Male Authority Posing as Divine Authority

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

You wrote, "This social vocation, whether in marriage or outside of it, is therefore to be regarded by both as means to an end. (cf. 1 Timothy 2:15)"

This is what you referenced, "15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

Does this mean that women who do not go thru childbearing cannot be saved?

First off, Paul is not God.

Second, the bible is not God.

Third, God is God.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth which will arrive on the seventh day, on the day that God Blest, Rested and Made Holy.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CHRISTIANITY’S VIEW:

“The activities of man and woman in the social domain may perhaps be compared to two concentric circles of unlike circumference. The external, larger circle represents the vocational labors of the man, the inner circle that of the woman.

What the Creator prepared by the difference of endowment is realized in the indissoluble marital union of one man and one woman. The man becomes a father with paternal rights and duties which include the support of the family and, when necessary, their protection.

On the other hand, the woman receives with motherhood a series of maternal duties. The social duties of the woman may, therefore, be designated as motherhood, just as it is the duty of man to be the representative of paternal authority. The completely developed feminine personality is thus to be found in the mother.

Of course this development of motherhood in the woman is not limited to its physiological aspect. It is rather that this motherly sense and its activity can and should, as the highest development of noble womanhood, precede marriage and can exist without it.

As a creature compounded of the spiritual and material, the human being has more than the destiny of continuing his race by generation and birth. It is still more incumbent on him to develop the spiritual and intellectual life by the training which is rightly called the second birth.

This training, however, prospers as little without the specific motherly influence, as the bringing of a child into the world without the mother.

The community, the nation, the state, however, are, as the necessary natural development of the family, the organized totality of the individual families.

Consequently the motherly influence must also extend over these and must be kept within the bounds corresponding to the division of labor between man and woman. In these forms of social life also man must vigorously represent authority, while woman, called to the dignity of the mother, must supplement and aid the labor of the man by her unwearied collaboration.

This truth is stated in homely fashion in the expressions "father of the country", "mother of the country". Hence man, as man, and woman, as woman, have to attain the common highest end of moral perfection, which extends beyond time by the fulfillment here below of social duties.

This social vocation, whether in marriage or outside of it, is therefore to be regarded by both as means to an end. (cf. 1 Timothy 2:15). If these two reciprocal spheres of activity are taken in the narrowest sense they exclude each other, as the actual task assigned by nature to woman cannot be performed by man, while the reverse is also true

Both tasks of man and woman are indissolubly united, so that the one cannot be fully accomplished without the other. The freedom of the woman consists in the possibility of fulfilling unimpeded this double task with its rights and privileges both in public and private life.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“TRUE THEOLOGY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
"What you know is other people's written theology, which is nothing more than speculation about God, usually drawn up by a Committee of men.

Theology written in this way is not even a pretense at seeking truth; it is almost always the product of a politically coerced compromise. Therefore, all theologies must, by their very definition, be untrue.

ANS:
True theology is not written in this way. On the contrary, true theology comes from God and is revealed to man under the auspices of God who is Omniscient and without error.

Moreover, when God’s Son established His Church, God protected it with the gift of infallibility in its universal teachings and beliefs. God sent the Holy Spirit to protect the Church's universal teachings and beliefs (Mt. 28:20 Mt.10; John 15: 26-27 ). In Mt. 28:20 it is written, ”..and teaching to obey everything I have commanded you. And, surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Knowledge is derived from Truth. Consequently, if something is irrational it is not based on truth. This is what happens when you devise your religion by speculating without the assistance of God.

There is Truth and that which contradicts truth is error. True religion is not based on politically coerced and compromised belief; it is based on Divinely revealed truths.

Any religion that is initiated by man is subject to errors. Thus, it is written, “With God all things are possible; with man, nothing is possible.” Hence, all man made religions are only true in proportion to their accord with God’s instituted Church.

Since we arrive at knowledge from truth, knowledge is the conformity of reality with the intellect’s ideas. When ideas do not conform to reality then there is no knowledge.

When man reasons, he takes the knowledge he abstracts from reality and makes judgments in accord with logical inductions and deductions. If man’s first premises from which he deducts or inducts are not true, his conclusions are irrational and are fallible.

And, consequently, if one knows no more or less about religion than any other knows, why are all but God’s Church in contradiction of each other in part or whole? Because your conclusions are not true.

In addition, it is precisely because God’s Church has not been compromised, She is the bane of such Secularists as John Shelby Spong.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“THE RELIGIOUSLY COERCED””
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
No one knows God any more or less than I do, nor any better than anyone else does; this is an illusion. What you know is other people's written theology, which is nothing more than speculation about God, usually drawn up by a Committee of men.

ANS:
Do non-scientists, know as much as scientists, non doctors as much as doctors, or non- lawyers the same as lawyers? Then why are non-theologians as wise as theologians?

Can deliberative bodies not seek truth?. Is it not he who isolates himself from the world that generally gets things wrong? China’s Great Wall is an example of closing out truth.

In addition, theology is not other people’s written theology. True theology is written by God who uses man as his instrument to convey it to His people. Therefore, it is not speculative, but Divinely inspired by God who is Omniscient, and infallible.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“READ MORE CAREFULLY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
“If you believe in God, and if you are a Christian, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd, and that there must be something more than this ad-hoc and senseless paradigm.”

ANS:
You deduction is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because all men are created equal one's religion is not superior to another’s. That is absurdly false on the face of it. Religious superiority does not depend on social status but on truth.

Consequently, some religions are true, some are not true, and some are only partly true. Of course. nearly all religions contain some truth or else they couldn’t survive.

Moreover, Truth cannot contradict Truth. Therefore, there can only be one truth, and anything that contradicts it is false in its contradiction.

Subsequently, we have 26 to 35,000 different Christian denominations alone. It is estimated by one demographer that there are some 60,000 different religions. There can be no 60,000, different religions that contradict in whole or in part each other and be equally true. That would be a contradiction of truth.

Consequently there is only one True Church and it can only be the one God instituted because God, who is Truth, cannot contradict Himself.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“READ MORE CAREFULLY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
“When we think in the present moment, we are speculating. And all of the thoughts and feelings and emotions and beliefs that have come into our minds prior to the current moment, all came to us by way of ever-changing contingencies. My religion is the product of contingencies and speculations; in fact, this is true for everyone.

ANS:
If your religion is based on speculation and ever changing contingencies, then you believe in nothing. That is moral relativism.

No it’s not true that everyone is a relativist; it’s only true for the Secularists. And that is why Secularists have a problem with God who is unchanging. Faith is not blind or relative. If all faith is based on speculation, then it lacks objective truth and certitude. Faith then becomes the food of skeptics, negativists, and pessimists to feed on. It is the food of the Secularist Spong, who says, “I find it hard to imagine why any American still wants to have anything to do with an institution as sexist as the institutional Christian Church.”

Of course he does; Spong wouldn’t know what a sexist is because he’s over his head in sexism; He is a moral relativist. Namely, all truths are relative. What hogwash!

There are objective moral truths that never change because to change man would have to cease to have a human nature. Consequently, the Commandments were applicable from man's beginning. Why? Because,they are based on human nature. The Commandments are the natural laws that marginalize the proper behavior of man. And, when man operates with in these margins he personifies the true freedom that God created man for.

Order is the personification of freedom. Without order there can be no freedom. If you were in the middle of New York City at rush hour, and all the signal lights were out, you could hardly drive anywhere. And that is what happens when we make morality relative, behavior becomes chaotic, and so does the social order.

However, the Secularists makes morality subjective; everyone has their own morality. Consequently it is often said, “Don’t force your morality on me. Believe what you want, but don’t make me believe it.” However, believe what you want is a prescription for dissociated order. Thus, believing abortion is moral has caused the death of some 50 million unborn who never got to believe anything.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
“IT IS THE SECULARISTS WHO HAVE GIVEN US MADNESS NOT CHRISTIANITY”
JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
‘I find hard to imagine why any American still wants to have anything to do with an institution as sexist as the institutional Christian Church.”

ANS:
I find it hard to believe that anyone could be a Secularist. They have done more damage to femininity than can be imagined.

They’ve given woman the “Pill” that is cancerous so she can destroy her self. Abortion to destroy her unborn child, and triple her chances for breast cancer. “No fault Divorce,” to destroy her marriage, contraceptives to destroy her family, They have made her objects of lust, convinced her of Surrogate Motherhood, and demeaned Marriage the moral substructure of her family.

The Secularists have deceived her into believing in Embryonic Stem Cell Research, that in its mad experiments on the women’s embryos they have endangered their health and their lives. Five women since last June died from hyperovarian stimulation in England.

