Author Topic: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat  (Read 7038 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #105 on: October 24, 2021, 03:22:36 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #106 on: October 24, 2021, 05:36:36 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.

The Yak

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #107 on: October 24, 2021, 06:21:15 PM »
Q.E.D.

And my response to you is also Q.E.D.  You prove my point that you can't even begin to respond to pro-life arguments because you have no response.  You have no way to justify killing innocent children in the womb.  Even though being pregnant can be a challenge, no civilized society (much less a CHRISTIAN) should suggest killing a child as an option.  Instead, we support the mother through her pregnancy and then, if she and the father can't keep the child, we give the child up for adoption.  If you argue that adopting out their child can be emotionally difficult for the parents, that may be.  But their "emotional difficulty" does not trump the child's life!

Simply put, you have no good arguments that support killing a child in the womb simply because he or she is not wanted and would require some amount of sacrifice on the part of the parents.

Indeed, Tom.  Q.E.D.
Rev. Dr. Scott Yak imow
Professor of Theology
Concordia University - Ann Arbor

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #108 on: October 24, 2021, 07:29:11 PM »
The interesting question that misses the point is how often we counsel women considering an abortion and what we say. It ignores the teaching aspect of the pastoral office. If the woman has been taught and nurtured in the faith by Christian preaching and teaching, she already knows she isn’t having an abortion when she goes to the pastor unless to ask about some unusual complication of the matter. She needs counsel, aid, emotional support through a difficult time, and in some cases absolution and assurance of God’s grace. But going to the pastor for help deciding whether or not to get an abortion would be something that doesn’t enter it. Just because she has a legal choice doesn’t mean she has a moral choice.

Every year I go over this exact scenario individually in my office with every confirmand, boys and girls. We talk about being sinners, the messed up world, the unforeseen difficulties, etc. and always tell them that I don’t expect it to be them, but it has been known to happen that someone I’ve confirmed calls me for help because she has gotten pregnant or he’s gotten his girlfriend pregnant. When that happens, all the things we talk about in class come into play— repentance and faith, the promise of God’s presence, the need for a church family and community, and so forth. But the world will have an easy way out that problem— pay for an abortion and move on. Christians, however, do not have that option (we cover the rate exceptional circumstances occupying Brian’s mind right now in class), so as a church family we rally to help however we can, if even by helping arrange an adoption. I then have the same discussion again (it is part of a 45 minute one in one discussion) with the parents present. So there are no surprises and no ignorance of the matter. Killing the child is not a Christian solution to a problem pregnancy.

I know my parishioners struggle with many sins. But when I counsel them, it isn’t about whether to commit the sins or not. I’ve counseled many people concerning pornography, for example, but they don’t come to me asking for help deciding whether they should look at pornography. They know the answer to that question already. They’ve been taught right from wrong. They need encouragement, guidance, assurance, and forgiveness to help them on their Christian walk. If they came for help determining whether or not to hire strippers for a party, I would not consider it a success if I talked them out of it. I would consider it a major failure of the preaching a d teaching office that it was a question in my member’s mind.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #109 on: October 24, 2021, 07:48:05 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #110 on: October 24, 2021, 08:30:45 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #111 on: October 24, 2021, 08:36:05 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4328
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #112 on: October 24, 2021, 08:48:25 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)

Does your toe possess its own, unique DNA?

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13248
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #113 on: October 24, 2021, 08:50:05 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
A couple come into your office, Brian, she,just had a miscarriage.  What do you say to them? Why should they be so upset? After all what they lost wasn't really human, just some tissue, like loosing a little toe.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #114 on: October 24, 2021, 08:54:18 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)
A couple come into your office, Brian, she,just had a miscarriage.  What do you say to them? Why should they be so upset? After all what they lost wasn't really human, just some tissue, like loosing a little toe.
That’s one truly obscene byproduct of such glib equivocation. You have to tell one person she just did the equivalent of getting a wart removed and the next person that she has lost a child. Eventually you just give up trying to make sense and start spouting nonsense.

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2734
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #115 on: October 24, 2021, 10:00:06 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2021, 12:52:04 AM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."
Weeding the garden is also a matter of life and death for weeds. Let’s not forget that truly important, on-topic point.


Yes, and so is eating steaks, and bacon, and every other form of meat. Although, killing dogs, horses, cats, or rats for food seems unacceptable. (I used "little toe," because that contains human DNA. Weeds, and livestock do not.)

Does your toe possess its own, unique DNA?


No, my toe has my own DNA; but should I have a hand transplant, or any transplant, the cells in the transplant would have a different DNA than the rest of my body. Those transplanted cells only have "life" (the topic of discussion) because they are attached to my body.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #117 on: October 25, 2021, 01:00:16 AM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #118 on: October 25, 2021, 08:19:15 AM »
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2734
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« Reply #119 on: October 25, 2021, 09:24:33 AM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.

You went where? Some pissant Bible college, right?

You took an intro course and scored high on multiple guess. So what?

I have watched you make idiotic statements on various topics where I have a modicum of competency. And so I am going to be like Enrico Fermi who in reading newspapers came to realize that since they wrote with authority but no accuracy on matters where he knew them to be wrong, began to ask why would they be any more correct in other matters.

If I cannot trust you to get right a matter of fact self evident to a HS graduate, why would I believe you on matters like the Scriptures and biblical languages?
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien