Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[james1010 0]

Justin,
Those are truly my beliefs, not to the falwell/robertson extreme, but beliefs nonetheless. I respect your beliefs as well, and wouldn't dream of imposing anything on anyone, I'm just presenting evidences that speak to me in one way and you, obviously, in another.
Nice rebuttal, BTW
James

[scottbre 0]

Society has deemed it acceptable for someone to become pregnant out of sheer irresponsibility and then be able to just get rid of the problem. Doesn't make it right, but acceptable.
If someone is permitted to have an abortion when the fetus clearly is developed enough to have brain activity, how can anyone claim that cloning cells for the purpose of scientific advancement is worse than that?
People like to spout a lot of dogma and rhetoric about how things should be and what the absolute "right" thing to do is, but most people (not all, but most) when finding themselves in a difficult situation similar to one which they are so outspoken and zealous about, will quietly stop talking and do whatever makes life easiest on them. Yea, it's called hypocrisy and it's one of the things that humans are really good at.
BTW, billvon, I appreciate your views on the development of a thinking and feeling mind, constituting a "person" as opposed to just cells. I agree with you, and think you did an excellent job explaining that point of view.
"Yea, I didn't think we'd actually be turning any points..." ~ Goat #4

[james1010 0]

Justin, one more thing (maybe),
"Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When we attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the future, we must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith.
This faith may be in the doctrine of uniformity, which assumes that the present processes may be extrapolated indefinitely into the past or future and that therefore all things continue as they were from the beginning. If one, because of his basic presupposition, wishes to believe in uniformity in this way, it is logically possible for him to do so and to explain all the pertinent data in this context. He can determine the ages of rocks and suns by projecting present rates of change into the limitless past; he can develop theories about the evolution of species and life and galaxies and chemical elements and everything in the universe, if he wishes, and no one can prove him wrong, for the simple reason that these events are not reproducible and therefore not subject to scientific checking. The most that can be done is to argue that his theories are either probable or improbable on the premise of his own uniformitarian presupposition, depending upon the logical consistency of the structure he has erected upon this foundation. But this is all within the context of his pure assumption.
One can equally logically start with some other assumption and then develop his explanations of the data within that framework. For example, let's say that all things in the universe were created by divine fiat five minutes ago. We could say that our apparent memories of earlier events were also created five minutes ago, and once again, no one could prove us wrong. We have logically explained all the data that exist, given our initial premise. As a matter of fact, one could assume, if he wishes, that all existence is illusory, a disease of mortal mind.
The point I'm trying to make, Justin, is that one may pretty well believe what he wants to believe. He can erect a logical system within which he can explain all the physical data upon any one of any number of mutually exclusive and contradictory premises.
But I'm concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which framework leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision. One can interpret everything in terms of Biblical creationism and catastrophism or in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism, and all the pertinent data can be understood, (at least in broad outline), within the framework of either system. My concern here is simply to show you that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire.
James

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I think bringing an unwanted child into the world is horrendously irresponsible

You know in some circles, the Jews are unwanted, the blacks are unwanted, the gays are unwanted, skydivers are unwanted, whites are unwanted, and so on and so on.
One thing I cannot seperate myself from is the 5th Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. I guess I don't regard myself so highly as to question where this commandment does and does not apply.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Look at all the kids in foster care currently. A problem is that adoptive parents can pick and choose what type of kid they want. Oh... want one thats no older then 6 months... no problem, want a boy.. .that can be aranged, don't want a physically challenged child.. thats no problem either. I've seen some people that were even able to specify they did'nt want a child of a miniority or one that had medical issues or what ever. The problem comes in what to do with all the childern that are in foster care and don't fit a couples criteria. What do you do about the girl that has MS and is 12? Or the little boy that is blind? None of these childern are in a high adoption percentage. Its a shame... but its true....

So I guess these people's lives have no meaning, so it is better we destroy them.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[Haeloth 0]

I am not sure if I understand you correctly, do you mean that one should shoehorn physical observations into a bibical framework, or just that you can get away with it?
One of the problems with shoehorning everything into a bibical framework is that you diminish the impact of god/the bible every time you do that. If the act of god becomes very similar to how things would be if let alone, why not just utilize
Occam's razor to remove the unnecesary complex entity?