CBC hosted a first ever congressional briefing in Washington D.C. on, March 8th, International Women’s Day, titled, “Trading on the female body” where we made the case that women deserve a biotechnology that is not harmful to them.

Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Medicine laid out the positive advances in reproductive medicine, which is a women friendly ‘less is best’ model of minimal ovarian stimulation and natural cycle IVF that is moving reproductive medical treatment away from the current IVF protocols that are aggressive and harmful to women.

In a study of 35 women that had hypo-ovarian stimulation (HOS) they found HOS very problematic.

12 had myocardial cerebral thrombosis. (blood clots in the brain.
6 had major retinal occlusions.
2 had heart attacks
2 required limb amputation
1 died
Several encountered paralysis.
Some lost their fertility.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/biotech/index.blog?entry_id=1410405

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“READ MORE CAREFULLY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
“You are not really in a posiiton to call other people "mad."”

ANS:
Really? Call it what you want; I call it madness that trespasses across the borders of lunacy.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm

“101 USES FOR A DEAD (or live) BABIES,” by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D

The young couple who wanted to conceive a child to be aborted so
that the father to be could use the baby's kidneys for a transplant
that he needed himself.

o In California, babies aborted at six months were submerged in jars
of liquid with high oxygen content to see if they could breathe
through their skins. They couldn't.

o The hysterotomy aborted fetus in the seventh, eighth and ninth
months is removed intact (translation: the babe is alive). The trade
in fetal tissue is about $1 million annually. The high prices may
encourage unnecessary abortions on welfare patients as the surest way
of getting "salable tissue."

o Dr. Robert Schwartz, chief of pediatrics at the Cleveland
Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby is delivered, while it
is still linked to its mother by the umbilical cord, I take a blood
sample, sever the cord and then as quickly as possible remove the
organs and tissues."

o Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh packed aborted babies in ice
for shipment to experimental labs.

o Newsday reported that an Ohio medical research company tested the
brains and hearts of 100 fetuses as part of a $300,000 pesticide
contract.

The Modern Scalp Display?

o Human embryos and other organs have been encased in plastic and sold
as paperweight novelty items.

o The Diabetes Treatment Project at UCLA depends for its existence on
the availability of pancreases from later term aborted fetuses.

o A rabies vaccine is produced from viruses grown in the lungs of
aborted children, according to FDA. A polio vaccine was also grown
with cells from aborted kids.

o Brain cells would be "harvested" from aborted babies for transplant.

o Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still living babies into
meat grinders and homogenizing them, according to the prestigious New
England Journal of Medicine.

Our religious heritage comes from each previous generation. Each before the other passes it on to the next. Each one of us inherits, at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, a religious and cultural setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to motivate our personalities. This setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence; and by that I mean, things that have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.
When we think in the present moment, we are speculating. And all of the thoughts and feelings and emotions and beliefs that have come into our minds prior to the current moment, all came to us by way of ever-changing contingencies. My religion is the product of contingencies and speculations; in fact, this is true for everyone.
If you believe in God, and if you are a Christian, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd, and that there must be something more than this ad-hoc and senseless paradigm.
No one knows God any more or less than I do, nor any better than anyone else does; this is an illusion. What you know is other people's written theology, which is nothing more than speculation about God, usually drawn up by a Committee of men. Theology written in this way is not even a pretense at seeking truth; it is almost always the product of a politically coerced compromise. Therefore, all theologies must, by their very definition, be untrue.
I consider thr "Catholic" and "Christian" point of view as promoted by TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2, to be shallow, insensitive, and inhumane. It is flawed thinking that man is better than woman and that woman must be subservient to man. From this religious confusion about sex comes disdain of the human body as sinful, and sex and sexuality as innately sinful. I do not believe that.
Isn't that really the great divide in America today and even in all the world? Isn't this difference of opinion what makes some people modern, and others "old-fashioned" and antiquated? Isn't that what all this fighting is really all about, that there is one group of people seeking to contain sexuality in themselves and in others, and another group of people who want to live and experience the lives that we were set upon this earth to live?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

This is what I said:

"To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable."

You still have not replied to my exact words. Instead, you dance around what I said.

If you believe that truth is so important, then why do you keep promoting lies?

That doesn't make sense.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“THIS ISN'T SPECULATION OR RELIGION”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

There is no religious belief or speculation, or opinion. It is raw facts, the conceived is a human person, and those who deny it are blinded by their dispositions.

Statement by PAUL E. ROCKWELL, M.D.:

"Eleven years ago while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured entopic pregnancy (at 8 weeks gestation), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryonic sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet, and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers."

"The "BABY" was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer's stroke…. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost his life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage of life (with blunt extremities etc.)."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

This is what I said:

"To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable."

You still have not replied to my exact words. Instead, you dance around what I said.

If you believe that truth is so important, then why do you keep promoting lies?

That doesn't make sense.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“READ MORE CAREFULLY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 JULY 28, 2009 7:55

IRT:
When I used the term "cafeteria scientist" I was referring to you.

ANS:
Sorry, I am not a scientist, but those that were given you were, and they speak for me.

IRT:
“Individual scientists have a wide range of opinions and feelings on the speculative matters of religion, just like you and me, and everyone else. But that is not the same as "scientific consensus."

ANS:
Who disagrees with them;you? And what difference does it make if anyone does? Isn’t Truth the Truth? This isn’t an opinion or religious belief, or speculation; it is a scientific fact.

You know what facts are don't you, the things liberal live and die by till they the facts contradict them. No credible Microbiologist, Embryologist, or Eugenicist denies the conceived is not a human person. If so, produce them. Whims are not acceptable.

IRT:
“So you may as well stop with this bogus line of argument because it is disingenuous and in bad faith. More and more, you are showing yourself to be a person "of faith" but it is bad faith, meaning, that your primary strategy in arguing is to fool and trick people with arguments that you know are false.

ANS:
What arguments are bogus? They are not my arguments; they are the statements of some of the most eminent and renowned scientists in modern medical history. The bogusness is your inability to accept the truth.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“READ MORE CAREFULLY”
POSTED ON | JULY 28, 2009 12:58 PM

IRT:
This is what I said:
"To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable."
You did not actually reply to that. You did not actually cite any scientist's opinion that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being.
So? Is that what you believe?

ANS:
This is what DR. ALFRED BONGIOVANNI, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, believes, and it was given to you:
"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

This, also given to you, is what Dr. Lejeune said, "Is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person, which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

You were and are now a human, and when you intentionally take an innocent human’s life no matter how small you murder that little guy. Humanity does not depend on quantity or quality; it depends on nature, human nature. We don’t measure how much human you are by your weight, or how long your hair is, or what size your shoes, or the color of your skin, or eyes or hair.

What restraint is their in America to stop this self-destruction of our nation if not the Church reminding man that there is a consequence when you make your world anthropocentric and not theocentric? That’s what Secularism does; that’s what Secularism has done to the Court, and the Court has done to America, and more so to women.

Anyone who impugns human nature impugns all human nature. A woman in Roe v. Wade won the right to have her child murdered. She wasn’t even pregnant. However, fifty million other children were murdered in excruciating forms because of it and God didn't matter. The Court and the American majority saw that murdering a little child for their iniquity was copasetic especially when it wasn’t them being = murdered. But woe to America, woe to Teri Schiavo, look who is coming to the party, Euthanasia?

This is what the Secularists have created; this is what the Court has created for the Secularists. Look at it and read it.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
HUMANITY.
POSTED ON JULY 27, 2009 3:37 PM

IRT:
“To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable. Calling people baby killers simply for their political opinion is to be deliberately insulting and mean, like calling someone fat or ugly.”

ANS:
“The argument that embryos aren't human beings contradicts scientific fact. The widely used medical textbook by Moore and Persaud, "THE DEVELOPING HUMAN: CLINICALLY ORIENTED EMBRYOLOGY" (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1998) states on page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [eggJ and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being... "

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm

Have you ever witnessed or saw what an abortion does? Can you imagine a little child in the womb having some butcher with a currette first cut off its leg, and then another, and an arm, and then another, and then he slits its throat and out comes the little head.

Beverly McMillan: On why she stopped doing abortions: "It got to where I couldn't stand to see the little bodies anymore."

How about this? Can you visualize yourself as a little child being born, your arms flailing, you're crying out with your first breath, and a murderer plunges a surgical scissor into the back of your skull, inserts a vacuum hose, and starts sucking out your brains? Your flailing arms go limp; there is no more cry; the room is cloaked by silence, except the sound of your blood falling chaotically on the floor. You silently scream out, but a callous and impervious nation that has closed its eyes to over 50 million unborn doesn't hear you.

During the third attempt to ban partial birth abortion, four lamebrain Justices on the Supreme Court were debating over how far the child had to be out of the birth canal to be a human person, as if that made it human. They were so blind they couldn’t see a human person was being murdered.

Abortion is a gift of the Secularists who claim to set woman free from the tyranny of Christianity. America see what an abortion is. Abortion is a reality which is so horrific that words alone can never convey its meaning. Try the link below if you have the courage to do so instead of closing your eyes to a nation in the process of committing social suicide.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

This is what I said:

"To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable."

You did not actually reply to that. You did not actually cite any scientist's opinion that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being.

So?

Is that what you believe?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

You wrote, "Heart felt means feeling, and is based on emotions. Feelings are ok, but feelings without reason are madness."

Reason without "feeling, emotion" has brought about some of the most wretched, disgusting, inhumane things on this planet that man has visited upon his fellow man.

God gave us both, we should use both.

You also wrote, "The scientists I am talking about are not fly-by-nights like Global Warming scientist Al Gore in light of record low temperatures and record snowfalls."

I am not sure but I do not think that even Al Gore claims to be a scientist, does he?

Anyway, there is a difference between "climate" and "weather".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

When I used the term "cafeteria scientist" I was referring to you.

Individual scientists have a wide range of opinions and feelings on the speculative matters of religion, just like you and me, and everyone else. But that is not the same as "scientific consensus." So you may as well stop with with this bogus line of argument because it is disingenuous and in bad faith. More and more, you are showing yourself to be a person "of faith" but it is bad faitt, meaning, that your primary strategy in arguing is to fool and trick people with arguments that you know are false.

You are not really in a posiiton to call other people "mad."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
HUMANITY.
POSTED ON JULY 27, 2009 3:37 PM

IRT:
“To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable.”

ANS:
"FATHER OF MODERN GENETICS" DR. JEROME LEJEUNE says, "Each human being is unique Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ...it is plain experimental evidence.

“Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. 'At no time,' Dr. Lejeune said, 'is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person, which you are now. You were, and are, a human being.'"

DR. LANDRUM SHETTLES sometimes called "THE FATHER OF 'IN VITRO FERTILIZATION'":
"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, 'To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.'"

DR. HYMIE GORDON, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic and professor of Medical Genetics: ". . .when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. . .it is an established fact. . .[when] all life, including human life, begins, By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

DR. MICHELINE M. MATHEWS-ROTH, Harvard medical School: Gives confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.”

DR. MCCARTHY DE MERE, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

DR. ALFRED BONGIOVANNI, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine:
"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

DR. RICHARD V. JAYNES:
"To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

PROFESSOR EUGENE DIAMOND: "...either the justices were fed backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

When such renowned Doctors and Scientists claim life begins at conception, who has the credibility to dispute them?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
HUMANITY.
POSTED ON JULY 27, 2009 3:37 PM

IRT:
“My opinions are at least my own, and heartfelt, and do not follow from mental conformity to dogma, or from psychological cohersion, or from being a "cafeteria scientist."

ANS:
Heart felt means feeling, and is based on emotions. Feelings are ok, but feelings without reason are madness. The scientists I am talking about are not fly-by-nights like Global Warming scientist Al Gore in light of record low temperatures and record snowfalls.

Nor am I speaking of scientists like the advocates of Embryo Stem Cell Research (ESCR) who know the embryo is human but murder it anyway. ESCR has been fully funded for ten years in England and they are abandoning it. ESCR advocates say, even if it’s possible, it may be ten to twenty years before any useful benefit may be found. ESCR needs federal money because the private sector knows where the benefits are; they're in "Other Stem Cell Research," and OSCR doesn’t murder human beings.

You may call these scientists cafeteria scientist if you wish, but who are the scientists that you base your feelings on? Feelings without reason is madness.

Cafeteria Scientists?
DR. LEJEUNE of Paris, France. The "Father of Modern Eugenics" was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years.
1. Discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.
2. Receiving the "Kennedy Prize" for the discovery.
3. Received the "Memorial Allen Award Medal," the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.
4. Practiced at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris).
5. A member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science,
6. A member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London,
7. The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm,
8. The Science Academy in Italy,
9. The Science Academy Argentina,
10. The Pontifical Academy of Science 11. 11. The Academy of Medicine in France.

DR. LANDRUM SHETTLES sometimes called "THE FATHER OF 'IN VITRO FERTILIZATION":
DR. HYMIE GORDON, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic and professor of Medical Genetics: ".
DR. MICHELINE M. MATHEWS-ROTH, Harvard medical School.

There are few if any credible scientists in the field of Medicine who will deny this truth, “the conceived is human at conception.”

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

I am expecting a boiler plate, pre-written, and scripted reply from you on this subject. My opinions are at least my own, and heartfelt, and do not follow from mental conformity to dogma, or from psychological cohersion, or from being a "cafeteria scientist."

To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable.

Calling people baby killers simply for their political opinion is to be deliberately insulting and mean, like calling someone fat or ugly.

Seeking to outlaw abortion is to deny the facts of life that when abortion was illegal, many woman and young girls died in the process of procuring illegal abortions performed by hucksters and quacks. It also denies all of human history when women died like flies in complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

I do not think that abortion is a good method for birth control, but there could be better ways to discourage this practice than outlawing it for all cases.
Many religious people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education and birth control. This insistence on blocking all options does not make sense. It is a primitive and backward way of thinking. It is a punitive an authoritarian attitude that just does not fly in the modern world.

Many religios people have become fanatical and hysterical in their opposition to abortion. I beleive this is an appeal to God and to Jesus, to win brownie points for salvation and access to Heaven, without really doing anything. For fanatical opposition to abortion is no more than a political opinion, just as being pro-choice is a political opinion that has nothing to do with baby killing.

A fanatical religious opposition to abortion is the lazy way out; the tears shed for the unborn are easy tears; they are tears of drama, shed for show. Real tears and real grief are much different. I know from my own experience.

I cannot respect the pro-life position, basically for all these reasons, that it does not seem credible, that it denies political and medical reality, and that it is fundamentally disingenuous and promoted in bad faith.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

You wrote about women not being fit for the priesthood because of things not said by Jesus, what about being fit for the diaconate?

Apostle means "one sent", didn't Jesus send Mary Magdalene to those that we refer to as the "original" Apostles?

Doesn't the Catholic Church refer to Mary Magdalene as the "Apostle to the Apostles"?

How come, "Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free ..." seem to be "selectively" applied?

Is the reason for the "male only" because Jesus was a Male?

To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other, what matters is whether God's Plan is for All.

Not to worry, God's Plan is for ALL.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
"It seems not to matter that Jesus also chose no Poles, Germans, Irish or Italians, but that has not stopped them from becoming priests."

ANS:
That’s because priest aren’t chose because of national origin and ethnicity but because they represent a male as head of the family and the Spiritual Father of God’s people. The priest is the prototypes of God the Father and the Son. The priesthood is not based on ethnical and national origin, but based on Gender.

IRT:
“If, as so many church leaders in these two churches assert, a woman is not created in the image of God…”

ANS:
That assumption is false. The Catholic Church does not assert such an absur; thing.

All humanity is created equal in nature, dignity and sacredness. Her defense of human life doesn’t distinguish a male child from a female child, and the Fifth Commandment does just apply to males, that would be a ridiculous assumption. Christianity teaches all men are created equal, not physically but substantially.

IRT:
“…and is thus not fit to represent God before the altar."

ANS:
That's another false assumption. Women represent the Church in the profession of their faith, in the Church's Saints, in the Doctors of the Church, in the Charity of the Church, in its teachings, in its schools, and in the Christian family. Moreover, they are a complement of man, who is a complement of woman. Moreover, the Church has raised a woman as Queen of Heaven and Earth, and Queen of the Church.

IRT:
"...then I wonder what part of the male anatomy bears the divine image, since the bodies of males and females are 99.9% identical. I find that among the more absurd religious claims I have ever encountered."

IRT:
The priest represents Jesus, who is the High Priest of God's Church and is represented as a male. He represents God who is the Father with the Son. The Church exalts a woman as the greatest creature God has ever created; she is the Mother of God.

God the Father made Adam the head of the family. God did not choose women priest from the beginning of His covenant with the Jewish people because the priest of the Jews represented God their Father and Creator and the head of His family, the Jews.

The Orders of Priesthood neither diminishes nor increases the dignity of women. No one has a right to the priesthood that is the prerogative of God given to His Church.

colinnicholas

You wrote this about Spinoza, ""Spinoza's system does have a God but not a provident God conceived in the image of humans."

Neither does the bible, but it does speak of God becoming One of us.

You then wrote, "You need not be in fear of this God because he will never punish you."

No one needs to be in fear (afraid) of God either. If someone would confuse being responsible for one's use of their free will with being afraid of God then I could see how someone would come to this wrong conclusion.

Reading some of the posts from people that "believe" in God brings to mind that saying: God created us in His Image and we have been trying to return the favor ever since.

You also wrote concerning what Spinoza wrote, ""He is one of those who would follow after his own lusts, if he were not restrained by the fear of hell. He abstains from evil actions and fulfills God's commands like a slave against his will; and for his bondage he expects to be rewarded by God with gifts far more to his tastes than Divine love, and great in proportion to his original dislike of virtue.""

Just because some, how many I do not know, seem to approach "Christianity" this way, and I do mean both those that call themself "Christian" and those that don't, does not mean that this is what "Christianity is about.

"Christianity" is "part" of God's Plan and as I have said many times, there are those that don't believe in God that are more "Christian" where it counts than some that believe that Jesus is Who He Is.

I have said it very simple and straight-forward numerous times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
COLINNICHOLAS
“EINSTEIN”
POSTED ON JULY 25, 2009

IRT:
“In a 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind Einstein wrote:
"...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.

For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I GLADLY BELONG and WITH WHOSE MENTALITY I HAVE A DEEP AFFINITY have no different quality for me than all other people.

As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

ANS:
And, Einstein is absolutely right. The Jews who remained Jews refused to complete the Old Covenant, with the New Covenant. Hence, they are no different than any other religious groups. Consequently, Einstein feels no difference from any other religion because there is little difference if any from other religions.

The difference is in the Church God completed the Old Covenant with. Christ came to complete the Old Covenant with The New Covenant. Christianity, through which God poured out on man, all the gifts God gives to man.

The Jews remain in a quagmire; their dilemma is they are waiting on a Redeemer who has already came and left them behind by their own volition.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“GOD AND MAN”
COLINNICHOLAS
POSTED BY: | JULY 25, 2009

IRT
“The world would perhaps be a better place if there were a hundred Gods, but that still doesn't mean that such things exist. We can't just WISH God into existence because we are afraid of being alone. Either he exists or he doesn't. At the very least God is debatable.”

ANS:
No we don’t wish God into existence, and that’s what the Secularists say. However, anything that acts, acts for an end. Human life is an act. Now human life acts for an end. Throughout the history of man, that end has been always for the good. Man always seeks what is good by his very nature.

Even when man destroys himself by choosing evil, and even knowing its evil in a sense, he chooses it because he thinks it is an apparent good. Example: Smoking. Man chooses it because he thinks it is a good, an apparent good. Even when a man commits suicide, he thinks the suicide is better than living even though he knows it is in itself an intrinsic evil, do women who abort their own flesh and bones they have conceived.

No other creature in the Universe has a choice but man, a will, a free will. That will distinguishes man from the whole of the Universe. Life has a purpose, a natural purpose that purpose is to choose the Good. Man cannot escape this destiny. His whole nature, his essence draws him toward the Good. That Good is what he has been created for.

Now, from Metaphysics, man didn’t cause himself, someone did cause him. Since every act has an end, the cause of man was for an end, and that end is Good, the All Good, who caused man and all things. Consequently, man’s end is eternal happiness. Augustine writes, “Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in you."

In Paradise, man becomes the end of the purpose for which he was created, perfect happiness. Scripture tells us there is a God. Our nature tells us this, and the Created Universe tells us this in its order, in its Natural Law, in the effects of the Church's Moral Natural Laws, in the effects of our social order that these laws govern. They tell us that there must be a Law Giver. Order leads us to the Good. True freedom is abounded in order that comes from the One who orders. License brings disorder marked by chaos.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
COLINNICHOLAS
POSTED ON JULY 26, 2009 11:12

IRT:
You can't argue for God just because the world would be a better place if there was one.

ANS:
That’s not the only argument; there’s a multitude of them, viz. cause & effect, motion, self-sufficiency, Prime Mover. Contradict them and you have to contradict your own reason. Every one tries to get around them and ends up in a fix that they cannot get out of

Remember someone called Ringo, the drummer for the Beetles, who claimed they were greater than God? He wanted to find the truth. He felt by meditating with the Far East Buddhist or the like that he would find Truth. He found they didn’t have it. Marx thought he knew what truth was and everyone who followed him committed social suicide. To bad, because the truth was in their own back yard and they couldn't see it. Pilate asked Jesus, "Truth, what is Truth." He was looking at it and couldn't see it.

In a Chaucer tale, three men sought to slay Death after Death slew one of their best friends. All three unwittingly found Death and didn't live to tell about it.

There’s something that’s odd about the Germans, their philosophers. For the most part they live on the Dark Side, in the alternate world, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Darwin, Kant, and the Enlightenment; they deny reality and end up materialists, the antithesis of reality. The problem is they don't just destroy themselves; they take too many people along with their nutty ideas and ideology.

In the end as GK Chesterton once wrote, “God loves you and there’s nothing you can do about it.” But I like what Ms. Magazine editor, Gloria Steinem once said, “The Truth will set you free, but it can also make you mad as hell.” It might be added that the Secularist is no exception.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
COLINNICHOLAS
POSTED ON JULY 26, 2009 11:12

IRT:
You seen panicked. What are you afraid of? You could write comments a mile long in your panic, and their would still be no God when you finish.

ANS:
No panic here, the panic is in the Secularist. Every time they try to outguess God they make things worse than what they were. The “Pill" can be carcinogenic. The Pill was to be the Secularist’s solution for the liberation of women from the antiquated religious suppression of Christianity. It was to set women free, but all it did was to create a need for Abortion.

In effect, the Secularists created the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death. Suicides are on the rise, and the third highest cause of death for youths. Divorce is at an inordinate rate of nearly fifty percent. Some 70 percent of Black Pregnancies are out of wedlock thanks to the Revolution. Prior to "Roe v. Wade" this was unheard of.

Some 55 percent of Black pregnancies end in abortion. Jesse Jackson, until it became politically expedient, called Abortion (the Left’s solution to failed contraceptives) Black Genocide. Some 43 million unborn die per year from Abortion. Can you even imagine how many people that is? It’s some six times the population of New York City dying every year.

The Sexual Revolution has found gay sex to be in vogue. Though homosexuals are only 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the American population, they are 50 percent of America’s STD infected victims and 70 percent of AIDS victims.

The point is that what the Church has taught is truth. Denying the truth has a destructive quality of causing the death of a nation, viz. over 50 million unborn are dead. Never has a nation imploded because it practices the Wisdom and Truths of the Catholic Church, that can't be said for the Secularist.

The practice of Secularism has a graveyard of individuals, societies, nations and civilizations that have committed social suicide by contradicting the Church and her moral principles.

That historical fact is testimony to the Truths of the Church. The authenticity of Her teachings and beliefs is just one of the proofs that there is a God and He is impeccably real, because He is always right.

However, the more the truth hits the secularists between the eyes, it seems the more they deny it, even to the point of death. A nation’s social order’s harmony with human nature is in direct proportion to its accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church’s moral principles.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
“The two largest Christian churches in the world –the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox— still do not count women as fit subjects for ordination. They use strange arguments like Jesus did not choose any women to be his disciples.”

ANS:
“I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”—John Paul II, May 22, 1994.

Women are definitively barred from the service of the altar (cf. Epiphanius, "De hær.” lxxix, 2). St. Paul is a resolute champion of an exclusively male priesthood (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). In this respect there is an essential difference between Christianity and Paganism,

The Catholic Church “holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and Her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church.

"In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."
]
“In fact, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan: Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn. 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" ( 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12).

Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rev 21:14).

TTWSYFAMETC;

You seen panicked. What are you afraid of? You could write comments a mile long in your panic, and their would still be no God when you finish.

You can't argue for God just because the world would be a better place if there was one. The world would perhaps be a better place if there were a hundred Gods, but that still doesn't mean that such things exist.

We can't just WISH God into existence because we are afraid of being alone. Either he exists or he doesn't. At the very least God is debatable.

In a 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind Einstein wrote:

"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

And here's the quote I promised you, where Einstein expresses his frustration at being labelled a believer.

"It was,of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954. from "Albert Einstein; The Human Side" Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman eds.
Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“GOD AND MAN”
COLINNICHOLAS
POSTED BY: | JULY 25, 2009 8:31 PM

IRT:
“HUMAN FANTASY CREATED Gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence the phenomenal world.

ANS:
No, God was not created by human fantasy, but the very essence of man's being cries out for the Good he was created for. Man's Reason and Will punctuate the innate longing for man's perfection, a longing for that which is good, the source of all Good. It is this natural instinct that has harried man’s existence since God created him, a part of man that can never be extinguished, a longing that has marked man since his creation.

Hitler couldn't destroy the Church. Some 3,000 priest were murdered by Hitler in Poland alone. Poland’s belief in God resisted the Nazis, and survived USSR’s occupation.

In the USSR, the Communist tried to extinguish God in the Gulags where 10s of millions died. There were hundreds of churches destroyed, and thousands of priests executed in the 30s. At the arrival of Perestroika, two churches existed, 2 priests were left,

The Secularist cleansing of God from the memories of the Russian people brought the marks of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—Starvation, Pestilence, War and Death,

To remove the memory of God from the USSR, some 2,000 priest were exterminated; hundreds of churches destroyed, On one gulag island, Magadan, 160,000 people were executed in one day. It is said 2,000,000 died there in the prisons. There bodies were not even buried but thrown in the snow where the wild animals tore them apart and ate them. This is the personified evil of secularism when there is no God.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html

There were 1,457,826 live births in Russia 2006. The Russian abortions reported in 2006 were 1,582,398. Russia’s population is less than half of America’s and now so many unborn have died, the Russians have a negative growth rate; they are worried about their population.

Consequently, Russia has made it law that you must be counseled and obtain a certificate to have an abortion. However, Russia had no one to do the counseling.

Consequently, in one gulag island, Magadan the Russian government allows the Catholic Church to counsel women seeking abortions three times a week in the Russian Medical Center there.

In spite of all the suppression to destroy the Church by the Russian Communist, despite the Nazis and Fascist attempts, the Church is growing in Russia, the Orthodox Russian Church is flourishing and multiplying. God is not a fantasy; it is a reality that man seeks God because he is made for God and God is his destiny.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
COLINNICHOLAS
“AN OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT GOD CARRIES BAGGAGE.”
POSTED ON JULY 25, 2009 8:31 PM

IRT:
"That is, if this being is omnipotent then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

ANS:
God is benevolent, all Knowing, and is Omnipotent, all thing exists, exists because he gives them existence because all existence comes from God. However, though God is not only ultimate Love, and ultimate Mercy because God lacks nothing, He is also Justice.

Evil entered into the world and Evil is the lack of Good. Paradise is the completion of Man’s perfection, no potency, nothing lacking. Hell is man lacking perfection for Eternity.

God gives man a free will and he would be unjust to take it from him. Therefore, God permits man to use his free will. God cannot be unjust; that would be a contradiction, and God cannot contradict himself. Therefore, man can choose to be evil or good. He turns from the Good when he choose the evil.

It is aptly explained in great detail in the link below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

IRT:
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God". Albert Einstein. "Out Of My Later Years" p26"

ANS:
Einstein isn’t always right, especially when he’s out of his field of expertise. There can be no conflict of Science and Religion, either the Science is wrong or the Religion is wrong or both are wrong. Science and Religion have the same source, God. God is Truth, all Reality, and Truth cannot contradict Truth. Nothing exist outside of Him.

His Essence is His Existence. He does not exist in time. Consequently, in Scripture, God tells Moses, “I Am Who Am.”

He’s God and we can’t understand these concepts because we don’t experience them, and our intellect doesn’t have the capacity to hold Him. It's like putting the Ocean (his knowledge) in a small glass (our intelligence).

However, we can reason to His existence, and to the reasonability of His attributes, though we can’t understand them. We can reason that God is a personal God, and can back it up from Revelation, Scripture, and Reason.

To finish up today, let me just say that despite my posting quotes from the great man, you obviously didn't read them, or you would have picked up that when he mentions god, he is talking about nature - Spinoza's god, remember? the god who does not answer prayers or even exist, because it's just another name for Mother Nature. Try praying to Mother Nature.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

Why don't you just read what the man himself said. What I posted was verbatim Einstein.

As he got older, it really enraged him that superstitionists kept trying to recruit him for their side. He made many comments regarding this. I'll see if I can dig out a pertinent quote from him. Might have one somewhere.

Also, as you are still confused about Spinoza, why not go to the source. READ Spinoza, or even Anthony Damasio's recent book on the man "Looking for Spinoza" published by Harcourt Inc.

Bios;

you write;

"Guys and gals, Colin and Thomas, even TT, peace and love to you all. Sometimes it just cracks me up to see us all entrenched in our positions, not yielding an inch, endlessly discussing and sometimes even trying convince the other to join us. I hope you also have fun. Good discussions, by the way."

Chuckle away bios, but what we have here is knowledge against superstition. The religionists are entrenched, permanently.
They have nowhere to go, and always say the same things, over and over. They even try to claim Einstein for their own. Whatever works.

Those who care for knowledge over myth may change their views whenever the knowledge allows.But supers are stuck forever in the past.
The supers will lie and cheat and misquote and do whatever it takes to shut down the rationalists. Because it scares them to have their ancient irrational beliefs challenged and their Teddy-Bear god ridiculed.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
COLINNICHOLAS
POSTED BY: JULY 25, 2009 5:49 PM

IRT:
"It's clear that Einstein did not believe in Mr. Baum's God, or any anthropological deity. Like Spinoza he was awed by REALITY and the mystery of it all. That was awesome enough for him, without positing a Teddy Bear God which is for fearful souls, not for curious and brilliant scientists like himself."

ANS:
Only showing what The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein: "FIRMLY DENYING ATHEISM. ' Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." [AS DOES THE CHRISTIAN GOD].

If I am not mistaken, Spinoza ended up becoming Pantheists; Pantheists are nothing more than slightly modified Atheists. However, it appears, Einstein’s God was a little more than an Atheist; He had an Intelligence and Einstein felt God was toying with him a little by just giving him a glimpse of His almighty Omniscience and Omnipotence ever now and then. So maybe God was a little personal to him.

Moreover, Einstein isn't interested in the science of the Universe, but wants to know the thoughts of God. Ever wonder why? A Pantheist normally would not give God any thoughts. Einstein made this profound statement, that man owed some implicit duty to God, respect being one. He apparently believed that not to offer that reverence could be detrimental, viz. God doesn't "play dice."

Consequently, Einstein surmised that Science without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind, viz. they both are contiguous.

You see, Einstein figured it out. We know God from His effects, effects that can't be explained except accepting there has to be a God. Aristotle figured it out even though he never got all the details right. Einstein did the same.

We also know, as Einstein astutely noted, God doesn't play dice. Violate His Natural Law and reap the consequences.

The Court did that and over 50 million unborn are dead by mothers who had their children murdered. Fifty million amounts to over seven times the population of New York City, and more than all the casualties of every war we fought. That makes the deaths of 9/11 seem quite small but no less important.

"Though I have asserted ...that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the CONCEPT of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution - HUMAN FANTASY CREATED GODs in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers, and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent , just and omnibeneficent personal god is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is ACCESSIBLE TO THE MOST UNDEVELOPED MIND. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God".

Albert Einstein. "Out Of My Later Years" p26

IN REPLY TO
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
Male Authority Posing as Divine Authority
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
“The Christian Church has for far too long attempted to perfume sexist discrimination against women under the name of "Bible-based, Sacred Tradition."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

It was the teaching of Christ which first brought freedom to the female sex, wherever this teaching was seriously taken as the guide of life. His words applied as well to women: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Luke 12:31).

He restored the original life-long monogamous marriage, raised it to the dignity of a sacrament, and also improved the position for woman in purely earthly matters.

The most complete personal duality is expressed in the Apostolic exhortation: "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ . . . there is neither male nor female. For ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:11).

Most decisive, however, for the social position of woman was the teaching of Christ on the nobility of freely chosen virginity as contrasted with marriage, to the embracing of which the chosen of both sexes are invited (Matthew 19:29).

According to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:25-40) the virgins and widows do well if they persist in the intention not to marry in order to serve God with undivided mind; they indeed do better than those who must divide their attention between care for the husband and the service of God.

By this doctrine the female sex in particular was placed in an independence of man unthought-of before. It granted the unmarried woman value and importance without man; and what is more the virgin who renounces marriage from religious motives, acquires precedence above the married woman and enlarges the circle of her motherly influence upon society. Elisabeth Gnauck-Kühne says truly: "The esteem of virginity is the true emancipation of woman in the literal sense".

IN REPLY TO
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
Male Authority Posing as Divine Authority
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
“The Christian Church has for far too long attempted to perfume sexist discrimination against women under the name of "Bible-based, Sacred Tradition."

ANS:
Christianity restored the dignity to woman at the arrival of Christ. The Secular world with out the precepts of the One True God has wreaked havoc on the sanctity of woman.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

“The same principle lies at the basis of the code of laws given by Hammurabi, which gives the social conditions in Babylon in the third millennium before Christ. The voluptuous cult, which spread from Babel-Assur and which through Phoenician influence poisoned the ancient world, had a particularly injurious effect upon the position of woman.

There was no question of the personal rights of woman apart from man either here or among the Persians who were otherwise different in race and customs, even though at times women such as Parysatis, the wife of Darius II, attained great influence over the government of the country.

Up to the present time woman's position has remained the same in the ancient civilized countries of eastern Asia, as in India, China, and Japan, or it has become even more degraded.

Zimmermann, who was well acquainted with conditions in India, stated in 1908: "One of the most terrible abuses is the systematical degradation of the female sex which begins even in early youth" ("Historisch-politische Blätter, CXLII, 371). In 1907 99.3 per cent of the women of India could not read or write. Hindu widows, especially, are exposed to contempt and ill-treatment.

In China the position of woman, owing to the respect shown to mothers or widows, makes a better impression. But, at the same time, woman is branded as a second-rate human being from birth to death.

The horrible custom of destroying new-born girls has consequently persisted up to the present time, as is proved by the reform decree issued in 1907 by the viceroy of that time, Juanschikai.

According to this, some 70,000 girls are annually killed in the Province of Kiangsi. The binding of the feet is in reality only a means to keep the women at home. The absolute dependence of the wife upon the husband was also maintained as an unyielding custom in old Japan until the late reorganization, as is proved by the "Onna Daigaku" of Kaibara Ekken (1630)

Guys and gals, Colin and Thomas, even TT, peace and love to you all. Sometimes it just cracks me up to see us all entrenched in our positions, not yielding an inch, endlessly discussing and sometimes even trying convince the other to join us. I hope you also have fun. Good discussions, by the way.

Albert Einstein;

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.
He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle. It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense - and in this alone - I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Einstein."The World As I See It". pp

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar."

Albert Einstein from "Einstein; The Life and Times".

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich Dec 17,1952.
Einstein Archive 59-797,from "The Expanded Quotable Einstein" p.217

It's clear that Einstein did not believe in Mr Baum's God, or any anthropological deity. Like Spinoza he was awed by REALITY and the mystery of it all. That was awesome enough for him, without positing a Teddy Bear God which is for fearful souls, not for curious and brilliant scientists like himself.

: TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2;

Interesting comments. But Einstein did not believe in a Personal God. Here is a good description of Spinoza'a God, which is what Einstein also believed.

"Spinoza's system does have a God but not a provident God conceived in the image of humans. God is the origin of all there is before our senses, and it IS all there is, an uncaused and eternal substance with infinite attributes. For practical purposes God is nature and is most clearly manifest in living creatures. This is captured in a often quoted Spinozism, the expression 'Deus sive Natura" - God or Nature. God has not revealed himself to humans in the ways portrayed in the Bible. You cannot pray to Spinoza's God.

You need not be in fear of this God because he will never punish you. Nor should you work hard in the hope of getting rewards from him because none will come. The only thing you may fear is your own behaviour. When you are less than kind to others, you punish yourself there and then, and deny yourself the opportunity to achieve inner peace and happiness. there and then. When you are loving to others there is a good chance of achieving inner peace and happiness there and then. Thus a person's actions should not be aimed at pleasing God, but rather at acting in conformity with the nature of God. When you do so, some kind of happiness results, and some kind of salvation is achieved. Now, Spinoza's salvation - salus - is about repeated occasions of a kind of happiness that cumulatively make for a healthy mental condition.

Spinoza rejected the notion that the prospect of after-death rewards or punishments was a proper incentive for ethical behavior. In a telling letter he lamented that man is so guided; "He is one of those who would follow after his own lusts, if he were not restrained by the fear of hell. He abstains from evil actions and fulfills God's commands like a slave against his will; and for his bondage he expects to be rewarded by God with gifts far more to his tastes than Divine love, and great in proportion to his original dislike of virtue."

"Looking For Spinoza" by Antonio Damasio. p273

Why was Einstein's opinion relatative? He penatrated into the mystries of the Universe where no one had been before and found its awsomeness had to come from God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html Posted by flies[/QUOTE]

ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955)
“Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."

"I want to know how God created this world; I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice."

To him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein once said a scientist who didn’t believe God created the world was brain

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior, a spirit who reveals himself in the slight details in which we are able to perceive Him with our frail and feeble mind.

A deeply emotion conviction of a superior reasoning power, in an incomprehensible universe forms my idea of God.

“To know a God, which is impenetrable to us, really exist, showing itself as the highest wisdom and most shining radiant beauty in a limited way, that which is intelligible to our dull and limited faculties that can only comprehend Him in a limited way. This knowledge is the center or all true religion

“The most beautiful, the most profound the most emotional experience is the mystical. This experience is the center of all true art and science. HE TO WHOM EMOTION IS A STRANGER AND CAN NO LONGER PAUSE TO WONDER AND STAND RAPTED IN AWE IS AS GOOD AS DEAD

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions.”

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us.

“Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty,"

TTWSYFAMD and so on etc., America has always expanded its murdering to the third world, including its own natives. That's how it became the greatest empire, not "one of the greatest nations the world has ever known." It may well be about to become irrelevant, and it's about time. Time for it to get over this horsepoop about being numero uno and join the rest of the world. Just this morning I read a press release from Raytheon about how they're making missiles that can be fired from launchers about the size of a port o potty. What a great thing for America! Until the Mexicans start making them too. What will happen when the Pakistani Taliban figure out how to intercept Predator signals and turn them around? When are you going to learn?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
"THE IRREVELANT"
JOHN SHELBY SPONG |
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

“The biblical ‘headship’ argument is used to continue the denigration of women as if that text were relevant to anything.

ANS:
Those who found Scripture and the Church God irrelevant have also found themselves irrelevant in the end. Between 26 to 35,000 Christian denominations have decided God's designated interpreters were irrelevant also.

You might try gleaning a lesson from the former USSR under Stalin who thought Christianity was irrelevant and murdered some sixty million people.

From Mao, we also learn God was irrelevant. Both thought Christianity to be the opium of the masses, a delusion that was irrelevant. It followed that some 60 million murdered Chinese people became irrelevant.

And, the beat goes on with the disposal of the irrelevant personified by Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam, and presently bin Laden who all thought they were God.

In the same traditional recklessness, the Supreme Court has thrown out the fundamental principles of America's moral basis for Civil Law, the Commandments, and have banned the Scripture from the Public Square.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court ruled that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State and were irrelevant as a basis for Civil Law.

Fortunately, before, the Scriptures and their author, God. were relevant for the moral understructure that our nation was founded on. It’s because of these very moral principles that the troglodytes and barbarians were able to survive in America.

Christian Morality was tolerant of the dissidents despite their despicableness. As did the Fascist, Communists, and Socialist that destroyed their societies, we are attempting to destroy our own.

Unfortunately, America is now abandoning these very principles, found in the Scriptures that made America one of the greatest nations in human history. However, it has been very unfortunate for the some 50 million unborn the Secularist have managed to exterminate.

Our Apocalyptic Court has legalized the murder of some 50 million unborn and counting, who are also irrelevant to the Secularists and are now progressing to rain down on millions of embryos in the proliferation of their prodigious arrogance that they are God the author of life, not the Creator who made them.

Unfortunately, we have elected another social terrorist who is another protector of women’s rights, viz. the rights to have their own unborn murdered. He’s even expanding the murders to the Third World.

colinnicholas

You wrote about some people and what their opinions concerning God are.

Seems as if none of these people have met God or believe that God is Real.

The quote that you wrote and attributed to Einstein was, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept
which I cannot take seriously.
I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death
or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar."
Albert Einstein from "Einstein; The Life and Times".p.622"

As he pointed out, "I cannot prove to you that there is no God", seems as if in this statement, Einstein is pointing out that something of this sort is out of the province of science, isn't he?

Even tho I have already said this, I will repeat it: I cannot prove that God is Real but God Will in due time, God's Time.

You wrote, "They carry more weight than my own anonymous opinion."

Why should their "opinion" carry any more weight than anybody else's?

When someone discovers facts, scientifically speaking, it is not about "opinion", is it?

You then wrote, "Even if I were religious I would want to know what greater minds than mine thought about the existence of gods and other paranormal thingies."

I do not consider myself "religious" or "spiritual" in a lot of the ways that people use these terms, meeting God is much different that hearing or reading about other people's "thoughts" about God, especially considering that some of those that believe in God do not know didly about God even some of those that know God's Name.

You then wrote, " because nobody can be certain about the unknown,"

Are you certain of that?

What if the "unknown", so to speak, makes Himself know?

