Doctors Are Not Gods

hay http://www.mixx.com/users/acotas ">buy louis replica vuitton 68915 http://www.mixx.com/users/adahy ">cerises louis vuitton replica 2925

hi great site 10x http://www.mixx.com/users/adoeete ">designer replica purse loius vuitton 31413 http://www.mixx.com/users/adohi ">inexpensive louis vuitton replica =-P

hello everybody! http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton replica szcve http://www.mixx.com/users/adahy ">clearance louis vuitton replica 3761

good post man thx http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton murakami replica qpkib http://www.mixx.com/users/adohi ">louis vuitton man wallet replica :OO

cool post dude http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 270 mg ltm http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">buy meridia =)))

interesting post thx http://aponi.u.yuku.com/propecia ">generic propecia 8D http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">meridia addiction izfzs

i say one thing http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 105 mg =-DDD http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">buy meridia online 158

interesting site man http://slavok.u.yuku.com/ ">order lipitor =]]

interesting site man http://slavok.u.yuku.com/ ">order lipitor =]]

see this thanks http://slavok.u.yuku.com/ ">purchase lipitor =)

hay http://pashly.u.yuku.com/ ">ativan addiction 8OO

it's nice site http://kasian.u.yuku.com/ ">ambien pills %[[

interesting site man http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">ephedrine products %]]]

hello everybody! http://umberto.u.yuku.com/ ">adipex pills qdos

it's nice site http://umberto.u.yuku.com/ ">generic adipex >:P

interesting site man http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">cheap ambien zbxqcw

i say one thing http://us.cyworld.com/fijyrald ">cheap phendimetrazine =-(((

sweet site thx http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex diet pills =-]]] http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">buy ambien online ijxbd

good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">order adipex wxj

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/patriks ">meridia addiction 32619

it's nice site http://us.cyworld.com/patriks ">purchase meridia 903916

cool post dude http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex online 130

jZLd2c hi! hice site!

KNaDHH hi! hice site!

u5mmN1 hi! hice site!

ISBTos hi! hice site!

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-catalogue ">louis vuitton catalogue http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-upholstery ">luis vuitton upholstery

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/aumoniere-louis-vuitton-replica ">aumoniere louis vuitton replica http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-wallet ">louie vuitton wallet

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bindi ">louis vuitton bindi http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-epi-leather-verseau-handbag-in-black ">louis vuitton epi leather verseau handbag in black

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mason-san-francisco-store ">louis vuitton mason san francisco store http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bags ">louis vuitton bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-epi-white-leather-speedy-25-replica ">louis vuitton epi white leather speedy 25 replica http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/special-edition-luis-vuitton-handbag ">special edition luis vuitton handbag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-duderanch-bag ">loius vuitton duderanch bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-waist-pouch ">louis vuitton waist pouch

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-wholesale-a ">louis vuitton wholesale a http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-diaper-bags ">louis vuitton diaper bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-speedy-25-discount ">authentic louis vuitton speedy 25 discount http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockotrays ">louis vuitton knockotrays

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/gueniune-louis-vuitton ">gueniune louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-polo-shirts ">louis vuitton polo shirts

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louiis-vuitton ">louiis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fuschia-perfo ">louis vuitton fuschia perfo

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/wwwlouis-vuitton ">wwwlouis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ludlow-bags ">louis vuitton ludlow bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-shoes ">louis vuitton replica shoes http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/fake-lui-vuitton ">fake lui vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-vuitton-handbag ">replica vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/vuitton-montorgueil-gm ">vuitton montorgueil gm

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-louis-vuitton-cell-mobile-phone-case ">replica louis vuitton cell mobile phone case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/knock-off-louis-vuitton-shoes ">knock off louis vuitton shoes

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton ">loius vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-richard-prince-bag ">louis vuitton richard prince bag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/richard-prince-monogram-jokes-lois-vuitton-shopper ">richard prince monogram jokes lois vuitton shopper http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-special-edition-handbag ">luis vuitton special edition handbag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/cheap-replica-louis-vuitton-handbag ">cheap replica louis vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-have-an-out ">louis vuitton have an out

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-houston-purse ">louis vuitton houston purse http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-cube ">louis vuitton cube

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockoff ">louis vuitton knockoff http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mini-speedy ">louis vuitton mini speedy

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbags-discounted ">louis vuitton handbags discounted http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/la-vuitton ">la vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-spot-a-fake-louis-vuitton-manhattan-gm ">how to spot a fake louis vuitton manhattan gm http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-hat ">loius vuitton hat

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-inclusion ">louis vuitton inclusion http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-purse-factory-in-france ">louis vuitton purse factory in france

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/designer-louis-replica-vuitton ">designer louis replica vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-gibierce ">vuitton gibierce

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-picnic-blanket ">vuitton picnic blanket http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bal-harbour ">louis vuitton bal harbour

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/cheap-imitation-louis-vuitton ">cheap imitation louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-tell-if-louis-vuitton-bag-is-real ">how to tell if louis vuitton bag is real

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/is-it-a-real-louis-vuitton ">is it a real louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbag-book-catalog ">louis vuitton handbag book catalog

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-straps ">louis vuitton straps http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-receipts ">louis vuitton fake receipts

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/loui-s-vuitton-furniture ">loui s vuitton furniture http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/aaa-handbag-louis-replica-vuitton ">aaa handbag louis replica vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/replica-louis-vuitton-hair-cubes ">replica louis vuitton hair cubes http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/when-did-louis-vuitton-become-popular ">when did louis vuitton become popular

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/black-gold-louis-vuitton-script-wallet ">black gold louis vuitton script wallet http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-petite-noe ">louis vuitton petite noe

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-sneaker ">louis vuitton sneaker http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/canada-in-louis-replica-sold-vuitton ">canada in louis replica sold vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-edmonton ">louis vuitton edmonton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-watches ">louis vuitton watches

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/where-is-the-date-code-found-inside-of-louis-vuitton-cabas ">where is the date code found inside of louis vuitton cabas http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-monogramouflage ">louis vuitton monogramouflage

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-high-quality-tories ">louis vuitton high quality tories http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/rainbow-louis-murakami-vuitton-handbags ">rainbow louis murakami vuitton handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-high-quality-tories ">louis vuitton high quality tories http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/rainbow-louis-murakami-vuitton-handbags ">rainbow louis murakami vuitton handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

omega seamaster replica watches
brietling replica watches

omega seamaster replica watches
brietling replica watches

omega seamaster replica watches
brietling replica watches

high end replica watches
audemars piguet replica watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

replica watches store
replica rolex watches for sale
baume mercier replica watches

replica watches store
replica rolex watches for sale
baume mercier replica watches

replica watches store
replica rolex watches for sale
baume mercier replica watches

replica watches store
replica rolex watches for sale
baume mercier replica watches

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

swiss replica watches
breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

swiss replica watches
breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

best louis vuitton replica
best handbag louis replica vuitton
buy louis replica vuitton

best louis vuitton replica
best handbag louis replica vuitton
buy louis replica vuitton

8MGB0Q wholesale replica watches

panerai replica watches
replica designer watches

6wWjjy cartier replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches

baEQwT tag heuer replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches

dp5RFF breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

dp5RFF breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

dp5RFF breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

dp5RFF breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

dp5RFF breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

60EoAU replica jacob watches

tag heuer replica watches
swiss replica rolex watches

Tbawx3 swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

Tbawx3 swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

Tbawx3 swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

Tbawx3 swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

Tbawx3 swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone wpyzvi

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone wpyzvi

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone wpyzvi

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone wpyzvi

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone wpyzvi

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone suncom phone 8147

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone suncom phone 8147

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone suncom phone 8147

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone suncom phone 8147

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone suncom phone 8147

hay http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ex ">free nextel ringtone i730 kfz

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone =-O

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone =-O

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone =-O

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone =-O

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone =-O

please look at this http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-dx ">free mp3 ringtone converter =-))

please look at this http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-dx ">free mp3 ringtone converter =-))

good post man thx http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-bx ">free funny mp3 ringtones lfa

good post man thx http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-bx ">free funny mp3 ringtones lfa

good post man thx http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-bx ">free funny mp3 ringtones lfa

see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phones ringtones otgok

see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phones ringtones otgok

see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phones ringtones otgok

see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phones ringtones otgok

see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phones ringtones otgok

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">tickets banknorth garden boston >:OO http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">cheap concert tickets =O

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">tickets banknorth garden boston >:OO http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">cheap concert tickets =O

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">tickets banknorth garden boston >:OO http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">cheap concert tickets =O

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">tickets banknorth garden boston >:OO http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">cheap concert tickets =O

tickets_3.txt;2;2

tickets_3.txt;2;2

tickets_3.txt;2;2

tickets_3.txt;2;2

hi nice site thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">tickets auction %-(((

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">cheap orlando attraction tickets vyky http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">nickelodeon show tickets 22393

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">cheap orlando attraction tickets vyky http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">nickelodeon show tickets 22393

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">cheap orlando attraction tickets vyky http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">nickelodeon show tickets 22393

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">cheap orlando attraction tickets vyky http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">nickelodeon show tickets 22393

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">cheap orlando attraction tickets vyky http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">nickelodeon show tickets 22393

see this thanks http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">boston celtics tickets >:)

see this thanks http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">boston celtics tickets >:)

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">discounted islands of adventure tickets 0656 http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">discount disney tickets =-D

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">discounted islands of adventure tickets 0656 http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">discount disney tickets =-D

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">discounted islands of adventure tickets 0656 http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">discount disney tickets =-D

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">discounted islands of adventure tickets 0656 http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">discount disney tickets =-D

good post man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">cheap train tickets iyome http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">tickets to london heu

good post man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">cheap train tickets iyome http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">tickets to london heu

good post man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">cheap train tickets iyome http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">tickets to london heu

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">cheap tickets czk

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">cheap tickets czk

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">cheap tickets czk

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">cheap tickets czk

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/alkasy ">purchase lipitor 91430

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/alkasy ">purchase lipitor 91430

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/alkasy ">purchase lipitor 91430

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">cheapest valium %-PP

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">cheapest valium %-PP

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">cheapest valium %-PP

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">cheapest valium %-PP

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">cheapest valium %-PP

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium 03506 http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction 75429

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium 03506 http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction 75429

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium 03506 http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction 75429

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium 03506 http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction 75429

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium 03506 http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction 75429

hi great site 10x http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">cheapest ultram 8041

hi great site 10x http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">cheapest ultram 8041

hi great site 10x http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">cheapest ultram 8041

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">clonazepam addiction >:-PPP

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">clonazepam addiction >:-PPP

see this thanks http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">order soma cxdwzo http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram lvz

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">clonazepam addiction >:-PPP

see this thanks http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">order soma cxdwzo http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram lvz

see this thanks http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">order soma cxdwzo http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram lvz

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">cheap soma xihzoi

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">cheap soma xihzoi

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">generic clonazepam tkfqx

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">generic clonazepam tkfqx

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">generic clonazepam tkfqx

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">generic clonazepam tkfqx

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">order ativan %-[[[

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">buy soma 772 http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">order propecia 6494

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">buy soma 772 http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">order propecia 6494

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">buy soma 772 http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">order propecia 6494

good work man http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">cheap propecia 501

it's nice site http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">ativan online %-P

it's nice site http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">ativan online %-P

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mos ">adipex p diet pill 8-DD

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mos ">adipex p diet pill 8-DD

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mom ">adipex diet pills >:(

hay http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex rfk

hay http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex rfk

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/teeh-sex-iax ">hardcoreporn exe

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-women-iax ">milf hunter =[

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/big-boobs-iax ">bangbros vtoas

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/big-boobs-iax ">bangbros vtoas

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/big-boobs-iax ">bangbros vtoas

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/anad-sex-iax ">thumbzilla 095

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/anad-sex-iax ">thumbzilla 095

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/big-tits-iax ">bigtits jri

bookmark you thx http://groups.google.us/group/freeones-iax ">teensex 0545

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/flowjob-ias ">fresh teen sex 8-)

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">nakedwomen 8-[

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">nakedwomen 8-[

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">nakedwomen 8-[

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">pills adipex sale 6869

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">pills adipex sale 6869

nice site dude http://groups.google.us/group/phendimetrazine-ent ">phendimetrazine 35 mg jeze

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/ephedrine-ent ">effects ephedrine side 697929

nice site dude http://groups.google.com/group/movie-upskirt-me ">mature tease upskirt 1156

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/vid-upskirt-me ">public upskirt voyeur japan mfacei

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-nu ">upskirt crossdressing 319

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-nu ">upskirt crossdressing 319

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-nu ">upskirt crossdressing 319

nice work man 10x

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">jennifer love hewitt upskirt 19086

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">jennifer love hewitt upskirt 19086

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">jennifer love hewitt upskirt 19086

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">jennifer love hewitt upskirt 19086

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

Dear Webmaster,

I recently found your Website and I am very interested in exchanging links. I want Link exchange to your site.

As you know; reciprocal linking benefits both of us by raising our search rankings and generating more traffic to both of our sites. As a part of ongoing campaigns to increase the Link Popularity of our client's web sites I am looking for some related web sites like yours to exchange links with. I would like to request you consider linking to our site. In exchange, we will link back to your site. Please add my link and reply me positively and I will do the same. Details of my site are as follows.

Title: Doctor4care clinic, family doctor, medical doctor, online doctor and doctor’s directory.

URL: http://www.doctor4care.com/

Description: Doctor4Care is managed and run by its Clinical Director, a Licensed Acupuncturist and Practitioner. We provide diverse range of services such as clinic doctor, family doctor, doctor directory and doctor office, medical doctor, skin doctor, eye doctor, doctor ear, orthopedic doctor and diet doctor. To provide high-quality and affordable healthcare to every patient, our clinic doctor's are ready every day, through a physician-patient relationship.

I will add your Link her
e
http://www.doctor4care.com/links.htm
E-mail: link@doctor4care.com

Regarding
Honey

Going back a few comments many people have proven out the Atheism results in Communism many times over the years, it surprises me that severa people on the board are not aware of this.

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler Moveable feast

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler Moveable feast

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >consolidate debt today Go berserk

http://besting.itrello.com >cash faxing loan no payday In the pink

webzpuam voar wshruqn skfjzo eqpojci xcwri rfgbwuicq

webzpuam voar wshruqn skfjzo eqpojci xcwri rfgbwuicq

webzpuam voar wshruqn skfjzo eqpojci xcwri rfgbwuicq

Anonymous, you said,

"never mind the ones left out because someone decided they didn't belong."

There was a good reason they were left out. They were not ordained by God and were inconsistent with His Word.

never mind the ones left out because someone decided they didn't belong.

Anonymous,

You said,

"Hmm. Some person decided that books with certain characteristics (characters) would be classified into such and such a group they made up- bibles. Now we are stuck with an old series of books-which is a bible."

There again, the books we call the Bible are internally unite as the revelation of God (Luke 24:25, esp. 27, 44, 45). The themes of the Bible such as man's rebellion, God's plan of redemption and the shadow of the Messiah are woven throughout, starting in Genesis.

Considering that they (the Bible) are 66 different books composed by over forty different authors all inspired by the Holy Spirit, is just one of the many conformations the Bible is from God and His revelation to mankind.

"There again, it depends on your classification. Some person decided that animals with certain characteristics would be classified into such and such a group that they made up - mammals. Now we are stuck with a label - a bat is a mammal."

Hmm. Some person decided that books with certain characteristics (characters) would be classified into such and such a group they made up- bibles. Now we are stuck with an old series of books-which is a bible.

Hi Jay,
You said,

"I hope you are not suggesting the microevolution over the last 4000 years can account for such morphological diversity as, say, between a hummingbird and a penguin."

Sure, take a look at the number of new dog breeds over the last 200 years.

You said,

"Yes, I "funnel it through my evolutionary spectacles". We all have frames of reference that help us make sense of our world. It just happens that my "spectacles" are very well supported by objective evidence, so it's reasonable for me to use them."

There again, how do you know your evidence is objective? Does not all evidence need to be interpreted? Do facts come with descriptions that tell you what to believe? No, you start with a certain assumption (that evolution is true) and then build on that basic assumption to make the evidence fit. The problem with your standard is that it is based on subjectivity.

As a Christian I base my understanding on the One who is objective and knows how origins began. You base yours on the speculations of Mr. Worldly Wise. But without an objective absolute standard how do you know or does anyone know that the standard is true? What actually have you proved that did happen as you say?

You said,

"I still don't understand your wing argument. Bats have wings and are mammals (the only ones), so wings have appeared only in that lineage of mammals (there are other mammals wih gliding membranes). No evidence of true wings in any other mammal lineage."

There again, it depends on your classification. Some person decided that animals with certain characteristics would be classified into such and such a group that they made up - mammals. Now we are stuck with a label - a bat is a mammal.

The point is where are the missing transitional forms from one group to another?

You said,

"Wings evolved separately in early birds,not all at once, but over a long period in which they were likely gliding membranes. They have atrophied in some species that don't rely on flight. So why does an ostrich need wings?"

When you don't use it you lose it. The point is that they still have wings, they don't need to use them any more. That last statement does not prove macro-evolution, just that some birds have lost the ability to use their wings.

Peter:

Yes, they are all birds but very different lineages of birds. I hope you are not suggesting the microevolution over the last 4000 years can account for such morphological diversity as, say, between a hummingbird and a penguin.

Yes, I "funnel it through my evolutionary spectacles". We all have frames of reference that help us make sense of our world. It just happens that my "spectacles" are very well supported by objective evidence, so it's reasonable for me to use them.

Yes, time is an important ingredient for evolution to produce a great diversity of life. No argument there.

I still don't understand your wing argument. Bats have wings and are mammals (the only ones), so wings have appeared only in that lineage of mammals (there are other mammals wih gliding membranes). No evidence of true wings in any other mammal lineage. Wings evolved separately in early birds,not all at once, but over a long period in which they were likely gliding membranes. They have atrophied in some species that don't rely on flight. So why does an ostrich need wings?

I have to get off this thread. It's become too long to navigate easily and my computer seems to have trouble with moving around in it.

See you on some other discussion.

Peter:

Yes, they are all birds but very different lineages of birds. I hope you are not suggesting the microevolution over the last 4000 years can account for such morphological diversity as, say, between a hummingbird and a penguin.

Yes, I "funnel it through my evolutionary spectacles". We all have frames of reference that help us make sense of our world. It just happens that my "spectacles" are very well supported by objective evidence, so it's reasonable for me to use them.

Yes, time is an important ingredient for evolution to produce a great diversity of life. No argument there.

I still don't understand your wing argument. Bats have wings and are mammals (the only ones), so wings have appeared only in that lineage of mammals (there are other mammals wih gliding membranes). No evidence of true wings in any other mammal lineage. Wings evolved separately in early birds,not all at once, but over a long period in which they were likely gliding membranes. They have atrophied in some species that don't rely on flight. So why does an ostrich need wings?

I have to get off this thread. It's become too long to navigate easily and my computer seems to have trouble with moving around in it.

See you on some other discussion.

Hi Jay,

There again you are funneling everything through your evolutionary spectacles again.

When you say,

"Would you call penguins and hummingbirds the same kind? Ostriches and owls the same?"

Are they not all birds?

You said,

"I was already impressed that it could produce both a domestic cat and an African lion in that short time period. And you say evolutionists are willing to swallow incredible ideas?"

There again, time is your magic ingredient.

You said,

"Why would humans, dogs, cats, etc. have wings?"

I was just making a point. According to your theory at some time there was a transition where wings appeared between one mutation and the next. Where is the evidence?

Like you my weekend is busy so I will respond to the rest of your post on Sunday or Monday.

Have a good weekend.

Peter:

I've read through much of the AIG site and glanced through it again this past week. It is very short on data, long on speculation, heavy on stretching for the occasional tiny item that might suggest a biblical link, and does not impress me at all.

Phil Johnston? Do you mean Phil Johnson? I've read Darwin on Trial. A fun book if you like to get your critcal analyses of science from a lawyer.

Why would humans, dogs, cats, etc. have wings? Is that a creationist challenge to evolution? Again, you seem not to have enough familiarity with what evolution is and is not. A better question: why would a fossil bird-like creature (Archaeopteryx)have teeth, feathers, and clawed wings? No modern bird has teeth, although birds still retain the genetic coding (now silenced) to produce teeth (just as snakes still have the genetic coding to produce limbs). The best evidence we have is that birds are descended from one of the dinosaur lineages, and there is growing evidence that some true dinosaurs had feathers. I'd call that one of many good examples of a transition from one "kind" to another.

You should check out some of the new fossil evidence on early whales (it's probably on the web by now) ... some amazing transitional forms that had limbs.

If dog and cat are separate kinds, and birds are a kind by themselves, then "kind" is a very loose definition indeed. Would you call penguins and hummingbirds the same kind? Ostriches and owls the same? If so, microevolution over the last 4000 years has done a hell of a job of generating diversity! I was already impressed that it could produce both a domestic cat and an African lion in that short time period. And you say evolutionists are willing to swallow incredible ideas?

And I still must point out that apes and humans are so similar genetically and in body structure that to not recognize them as closely related is to ignore a LOT of data. If dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals etc. are one "kind", then apes and humans have to be also. Classification systems require consistency of use.

That's all I can respond with now. Have a good one.

Hi Jay,

When you say that there is no such fixed categories as kinds, I would still contend that there are, that all dogs, wolfs, coyotes, jackals are of a kind, just like all cats are, whether small or big, just like all humans, whether Chinese, African or Americans are all fixed as the same kind, although they have different characteristics. The Creator has given us the ability to adapt to our environment, but that is as far as it goes. We do not have the ability to change to another kind. A ape can never become a man because they are different kinds.

When you said,

"Birds are a really complex mess ... it's hard to define who is related to whom."

The point is that they are all birds, just as cats are cats and dogs are dogs. There are no links that show a cat or dog or ape or human with wings.

We could argue about what is meant by kinds, but I hope that you will listen to some of the video files by Phil Johnston that will show you some of the inherent problems with evolution. Then let's talk about again about the problems of evolution. Maybe you can answer some of those questions?

Good to hear from you.

Peter: Back briefly, then heading out again.

I see the problem here. Creationists rely on "kind" as a fixed category for organisms. There is no such thing as a kind. Even the term species, used by biologists, cannot be fixed very well and there is much discussion among biologists on species definitions. Exactly what you would expect if organisms are not "fixed" but vary through time and to differnet dgress from each other.

There are many organisms that don't fit well in various ligher level categories such as families (which are themselves human constructs, for convenience of communication). There are cats and dogs (your "kinds"), but there are also hyenas and some other carnivores which are debated about in terms of what they are related to. The fossil record provides even more diversity that can't be categorized well in comparison to living species. Genetic research is helping to clarify some of these living groups. Birds are a really complex mess ... it's hard to define who is related to whom. None of this is unexpected if you accept that there has been a long complex evolutionary history of lineages that branch, some of which survive and others that don't. The man-made categories we use to try to "pigeonhole" these organisms aren't up to the challenge.

The more you learn about biology, the more complicated the relationships prove to be. "Kind" might have worked a few thousand years ago when far fewer species were known to humans in the Middle East, but does not cut it based on our current understanding of the diversity of life, both alive today and in the fossil record.

Gotta run.

Hi Jay,

Hope you will check them out when you get back.

There is a massive difference between adapting within a kind and changing kinds. God has designed

www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/noahs-ark

www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter3.asp

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

www.icr.org/article/554/

You and I certainly have a different definition on that micro-evolution is.

Look forward to hearing from you when you get back if you are still interested.

Best wishes.

Peter, I'm hitting the road shortly and will be away from computers. I tried the one link you mentioned but could not open it. Maybe don't have the software. Will be back in a few days.

BTW, there is not a big difference between micro- and macroevolution. The longest journey begins with the few first few steps.

Hi Jay,

BTW, did you look at the websites, especially the last one I posted? Are you willing to consider what is being said? Most evolutionists will not even consider it. Now that is open minded. As for me, I once was accepted evolution as valid before further inquiry. But, I'm not a scientist, so I will refer you to those who are so that you can get a better representation of the arguments.

You said,

"BTW, I'm not tossing out questions like those above because I really expect answers. They are the kind of questions, though, that any proposed alternative to the scientific theory of evolution should be prepared to address. Theories don't stand or fall on a few details (we obviously don't know everything), but they need to be able to provide a very good explanatory framework that fits within information provided in other fields of science. Evolution does that; creationism does not. Creationism requires that you throw out a lot of science from biology, geology, chemistry, physics. Evolution does not."

John Woodmorappe wrote a book on the feasibility of Noah's Arc. You can find some information here on it:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm

As for your allegation that evolution provides the evidence and creationism does not there are sites like Answers In Genesis that will provide you with ample answers and information. As Phil Johnston said in his video lecture On Darwinism, the reason the evidence does not get heard is because of the vested interest evolutionist have in guarding their precious theory.

You said,

"I do find the idea that creationist embrace micro-evolution fascinating. You seem to require that micro-evolution do a lot of heavy lifting to account for an immense amount of biodiversity in a very short period of time. As you probably know, evolutionists view so-called micro-evolution as just macro-evolution (or simply evolution) on a shorter timescale. Evolutionists really don't make a distinction between the two."

There is a big difference between micro-evolution or adaption within a kind and macro-evolution, or the change from one kind to another. God said He made each to its own kind. A dog or wolf or jackal would be according to a kind, or what science today would call the Family Canidae.

As for your two other questions posted on the 18th, on bats and terrestrial invertebrate species, I will do some research for you.

Peter:

BTW, I'm not tossing out questions like those above because I really expect answers. They are the kind of questions, though, that any proposed alternative to the scientific theory of evolution should be prepared to address. Theories don't stand or fall on a few details (we obviously don't know everything), but they need to be able to provide a very good explanatory framework that fits wihin information provided in other fields of science. Evolution does that; creationism does not. Creationism requires that you throw out a lot of science from biology, geology, chemistry, physics. Evolution does not.

I do find the idea that creationist embrace micro-evolution fascinating. You seem to require that micro-evolution do a lot of heavy lifting to account for an immense amount of biodiversity in a very short period of time. As you probably know, evolutionists view so-called micro-evolution as just macro-evolution (or simply evolution) on a shorter timescale. Evolutionists really don't make a distinction between the two.

PH:

You said:
"Here again, folks, the all knowing"

I - we atheists - never pretend(ed) anything close to this silly allegation

"atheist is telling us what existed and didn't exist,"

another example of your well-established fabrications and fantasies in order to bash someone for want of arguments

"who is and who is not an historical figure,"

made-up invention: I never pretended anything close to it

"and because of his naturalistic worldview that miracles and the supernatural do not exist. It is as if he has explored every avenue"

what a desperate accusation, based on nothing

"in the universe and can laid down the law as to what is and is not possible."

I never said anything in this direction (you can't even stick to the topic), but once you bring it up: Anything that happens is possible, otherwise it would not happen. I wonder if this simple logic will pass your religious brain part.

"It must be nice to be so wise in your own eyes."

Your try at irony fails miserably. You depend exclusively on made-up inferences, baseless accusation - as baseless as your fundamental superstition, which, I admit, has a certain quality of satisfaction - I remember it very well, when I was a child. It gave me a feeling of security at the expense of honesty.

Gerry and Jay,

Here is a good starting point:

http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6289FocOriOnDarw.rm

Hi Gerry and Jay,

This is a busy weekend. I will try to answer your questions on Monday or Tuesday.

www.icr.org/article/298/

www.trueorigin.org/
Quote:
"The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself..."

www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

Please use http:// to access these sites.

Peter Huff:

"I don't know what you are getting at. Please define your terms [emanations] more.

You know. Emanations. Aeons? Archons? Demiurge? Look something up once in a while.

What about the countless terrestrial invertebrate species that populate the earth and would have drowned in the flood? Or the plants that could not tolerate flooding?

Forgot to ask: what about bats? They're not birds, not an animal that moves along the ground. There's an amazing diversity of bat species on the planet. Were they all slipped in, or would just one pair have worked, with microveolution filling in over the last 4000 years (an incredible radiation of species, faster than any evolutionist would predict)?

Peter:

I read your account about the Ark; quite fascinating. Preposterous and totally lacking in evidence, but fascinating. I'm glad to see that creationists accept "micro-evolution", which I suppose is progress of a sort. (The bible says nothing about micro-evolution ... you had to get that from biology.) I'm glad to see you've worked out all the details of how we got the modern diversity of canids (dogs, wolves, etc.) and felids (domestic cat, cheetah, lion, etc.) from single "kinds", not to mention the many extinct forms. Amazing what micro-evolution can do in a mere few thousand years ... imagine what diversity of life we might see if the earth was somewhat older, say 4 billion years.

Of course, the pattern of distribution of life forms on the planet (biogeography)is not explained by the release of animals at one location (Mt Ararat). Nor how marine fishes survived in the highly diluted sea that was raised by rainwater. Or where all that water came from in the first place and where it went to. But I'm sure creation scientists are working on those problems and many others in their research labs.

You asked about the origin of life from non-life. I'll be honest with you here, rather than confabulate a fairy tale. We don't yet know how the earliest life form(s) arose from organic compounds. There are a number of ideas and research programs looking into this question, but it is still a genuine scientific mystery. Not unsolvable, just not yet solved. As Gerry said, we don't have to resort to magic or divine intervention, just as we didn't have to ultimately explain lightning or other natural phenomena with gods. I would not hang your faith hat on any scientific mystery (and I'm sure you don't).

Jay,
I think Peter Huff has a second, extra brain, that you and I are lacking, housing his religious convictions and keeping them completely separate from anything resembling reason. So he can live comfortably, believe in god and still chat about science. His Noah story (I remember how impressed I was by it when I was 6 years old!) caused some good laughs in my surrounding (horses then must later have evolved from zebras in a few thousand years, eh?). His ignorance on science and evolution equals his amount of "inside" quotations from the bible, which, together with a considerable amount of fantasy, he certainly knows well enough to pick what he needs.

To me, it is an enigma how a lettered person can keep his child world free from any additional information.

PH:

Just because you (in former times) don't understand where lightning comes from doesn't make it less true that lightning comes from Zeus, or Thor, or any other god.

Hi Jay,

You said,

"Peter, you need to spend some time reviewing what evolution is before you criticize it. Your hangup with "chance" and "blind random selection" are emblematic of those who think they understand evolution but don't ... or who choose to refute the evidence because they can't reconcile it with their worldview. Chance is part of the evolutionary process (genetic mutations and stochastic events), but the accumulation of genetic information over time under the pressure of natural selection is anything but chancy or random."

Well Jay, if you want to learn something about a person find out who influenced them. Start with philosophers during the Enlightenment and work your way up to Charles Lyell and Darwin and their contemporaries. The theory started with a shift in worldviews away from God as people looked for other explanations. They changed their presuppositions to suit there worldview and then set about finding evidence to match their foundational premises.

You said,

"I've read your many questions and responded selectively because in many cases you've asked them before and I and others have provided an answer (which you choose not to accept). Since I'm not out to convert, you can take them or leave them. I've debated with many creationists before, and I recognize the tactic of bombarding the evolutionist with dozens of questions while explaining nothing about how your worldview better explains the world than science. It's an old ploy."

How about answering one question. How did life originate from non-life and what evidence is there to show this happened?

You said,

"I asked you a while back about details of Genesis and how you can reconcile things like Noah's flood and an ark loaded down with several million species. I felt foolish even asking such ridiculous questions; maybe you feel foolish trying to answer them. Your worldview rejects so much scientific knowledge it is truly frightening. I suspect you don't even realize how much understanding of the world doesn't fit in your model."

My worldview rejects much on evolutionary scientific knowledge although I support micro-evolution which is the ability of an animal to adapt to its environment. God has built that into each one of us. This would account for some of the adaptations in kinds that were laid down in rock layers all over the earth during the flood (i.e. catastrophism).

I don't find the questions ridiculous. The Revised & Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Johnathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland provides the logistics on how this could be done. I will give you an overview, although if you want to get more specific I can direct you to the answersingenesis website.

First off, there were not several million species on board. Noah was to bring two of every kind of bird and two of every kind of animal that moves along the ground. (Genesis 6:20)

So a cat is a kind and a dog is a kind, a zebra or horse would be of the same kind. In this way you do not have to bring twenty different kinds of dog. Dog, coyotes wolves, jackals is covered by one kind. If all the animals were small in size (i.e. babies) the area would be greatly reduced in order to house them all.

The instructions are more specific in Genesis 7:2, 3) Noah was also told to bring seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Notice the Bible is specific on kind, not species. Notice also that Noah did not need to take water creatures. As for plants many would survive as seeds or pods floating on vegetation as happens today. Notice in verse 22 it says that during the flood everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Therefore that does not include insects.

In total John Woodmorappe includes about 16,000 individual animals on the Arc. The Bible does not give the count so this is just speculation.

Second, you need to take into account the proportions of the Arc. It was about 450 x 75 x 45 feet. The square footage translates to about 522 standard railroad cars capable of holding 240 sheep each. So to fit 16,000 animals you would need approximately 42,000 feet out of the total 1.52 million cubic feet. Many of the animals would probably need to be caged. This would still leave room for food and moving space equivalent to about 99 rail cars.

The logistics also gets more detail on a number of items which I will not include here, such as food requirements, how waste could be controlled, floor spacing, etc.

Thanks for the questions.

Peter, you need to spend some time reviewing what evolution is before you criticize it. Your hangup with "chance" and "blind random selection" are emblematic of those who think they understand evolution but don't ... or who choose to refute the evidence because they can't reconcile it with their worldview. Chance is part of the evolutionary process (genetic mutations and stochastic events), but the accumulation of genetic information over time under the pressure of natural selection is anything but chancy or random.

I've read your many questions and responded selectively because in many cases you've asked them before and I and others have provided an answer (which you choose not to accept). Since I'm not out to convert, you can take them or leave them. I've debated with many creationists before, and I recognize the tactic of bombarding the evolutionist with dozens of questions while explaining nothing about how your worldview better explains the world than science. It's an old ploy.

I asked you a while back about details of Genesis and how you can reconcile things like Noah's flood and an ark loaded down with several million species. I felt foolish even asking such ridiculous questions; maybe you feel foolish trying to answer them. Your worldview rejects so much scientific knowledge it is truly frightening. I suspect you don't even realize how much understanding of the world doesn't fit in your model.

Anyway, gotta get back to work. Take care.

Jay, you said,

"Most of us who are SIGHTED of course. Try to explain "green" to a blind person who never had sight."

Just because those people cannot see the color does not negate that the color is there. You know that there are different colors because you can see them. The same is true of God; just because people do not believe in Him does not negate that He is there and that He is real. In the same sense those without the Spirit of God do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned. So you are blind. Furthermore you, at least at the present time do not have ears to hear or a heart to comprehend. That is a truth revealed in God's Word, which is able to make one wise for salvation, but God has said that fools despise wisdom. Just telling you what the Bible says.

Language is a gift from God and it is one of the attributes that makes us different from animals. We are able to think God's thoughts after Him because He has given us a brain and spirit in which we can make abstract distinctions and communicate those distinctions to each other.

Have to go out. Ciao!

Again Jay,

Why should our brain physiology be similar in a world evolving by chance? Why should the electro-chemical reactions in my brain produce similar to your brain? In a world that evolved by chance blind random selection what is the process that should make such a thing happen?

What I am saying is that there is a color that we call green. Is that an actual color that is that color no matter what we think it is or is there not? If there is and we call that color green, then when I call a different color (a color that in and of itself is what we call red), that color green am I actually true in calling this color something that it is not?

In other words can green ever be not green or can a color that is a certain distinguished color ever not be that certain distinguished color?

Hi jay,

you said,

"Well, just because you don't believe it doesn't refute the well-supported fact that humans are animals. The fact that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps isn't just some coincidence. In fact, humans are more closely related (based on genetic similarity) to chimps than chimps are to gorillas."

Because we are similar does not mean that we evolved, just that we are designed to share the world in which we live in, because we have the same Designer. If we were so different from every other form of life then we would need to eat entirely different things because our biochemistry would be entirely different. But we share this earth.

If you use that kind of logic then I could point to the amino acid sequence differences in proteins to show that humans are more closely related to chickens than apes.

You said,

"You seem to view our animal heritage as an insult against humans. I'd say too many humans behave far worse than animals (I've never heard of orangutans organizing an Inquisition or committing torture). It's our fellow animals who should be insulted by the comparison!"

There again, you are looking at the evidence through your filter, evolution, and I am looking at it through mine, God. I have asked you to make sense of it and so far you have ignored my many questions. I contend that you cannot in a subjective perspective as yours.

As for the Inquisition, that was a deviation from the New Covenant under Christ Jesus. Take a look at the Cultural Revolution in China where Mao killed between 20-60 million people, if you want to point fingers.

Most of us who are SIGHTED of course. Try to explain "green" to a blind person who never had sight.

"So you are saying that there is no actual color that we call green. It is just a figment of our imaginations. Everything is just made up in our minds. Then how do you know that we are talking about the same thing? How can we carry on a rational conversation. Sorry, Gerry, your worldview betrays what you really think when you try to live in the real world."

Peter, you know that's not what Gerry or I were saying. "Green" does not exist in nature, but the fact that humans share a similar physiology, most of us (those not color blind), can share the concept of green because we perceive it similarly in our respective brains. That's all there is to it.

Hello Gerry,

You said,

"That, however, proves nothing as to its truth."

AND,

"Who cares what other superstitious folks through the centuries believed: The "God"- idea is a man-made crutch to understand what so far cannot be understood."

Since you say the "God-idea is a man made crutch to understand what so far cannot be understood" and "it proves nothing as to its truth" my question is how do you know if so far it cannot be understood that it is not true? How can you say it is not true if it cannot be understood? Just because you don't understand it does not make it any less true. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't either.

You said,

"A simple cell phone, or a navigational device, would have sufficed as recently as three hundred years ago to convince even the most skeptical atheist of those times of the existence of the supernatural, of god. It is completely disingenuous to introduce the superstition of historical figures: Most of them had no choice: The knowledge was not around yet."

Here again, folks, the all knowing atheist is telling us what existed and didn't exist, who is and who is not an historical figure, and because of his naturalistic worldview that miracles and the supernatural do not exist. It is as if he has explored every avenue in the universe and can laid down the law as to what is and is not possible. It must be nice to be so wise in your own eyes.

You said,

"Huff is unable to do the next step in his spiritual development: Just for a moment. as an experiment, think of the possibility that all his biblical "insider arguments" can be explained without any god."

Yeah, one small step back back or maybe one giant leap back. I don't want to retrace my steps thanks.

You said,

"He stepped into his own trap, as far as the "green" topic goes, as Jay so patiently explained to him (probably to no avail). Green is what our brain makes out of a certain spectrum of frequencies, just like the god idea is only existent in a person's brain - there is no other receptor or organizer for such ideas than the brain, that is, than us, man."

So you are saying that there is no actual color that we call green. It is just a figment of our imaginations. Everything is just made up in our minds. Then how do you know that we are talking about the same thing? How can we carry on a rational conversation. Sorry, Gerry, your worldview betrays what you really think when you try to live in the real world.

Try communicating to someone about the color green by calling it red. Tell them that when they come to a traffic light that when they see red they are to step on the gas and proceed through the intersection.

"I do not believe that humans are animals; they just behave that way at times. That is your worldview and it is falsely perceived just like saying that something that is actually green is red."

Well, just because you don't believe it doesn't refute the well-supported fact that humans are animals. The fact that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps isn't just some coincidence. In fact, humans are more closely related (based on genetic similarity) to chimps than chimps are to gorillas.

You seem to view our animal heritage as an insult against humans. I'd say too many humans behave far worse than animals (I've never heard of orangutans organizing an Inquisition or committing torture). It's our fellow animals who should be insulted by the comparison!

Hi Gerry,

I will respond to your statements later. I am busy painting a room, or as someone said, painting myself into a corner again; second coat. :)

BTW, were you one of those people who said that Jesus was not an historical figure, just a mythical idea?

Hi Jay,

You said,

"Most humans can agree that green is green, regardless of the shade or language in which the concept is communicated ... except maybe when it is blue-green or yellow-green. (There's that disturbing continuum again, which those who prefer black-and-white thinking often find so inconvenient.) I'm not an anthropologist, but I think it would be fascinating to know how very different cultures categorize colors in their languages. My hunch (as an evolutionist) is that you will see a fair amount of variation in the concept."

Even so, is there an actual color that is that color even though we perceive it as being other than what it is, or do we invent our own colors where green is not green and blue green is not blue green until we call it so? In that case how can we agree on anything?

What I'm saying is that those hues that make the color green are green even if we do not see them as being green.

And in the context that I was originally speaking of I was saying that truth cannot be both true and false, even though people may perceive something that is true as being false. A is not non-A. A = A.

You said,

"Everything you said still collapses down to what is generated in a human brain."

What I am saying is that your perceptions do not always conform to truth although you may think they do. That is why someone will correct someone who is color blind when they call green apples red apples.

If you do not perceive something as it really is then you have falsely perceived it to some degree or another. That is why Jesus said that those who worship God the Father must worship Him in spirit and in truth. An accurate understanding is essential of God or you do not worship the God who is, but the god you have created.

You said,

" And the fact that animals other than humans (yes, humans are animals too) can have very different perceptions of color is just a fascinating aspect of biology."

I do not believe that humans are animals; they just behave that way at times. That is your worldview and it is falsely perceived just like saying that something that is actually green is red.

You said,

"There's also growing evidence that women on average may have better perception of color gradients (especially in the orange-red spectrum) than men, thanks to their two X chromosomes (could explain a lot about why my wife is so conscious about subtleties in paint color that I can't get excited about). All part of the wonderful variation in nature."

I don't disagree with your statement. Maybe that is so, but is there a color that is actually green? Or is green really black? As for the wonderful variation in nature; isn't it amazing what God has created?

You said,

"I find an evolutionary universe very fulfilling and wondrous. The fact that we are "biological bags in motion" (to use your term) does not bother me in the least, and in fact provides an amazing depth of understanding about what it is to be a human. Our ability to grasp even a portion of it gives my life a great deal of meaning."

Well how do you get meaning out of matter? Did we, in an evolutionary universe, come from matter? Did not we, in fact, come from a chance explosion some 13-20 billion years ago, in your worldview? So how do you get something from nothing, life from non-life, meaning from chaos, non-matter from matter? Can you answer these questions. And why in a mechanical, non-feeling universe (gases, stones or molten lava do not have feelings do they?) do you seek meaning so that you can understand the "wonders" of creation?

You said,

"Take care."

Thank you. You as well!

Sorry, the last post was from me, Gerry

Peter Huff circles around his own writings within his creed. He can quote whatever he wants WITHIN this creed without convincing anybody that the basis of all his huge and repetitive output of biblical platitudes has any logical or scientific value OUTSIDE this narrow creed. The only value it may have is historical and social to some degree, since superstition always has prevailed for the masses of little educated folks (and still does, just look at the astrology TV, the religious radios and TV stations all over the world.) Socially and historically, it certainly has had a huge impact. That, however, proves nothing as to its truth.

Huff reflects the Taliban like a mirror: Repeat something until people believe in the ever so absurd. "Credo qui absurdum", I believe because it is absurd, is the the final declaration of bankruptcy of any thinking person, be it Tertullian or whoever else.

Who cares what other superstitious folks through the centuries believed: The "God"- idea is a man-made crutch to understand what so far cannot be understood.

A simple cell phone, or a navigational device, would have sufficed as recently as three hundred years ago to convince even the most skeptical atheist of those times of the existence of the supernatural, of god. It is completely disingenuous to introduce the superstition of historical figures: Most of them had no choice: The knowledge was not around yet.

Huff is unable to do the next step in his spiritual development: Just for a moment. as an experiment, think of the possibility that all his biblical "insider arguments" can be explained without any god. It would free him and he could use his education in scriptures (obviously his profession) to enlighten himself and others for a better future of mankind.

I regard my liberation from early indoctrination, passing a period of earnest tries at believing to finally shedding the superstition, to the infinite admiration of nature as a process of maturation. