Choice

Elroy's Assertion:
Elroy.Net is one of those websites that tries to make atheism sound like the answer to a sinner's problems. Elroy has written several anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Christians articles. Peppered with Bible Scriptures he mistakenly thinks help bolster his zany ideas, these articles are designed to cast doubts about the validity of the Bible. The Refiner's Fire has taken on the task of challenging some of Elroy's misguided assertions. For the sake of time and space, we obviously cannot post his articles in their entirety; and we therefore urge you to click on the links and read for yourself the things Elroy alleges:
....With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion's evil, right?

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles....By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

This is most definitely the case when it comes to abortion. Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person. To support their beliefs, these Christians point to one of three bible verses that refer to God working in the womb. The first is found in Psalms:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." (Psalm 139:13-16)

Although this passage does make the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. In other words, just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed.

But even if we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do, we still have a hard time arguing that the Bible supports an anti-abortion point of view. If anything, as we will soon see, abortion is biblical.

Anytime we take one or two verses out of their context and quote them as doctrine, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being contradicted by other verses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Response:

Yes, Elroy, let's talk about putting things "in context", shall we? You have made "taking things out of context" an art form.

Pro-Lifers definitely will use those Scriptures you proudly claim have been taken out of context. Just to set the record straight (since you are trying to cast doubt on what Psalm 139:13-16 actually said): "Later texts" were probably changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" because that is what the ORIGINAL HEBREW states! Nobody played around with the verbiage, so you don't need to try to make the writers/translators of the Bible look like they didn't know what they were doing.

The Sixth Commandment is that we are not to kill/murder. Your disagreement seems not to be with the Commandment, but you immediately and skillfully turn the world's attention to the fact that abortion can't possibly be murder because that little blob of tissue isn't human yet, "which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person"....

You said: "According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person."

For your information, God wasn't just "involved with every living thing"; He MADE them! So who are YOU to downplay that and decide who gets to live and who doesn't?

Who died and made you God, Elroy? What difference does it make whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term person???? The fact remains, it's a LIVING ORGANISM from the moment of conception. That's why it grows! Dead things don't grow! The fact that the cells DO divide and grow and end up being fully-formed human babies, is proof positive that they ARE living beings from the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION that deserve the chance to be born and to live. And neither YOU nor anyone else has the right to snuff out that life - no matter WHAT you try to tell yourself!

In your mind-numbing tirade about how the Bible supposedly supports abortion, you go on to say:

Another problem in this passage is the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.

No, Elroy - we must conclude that YOU are deliberately ignoring and sluffing over what GOD SAID! God SAID He knew us before conception, so why are you trying to tell the world He didn't really mean it that way? (It's ironic that an atheist will sit there and try to use the BIBLE to prove his own lopsided viewpoint!) Why SHOULDN'T believers conclude that God recognizes a fetus as a person, since there are several Scriptures that mention unborn babies? Just because this notion is "ridiculous" in YOUR eyes isn't proof that God lied. Like everything else on your self-aggrandizing website, it's nothing but Elroy's OPINION!!!!!
 
List of articles by McKinley:

A Letter to my Younger Self
A Wonderful Kind of Sorrow
Angry Like Christ
Breaking Windows in the House of God
Christianity From Behind the Curtain
Do Unto Others: A guide to striking back at the Religious Right
Family Values: a biblical view
How to Fight the Religious Right
In the Name of Love
James Dobson: Focusing on Himself
Living Under Self-imposed Halos
My Life as an Earthworm
Proud to be Liberal
Punk Rockers, Beached Whales and the Meaning of Life
Saving Our Children From the Bible
Terrorism as a Means of Self-actualization
The Basic Assumption
The Big Lie
The Fascism of Modern Churches
The Healing Slam of a Punker's Hand
The Nature of Souls
The Quandary of Time
The Unofficial Eleventh Commandment
Three Easy Steps to Losing Your Faith
To Confess or Not to Confess
When Being Right is Wrong
When Christ was Gay
Why Abortion is Biblical
Why Abortion is Moral
Why Focus on the Family is of the Devil
Will Perkins has Lost His Voice
Winning the War on Crime
 
From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...
 
From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...

Being taught how to think is a sin now? That is what schools (supposedly) aspire to.

It is in being taught what to think you that you get into indoctrination, group think, etc...
 
Being taught how to think is a sin now? That is what schools (supposedly) aspire to.

It is in being taught what to think you that you get into indoctrination, group think, etc...

So, shag, you agree that being taught 'what to think' is group think - right? Koukl makes that very clear - they want to teach beyond 'how to think' all the way to 'what to think'...
 
From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...
Tsk tsk, fox, posting supporting opinions is not an example of groupthink. But quoting yourself as a source is an example of circular reasoning.

Credibility coefficient: 0

EPIC FAIL
 
Tsk tsk, fox, posting supporting opinions is not an example of groupthink. But quoting yourself as a source is an example of circular reasoning.

So, one extremist hippie quotes another extremist, atheist hippie's work.

Talk about circular reasoning.

Credibility coefficient: 0

EPIC FAIL

Heck, who better to quote then myself... (another one for your signature foss ;) )

And you blithely follow someone who tells you what to think and is so proud of that he states it in his mission statement... groupthink foss, no way around it...

So one ultrazealous, fundamentalist conservative blindly following an ultraistic, impliable evangelist.

Talk about classic groupthink...

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Peace, free love, F*ck the establishment.

Oh, I liked your earlier post - the one with 'hippies' in it - so I used that one...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, shag, you agree that being taught 'what to think' is group think - right? Koukl makes that very clear - they want to teach beyond 'how to think' all the way to 'what to think'...

You are viewing the quote as claiming to aspire to teach both what to think and how to think. However, the two options are mutually exclusive. If you teach one, you cannot really be teaching the other because free thinking and critical thought is the enemy of indoctrination and group think.

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Hippies are a classic example of groupthink...
 
You are viewing the quote as claiming to aspire to teach both what to think and how to think. However, the two options are mutually exclusive. If you teach one, you cannot really be teaching the other because free thinking and critical thought is the enemy of indoctrination and group think.
So sort of going with the Gandhi quote
“Those who know how to think need no teachers.”

You can teach someone 'how to think' so they don't try to think beyond certain set parameters - so 'don't think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think, just as 'think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think.

I believe this group - especially when adding how they want to make sure they want to teach you 'what to think' are looking to make sure 'how you think' follows their approved guidelines... don't look beyond the parameters they have set.

If you want to teach someone 'what to think' you have to corral them and also teach them 'how to think' along certain guidelines... otherwise they might just go out thinking on their own, you wouldn't want that in a groupthink organization

Hippies are a classic example of groupthink...
Just something you believe shag - or do you have something else beyond that...
 
So sort of going with the Gandhi quote
“Those who know how to think need no teachers.”

You clearly do not understand that statement

You can teach someone 'how to think' so they don't try to think beyond certain set parameters - so 'don't think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think, just as 'think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think.

Your high school platitudes oversimplify things and mislead.

I believe this group - especially when adding how they want to make sure they want to teach you 'what to think' are looking to make sure 'how you think' follows their approved guidelines... don't look beyond the parameters they have set.

Again, it is uncivil to ignore the arguments of those you are engaging.

If you view the quote in light of the fact that teaching someone how to think and teaching them what to think are mutually exclusive, then the quote is not claiming to do both. That would be as absurd as claiming to breath while holding your breath.

In light of the fact that I made (and that you are conveniently ignoring), the quote is claiming not to fall to the level of teaching what to think, but to reach the higher aspiration of teaching how to think.
 
You clearly do not understand that statement

Your high school platitudes oversimplify things and mislead.

Again, it is uncivil to ignore the arguments of those you are engaging.

If you view the quote in light of the fact that teaching someone how to think and teaching them what to think are mutually exclusive, then the quote is not claiming to do both. That would be as absurd as claiming to breath while holding your breath.

In light of the fact that I made (and that you are conveniently ignoring), the quote is claiming not to fall to the level of teaching what to think, but to reach the higher aspiration of teaching how to think.

You discredit me because I can write so people can understand me?