You then wrote, "You write "By the way, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think that He is."
I say what a ridiculous comment. "God is not an egomaniac". IF THERE WAS A GOD HE'D HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE AN EGOMANIAC. God is whatever you want him to be. He's YOUR imaginary friend not mine.""

I was stating a fact and you are stating your "preconceived notion" of God.

I happen to believe that "intelligence" and "knowledge" are neutral in that they can be used for good or bad, in and of themself they are neither.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG |
POSTED ON JULY 21, 2009; 12:19 PM ET

IRT:
"The two largest Christian churches in the world - the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox - still do not count women as fit subjects for ordination."

ANS:
“The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful."

Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis.”

Hence, a woman cannot be a representative of Christ. “(virtute ac persona ipsius Christi). Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ."

The Jews broke with their tradition by allowing females to be Rabbis, but they also broke with the traditions of the coming of the Savior and rejected Him who is the Christis Capitis, their Spiritual Father, and Head of the Priesthood.

"Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.” Again the priest imitates the Heavenly Father.

The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a "sacred power" which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all."

Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.

The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return.

The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You wrote:

"I know that God Is because I have met God."

I ran into god today at Starbucks, and he said that he has never met you, and that he has no idea who you are.

"God let me know that I am to speak, so I speak and since I am a human then it should be to humanity that I should speak."

He also said that you have no business speaking for him, and that he wishes that you would just shut up.

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

TBaum.

OK Thomas, I just read the whole of your comment. I'll try to respond.

The quotes in my last post were examples of brilliant men who see no gods, and believe that the bible and its theology are untrue. They carry more weight than my own anonymous opinion. Even if I were religious I would want to know what greater minds than mine thought about the existence of gods and other paranormal thingies.
The trouble with most religious folk is that they are so certain - where wise men doubt. It's the certainty that reveals the delusion, because nobody can be certain about the unknown, and there is no rational justification for believing in paranormal entities. And to be certain is not smart. To be curious is cool, and exciting, and is how we learn.

You ask;

"What is so "arrogant" about meeting God and telling others"?

I say - because there is no God except in your head. 'Prove' me wrong.

You say -"You seem to have it somewhat backwards, God is the One who let me know that He is aware of me."

I say again there is no God except in your head. Try demonstrating the reality of your God. You cannot, because he is your imaginary friend. Prove me wrong.

You write "By the way, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think that He is."

I say what a ridiculous comment. "God is not an egomaniac". IF THERE WAS A GOD HE'D HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE AN EGOMANIAC. God is whatever you want him to be. He's YOUR imaginary friend not mine.

You say - "Making a "claim" does not mean that it is true, even have a majority making a claim does not mean that it is true."

I say yes - finally we agree on something.

Religion makes the claim that there is a SkyGod, and the majority believes it but that does not mean it is true. Yes. We finally agree on something. Thank you.

TBAUM;

Your posts are too silly for words.

Learn a little by pondering the words of some of our brightest and best.

Mark Twain said of the Wholly Babble;

"The bible is full of interest, it has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables,
and some blood drenched history, and some good morals, and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

And Thomas Paine said this about theology;

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing. It is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing, It proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."

Thomas Paine. 1737-1809; American Revolutionary hero, from "The Age of Reason."

And HLMencken wrote that "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."

And Lincoln wrote;

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation, and the human origin of the scriptures,have become
clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

Steinmetz had this to say;

"In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical conceptions, as God, immortality, etc. thus have failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind as distinct from the body."

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Scientist and Inventor. in "American Freeman"

From Feynmen;

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from god, you don't need him anymore."

Richard Feynmen. Physicist.

Einstein said;

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept
which I cannot take seriously.
I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death
or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar."
Albert Einstein from "Einstein; The Life and Times".p.622

I have to confess I wasn't able to finish reading your comments. I can only take so much.

colinnicholas

You wrote, "The arrogance is all yours: YOU ARE the one claiming beyond reason and common sense that there exists a great SkyGod, who is known to you personally."

What is so "arrogant" about meeting God and telling others?

You then wrote, "How positively egotistical of you - not to mention delusional to persuade yourself that the creator of the universe is aware of little old insignificant you."

You seem to have it somewhat backwards, God is the One who let me know that He is aware of me.

You then wrote, "And it wasn't that long ago on these threads that I ridiculed your outrageously egotistical habit of addressing your comments "To Humanity"."

God let me know that I am to speak, so I speak and since I am a human then it should be to humanity that I should speak.

You then wrote, "What an Ego when you think that "Humanity" reads your delusional drivel."

Maybe it would be "Ego" if I were speaking for and about myself but I am speaking for God even tho I do mention some of the things that have happened to me.

By the way, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think that He is.

You then wrote, "Ask any scientist or normal person whether they disagree with my claim that "as far as we know" there are no gods?"

Making a "claim" does not mean that it is true, even have a majority making a claim does not mean that it is true, as I have said God will verify the fact that I have met Him and that He is Real.

You mention that you think that I am "delusional", the truth of the matter is that I have met God or I am delusional, time and God will provide the answer to that.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Bios

You wrote, "Hi Thomas,
I think Colin is right, we have no knowledge of god, it’s only words. You told me about your encounter and I understand that's what you believe, but it’s still only words. For this to be considered a fact don’t you think that it should be verifiable many times by different people?

No, what is true is true whether anyone else believes it or if it is even "verifiable" many times by different people.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

counterww;

I missed this little gem of yours;

"You remind me of what could exist someday- when people like you will come to get people like us and put us in institutions because we don't think or feel like you."

me;

Whow, how about that? You have it backwards. Not that many years ago people like you jailed and tortured people like me to recant, and burned alive those of us who would not recant. And you are scared of Atheists? Its religionists like you that are scary. It must really irk you that you can no longer torture folks like me, you just have to put up with us, we are a growing trend and burnings are now against the law.

Counterww

Atheists are former believers who have rejected the superstitions of their parents and community because they no longer make sense. Once upon a time - as children - we all believed the stories they told us, but we grew up, and looked around, and realized it was all nonsense made up by people long ago in the depths of history and darkness,and ignorance; and passed down through the ages generation after generation into the 21st century.

Two or three hundred years ago I would have been a believer with no access to a greater knowledge. I would have had no option but to believe. But times change and a greater knowledge is now available to us, and we no longer have to believe in fairy stories.

Einstein for instance is on record as saying that popular religion's god belief is naive. Think about that. The greatest thinker (and searcher for truth) of the 20th century dismisses religion as naive.

Who should I be more influenced by? You and Mr.Baum or Albert Einstein? It is no contest. I listen to Einstein and intellectual others, who understand the ignorance out of which came religious superstition.

Try reading any of the books I mentioned in my previous post to Mr.Baum. Or are you scared to examine other broader ideas in case you lose your faith? Trust me, losing your faith would be liberating and exciting. You would become intellectually curious and excited at the brave new world your eyes would see, uncluttered by superstition and ancient gods.

The ancients knew nothing, and gods were invented by all early superstitious groups out of fear and ignorance. They had gods for everything. Sun-gods, tree-gods, wind-gods, cloud-gods, water-gods. If it moved then god moved it. Logical right? Well, the ancients thought so, but we don't. All things can be better explained and understood without making up gods to account for everything. The modern mind prefers truth to irrational dogma, and truth is available now, and we call it science. Science was not available to our ancestors, which is why they got it all wrong.

Basically Colin YOU are the elitist and arrogant one. YOU have rejected God's existence and have defined the criteria in your own little mind what constitutes rationality . YOU quote and read arrogant people like Sagan and Dawkins that are some of the most arrogant people I have ever seen.
YOU in your little mind define what is normal and not normal, or what is truth and not truth.

Actually the most curious people on earth to most of us that know God exists in our hearts is the radical, bitter atheists like yourself that think they know it all and therefore know that God does not exist. You remind me of what could exist someday- when people like you will come to get people like us and put us in institutions because we don't think or feel like you. People like you scare me due to your own irrational beliefs and your propensity to criticize good ,upstanding Christians and believers that have probably contributed to society in a much more meaningful way then you could even think of. You have an awfully big chip on your shoulder, that is for sure.

Mr Baum;

you say (quoting me);

"As far as "we have no knowledge of", isn't this sheer arrogance on your part to be speaking for all of mankind?

"Not only is it "arrogant", it is untrue because I for one have "knowledge" of God and I will not speak for others but there probably are others that have "knowledge" of God."

me;

The arrogance is all yours: YOU ARE the one claiming beyond reason and common sense that there exists a great SkyGod, who is known to you personally. How positively egotistical of you - not to mention delusional to persuade yourself that the creator of the universe is aware of little old insignificant you.

