I had said
"Well, at least your arguments have evolved over the past month and are more clearly defined as you struggle to debate me. Evolved but not improved. You're welcomed by the way. I've been toying with you and it's been fun."
What a tool. Hiding behind ridiculous assertions in the hope that no one ACTUALLY reads the crap you have spewed over the last month. You are such a desperate man. I have skimmed this post, which is more than I did for the last few. You are the most disingenuous, self-deluded nutjob I have had the misfortune to interact with.
Wait for it. He's going to try to point to specific examples. Adorable. I hink he skims the Bible like he skims my posts. It would explain why he sometimes makes no sense.
As someone others said of you once, do you have a girlfriend? Friends? A life? Because if you are like this in real life, if you ever opened your mouth to speak the lies and distortion evident here, people would want to shut it in a not very complimentary manner.
Wait the "logic" will kick in eventually.
The sheer mind-numbing stupidity of your question begging assertions are hilarious:
"Well, Johnny P, if God had done that, you wouldn't be here would you? Nope. In fact none of us would be here, because none of can love God without His help."
You'd be laughed out of the philosophy and theology departments of your local university in shame!
Johnny, I'll take it that you can't answer the question. And given the things that you have said about theology and philosophy are demonstrably wrong (which I have pointed out), I wonder what makes you think that the rhetorical question is wrong and baseless given the Christian worldview you think you know well enough to criticize?I'm wondering what books you have skimmed to think that? (Not rhetorical) Maybe the problem is you don't understand the point being made. It would explain a lot. (Try the "T" in "Tulip" in Reformed Theology for help)
The fact you don't seem to see the logical invalidity of your arguments is sad, really.
You haven't demonstrated a logical invalidity but instead incessantly say its wrong and hide from any challenges to prove yourself correct. But that's okay, God loves you anyway.
Here is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DISHONESTY:
"You fallaciously conflated still-births and miscarriages with Abortions"
I think you'll find I said 'natural abortion'.
Yeah, you did. I still say you are mixing categories. Look I don't know if you are an American, but given some clues I'd say not. However, I think you should know a miscarriage or a still-birth is qualitatively different from a surgical procedure.
So, point 1 - you MISQUOTED ME AGAIN.
I wasn't tying to quote you. Did you see quotation marks? Italics? Standard English grammar, look it up.
Point 2, a definition from the OED of abortion -"the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.
or from nrcl.org - "The term "abortion" actually refers to any premature expulsion of a human fetus, whether naturally spontaneous, as in a miscarriage, or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion. "
Actually, to have been more accurate, I could have used the term naturally spontaneous abortion as in "A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion for natural, physiological reasons" so as not to confuse it with a herbal abortion.
This is why it's good to define terms. Interesting that you would want to discuss and defend your definition of "abortion" but will not discuss what you mean about "perfect world". The word has been changed and I didn't get the memo. You seem to be using a different definition than I am and I apologize for accusing you of confusing them. You are right that people are using "Natural Abortions" to describe miscarriages. It still doesn't change the point that God has a plan for everything that happens including miscarriages. I can admit when I'm mistaken, and you don't seem able to. Interesting that one of the few points you have correct has little to do with the main topic.
But the fact that God allows these fetal abortions to occur naturally, by his 'design' - (did he not design the world, could he not stop them?), means that he is responsible for these occurrences - the fetuses certainly aren't. They aren't even sentient yet.
How do you know they are not sentient yet? And yes, it is by God's design and He has chosen not to stop them, but He has sufficient reason for what He does even if we don't. Don't like it, talk to him about it, like Job and Habakkuk talked to Him about the evils that concerned them.
And this is what you do time after f"cking time. It's an embarrassment to good thinking Christians with whom I debate every day.
Do what? Misquote you? Misunderstand you? Disagree with you? What? I think you are wrong. I've behaved far better than you have towards me. And also I have not misrepresented the Bible nor what Christians believe, but you have.
Literally every single sentence you have written in red is a shocker up there. And if you believe the biblical account of the flood in the face of
masses of empirical evidence to the contrary and an account in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet XI) which predates the biblical account by a thousand years, and yet has verses verbatim, you are worse than I thought. Genetics, human geography, population statistics, biology, geology, palaeontology, etc etc all disprove the global flood myth. Your cognitive dissonance threshold must be really high.
I think you're over reaching. And my views are not all that out there just because you disagree with me. Let me ask you a question: Why does the Epic of Gilgahmesh (which I think is good story) describe a vessel that could not been sea worthy, but the Bible's description of the Ark describes a vessel whose dimensions are not only sea worthy but all ship built to those proportions of length-width-height is almost impossible to capsize in stormy ocean conditions? Why is it that are largest ocean-going-ship are also built to the same proportions? Be clear, I'm not suggesting that we got those dimensions from the Bible but that science validates something that no one else knew, but the Jews, for at least 4000 years.
And don't quote the bible to prove the bible, you nonce.
I'm trying to get you to agree on what the Bible says first, noob. Then we can discuss if its true or not.
Fallacious and a schoolboy error. It's not my fault there is bugger all else you can pull on to prove the verisimilitude of the biblical accounts. Thinking quoting John can answer the implications of divine personhood in atemporal existence is hilarious.
John gives the answer to your question. Perhaps you misunderstood it. If you need help, just ask.
You just keep getting schooled. More so by your own own goals. But hey, you carry on asserting and asserting, misrepresenting and throwing in continual fallacies. I'm sure you think you sound great, just swell.
Me schooled? Yup, everyday, just not by you. I did learn something about how people are now using the term "natural abortion" (and I think it's
BTW, presuming you are a Calvinist, the belief that we have no free will is about the .nly area we might ever agree,
You don't have to be Calvinist to question whether or not we have free will. Considering how much you butcher what Christians believe, I take it that you have misunderstood Christians who happen to be non-Calvinist. I bet you don't even know any real reformed folk. You really should read more.
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #14