JEFFERSON's AVATAR
- Thread starter OMEGA
- Start date
madman
New member
Well then, you tell us, which one is "apples" and which one is "oranges"?
And how often does Jefferson post?
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yours is the best.
And Jefferson's avatar is incredibly offensive which is why I think it's a good thing that he chooses to keep it.
alwight
New member
What do you mean by props ? Jefferson uses one as a prop in his avatar and on his silly posters. oh I get it you QUOTED all of my post except for the bit where I said...
me said:
Which meant this
Well done, (SARCASM) a slow had clap (YOU DO THIS FOR LOSERS) just for you guys (THATS YOU TOO LIGHTHOUSE) who support dead baby props (PROPS, USING A PICTURE OF A DEAD BABY TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS) LOSERS
So you have to quote me out of context to then deliver the line of yours I quoted.
Lighthouse, can you not see how dumb you are.
Men showing love more offensive than dead babies, my word I don't want to go to your heaven... you'll be there and people like you that's reason enough to go to hell.
Also about God not getting involved, if he doesn't care ? why do you ?
And if you have to do something about it rather than an all powerful deity does that make your God somewhat impotent to need a pathetic mortal clown like yourself to wave an offensive plaque at an abortion clinic ?
Surely let them die, more innocents for GOD, seems being aborted is the SINGLE 100% chance to go to heaven that anyone has.
What's up lighthouse ? does this anti abortion stance come from jealousy. Do you wish that you were aborted so that you didn't have to suffer your miserable existence and abuses only to have to follow an impotent god?
I feel sorry for you, turn to rationality and then anti abortion makes sense, you see I have my own OWN feelings about abortion. I'm not dumb enough to need to follow an invisible man to know it's wrong.
Tell me if God said it was OK would you believe him ?
John Mortimer
New member
It's an horrendous avatar and I think he should change it.
Broadcasting images like that may be justified in certain contexts, but I for one can't see how it is justified here.
Certainly abortion is an issue within the general field of theology but it is hardly an overarching one.
Furthermore, the propaganda value of such images is purely emotional - their display is calculated to create an emotional response. Now I will freely admit that my own current choice of avatar has elements of emotional appeal also, but it is at least intended to be positive and to invoke feelings of inspiration and comfort. Jefferson appears to be attempting to invoke shock and anger.
"The ends justify the means" is a doctrine of demons.
Broadcasting images like that may be justified in certain contexts, but I for one can't see how it is justified here.
Certainly abortion is an issue within the general field of theology but it is hardly an overarching one.
Furthermore, the propaganda value of such images is purely emotional - their display is calculated to create an emotional response. Now I will freely admit that my own current choice of avatar has elements of emotional appeal also, but it is at least intended to be positive and to invoke feelings of inspiration and comfort. Jefferson appears to be attempting to invoke shock and anger.
"The ends justify the means" is a doctrine of demons.
John Mortimer
New member
Well, say, at a protest such as we see in the video, (which actually features Jefferson), posted by Adambassador... such images ARE appropriate there.
In all honesty the effect it has on me is to make me think, "Ok - I will not take anything any evangelical anti-abortionist says seriously".
And maybe the evangelical mindset finds that acceptable because it wants to polarize everything and demonize anyone who doesn't conform to it's image of "righteousness".
Not really, that's the abortion doctors home, now normal people will be wandering past with no intent on abortion and be presented with these horrific images.
Shall we all hang around soldiers homes with pictures of mutilated Iraqi and Afgan children ?
John Mortimer
New member
Yes, I would quite understand people doing just that, Doogie.
I wouldn't be among them... but I think it would be perfectly reasonable.
elohiym
Well-known member
Like most other fora this one runs in real time and avatars are always on display, until they get changed of course. I'd be more impressed by rational argument than by apparent dogmatism.
But then Jefferson for example could show his versatility and rational reasoning by being more selective with it perhaps.
Don’t you think it does? I don’t think you really notice it after a while unless someone starts a thread about it of course, desensitisation perhaps?
I think it makes him look like a one trick pony.lain:
No rational argument there.