And it wasn't that long ago on these threads that I ridiculed your outrageously egotistical habit of addressing your comments "To Humanity". What an Ego when you think that "Humanity" reads your delusional drivel.That was when I used to post under the name YoYo. I addressed some of my comments to Humanity too, mocking you, suggesting that Humanity here means five or six old folks. You are the most delusional of posters and one who I normally scroll on by.

Ask any scientist or normal person whether they disagree with my claim that "as far as we know" there are no gods? This is truth as we know it. There is no REASON to believe gods exist. No evidence. And the fact that you think you chat to the Skygod does not mean that there is one. It means that you should get some counseling, or at least put the bible away and read some really interesting books that will positively open your eyes and thrill and educate you.
"God;The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.
"Varieties of Scientific Experience" by Carl Sagan.
"Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell.
"The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.
"In Defence of Atheism" by Michel Onfray
"Breaking The Spell" by Danial Dennett.

But religious folk are not the most curious people in the world, and I imagine you have no desire to search for actual truth, preferring your safe and cuddly fantasy life with your Teddy Bear God, and dream of immortality. It's the biggest scam of them all, keeps the Church wealthy, and totally irrational.

What’s all this fuzz about Spong’s christianity?? If he is-isn’t, so what? Are we discussing labels?

Hi Thomas,
I think Colin is right, we have no knowledge of god, it’s only words. You told me about your encounter and I understand that's what you believe, but it’s still only words. For this to be considered a fact don’t you think that it should be verifiable many times by different people?

colinnicholas

You wrote, "In a perfect world we would allow our children to grow and develop without religious programs, and we would stop lying to them about gods and other things that we have no knowledge of."

Isn't this what they attempted to do in the USSR?

As far as "we have no knowledge of", isn't this sheer arrogance on your part to be speaking for all of mankind?

Not only is it "arrogant", it is untrue because I for one have "knowledge" of God and I will not speak for others but there probably are others that have "knowledge" of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

smitisan;

Interesting comments

"The most common of all follies," wrote H.L.Mencken, "is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

Steven Pinker, the Harvard professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences - "wonders how religion fits into a mind that one might have thought was designed to reject the palpably not true?" (in his book "How The Mind Works").
The answer seems to be that children's minds are totally vulnerable to the installation of religious programs, and once installed can be impossible to uninstall. Get them when they are young enough - and they can be made to believe anything, no matter how unlikely or how irrational.If the local community groupthink accords with the program - then the child becomes a man who believes the palpably not true - for ever. (And sometimes even when the groupthink is different).

This explains how Muslims become Muslim, Mormons become Mormons, Catholics become Catholics, and Evangelicals become Evangelicals.

In a perfect world we would allow our children to grow and develop without religious programs, and we would stop lying to them about gods and other things that we have no knowledge of.

jkarn

You wrote, "We don't know God entirely, and don't even know to a certainty that there is a God."

I know that God Is because I have met God.

As far as not knowing God entirely, I would like to say that we can "know God entirely" yet not know everything about God.

The reason that I say this is because God Is Love, Love is God's Very Being.

I guess that this could be one of those "paradox" things.

You also wrote, "The "greatest of these is love" not dogma."

Not only that but Love trumps belief also, so to speak.

Some people speak of three virtues: Faith, Hope and Love. It is written that Faith and Hope will pass away but only Love will remain.

Faith will pass away because everyone will know. Hope will pass away because with the Fruition of God's Plan, Hope will be fulfilled. Love will remain because God is Love.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I have a pastor friend who once said to me that to know the essence of Christianity one had only to read "the red letters." All the rest are details open for discussion. I am afraid he was right.Jesus said many things that are inconvenient truths for Christians including Saint Paul. For all Saint Paul's rantings about women covering their heads in churh, being submissive to their husbands and not holding teaching positions of authority in the church, there is one, unimpeachable rebutttal.Jesus said that in heaven there is neither male nor female.

Cheez, when are people going to realize that love of God, spouse and family IS love of one's self? What is family if not a projection of oneself? What is a spouse if not a reflection of oneself? And even God is the voice in your head that tells you how right you are, especially when your self righteousness can be bolstered by pointing to books and tradition. As to this argument about who's a Christian, I suspect if you put fifty Christians in a room you'd end up with forty-nine denominations and one crucifixion. Has anyone ever been Christian enough to satisfy you? Seriously, ask yourself, if you dare. All this business of running off to convert the heathen is just a way of hiding from your own SELF-ishness. Why else would you bomb a country to bits or ruin its homegrown economy in the name of bringing it democracy and/or capitalism, and then say it's all good because you're doing such a great job of looking after the orphans you made? Yank that beam out of your eyes and get pver yourselves.

Two sound off makes a good point, and so does Mr baum.

Only God can judge a man's heart.

However, the probability that Spong is really a Christian is very low.

If someone came to you and said he /she were a marxist, but illustrated he believed in capitalism, private property, etc in his actions and writings, you would say he was not marxist.

Spong rejects most of what the Christian writers promoted as basic Christian doctrine and beliefs. So it is easy to conclude he is not a Christian. At least not in the traditional sense of what a Christian is .

As for submission, the Paul says we are to submit to one another - and that men are to love their wife like Christ does the church. Paul, and Jesus set the model up for a successful family that promotes stable societies- where self interest is given up and the love for God and spouse, and family come first, not self.

As for others on this particular forum, it is up to Christians to speak to the truth of the gospel and what Jesus did for us on the cross and his resurrection etc. It is part of the great commission. If you don't want to hear it stay away from forums like this one.

"Some roles are given only to men just as some are given only to women. Paul makes this argument time and again throughout his letters."

Well, Two, it sure is interesting how the roles the men got were the ones that lead to power, wealth, and dominance, while the roles dished out to the women were drudgery, submission, and more drudgery.

As for Paul, just because he said something over and over doesn't make it true.

As TWOSOUNDSOFF indicates, Christians do not know better than God, and as was suggested by a respondent, we are not God. We are thus fallible. Therefore, all of us, including Christians, should have the personal courage and humility to admit that personal belief does not make something truth. We don't know God entirely, and don't even know to a certainty that there is a God.

If we do believe in God, the closest we can get to honesty and truth is to admit that "I don't know for certain, but I choose to believe that what I have seen, heard, smelled, touched, thought and felt is evidence enough that there is a God. Therefore I choose to believe in God."

Each of us is allowed to believe what we believe, and each of us has the responsibility to be honest with ourselves and others.

Humility and responsibility suggest respect, understanding and compassion. The "greatest of these is love" not dogma.

Two-

Any deity that wished me to be submissive in my relationship to my husband should have made sure that I was born with a submissive personality.

I cannot believe that any deity worth worshipping would have given over-riding authority to half the beings who worship it based solely on their dangly parts.

Dear Twosoundoff

You can say whatever you want, but you are not the one who decides who is and is not a Christian.

You do not speak for God. You do not tell me what God says, or wants, or believes. You do not quote the bible to me.

Stick to your Sunday school class, full of people like yourself. Tell the "truth" to yourselves and each other.

twsoundsoff

You wrote, "Additionally, Spong is not a Christian. For proof see here:"

Questions:

Is being a "Christian" believing the right "dogma" and this and only this is what makes one a "Christian"?

Is being a "Christian" taking Jesus up on His Invitation to "Come follow Me"?

Is being a "Christian" following Jesus even if one does not even realize that they are following Him?

Is being a "Christian" following Jesus for the "right" reasons?

Is being a "Christian" following Jesus even if others may think that one does not have the "right" reasons?

Is being a "Christian" telling everyone else what "rules and/or beliefs" one must have to be a "Christian"?

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

No matter what "label" one applies to oneself, God still looks at the person.

God is God and we're not, thank God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

For Christians, this issue is only one about equality if Man's foolish pride comes into play. The Bible clearly defines what roles men and women are to fulfill respectively. God see's these roles as being completely equal in importance as He is the one who instituted them. However, that does not mean that men and women are to fulfill the same roles. Some roles are given only to men just as some are given only to women. Paul makes this argument time and again throughout his letters.
All Christians believe every human being is equally made in God's image and is as such worthy of respect. All Christians believe that all Christians are fully equal in Christ. This has never been indispute except in those fringe groups wrongfully calling themselves Christian.
However, this equality does not mean the roles are the same. And one can only call the roles God has given to women degrading or less than mens if they are viewing them from a human point of view and not as God sees them. And those that do this are essentially looking God in the face and declaring "You're not judging these roles correctly, let me correct you on that...because I know better than you do."
I suggest this is not the proper route to take with God.

Additionally, Spong is not a Christian. For proof see here: http://ow.ly/hQ6B