[JDBoston 0]

Yes, but they still had parents, adoptive or birth, who wanted them. When I say unwanted I mean: Mom doesn't want the kid, and hasn't found anyone who does by the time the kid is born.
Joe

[james1010 0]

Read the post again, perhaps a bit slower, I was suggesting that present scientific and physical processes can be extrapolated from the Bible and should be. The point is that you don't have to shoehorn anything . . . jeez!

[favaks 0]

Quote

My concern here is simply to show you that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to.

I choose not to!
A few Bible contradictions, taken from the American Atheists site and mbdojo.com/~rssl/biblical_problems.htm
ON MORALITY
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..."
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you."
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..."
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women..."
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."
Was it god, or the devil, who said: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Was it God, or the devil, who said: "Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
Was it God, or the devil, who killed every man, woman, child and animal on earth because he lost his temper with them? Was it God, or the devil, who killed 50,000 of his children for merely looking into the ark of the covenant? Was it God, or the devil, who killed every firstborn child in Egypt for the deed of the Pharoah?
ON SLAVERY
In Luke 12:47, Jesus uses a metaphor involving slavery to impress upon his followers the nature of their relationship with God: "And that servant (Greek doulos = slave) who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating." In Luke 12:37, Jesus says, "Blessed are those servants (slaves) whom the master finds awake when he comes..." In Luke 16:13, Jesus informs his disciples that "No servant (slave) can serve two masters..." Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus Christ speak out against the institution of slavery, which pervaded the world during his time.
ON VIOLENCE
"And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
Jer 13:14
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
ON CIRCUMCISION
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
ON INCEST
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
favaks

[scottbre 0]

I hope you copy and pasted most of that, because then at least you will have wasted less time.
Using an "atheist" site as a referrence holds about as much water and demands about as much consideration as quoting High Times when trying to prove a point about marijuana.
"Yea, I didn't think we'd actually be turning any points..." ~ Goat #4

[quade 4]

Quote

It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history.

Well, it's very difficult to understand some of the earlier parts in particular Genesis from a scientific or historical document stand point.
Just compare Gen 1 and Gen 2 for instance.
Order of Creation
quade
http://futurecam.com

[favaks 0]

I did cut and paste all that. I was not using the atheist sites as a reference, but just giving credits where it's due.
favaks

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

I hope you copy and pasted most of that, because then at least you will have wasted less time.

LMAO......I was thinking the same thing. Also, not taking sides, it is very easy to take something out of context when you extract it from its original source and present it by itself. Alot of these quotes are trying to do just that.

[favaks 0]

Quote

LMAO......I was thinking the same thing. Also, not taking sides, it is very easy to take something out of context when you extract it from its original source and present it by itself. Alot of these quotes are trying to do just that.

So what is the intended context of the following passage?
Deuteronomy 20
13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies
favaks

[AggieDave 6]

You beat me to that point, I was going to say the same thing.
No matter what it is you are reading or studying, if you take snippets out of the text and use them out of context, as you (they, whoever wrote that stuff) did, then you can make whatever argument you want.
Sort of like statistics, that way, you can make them say anything you want, aslong as you organize the data a certain way. Sort of like the study about the 1400 alcohol related deaths in college students a year. If you look at how the came to that conclusion, you will laugh at the study.
"Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[AggieDave 6]

That passage, as with most like that in the Old Testement, had to do with God dealing with his enemies and the enemies of his children (at that point, the Jews). There is a lot of theology behind the different points of progression of the history within the Old Testement, but that would take more time then I have right now...I'm sure someone else will take the ball and run with it, though. "Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

So what is the intended context of the following passage?

To kill them of course!
It is stated throughout the Bible that God is a loving and just God. But, he is also jealous and vengeful (sp). He is not the white haired grandpa that most people want to believe he is. He is a God of Peace and War when it is necessary. He DEMANDS that you serve him and him only. If he believes that an entire people need to be destroyed in order to fulfill his goals then he will do it. This is all according to the Bible. I'm not arguing over the validity of the Bible. I believe it. If you don't that is your choice (that is stated in the Bible also).
So, what is the context? Start with the beginning of Deuteronomy and read up to that point and you can make your own judgement. My point was that you let these passages stand alone because by theirselves they look very bad and it makes your point look stronger.

[favaks 0]

Quote

It is stated throughout the Bible that God is a loving and just God

But is that really a just God? Aren't the children and women innocent?

Quote

But, he is also jealous and vengeful (sp). He is not the white haired grandpa that most people want to believe he is. He is a God of Peace and War when it is necessary. He DEMANDS that you serve him and him only. If he believes that an entire people need to be destroyed in order to fulfill his goals then he will do it.

Do most Christians believe in this kind of God?
favaks

[jfields 0]

James,
Interesting point. If one accepts the existence of a supreme all-powerful being into their mental framework, then certainly anything can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways while remaining consistant within the individual framework. When one attributes infinite power to something, it transcends the limits of common human experience. Christians can believe in their version of history and natural law, while other religions can believe in completely different versions with equal justification. Others, including myself, can unequivocally state that there is no God and that religious history is nothing more than a children's game of telephone gradually garbling the truth over the millennia.
No individual perspective can be "proven" in any way outside of the individual framework in which it exists. It is unlikely that you and I will ever agree on cloning, abortion, history or science, because we have different internal, personal definitions of fundamental things like "truth", "life" and "fact". We will not agree about "proof" because we cannot establish enough commonality within our two worldviews to have a proof maintain validity in both.
Science and logic work the same way around the planet to the degree that the people participating accept particular statements into their personal belief systems. For example, most people are okay with the simplified concept that gravity makes things fall. For the large group of people that have such a common belief, a consistent body of related facts can be supported. Where people do not accept the underlying premise, they may not ascribe to the premises based upon it.
For example, I do not accept the Bible as a factual or historically accurate document, therefore the events it recounts are meaningless to me in the context of a persuasive arguement with them as a foundation. Anything extrapolated from the Bible fails my personal logic test at the outset, when I ask, "Is this based on fact?" To me, it is not.
One thing that bothers me is when people state that their personal belief is a universal fact, rather than the more accurate statement that they believe it to be true. I'm guilty of that on occasion too, but it is the cause of a lot of problems, especially when someone acts on their beliefs to subjugate the beliefs of another. When a fundamentalist states their God told them I am evil because I am a non-believer, that is fine. I just don't accept it. When they try to impose their will on my by converting me or killing the heathen, I have a problem.
Where you say that the Bible may serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles comprehensive enough to explain all the data of science and history, I disagree. But I can accept that you believe that. It is as valid for you as my personal belief in evolution as concluded based up my own view of the facts as I see them. The whole point is that we will never merge our perspectives enough to agree on most of the issues we have brought up. But at least we can disagree politely. I am really rambling today. If I was some other people in this forum, this message would be good for at least 50 posts. And I hope I didn't miss somebody posting boobies or something while I was writing this epic.
Justin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

But is that really a just God? Aren't the children and women innocent?

It has been explained to me a hundred different ways. Bottom line conclusion of mine is that God has a higher purpose that I probably will never understand. If you want to read some theories there are alot of good books about 'commonly asked questions on the Bible'. But, they are all just theories.

Quote

Do most Christians believe in this kind of God?

I can't speak for everyone but that is how I have been taught. There is more than one example of God "issuing judgement" on entire peoples for their sins. Even when those sins were not committed by the entire populace. Examples: Sodom and Gomora, The Great Flood.
The trick is not to get on his bad side.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

For example, I do not accept the Bible as a factual or historically accurate document

You can say this about parts of the Bible but stating that 'because it comes from the Bible it is not true' is completely wrong. There are locations of cities and historical events cited in the Bible that have been subsequently proven to be true. In fact a lost city was recently found by Space Shuttle photography that was cited in the Bible as the birthplace of Abraham. The location was described in the Bible but no proof of its existance had ever been found until recently.