Are you capable? :idunno:
madman
New member
elohiym
Well-known member
Then you are for free "appropriate" speech zones?
A picture of a victim of abortion, which is essentially murder, can cause you to "not take anything any evangelical anti-abortionist says seriously?" Seriously? That's such an odd thing to say, John. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. :idunno:
Millions of babies are being murdered. Can we say, show or do too much to stop it? No. We can never say, show, or do enough until this plague of senseless murder is stopped.
elohiym
Well-known member
Does it hurt your head to be so intellectually dishonest?
There are abortion pictures in the public domain. :dunce:
Only in your mind.
:sozo: Then you should oppose the showing of holocaust pictures!
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think we need a new "religion" status. Yours seems to be inaccurate. Here's one that would fit you better.
"I believe in God but I detest Him so much for not doing things the way I think they should be done, that I'm going to claim He doesn't exist.....Yeah, that'll teach Him!!" :wazzup:
Idiot.
I selected the two important points for my point out of that sentence and quoted them. So, I did quote it. Just not the whole sentence.
Seriously, you are stupid. You really thought you needed to explain this?
How did I quote you out of context?
I ask because I am assuming your intention is to accuse me of changing the meaning of what you said, which I did not do.
You claimed to be anti-abortion, then referred to the images of real babies that were murdered through the means of abortion as props.
It doesn't matter if you are attempting to accuse others of using them as props, you are clearly apathetic to the truth if you do not believe these images to be valuable truth in the fight against abortion but rather as props we use.
I said it was more disgusting, not more offensive.
And you say I'm dumb.:liberals:
In ball games? What ever gave you the idea I care about ball games?
Need v want; two different things.
God doesn't need me to do anything. He wants me to. What good would it be for us if He just stepped in and took care of everything? Is that what you do for your son? Is that how you raise him? Or are you teaching him to do things for himself?
Again, you are shown to have lied when you claimed to be anti-abortion.
Your weakness is showing.
You're certainly dumb enough to think I needed God to tell me it was wrong. Especially since you can't even find a single verse in the Bible that mentions abortion. And, no, I do not mean a verses that uses that specific word. I mean a verse that mentions the practice of killing unborn children in the womb.
Only an idiot would ever believe it was even rhetorically possible for God to call evil, "good."
Seriously, if you're going to argue with Christians you might want to educate yourself in the Bible.
alwight
New member
Well there's certainly no sign of rational argument from you, and thanks for the double neg rep for apparently being "lame" btw. :kookoo:
Why not simply ignore it?
Was that really the best you could come up with?
Were you that annoyed?
Why exactly were you so annoyed?
Do you even know?
:think:
Wow, SON that was a while ago... it's SONS now, and I'm teaching them both to think for themselves so according to your religion, regardless of thier lives work, they'll be joining me in the pit anyway.
There are lots of things that don't mention particular "WORDS" like GAY or HOMOSEXUAL, but there are a couple of versus where god condones tearing the unborn from the wombs of his enemies...hmm that means unborn innocent children could possibly be "Enemies" of god. We could read a lot into that. For example he doesn't mind aborting potential non believers so perhaps he don't mind all these heathens getting abortions ?
See above.... and seriously do you think there were no unborn at the flood or during soddom ??
I would hazard I've read it more than you.
I do not lie when I say I am anti abortion, I am questioning your motives, here's something you should learn lighthouse it's possible to consider a side of an argument you don't agree with without necessarily holding it to be true, this is how we grow.
My point is this.
I am anti abortion because I choose to be, because I believe that individual potential is created at conception.
I do not believe a conception is a "Baby" any more than I believe a Zygote is aware of it's surroundings. I just believe that with everything stacked against a healthy birth it's a shame to destroy potential.
But you only have your God telling you what to believe and the dichotomy is that the baby killed in the womb dies in perfect innocence, no better chance of getting to heaven.
If life is finite and heaven is infinite what's the net loss to the christian.
Yeah ad ANTI-THEIST to the list and I'll sign up.
I would have to ask which God, and please define him, her, them or it.
No more than I detest santa for not giving me a Big Trak when I was 8
Or her, or them, or it.
this monkey seems to be getting more bitter