Ask a Marvin

Aaron Wiley · Post by **Aaron Wiley** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:22 am

If I may, could I ask for some Biblical backup for your point about people not being manifested the way they were forever ago?

It may be that YOU aren't specifically manifested in this way, but I know plenty of people that are.

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:50 am

"And the Lord saw that man had created the Internet, and He was most distressed. For once people started using chatspeak and improper grammar, their level of smartness was decreased by more than 500%. And so the Lord removed all the gifts he had once bestowed on man, and it was very sad." The Book of Marvin, Chapter 351, Verse 442.

HAPPY?

Well, I was gonna write a long post, but I generally agree with what's written here: http://www.modernreformation.org/defaul ... &var3=main Skip down to the last half if you don't want to read a lot =P

Termite · Post by **Termite** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:13 am

Marvin D. wrote:You wicked, wicked sinner Mercy. Shwame Then I guess Garrett and I shall join you as well?

No, not in the way it used to be back in the Bible. We have gifts, but they aren't manifested the same way they were back then.

Boo. So I must be crazy, since I speak in tongues, have been healed, have been given a word of wisdom, have had words of knowledge spoken over me (that there's no way they could know) and have had a vision (er, I guess more like another word of wisdom... since those are about things to come. Not too sure what the difference between those is yet; I've yet to study it.)?

According to the end of that link I must be... I TL;DR it. No time for that atm; I gotta jet off to Prayer and Healing School where all these gifts start manifesting. $\:D/$

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:09 pm

Actually, since I'm insane, you must be normal, Termite.

Other than the fact that all the people seem to be speaking in tongues and jumping up and down and make no sense--and Paul said that people who speak in tongues should interpret--I guess I'm not cool enough to have any of those gifts

As Paul said, "Therefore, if the whole church assembles together and all are speaking in other languages [tongues], and people who are uninformed or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you're out of your mind?...If any person speaks in another language, there should be only two, or at the most three." The Charismatic/Pentecostal churches I see are. .well, for the most part, it's not one person speaking tongues

It's more like half the church babbling. .and it's very chaotic.

Another reason I don't believe we need tongues anymore is because we already know what we need to know. Tongues are supposed to be for revelation and edification, correct? (even though it's not used that way. .) John 1:18 says that "[God] has revealed [Jesus]." We have the revelation already, and there is no need for "revelation" from which most speak of. Another thing about tongues--the tongues in Acts 2 were languages known to those who heard. Regular languages from abroad. Is that what people claim tongues are today? They call it supernatural utterances, often languages that don't exist. .or just plain random babbling. If it were really tongues, as people call it, they'd be speaking in another language--and perfectly too, since if it's from God, God does not err

. .and while I'm on my soapbox, I might as well add that another reason I disagree with Pentecostals is because they often say that they're "baptized with the Holy Spirit" during prayer meetings and whatnot. But all Christians are already filled with the Holy Spirit upon salvation (1 Corinthians 12:13).

*gets off soapbox*

Wow, that was too serious

DanP740 · Post by **DanP740** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:04 pm

Marvin D. wrote:"And the Lord saw that man had created the Internet, and He was most distressed. For once people started using chatspeak and improper grammar, their level of smartness was decreased by more than 500%. And so the Lord removed all the gifts he had once bestowed on man, and it was very sad." The Book of Marvin, Chapter 351, Verse 442.

HAPPY?

I always thought that was in Jedidiah Jones, right after "Thou shalt not grab jackets."

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:08 pm

DanP740 wrote:
Marvin D. wrote:"And the Lord saw that man had created the Internet, and He was most distressed. For once people started using chatspeak and improper grammar, their level of smartness was decreased by more than 500%. And so the Lord removed all the gifts he had once bestowed on man, and it was very sad." The Book of Marvin, Chapter 351, Verse 442.

HAPPY?
I always thought that was in Jedidiah Jones, right after "Thou shalt not grab jackets."

There's a paraphrased version, yes, but the full version comes in the Book of Marvin. The paraphrased one reads: "The Lord ist not pleased with those whom use chatspeak and improper grammar."

Post by **Jesus' Princess** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:08 pm

Do you think that humans have the right to end life? Abortion, brain death, execution, "unplugging them", and physician assisted suicide would all be examples of that. I'm curious about your answer.

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:12 pm

No, I do not believe it's right. I've written some stuff about abortion and euthanasia, and I'd be more than willing to post them here if you'd like to look over it.

Post by **Jesus' Princess** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:15 pm

Marvin D. wrote:No, I do not believe it's right. I've written some stuff about abortion and euthanasia, and I'd be more than willing to post them here if you'd like to look over it.