You know I can write like this too...
That is why you don't supplant socially evolved systems with untested social constructions based in the postulations of elites.​
I would rather not.

So, 'how do you think' Shag. You can be taught how to think within certain parameters - correct? You aren't looking at the quote as a whole - which it is, it is one sentence - Not only are they going to teach you how to think (within their 'box') but what to think (their certain form of dogma).

If you hope to teach someone 'what to think' you also have to make sure 'how they think' falls within their parameters. If you don't teach them the correct 'how' of thinking (in their definition), the followers might actually start thinking on their own, and then escape from the dogma of the groupthink.

One of the 'how's' of thinking in groupthink is to not question. If you teach that when you are thinking you shouldn't question the teacher, that is a 'how' of teaching 'thinking'.
 
Heck, who better to quote then myself... (another one for your signature foss ;) )

And you blithely follow someone who tells you what to think and is so proud of that he states it in his mission statement... groupthink foss, no way around it...

So one ultrazealous, fundamentalist conservative blindly following an ultraistic, impliable evangelist.

Talk about classic groupthink...

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Peace, free love, F*ck the establishment.

Oh, I liked your earlier post - the one with 'hippies' in it - so I used that one...
LOL...I guess I got under your skin with the hippie comment. Ah well, if it doesn't work the first time, re-assert it, eh fox? You're a parody of yourself, fox. And no, quoting yourself as a source does NOT lend credibility. How pathetic that you a) use your own writings as a source, b) use ad hominem on my source, c) use a non sequitur and a red herring to distract from the issue that you are unable to answer. So now you change the subject from your failed campaign on Biblical abortion to a false assertion of groupthink. You're like Mike Tyson, just grasping the word of the day.

I guess we've moved on to the final steps - everybody leaves the the thread due to foxpaws' ad nauseum and nonsensical arguments, and foxpaws claims victory.

Buh-bye, victim!

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory
 
One of the 'how's' of thinking in groupthink is to not question.

So suspension of critical thought is now a type of thought?

Not thinking is now thinking?

Equivocation; defining down a concept is a means of misleading.

Again, it is uncivil to mislead.

You claimed to be willing to "discuss things civilly" (your words) yet in every post you have made since you made that claim, you have shown that not to be the case.

These blatant attempts to mislead are why there is no point in wasting time on you. You are duplicitous.
 
So suspension of critical thought is now a type of thought?

Not thinking is now thinking?

Equivocation; defining down a concept is a means of misleading.

Again, it is uncivil to mislead.

You claimed to be willing to "discuss things civilly" (your words) yet in every post you have made since you made that claim, you have shown that not to be the case.

These blatant attempts to mislead are why there is no point in wasting time on you. You are duplicitous.

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.


So, finally caught on that being taught 'how to think' is a very integral part of that statement Shag?

You can be taught 'what to think', but to be able to let your little disciples out into the world you need to make sure you have also taught them 'how to think', just in case they get asked a question that doesn't fall into the group's preconceived 'what to think' list.

In groups like this one the 'how to think' rhetoric falls on this lines...

What would the Scripture say? How should we interpret the Bible?

So, to solve the problem or answer the question, the person would first go to the Bible. That is a 'how to think' solution shag.... You might not have told the person 'what to think' about calling someone a retard, however, you can make sure they go to the 'correct' source so when they 'think it through' (the 'how' part) and their thinking process would follow along set guidelines...

Unless you have a structure in place that teaches people 'how to think' the 'what to think' will eventually erode...

So, in this case - if Foss didn't know what to think about abortion - he could go to the scriptures, and since the scriptures are rather 'fuzzy' and need interpreting to 'fully understand' them, he then can go to the writings of Koukl and get the correct interpretation...

Another link in how... If you don't understand yourself, refer to our leader, he will teach you the correct way... the 'how'... to think...
 
Fox, you've outsmarted yourself in the midst of tying yourself into little pretzels in a desperate attempt to erect a straw man. Nobody's interested in your pathetic prose.
 
You attack my source, I attack yours - isn't that how you do things here? Why bother with original thought...

wait...

I got to use my original thought, wow - what a concept Foss...
 

Members online

Back
Top