[JDBoston 0]

Ahhhhhh, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem rears its ugly head...
The Bible is not, and never will be, a scientific textbook. Neither is the Koran, or any other such document. They are allegorical guides to personal morality. Scientific theories are theories that can be proven wrong. Everything else is, well, not science.
In the Bible, people live for hundreds of years. Actual people live for 120 years or so at most. Sharia (Islamic religious law) says that pregancies last seven years. Actual human pregnancies last 9 months. There are plenty more examples like that.
The day we start confusing religion with science, we're getting on the express train back to the Dark Ages. Relativism is a fun thing to think about and a very dangerous thing to practice. Maybe next time I jump I'll try to convince myself that the ground is soft, so I won't have to pull.
Joe

[jfields 0]

Quote

You can say this about parts of the Bible but stating that 'because it comes from the Bible it is not true' is completely wrong.

While I don't accept that the Bible is completely true, nor do I state that it is completely false. My point is that I don't accept something as fact simply because it is in the Bible. To me, it is not an authoritative document. To me, events need independent verification. As you said, some things have been identified or found to be true to both your definition of proof and mine.
Justin

[james1010 0]

alright, Justin, one or two more then I really gotta get some work done or I'll never get out of here.
Here we go:
As far as the laws or processes of the physical universe are concerned, these all devolve upon two extremely broad and powerful principles, the so-called first and second Laws of thermodynamics. Let it be emphasized that, if there is really such a thing as a law of science, these two principles meet that definition. There is no other scientific law supported more fully and certainly by more numerous and meaningful lines of evidence than are these two laws. All physical processes (and all biologic processes, for that matter) involve the interplay of two basic entities called energy and entropy. One could say that any event occurring in space and time is a manifestation of some form of exchange of energy. The particular event or process basically is just this transformation of one or more forms of energy (kinetic or motion energy, electrical, chemical, light, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear, or other forms of energy) into one or more other forms.
In this process, the total energy remains unchanged; no energy is either created or destroyed, although its form may and does change. This is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. This law has been validated on both the cosmic and sub-nuclear scales and is a truly universal law, if there is such a thing. And, since energy really includes everything, even matter, in the physical universe, it is as certain as anything can possibly be, scientifically, that no creation of anything is now taking place in the universe, under the normal conditions which science is able to study.
But in the process, some of the energy is always transformed into non-usable heat energy, and thus becomes unavailable for future energy exchanges. The concept of entropy has been developed to describe this phenomenon, entropy being a measure of the unavailability of the energy of the system or process. The second law of thermodynamics describes this by stating that there is always a tendency for the entropy of any closed system to increase. Or, in more general terms, the second law states that there is always a tendency for any system to become less organized. Its disorder or randomness tends to increase. If isolated from external sources of order or energy or "information," any system will eventually run down and "die."
These laws are basic in every scientific system or process. As far as science has been able to show, they are universal in scope, with no exceptions known. They were only discovered and validated by science, however, about a hundred years ago, after much uncertainty and controversy.
If men had been willing to develop their scientific systems on the basis of Biblical presuppositions, however, it should have been quite obvious all along that the basic physical processes were those of conservation and decay, as now formalized in the statements of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The Bible does not, of course, state these principles in the mathematical symbols or technical jargon of modern physics but the basic truths are quite clearly enunciated.
The conservation principle is strongly emphasized in the summary statement at the end of the period of creation, when the Bible says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:13; italics added).
This statement is as clear as it could possibly be in teaching that God's creative acts were terminated at the end of the six days. Whatever processes He may have used in creating and making, all His work ceased when God rested on the seventh day. Nothing is now being created and this is what was finally formalized by science in the first law of thermodynamics.
The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there, and there is nothing in present physical processes which can tell us about it. Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the SCIENCE of creation!
more to come . . .

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Maybe next time I jump I'll try to convince myself that the ground is soft

Try it! It is so soft that you won't even feel it when you hit.
I would have to agree that the Bible is not a physics text book and was never meant to be a physics test book. But, there is a certain amount of religion in science too. I kind of agree with Einstein though:

Quote

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.