Thursday, January 29, 2015

UPDATED: It Is An ABOMINATION To Put A Premature Baby On Life Support



The perverse "logic" of James Malm continues unabated.  Did you know that it is an abomination to put a premature baby on life support if the mother was not able to complete the pregnancy?

The idea that anyone follows this asshat is amazing! Why are so many Armstrongite cultists attracted to these theologically bankrupt blasphemous idiots?

“If Jesus was produced by the Father’s sperm combining with Mary’s egg we have several issues 
A.  As it is written in spirit there is no man or woman. Spirits have no sex and cannot reproduce sexually.
B.  You have the Father committing adultery with Mary,  Since she was not the Father’s wife and was the espoused wife of another.
C  You are calling Christ a bastard since he would have been conceived by adultery…….
The truth is that man was made after the God kind, and the very Creator gave up his God-hood to be made flesh and was inserted into the womb of Mary as an already complete human embryo by God the Father; in the same sense that a human embryo can be inserted into a surrogate mother today.”
I find your logic for the above two scenarios a little difficult to follow.
If we look at this in terms of a physical marriage, you seem to be saying that with a married couple who are unable to have children, it would be permissible for the wife to be implanted with an embryo from a completely different couple, and produce a baby that was not related in any way to the woman or her husband.
However you also seem to be saying that if the embryo was from the woman’s own egg, and a donor sperm (as would be the case with an infertile husband), then that would be adultery, and the child would be a bastard.
So carrying and giving birth to a genetically unrelated child is OK, but doing the same for a child which has genetic input from one of the partners is not OK?
CORRECT! In your first case the woman is only a provider of care; in your second case she is an adulteress: but you are switching the issue from the Father to the woman. If a man produces a child by another man’s wife; he IS an adulterer!
That is basic; no man may have another man’s wife; and if a man father’s a child by another man’s wife the child is a bastard and the man is an adulterer. To say that God the Father placed his sperm [which he does not have being a spirit] in Mary, an already promised woman; is accusing the Father of either adultery or fornication. It is calling the Son a bastard. Such claims are blasphemy. 
For a woman with an infertile husband to give herself or her eggs to another male in an effort to make a child is adultery; the child is born a bastard; it is an abomination! 
Really this is so basic. if you were infertile would you want another man servicing your wife? and even if you did want that; either by intercourse or by mixing in a test tube; it would still be adultery! 
On the other hand it is wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy.
Also the fact that in vitro results in the destruction of multiple fertilized eggs is also an abomination! I know that several women in UCG have engaged in this appalling abomination with the advice of false elders. James


James responds to this post:
Sir
I am informed that you have copied a para answering a comment; before it was edited. 
 
The correct comment response was:
 
"On the other hand is it wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy?  Of course not."
 
This should have been obvious by the context.
 
James

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

We have a new winner for your long-running poll "Which COG IS Bat Shit Crazy".

James said...

"Why are so many Armstrongite cultists attracted to these theologically bankrupt blasphemous idiots?"

Because its based on armstrongism. Anything Herbie seems to sell among those who are socially and morally bankrupt.

Byker Bob said...

Does James Malm have any private thoughts at all? Ones that he chooses to keep to himself?

Since when is it an abomination to save a life when the technology to do this both exists and is reliable? He's serious that you should allow a savable fetus to die, but worries about destruction of eggs being involved in producing a new life? This guy should be reading Socrates and Aristotle and studying Talmudic logic to learn how to think properly!

BB

Connie Schmidt said...

Words fail to possibly describe what a monstrous statement Malm made about denying a premature baby life support.

Meanwhile, this worthless piece of crap, begs for money and "life support" for his "priceless work".

Deny this BIG BABY any life support! Do not contribute or support this freak!

Anonymous said...


"On the other hand it is wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy."


James Malm is obviously BRAIN DEAD and it is time to take him off "life support." That is, stop sending him money! Those who keep him on "life support" by sending him money are only prolonging the agony and making everyone suffer pointlessly.

If he is never going to recover his senses and get an honest, useful job, then pull the plug on him.

Anonymous said...


”On the other hand it is wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy.”


This sounded so bad that I went to James Malm's website and searched for the quote to check it out for myself, and here is the actual quote that I found there:

“On the other hand is it wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy? Of course not”

It appears that James Malm has been misquoted in this case. Nevertheless, I have read some of his writings in the past and have found him to be seriously wrong on other issues. So, of course, anyone sending him money should still “pull the plug” on him.

Anonymous said...

"Nevertheless, I have read some of his writings in the past and have found him to be seriously wrong on other issues."

Exactly. So in the larger overall context, it's not obvious at all when James Malm says something completely daft that he didn't mean exactly what he said.

As far as we know, he may very well have changed his tune and decided to "edit" his comment because of this blog post. There's no way in a million years James Malm is ever going to admit to being wrong about anything. His ego won't permit that. Nope, instead he'd resort to a face-saving move like this. After all what he's selling more than anything else is his own infallible guru status.

And since when did James Malm start proofreading and editing his work? I've never known him to fix a typo or back off an idiotic and untenable position in the past. When it comes to journalistic standards and ethics, James Malm sets the bar very low and spends every day doing the limbo.

On the plus side, he does put the "fun" back in "fundamentalist" for all of us here. As in "make fun of." But then there's the shock, loathing, and abject horror as well...

old EXPCG hag said...

Don't get me started on ABORTION!

I have a lot to say to abortion doctor's >PSYCHOPATH-MURDERERS!!<

Anonymous said...


James responds to this post:

Sir

I am informed that you have copied a para answering a comment; before it was edited.

The correct comment response was:

'On the other hand is it wrong to take a child conceived by you and your own wife, and put it on life support for a few months if your wife could not complete the term of pregnancy? Of course not.'

This should have been obvious by the context.

James"



James Malm still has a lot of other doctrinal mistakes at his website that need to be corrected too.