Kirk Cameron says don't explain... train. Because religion is about obedience.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bullshit. You constantly try to change the topic with your pissy little ad homs.

Christians preach obedience and a rejection of reason. The conservative ones (and most of them are) don't like change and take offense to challenging the traditions of the dead or the dead as moral agents. I think that is all connected because as they learn obedience to their elders/authority they become emotionally and mentally dependent on their commands.

You have not addressed any of that. You have only whined about how it might offend some people. Of course, Robertson can hide behind his faith to attack homosexuals and other minorities but we must not offend the faithful. That's your perspective, coward. I don't give a fuck if they don't like it.

Bullshit. It's a matter of course for Christians. Aquinas spoke on the superiority of faith to reason. He was better than Augustine who brought his Platonism to Christianity, which claimed that knowledge was a just memory of the eternal/supernatural.

You are as usual attempting to create a strawman. I said they reject reason when it conflicts with faith. They don't simply preach unreason, which is what you are ridiculously trying to turn my statement into.

Forgive me for confusing what you actually said for what you really really meant to have said.

 

[Timshel]

Except that I have... time and time again... but since you reject reason... you ignore it.

You are so unbelievably ignorant when it comes to biology, I can understand your confusion. Life begins at fertilization... that is when the two cells BEGIN to combine the DNA of the unique life. You seem to believe that because that combination takes roughly 12 hours for the genome to fully form that somehow negates when the life begins. The process of that unique life begins at fertilization, it continues on through the pregnancy, continues on through childhood, through the teen years and into young adulthood before we fully form.

But again, you reject reason and science and prefer 'philosophy'. Pretty similar to Christians.

You have have what? Provided something to back up your claims? You did not.

So it begins at fertilization now? You said it was 12 hours later when the unique human genome was formed before.

Neither are necessarily when SCIENCE or biology demand that life begins. They are reasonable choices but as the biologists I quoted clearly stated, that is a matter for philosophy. Science alone does not settle it. When the unique human genome forms is when the unique human genome forms. That is science. You have decided to define that point as when life begins but that is nothing more than your opinion. It's not science, you FUCKING IDIOT! I sourced several biologists who are far more qualified in the subject than you could ever hope to be who rejected your definition of when life begins and made it clear that there is no definitive answer. You are misrepresenting the science.

You are nothing but an ignorant tool.

Now stfu and return to the topic.

 

[Timshel]

Forgive me for confusing what you actually said for what you really really meant to have said.

What I meant to say is what I said! I have elaborated further, though. You being a lying scumbag are more intent on dropping context, trying to twist my words and pretending I meant something else. They preach a rejection of reason and you follow.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You have have what? Provided something to back up your claims? You did not.

So it begins at fertilization now? You said it was 12 hours later when the unique human genome was formed before.

LMAO... see what I mean... you again reject reason and science and ignore what was written. Instead you again re-create your same straw man.

Neither are necessarily when SCIENCE or biology demand that life begins. They are reasonable choices but as the biologists I quoted clearly stated, that is a matter for philosophy. Science alone does not settle it.

ROFLMAO... tell us again how you don't reject science. Science absolutely determines it on a biological level. YOU are conflating biological determination of lifes beginning with a philisophical/LEGAL idea of a VIABLE (VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM) LIFE with which we should assign LEGAL protections. That is a completely different argument.

Or do you honestly believe that there is a time when the unique life is somehow DEAD prior to your VIABILITY determination?

Do you think it magically springs to life at that point?

How did it develop to the point of viability if it was not alive?

You recognizing the stupidity of your argument yet?

When the unique human genome forms is when the unique human genome forms. That is science. You have decided to define that point as when life begins but that is nothing more than your opinion. It's not science, you FUCKING IDIOT!

Actually it IS science. It begins at fertilization and the formation takes about 12 hours. Again, it doesn't magically spring to formation from nothing at 11 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds.

I sourced several biologists who are far more qualified in the subject than you could ever hope to be who rejected your definition of when life begins and made it clear that there is no definitive answer. You are misrepresenting the science.

