable even where it is legal. > > > I read an article in either Time or NewsWeek indicating that even if > > Roe... was overturned, at least a dozen states (or more) would pass laws > > making abortion legal in those states. People in other states would rely > > on RU486 even if they had to order is via the internet. They could also > > travel to the states that allowed abortion. > > As I noted earlier (do you read my posts?), stating blithely that women > could travel to other states discriminates against those without the > means to do so. It's easy to find out what I said, you left it just > below this. > > > > >> It will discriminate against the youngest women and the poorest, who > >> will not be able to afford a proper abortion (even an illegal one) or > >> who cannot afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortions are in > >> fact legal. > >> > >> It will increase the suicide rate among young women who cannot face the > >> shame of their situation. It will cause them to leave their communities, > >> it will force them to drop out of school and not live up to their > >> economic potential. Women forced to bear children that they cannot raise > >> will resent them and possibly mistreat them. The cycle will repeat. > >> > >> All this social cost for someone else's theology? If this is your idea > >> of what Christianity is about, I want no part of it. > >> > What Jason, no response? Don't like what I said? You can't defend your > views can you? That's because reality is not on your side, but you are > too fanatically Christian to face the ugly facts of life. You live in a > dream world. You are a religious lotus eater. Go stay on your island. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy. Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of business. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <Hdmdnc03H_HxatfbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <VeWdnQk2pL_OHtfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan > > <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <I_OdnaqT0ujY4dfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan > >>> <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <1179282445.318098.21590@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>> Hatter23@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me > >>>>>>> whether or > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the > >>>>>>> 1990's and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw > >>>>>>> lots of 8s > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > >>>>>>>>>>>> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. > >>>>> But you also > >>>>>>>>>>>> haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so those > >>>>>>>>>>>> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about > >>>>> what the > >>>>>>>>>>>> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the > >>>>> SAME year > >>>>>>>>>>>> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate > >>>>> numbers from > >>>>>>>>>>>> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. > >>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>>>>>>>> Someone else made some good points about statistics related to > >>>>> prison > >>>>>>>>>>> populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three > >>>>> strikes > >>>>>>>>>>> laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison > >>>>>>>>>>> populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since > >>>>>>> MURDER is > >>>>>>>>>>> one of those crimes that has always been against the law. > >>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what crime you > >>>>>>>>>> focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two > >>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>> ranges of years. > >>>>>>>>> Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide > >>>>>>> quoted text - > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Which god? > >>>>>>> Jehovah > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other > >>>>>> God-Creators? > >>>>>> They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and > >>>>>> Jehovahs claims. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hatter > >>>>> Hatter, > >>>>> Because Jehovah is the one true God. > >>>> Who says? > >>>> > >>>>> Many of the prophesies mentioned by > >>>>> Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example: > >>>>> Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced through for our transgressions. > >>>>> As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even > >>>>> pierced with a sword. > >>>> Was it Jesus that Isaiah was talking about...or was it the Nation of > > Israel? > >>> Isaiah 53:5 makes use of the word "He" which indicates that the scripture > >>> is about a male person. > >> Not always. > >> > >>> Isaiah says--"he was pierced through". > >> In one translation. In the KJV, he was simply wounded, not pierced. > >> > >>> It's my > >>> opinion and the opinion of Bible scholars that this scripture was a > >>> prophecy about Jesus. > >> Some Bible scholars, you mean. > >> > >>> That prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was pierced > >>> through for our sins and transgressions. > >> Or it was said that he was pierced through for our sins and > >> transgressions...AFTER THE FACT...in order to make the prediction correct. > >> > >> However, I still see nothing in here that says that this prophecy was > >> fulfilled. I don't even have contemporary evidence of this Jesus character. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > There was a historian that was named Josephus (or something like that) > > that mentioned Jesus in his history book. > > Hm. I did some research on this and found that the mention of Jesus by > Josephus was actually done in the 9th Century AD, a Greek manuscript > called "Antiquities of the Jews". It appears that it could possibly > have come from Eusebius...writing in 324... > > No contemporary evidence there. > > > I seem to recall that he lived > > during the same time period that Jesus lived. You may want to google > > search that name. If anyone else knows about that historian, please post > > the exact spelling of his name. You could google JESUS or visit a > > Christian book store and purchase a book about Jesus. He was one of the > > most famous persons that has ever lived. There are probably at least a > > thousand books that have written about Jesus and at least a thousand songs > > that mention his name. As one of the songs says, "Jesus is the name that > > is above all names." > > Jesus was also a VERY common name in that day. It's like saying, "He > was named Tom" or "He was named Steven." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was obvious from the context that he was referring to Jesus Christ. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <1179314507.777799.88170@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 16, 2:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179291566.537529.89...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Does Planned Parenthood derive any funds related to abortions? > > > > > They are not a business: they are a non-profit organisation. Without > > > donations, they lose money. Any money received is going to pay the > > > Doctor's salaries. > > > > You failed to answer my question--I repeat--Does Planned Parenthood earn > > any funds related to abortion? > > I _ANSWERED_ your question. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit > organisation. You were lying when you said they were a business. > Period. Any money that comes in goes to paying their expenses and, > frankly, they don't make enough to cover their expenses without public > donations. Have I made myself clear? > > > > > (This includes any money related to referrals to doctors that do the > > > > abortions) > > > > > Please show evidence that the doctors give money to Planned Parenthood > > > when Planned Parenthood brings somebody to their clinic. Planned > > > Parenthood has their own clinics where abortions (presumably) take > > > place but their primary function is to provide counseling and if a > > > woman can't come to one of their clinics then the woman would go to > > > another clinic. Planned Parenthood would not get any money from that: > > > a doctor working at an independent clinic is not working for Planned > > > Parenthood and nor would the doctor be paying for referrals. If you > > > have evidence otherwise then please post. > > > > I don't have the evidence related to Planned Parenthood making money from > > referrals. > > Then stop claiming that they do. > > > I seen an article about one city in the Bible Belt. There was > > only one doctor in that city that done abortions. As a result, all of the > > Planned Parenthood offices in the city and nearby towns referred all > > patients to that doctor. I don't remember whether the article mentioned > > referral fees. > > You've just proven my point. The doctor was NOT working for Planned > Parenthood and there's NO evidence that they were making any money > from their referals. Thank you. > > > The local Planned Parenthood office in my small city does > > not have a doctor performing abortions inside that small office. They > > refer patients to various doctors. > > You are doing a great job tearing down your own argument. > > > I saw a prolife group holding signs > > outside of one of those doctor's office. I stopped my car and gave them > > some words of support. > > Did you tell them that you thought it was okay for women to have > abortions in the first trimester? > > (On May 16, 2:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > I hope that the abortion pill that I believe is called RU-486 solves some > > these problems related to postpartum depression and severe depression. Do > > you believe that if an abortion happened during the first month of > > pregnancy, that it would be less likely that women would suffer from > > postpartum depression and severe depression than if the abortion took > > place during the second or third trimester?) > > > There was an article in the newspaper indicating > > that someone wrote BABY KILLER on the walls of one of those doctor's > > offices. That was a stupid thing to do since it hurts our cause. That > > doctor stopped performing abortions as a result of the people that were > > carrying signs outside his office. It's my guess that he was losing lots > > of his regular patients as a result of the pro-lifers carrying signs > > outside his office. That was a major victory for our side. > > Wait. Wait. Was it a "stupid thing to do" or a "major victory"? As > usual, you're not making any sense. > > Martin Martin, It was a stupid for the person to write BABY KILLER on the walls of a abortion doctor's office. That hurts our cause. It was a major victory when a doctor in this city stopped performing abortions as a direct result of the actions of pro-life demonstrators. I did not discuss trimesters with the pro-life protestors. I just let them know that I supported their cause. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <f2f837$9l8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f2cpmv$m4u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> Because in that state--it's the law. It's my understanding the ACLU is > >>> trying to get the law overturned. Of course, if women wanted to get their > >>> abortions in other states that do not have that same law--they would not > >>> have to look at pictures of their babies. Believe it or not, back in the > >>> 1960's (prior to ultrasounds), Planned Parenthood told the women that it > >>> was just a "mass of tissue". They no longer tell that lie. > >>> Jason > >> Note the date and time of the below message. Then note that you wrote > >> the above in the some of the SAME newsgroups on Tues morning. > >> > >> Your earlier post about "I have decided to not reply to any more posts > >> in this newsgroup." wouldn't have been a LIE, now would it? > >> > >> > >> Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:09:08 -0700 > >> From: Jason@nospam.com (Jason) > >> Newsgroups: > >> > > alt.religion,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn > >> Hello, > >> When I opened my newsgroup reader, I noticed that there were 53 new > >> messages and it was my guess that most of them were responses to my recent > >> posts. I have decided to not reply to any more posts in this newsgroup. > > > > I posted the message mentioned above in the jehovahs wit. newsgroup. If > > you re-read my above message, you should note that I used the term "this > > newsgroup" (not "these newsgroups") in my message. I did not realize that > > my message was crossposted in lots of newsgroups when I posted the message > > in the jehovah wit. newsgroup. Thanks for pointing out that my message was > > crosspossed in several different newsgroups. Have you considered that I > > might be a subscriber to one (or more) of the various newsgroups mentioned > > above and that is the reason you have seen my post in whaterver newsgroup > > you had in mind when you made the above post. > > And have you considered the fact that others might also be subscribed to > other newsgroups other than the jehovah's witless group and thus your > saying "this newsgroup" applied to what-ever newsgroup they're in? Not > to mention the fact that you're STILL posting to the jehovah's witless > group? Thanks for pointing that out. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <1179316001.502902.218530@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > And yet during the first three months (when 90% of abortions take > > > > > place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would take place > > > > > during the first three months if women were able to get easy access to > > > > > abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not choose to > > > > > have abortions after three months and I would approve of any law that > > > > > discouraged women from having abortions after three months: it so > > > > > happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36 states. > > > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion) Here "late > > > > > term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five months into > > > > > the pregnancy. (See alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion > > > > > ) > > > > > > I agree that abortions should only be legal during the first three months. > > > > The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger. > > > > > That's not what I said. > > > > > 90% of abortions take place during the first three months anyway, I > > > would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an abortion after > > > three months but that's not the same thing as making it illegal after > > > three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that discouraged > > > women from having abortions after three months" I am not talking about > > > an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter between a > > > woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that the baby > > > is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an unwanted > > > pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or > > > study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house clean, do her > > > own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not > > > personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you > > > can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own personal > > > opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after the three > > > month period and before the baby is born and that a woman should give > > > serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term > > > abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering a _late_ > > > term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be unreasonable: > > > for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly thing for > > > a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of > > > cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby at two > > > months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing. > > > > No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have seen 3D > > ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed drawings > > in books about babies at every stage of development. It's really tiny > > during the first month. > > My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four months. A > month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and legs and a > head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor > printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was because, > frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot during the > third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound at two > months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of > determining whether or not a woman is pregnant. > > This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were > married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three > months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands. I have no > doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering > what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can understand > very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to depression > after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them > murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy and not > murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical > emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be > irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they could be a > danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised to either > have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else consider > having the baby and then putting it up for adoption. > > Martin Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life was in danger. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <1179314767.865501.136250@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 16, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of > > > > > > > > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make > > it more > > > > > > > > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to > > > > > > > > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize > > > > that they > > > > > > > > have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and > > > > > > > > perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to > > have the > > > > > > > > law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D > > > > ultrasounds > > > > > > > > of their babies. They know that once those women see those > > > > pictures, they > > > > > > > > will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives > > > > money from > > > > > > > > abortions so they want as many women as possible to have > > > > abortions. That's > > > > > > > > why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does > > > > anyone know > > > > > > > > the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that > > > > it's over > > > > > > > > 1 billion dollars. > > > > > > > > > And preachers never lie, do they? > > > > > > > > I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar > > > > > > number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned Parenthood has made > > > > > > during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably be over a > > > > > > billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the figures in > > > > > > front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television > > told his > > > > > > audience. > > > > > > > Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to > > > > > you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you > > > > > yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians > > > > > tell the truth? > > > > > > Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the truth? Do > > > > you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion dollars > > > > during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide > > > > organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion > > > > dollar number. > > > > > Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar > > > industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over > > > several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned > > > Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but > > > rather relies on donations. Period. > > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie. > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion dollars > > last year." That would be a lie. > > > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second statement. > > So your original statement that you I "heard a preacher say that it > [the net worth of Planned Parenthood] is over 1 billion dollars" was > that you lying or you making an honest mistake? Because either way it > hurts your argument and makes it harder for us to believe anything you > say. > > Martin It was an honest mistake. I believe lots of people lied to me in this thread or actually believed the words at the Planned Parenthood website that were probably written by a person that has a degree in Public Relations. The truth is that Planned Parenthood derives millions of dollars per year as a direct result of abortions. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <pNG2i.385$C96.192@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1179294078.449622.33660@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of > >>>>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make > > it more > >>>>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to > >>>>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize > >>> that they > >>>>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and > >>>>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to > > have the > >>>>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D > >>> ultrasounds > >>>>>>> of their babies. They know that once those women see those > >>> pictures, they > >>>>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives > >>> money from > >>>>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have > >>> abortions. That's > >>>>>>> why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does > >>> anyone know > >>>>>>> the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that > >>> it's over > >>>>>>> 1 billion dollars. > >>>>>> And preachers never lie, do they? > >>>>> I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar > >>>>> number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned Parenthood has made > >>>>> during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably be over a > >>>>> billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the figures in > >>>>> front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television > > told his > >>>>> audience. > >>>> Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to > >>>> you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you > >>>> yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians > >>>> tell the truth? > >>> Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the truth? Do > >>> you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion dollars > >>> during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide > >>> organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion > >>> dollar number. > >> Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar > >> industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over > >> several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned > >> Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but > >> rather relies on donations. Period. > >> > >> Martin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie. > > If he had the figures to back it up it wouldn't be. But it is still > dishonest because he implies that the money was earned strictly from > abortions, which it definitely was not. > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion dollars > > last year." That would be a lie. > > That would also be a lie. > > > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second statement. > > > > Why do you say that? If he lied about one thing, there is no reason to > believe that he didn't lie about the other. I don't know whether he actually lied but it was my impression that he was saying that Planned Parenthood earned most of the billion dollars as a result of charging people for abortions. Someone told me that they visited the Planned Parenthood website and found out they only derive three percent of their profits from abortions. It's possible that I mis-understood the television preacher. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <MKG2i.383$C96.193@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <x0w2i.2838$y_7.2336@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> DanielSan wrote: > >>> Jason wrote: > >>>> In article <I_OdnaqT0ujY4dfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan > >>>> <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>> In article <1179282445.318098.21590@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>> Hatter23@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>> <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me > >>>>>>>> whether or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the > >>>>>>>> 1990's and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw > >>>>>>>> lots of 8s > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. > >>>>>> But you also > >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so > >>>>>>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>>>>>> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about > >>>>>> what the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the > >>>>>> SAME year > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate > >>>>>> numbers from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. > >>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Someone else made some good points about statistics related to > >>>>>> prison > >>>>>>>>>>>> populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three > >>>>>> strikes > >>>>>>>>>>>> laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison > >>>>>>>>>>>> populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since > >>>>>>>> MURDER is > >>>>>>>>>>>> one of those crimes that has always been against the law. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what > >>>>>>>>>>> crime you > >>>>>>>>>>> focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two > >>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>> ranges of years. > >>>>>>>>>> Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide > >>>>>>>> quoted text - > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Which god? > >>>>>>>> Jehovah > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other > >>>>>>> God-Creators? > >>>>>>> They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and > >>>>>>> Jehovahs claims. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hatter > >>>>>> Hatter, > >>>>>> Because Jehovah is the one true God. > >>>>> Who says? > >>>>> > >>>>>> Many of the prophesies mentioned by > >>>>>> Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example: Isaiah 53:5 But > >>>>>> he was pierced through for our transgressions. > >>>>>> As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even > >>>>>> pierced with a sword. > >>>>> Was it Jesus that Isaiah was talking about...or was it the Nation of > >>>>> Israel? > >>>> Isaiah 53:5 makes use of the word "He" which indicates that the scripture > >>>> is about a male person. > >>> Not always. > >>> > >>>> Isaiah says--"he was pierced through". > >>> In one translation. In the KJV, he was simply wounded, not pierced. > >>> > >>>> It's my > >>>> opinion and the opinion of Bible scholars that this scripture was a > >>>> prophecy about Jesus. > >>> Some Bible scholars, you mean. > >> No, Christians. No Jewish commentator has ever said that, mainly because > >> they understand the original text. > > > > Good point--I should have wrote Christian Bible Scholars. > > So you will change what you say in the future? Maybe broaden your > horizons to recognize that there are other types of scholarship? > > Obviously, > > Jewish Bible Scholars would have different understanding about prophecies. > > We wrote the book. It's you all who misunderstand and misinterpret. > > > I have met some Jewish Christians. They were a member of an organization > > called "Jews For Jesus". They came to our church and sang some traditional > > Jewish Songs. They also gave told us about their lives as Jewish > > Christians. > > They are apostates from Judaism. They are no more Jews than you are. > They publicly violated the Second Commandment, and in so doing renounced > their Judaism. > > They play at being Jewish for reasons that I cannot comprehend. > > > > >>>> That prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was pierced > >>>> through for our sins and transgressions. > > Are you talking about Isaiah 53 again? It has been explained to you that > the text was taken out of context. > > >>> Or it was said that he was pierced through for our sins and > >>> transgressions...AFTER THE FACT...in order to make the prediction correct. > >>> > >> Exactly right. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. > >> > >> > >>> However, I still see nothing in here that says that this prophecy was > >>> fulfilled. I don't even have contemporary evidence of this Jesus > >>> character. > > > > You made some good points in your post. Believe it or not, millions of Christians visit Israel every year and Christians are strong supporters of Israel. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:55:24 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <Hgv2i.6966$163.4959@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:nhkh4358hjkbpa79dmqoeksor9klgns2da@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:05:09 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <3a42i.5031$ub.3065@bignews6.bellsouth.net> >> wrote: > ><snip> [snip] >> >You made my point. He voiced a different viewpoint from the >> >one you hold, therefore he is a liar. No room for disagreement >> >> In this case there really is no room for scientific disagreement. >> The issue is trivially obvious. If you know the relevant science then >> there is no problem. If you don't know the relevant science then it is >> rather dishonest to assert that you know enough. There is a burden >> upon people when they make such claims as Kim copied. >> >Above you stated that "the 'path' of how life formed is interesting". Interesting means something worthy of study. >The fact is we do not know the path. So, my question is: are you >being forthright with me? Is it possible that you are you inferring, >without justification, that the pathway is known? Since I have said the opposite, that we don't know the particular path, several time, it is unlikely that I would try to deceive you here. And since it is well known that we don't know how life got started it is unlikely I would pretend otherwise. We know several things about likely steps, but not a whole path, no less the whole path. >I can accept that there is no problem as far as scientist are concerned. >Appearently, they have worked it out to their satisfaction. That is to say that show who actually know the relevant material don't see any problem. I gave you a link to a Nobel Prize winning scientist who has done some very interesting work in this field. Are you going to bother to find out or do you prefer remaining ignorant? >I recognize the fact that the 2nd law does not contravene abiogeneses >or evolution, considering that life does exist and changed over time. >But frankly, I still have problems with the notion that the origin of >life is explained by noting the fact that ice forms and hurricanes >occur thus "proving" that the 2nd law allows complex structures to >form, hence life is permitted to form by the 2nd law. To me this is >a gargantuan stretch. Let me try this one more time: the claim was made that the 2LoT prohibits the formation of order without a "template". All that it takes to refute that claim is one example of the formation of such order: storms are a nice obvious example of this. >I see no point in continuing on this thread, Kim has departed >and to me personally, I can live with this level of uncertainty. I think that last word is ignorance. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Hatter Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 On May 16, 12:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179282445.318098.21...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Hatte...@gmail.com wrote: > > On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter > > > > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me > > > whether or > > > > > > >>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the > > > 1990's and > > > > > > >>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw > > > lots of 8s > > > > > > >>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > > > > > >> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. > But you also > > > > > > >> haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so those > > > > > > >> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about > what the > > > > > > >> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the > SAME year > > > > > > >> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate > numbers from > > > > > > >> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Someone else made some good points about statistics related to > prison > > > > > > > populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three > strikes > > > > > > > laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison > > > > > > > populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since > > > MURDER is > > > > > > > one of those crimes that has always been against the law. > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what crime you > > > > > > focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two > different > > > > > > ranges of years. > > > > > > Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > > > Which god? > > > > Jehovah > > > Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other > > God-Creators? > > They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and > > Jehovahs claims. > > > Hatter > > Hatter, > Because Jehovah is the one true God. Many of the prophesies mentioned by > Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example: > Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced through for our transgressions. > As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even > pierced with a sword.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples. Most of them not Jahweh related. Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but not these texts that also had tales of things fortold? Hatter Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 In article <1179344281.193023.30490@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 16, 12:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179282445.318098.21...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hatte...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter > > > > > > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > > > >>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me > > > > whether or > > > > > > > >>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the > > > > 1990's and > > > > > > > >>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw > > > > lots of 8s > > > > > > > >>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > > > > > > >> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. > > But you also > > > > > > > >> haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so those > > > > > > > >> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about > > what the > > > > > > > >> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the > > SAME year > > > > > > > >> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate > > numbers from > > > > > > > >> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Someone else made some good points about statistics related to > > prison > > > > > > > > populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three > > strikes > > > > > > > > laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison > > > > > > > > populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since > > > > MURDER is > > > > > > > > one of those crimes that has always been against the law. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what crime you > > > > > > > focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two > > different > > > > > > > ranges of years. > > > > > > > > Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > Which god? > > > > > > Jehovah > > > > > Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other > > > God-Creators? > > > They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and > > > Jehovahs claims. > > > > > Hatter > > > > Hatter, > > Because Jehovah is the one true God. Many of the prophesies mentioned by > > Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example: > > Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced through for our transgressions. > > As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even > > pierced with a sword.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples. > Most of them not Jahweh related. > > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold? > > Hatter Hatter, Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a role. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and > unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to > women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their > stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their > stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against > abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope > that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called > abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy. > Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as > a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of > abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of business. ... Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down? Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.