If you wouldn't mind, I would

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:23 pm

All right, this is a story I wrote about 3 years ago, so pardon any obvious errors =P

And this is a paper I had to do for school $\:D/$

According to the law, murder is wrong; yet each day, 115,000 babies are aborted. In one year, 42 million are murdered.1 Almost 50% of all American pregnancies are not intended. Half of them are terminated.2 With such shocking information, it is little wonder that this is one of the debates that cause the most controversy. But the surprise is that this is not a recent debate; no, it has gone back to ancient cultures such as the Hittites and Sumerians. Some people believe that every woman should have the choice, while others say that a baby has the right to live. Because abortion is harmful not only to the unborn child, but also to the mother and the society, abortion should not be a legal procedure.
Obviously, abortion is harmful to the baby because it is nothing short of murder—the murder of an unborn child. There are various methods of abortion. Most people, however, do not know what they are. The most common method used up to the twelfth week of pregnancy is suction aspiration. After dilating the woman’s cervix, a suction curette, a tube with a knife-like edged tip is inserted into the mother’s womb. When turned on, the force of the tube is twenty-eight times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner. This tears the baby and placenta into pieces and sucks it into the container.
Another method used is saline poisoning. Once there is enough fluid in the womb (approximately 16 weeks), a long needle filled with a salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid. The baby swallows and breathes the poison, and dies a slow death of poison and dehydration. At the same time, its skin is burned off by the corrosive acid. Normally, the mother will go into labor the next day and give birth to a dead or dying baby.
Dilation and evacuation, also referred to as D&E, is the process of dilating the mother’s cervix and using forceps to go into the uterus. The abortionist will take the arms and legs of the baby, dismember it, and then snap the spine and crush the skull in order to remove it. To remove any other smaller pieces, suction and curetting is used.
When the baby has developed greatly (after 32 weeks), partial birth abortion, or dilation and extraction, is a common method that is used. With the help of ultrasound, the abortionist will grab the baby by the hands and legs with the use of forceps, and deliver it, save the head. He will then insert scissors into the baby’s skull and suck out the brain. Once the head has collapsed, the baby will be brought out to finish dying. According to the American Medical Association in a letter to the editor of the New York Times, partial birth abortion was never a necessary medical procedure.3 The above methods are just a few of the ways used to harm—and terminate—an unborn child’s life.
Although one often thinks of the baby as being the one who receives the bad end of the deal, all too often, the effects harm the mother, both physically and emotionally. Through several studies, it was proven that inducing an abortion often led to an increased risk of placenta previa in women—not to mention a 50% extra chance of risk in all later births.4 Placenta previa is when the cervix is covered by the placenta, which is implanted at the bottom of the uterus. In any other pregnancy that follows, both the mother and unborn child would be at risk.
There are many other risks that are related to abortion. In a 1994 article of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, it stated that if the abortion procedure was done after 4 months into the pregnancy, the chance that the mother would die would be 15 times greater than normal. Yet another risk with abortion comes from RU-486, an abortion pill. When the FDA brought it onto the market, it had not been tested, and so three women died from using it, and many others had serious side effects as well.5 Ibid. On the website of RU-486, it lists all the side effects, which vary from cramping to viral infections to diarrhea.6 All too often, the process of abortion is not a safe one.
Mentally, abortion almost always has long-lasting effects on the mother. In an online article from Casey’s Critical Thinking, the author says, “We were told abortion would ‘empower’ women and let them make their own choices. But research has shown that 80 percent of women are pressured by their husbands or boyfriends or by their parents to abort their baby. Is this empowerment?”7 All too often, premarital sex leads to unwanted pregnancies, which will normally lead to terminating an innocent child’s life. This can leave the mother feeling as if she were coerced into aborting the child. Anger, guilt, severe depression, and even suicide can stem from these feelings. The mental effects of abortion can often last much longer than any physical effects will.
While it seems most obvious that abortion ends the life of an unborn child and can affect the mother in various ways, abortion plays a role in society as well. The money to fund abortion societies such as Planned Parenthood is taken from the people’s taxes, and while some agree with this, there are others who protest the usage of their money.
The effects of abortion continue to affect the society morally. Once an unborn child is dehumanized to a state of nothing more than “a cluster of cells” in order to help justify its killing, it becomes easier to “weed out” the elderly and the sickly—often through euthanasia. In Holland, 10,000 citizens carry a badge that says “Do Not Euthanize Me”. As abortion desensitizes people to human life, euthanasia does the same thing. By accepting voluntary euthanasia, we agree that some people are not worth being alive, removing the sanctity of the human life. Already legal in Holland, it could easily lead to a slippery slope, in which there would be no difference between voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. In fact, a survey in 1990 revealed that .8% of deaths in Holland were caused by involuntary euthanasia.8 Also, a 1995 study said that 948 patients’ lives were ended without their permission.9 As the time goes by and morality continues to decline, what will happen next? The consequences continue to spread far more than one would imagine, going from the unborn child to the mother to innocent people.
There are a myriad of reasons why abortion is harmful. In many cases, it is nothing more than a product of irresponsibility and selfishness. While this paper is not about the argument against abortion, I will merely go over some of the basics of the argument. According to the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, the definition of life is: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." The biological embryo complies with all of the four given functions, thus making it a human life. If death is determined by the cessation of the heartbeat, then life commences when the heart begins to beat; this can be detected via ultrasound from approximately 22 days.
One may argue and say, “Every woman has the right to control her own body,” but if one looks closely at this, he will see that this slogan has faults. First, a person does not have absolute right over his body. He does not have the “right” to drink and drive, use dangerous drugs, or walk around naked. If a woman were to control her body, she could have prevented the pregnancy. The only sure way to avoid pregnancy is to practice abstinence. Second, the unborn child is a separate body that feeds off of the mother. It has its own heartbeat, making it distinct from the mother. Abortion may seem like the best solution, but as already discussed, its effects tend to make it worse than it first appears to be. Two wrongs can never make a right. Abortion is nothing more than letting an innocent party receive the consequences for something in which it had no part in. Merely because the baby was unexpected, or because it will have physical or mental handicaps cannot justify its murder. The choices the parents made have consequences, and abortion is merely the easy way out and nothing more.
An unborn child, a mother, and a society—these are those that abortion affects, and just a few of the reasons as to why I believe abortion should be illegal. One may say that banning abortion will lead to “back alley butchers”, but that is no reason to keep it legal. There will always be people who will be willing to exploit women merely to benefit from it themselves. According to Bernard Nathanson, who co-founded the NARAL (National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws), “In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000-10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false....The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.” The only instance where it should be allowed is in the case of a life-saving abortion, which accounts for only 1% of all abortions.10 If one takes the time to sift through the abortion propaganda, it is clear that most of what is revealed is not what it really is. The question is: What will we do about it?

Aaron Wiley · Post by **Aaron Wiley** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:15 pm

Great, so you don't agree with abortion (and I don't know many Christians that do) but what do you think about "unplugging" vegetables? That is, people that are being kept alive entirely artificially, and don't really have any life left in them anyway. Is it wrong to simply let them die?

Marvin D. · Post by **Marvin D.** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:42 pm

I also have something written about euthanasia, so as soon as I get off my iPod I shall post it. The short answer is that I don't agree with it either. Granted, someoght say it's right for those who have no chance of living...but then you don't know when to do it or end up justifying it for others.

As I said, this short paper will explain it in greater detail

In Holland, over 10,000 citizens constantly carry a card that says “Do Not Euthanaize Me”, just in case they are put in the hospital unexpectedly. These people live in fear of being deemed not important enough to live, and they do whatever they can to avoid it. Perhaps one may wonder what euthanasia is. It comes from the Greek which means “good death”, administered by lethal injection or suspension of medical treatment. Although there are various forms of euthanasia, such as voluntary, when one requests to be helped to die, or involuntary, when one is killed without his consent, or even passive, in which the necessary medication one needs is taken away, there is one thing which can be seen. Euthanasia, whether voluntary or otherwise, should not be allowed under any circumstances.
In the Hippocratic Oath, which is the law a medical student used to take before being made a doctor, it said in part, “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.” What has become of this? Presently, only a few countries have legalized euthanasia. Clearly, there must be something that keeps people from doing it.
The best argument against euthanasia is what is called “the slippery slope”. This basically states that if euthanasia is legalized, there is nothing that will stop it from sliding down to the categories of involuntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia. If it were legalized, it would be nothing short of murder. While some people might call it doctor-assisted suicides, it is still murder. In fact, it has been proven that half of the killings in Holland are nonvoluntary. The same thing happened with abortion; it used to only be used to save the mother’s life, but now it is legal to do even when the child is half born. While those who are for euthanasia argue that it would be regulated, one can easily refute it, because drug abuse still happens all the time. It would be the same in this situation.
It is often said that euthanasia can be used in order to take someone out of his misery. That is not true. For example, 95 percent of all cancer pain is controllable, and the remaining 5 percent can be brought down to a level which is tolerable. There is no reason to kill someone because of pain. Modern technology has given us an amazing advantage in the medical world, and we can do so much more than was possible just a few years ago. This pro-euthanasia argument is not a strong one and easily falls to pieces.
Ultimately, euthanasia would downgrade human morals. Euthanasia would be used for human control and cost containment. Wesley Smith, a senior person at the Discovery Institute, said that it took only $40 for assisted suicide, while treating a patient well so they wouldn’t “choose” suicide cost up to $40,000. With so many people who don’t have medical insurance, they will be pressured to pick assisted suicide instead of long-term care. Not only that, but human life would no longer be important. Can people choose who has to live and die? No matter what the cost is, life needs to be treated with respect. Almost all societies—even non-religious ones—are against euthanasia. Taking a life in the case of self-defense can be justified, but here, nobody’s life is being saved, only taken. Another aspect to consider is the advancement of human knowledge in the field of medicine. Euthanasia is the easy way out, and nobody benefits from discovering new treatments and cures. Instead, if a medical challenge seems too great, the easy way is taken: get rid of the ill person.
It is left to the reader to make a decision. The facts have been presented as clearly as possible. Euthanasia does not solve problems, it only postpones them. It also does not have a reason to be used, and it can easily lead us into a moral dilemma. There is no valid reason to have euthanasia used in any of its forms, because life is valuable. The Bible says that if someone kills another person, he needs to die. Euthanasia is nothing more than murder, and we need to take our stand against it. What about you?

The Town of Odyssey

Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin

Re: Ask a Marvin