No moron... you quoted biologists that talked about the LEGAL/PHILOSOPHICAL definitions of when a life begins. Biologically it is definitive. But they are acknowledging that there is also philosophical and legal (both subjective) definitions that are relevant to the abortion/right to life issue. You are getting confused because you think by acknowledging the others that somehow negates the biological definition.

If you wish to prove biologically it is otherwise... then show me a time when it is DEAD after fertilization. Point to any time after fertilization that it is dead. If you can do that, then you are correct and I am wrong.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What I meant to say is what I said! I have elaborated further, though. You being a lying scumbag are more intent on dropping context, trying to twist my words and pretending I meant something else. They preach a rejection of reason and you follow.

Dearest little String... roid rage is bad... lay off the roids...

I quoted you... WORD FOR WORD. I did not take it out of context... I posted the entire quote.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... see what I mean... you again reject reason and science and ignore what was written. Instead you again re-create your same straw man.

No I don't see what you mean. Why should I? You said it was 12 hours after fertilization now you say it is at fertilization. There is no strawman. You are just confused and made an ass of yourself.

ROFLMAO... tell us again how you don't reject science. Science absolutely determines it on a biological level. YOU are conflating biological determination of lifes beginning with a philisophical/LEGAL idea of a VIABLE (VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM) LIFE with which we should assign LEGAL protections. That is a completely different argument.

Or do you honestly believe that there is a time when the unique life is somehow DEAD prior to your VIABILITY determination?

Do you think it magically springs to life at that point?

How did it develop to the point of viability if it was not alive?

You recognizing the stupidity of your argument yet?

Okay, I don't reject science. I fully accept that a human genome is formed approx 12 hours after the process of fertilization begins. That is science. Defining it as "when life begins" is not as was explained to you by several of the biologists and biophysicists that I sourced.

How did it develop to the point of fertilization or to when the unique human genome formed if it was dead prior to that point? Are you recognizing the stupidity of your argument yet?

Actually it IS science. It begins at fertilization and the formation takes about 12 hours. Again, it doesn't magically spring to formation from nothing at 11 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds.

It does not magically spring from nothing prior to fertilization! No one is arguing the ACTUAL science.

No moron... you quoted biologists that talked about the LEGAL/PHILOSOPHICAL definitions of when a life begins. Biologically it is definitive. But they are acknowledging that there is also philosophical and legal (both subjective) definitions that are relevant to the abortion/right to life issue. You are getting confused because you think by acknowledging the others that somehow negates the biological definition.

If you wish to prove biologically it is otherwise... then show me a time when it is DEAD after fertilization. Point to any time after fertilization that it is dead. If you can do that, then you are correct and I am wrong.

They said the beginning of life is not determined solely by scientific considerations. You are far too stupid to understand what they said and your ego has caused you to distort what they said in self defense.

Here it is again, you lying coward!

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

“Um…when life begins is a pretty basic idea in biology,” commented the originator of the compelling listserv thread that followed. Actually, no.

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions.


I am going to thread ban you from now on since you insist on constantly returning to your defeated argument. I even gave you a separate thread to hash it out but still you constantly bring this bullshit back up. I am tired of whooping your ass and you have proven that you are too stubborn to ever admit your errors.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No I don't see what you mean. Why should I? You said it 12 hours after fertilization now you say it is at fertilization. There is no strawman. You are just confused and made an ass of yourself.

Yes, there IS. You have the same straw man above. I did not say it was 12 hours after AND at fertilization. I have ALWAYS stated that it is at fertilization that life begins. I DID acknowledge that the formation of that unique life is not instantaneous. It does indeed take about 12 hours to form... but AGAIN... that formation BEGINS at fertilization.

Yet you keep running back to this straw man in a vain attempt at a 'gotcha'. You are an idiot.

Okay, I don't reject science. I fully accept that a human genome is formed approx 12 hours after the process of fertilization. That is science. Defining it as "when life begins" is not as was explained to you by several of the biologists and biophysicists that I sourced.

Life is not abstract. You are either alive or dead. It is that simple. You are again conflating 'life' with 'viable life'. There is a HUGE difference. The first is definitive. The second is highly subjective.

You ignored the following question before...

How did it develop to the point of fertilization or to when the unique human genome formed if it was dead prior to that point?

It does not magically spring from nothing prior to fertilization! No one is arguing the ACTUAL science.

So you admit, the actual science is as I stated. The rest is not science. Thanks for finally grasping that basic fact.

They said the beginning of life is not determined solely by scientific considerations. You are far too stupid to understand what they said and your ego has caused you to distort what they said in self defense.

They said that in regards to LEGAL protections and philisophical/moral issues. NOT SCIENTIFIC ones you moron.

I am going to thread ban you from now on since you insist on constantly returning to your defeated argument. I even gave you a separate thread to hash it out but still you constantly bring this bullshit back up. I am tired of whooping your ass and you have proven that you are too stubborn to ever admit your errors.

LMAO... translation: "I have lost this argument for the final time, I shall now run like the coward I am"

Note to String... it is YOU that continues pretending I ignore science... you are the one that keeps bringing it back up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You just want to change the subject to me again instead of letting your political allies be criticized. It's what you always do, coward.

I should not have said all. Just "mostly."

The right wing is about obedience to authority often stemming from tradition or established power.

It's great to see you and sf coming to the aid of the long persecuted Christians. What would the world come to if they were insulted. But don't ignore the fight against the pc culture who criticize Phil Robertson or the racially motivated use of the word thug. /sarcasm

Who said that? So your complaint is that I criticized Cameron? No, your complaint was that I might offend the Christians whos ass you kiss on a regular basis.

Fuck you! You only care when it is the Republicans that are being criticized. You constantly try to change the subject with your belly aching about how unfair it is. You are just a partisan douchebag.

That's right, and those are the political allies to which I was referring, idiot.

I don't give a fuck about Christians. I am against the idiotic notions about obedience and the rejection of science, which is a key tenet for most of them. You want to change the subject and try to make it about me rather than let their backwards and destructive ideas be challenged.

You do nothing but try to derail my threads with your pissy little ad homs.

Bullshit. You constantly try to change the topic with your pissy little ad homs.

Christians preach obedience and a rejection of reason. The conservative ones (and most of them are) don't like change and take offense to challenging the traditions of the dead or the dead as moral agents. I think that is all connected because as they learn obedience to their elders/authority they become emotionally and mentally dependent on their commands.

You have not addressed any of that. You have only whined about how it might offend some people. Of course, Robertson can hide behind his faith to attack homosexuals and other minorities but we must not offend the faithful. That's your perspective, coward. I don't give a fuck if they don't like it.

I do acknowledge that I should not have said "all." That was way too general. Only most of the Christian right are ignorant bootlickers, like sf.

STFU. Here you go with your same tired thread derailment tactics. I gave you an entire thread the last time and showed how you ALWAYS reject science.

All of that... it wasn't until post 57 that I said anything about your rejection of science. So do keep on telling us who it was that kept trying to divert the thread from your original Christian bashing.

 

[Timshel]

All of that... it wasn't until post 57 that I said anything about your rejection of science. So do keep on telling us who it was that kept trying to divert the thread from your original Christian bashing.

You were! Before you chose to return to your rejection of science you tried to derail the thread with your pissy ass little ad homs.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Bullshit. You constantly try to change the topic with your pissy little ad homs.

it.

Truth.

And everyone here knows it. It's mentioned a lot.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You were! Before you chose to return to your rejection of science you tried to derail the thread with your pissy ass little ad homs.

No moron... AGAIN... I made a direct comment about YOUR comment in the OP. That is blatantly clear.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Please provide an example, I have never seen such a post and I would be very interested.

LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I really think this is why Christians are mostly a bunch of idiots that are subservient to the state, their mommies and daddies. Also, IMO, this is why they get so offended if you insult the dead, their traditions, morals and ignorant notions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ever-ever-explain-anything-to-their-children/

Actor and Crocoduck-creating super-Christian Kirk Cameron is promoting a “great article” on his website that offers rather questionable advice for parents: Never explain things to your kids; just teach them to obey:

Children are not in need of lengthy, compelling explanations. What they are in need of is the understanding that God must be obeyed.​

…​

Explanations tend to focus on getting someone to agree with you. The logic for explanations runs something like this: If I can just get my children to understand the reason for my direction, then they will be more likely to follow my instruction. While this may sound like solid reasoning, it is not. Explanations are more consistent with gaining approval and winning arguments. Neither of these are appropriate goals for biblical parenting and can lead to anger in your children as Ephesians warns against.


​

The actual article, by Jay Younts, goes much further, stating that the no-explanations model of parenting should continue through kids’ teenage years:

Children from 6-12 must be encouraged to obey because they know this pleases God. Your discussions will be more involved than with young children, but again you are not trying to win their approval. You want them to grasp how important it is to trust God and the reliability of his word. This type of training will yield a conscience that is sensitive to the things of God.

​

It doesn’t take much insight to realize that teenagers and long explanations don’t go well together. Obedience with teenagers is to be primarily be focused on helping them see the value of following God because they love him and that God’s ways are the only ones that can be trusted. Your goal is to have conversations not explanations.


​

Because if there’s one thing teenagers know how to do, it’s obeying authority…

This is just awful advice, no matter how you slice it. Children need to learn how to question, how to reason, and how to think through the consequences of their actions. I know parents would love it if their kids obeyed their every word, but at some point, those kids also need to learn why you think the way you do. There are reasons for why they need to come home by a certain time, and why they should share their toys, and why they shouldn’t draw on the wall with crayons that go well beyond “Because I said so.” A well-reasoned explanation, at least in theory, should help them understand where you’re coming from and give them more of an incentive to follow your rules. Does it always work? Of course not. But it sure as hell has a better chance of succeeding than “Do what we say or else the Baby Jesus will cry.”

There’s a time and place for kids to listen to you without asking questions. That time and place sure as hell isn’t “always.”

It makes sense coming from Cameron, though. Questions lead to learning. Learning leads to even more critical thinking. And that never ends well for anyone who promotes Creationism.

Oh look, String is bashing Christians again... what a shock.

That is not ad hom you moron... you attacked them, I stated that

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

No moron... AGAIN... I made a direct comment about YOUR comment in the OP. That is blatantly clear.

Please, your "super" power is changing the subject of any thread you are on that you didn't start. It's your number one tactic, number two being "i know you are but what am I".

Don't get all enraged because people noticed it. Everyone has SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Truth.

And everyone here knows it. It's mentioned a lot.

aww... are you trying to get attention again? Now look at the first two posts of the thread... and see just how wrong you are... yet again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Please, your "super" power is changing the subject of any thread you are on that you didn't start. It's your number one tactic, number two being "i know you are but what am I".

Don't get all enraged because people noticed it. Everyone has SF.

LMAO... yet, once again, I did not change the topic of the thread. No matter how many times you and string stomp your feet. He attacked Christians. I mocked him for attacking Christians yet again. The discussion then went to Kirk Cameron and the fact that he was a loon. The topic stayed with the OP that String created until String started in with his ad hom attacks.

you do realize people simply have to read this thread to see that is the case? No matter how delusional you are, even your tiny mind should be able to grasp that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh look, superfreak, is demanding that the religious get a free pass for their stupid ideas again.

No, that is not what SF said.

I think what SF is doing is treating your obvious hatred for all things Christian like he would the fundamentalist Christian's bashing of anything that doesn't follow their beliefs. In other words, Xtian bashing is no different than the "You will burn in hell for that!" nonsense.

Or I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Hmmm...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You just want to change the subject to me again instead of letting your political allies be criticized. It's what you always do, coward.

Who said that? So your complaint is that I criticized Cameron? No, your complaint was that I might offend the Christians whos ass you kiss on a regular basis.

No, my complaint is that you tried to label an entire faith by the comments of one person. A person who is an extremist. You did so to further demonstrate your hatred of Christians.

But please, show me an instance where I am kissing Christians asses. Or are you lying yet again because you are embarrassed for being called out on your stupidity?

Fuck you! You only care when it is the Republicans that are being criticized. You constantly try to change the subject with your belly aching about how unfair it is. You are just a partisan douchebag.

Aww... is little String raging again?

I did not change the subject you moron. I directly addressed a comment you made in your OP.

That's right, and those are the political allies to which I was referring, idiot.

I don't give a fuck about Christians. I am against the idiotic notions about obedience and the rejection of science, which is a key tenet for most of them. You want to change the subject and try to make it about me rather than let their backwards and destructive ideas be challenged.

You do nothing but try to derail my threads with your pissy little ad homs.

Bullshit. You constantly try to change the topic with your pissy little ad homs.

Christians preach obedience and a rejection of reason. The conservative ones (and most of them are) don't like change and take offense to challenging the traditions of the dead or the dead as moral agents. I think that is all connected because as they learn obedience to their elders/authority they become emotionally and mentally dependent on their commands.

You have not addressed any of that. You have only whined about how it might offend some people. Of course, Robertson can hide behind his faith to attack homosexuals and other minorities but we must not offend the faithful. That's your perspective, coward. I don't give a fuck if they don't like it.

I do acknowledge that I should not have said "all." That was way too general. Only most of the Christian right are ignorant bootlickers, like sf.

Lets see... through the first 53 posts... how many times did String accuse me of 'ad hom attacks' (yet he never actually provided an example)??? Not once did I divert from the topic of the OP or the subsequent comments String made.

So please String and Darla... tell us again about the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, there IS. You have the same straw man above. I did not say it was 12 hours after AND at fertilization. I have ALWAYS stated that it is at fertilization that life begins. I DID acknowledge that the formation of that unique life is not instantaneous. It does indeed take about 12 hours to form... but AGAIN... that formation BEGINS at fertilization.

Yet you keep running back to this straw man in a vain attempt at a 'gotcha'. You are an idiot.

Life is not abstract. You are either alive or dead. It is that simple. You are again conflating 'life' with 'viable life'. There is a HUGE difference. The first is definitive. The second is highly subjective.

You ignored the following question before...

How did it develop to the point of fertilization or to when the unique human genome formed if it was dead prior to that point?


So you admit, the actual science is as I stated. The rest is not science. Thanks for finally grasping that basic fact.

They said that in regards to LEGAL protections and philisophical/moral issues. NOT SCIENTIFIC ones you moron.

LMAO... translation: "I have lost this argument for the final time, I shall now run like the coward I am"

Note to String... it is YOU that continues pretending I ignore science... you are the one that keeps bringing it back up.

You are so fucking stupid. LOL

The science says that a unique human genome is formed 12 hours after a process that begins with fertilization. It is your philosophical/religious beliefs that has defined that point as the beginning of life. Biology does not. Biology does not even have an unequivocal definition of what life is much less when it begins.

You are lying. The biologists I sourced said...
Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions.

You absolutely did claim that life began when the unique human genome formed. When I pointed out that that contradicted your previous claims you ran back to fertilization.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

LMAO... yet, once again, I did not change the topic of the thread. No matter how many times you and string stomp your feet. He attacked Christians. I mocked him for attacking Christians yet again. The discussion then went to Kirk Cameron and the fact that he was a loon. The topic stayed with the OP that String created until String started in with his ad hom attacks.

you do realize people simply have to read this thread to see that is the case? No matter how delusional you are, even your tiny mind should be able to grasp that.

See, now ever since DH said that, i can't stop reading your posts in William Shatner's voice in my head, and it's hilarious.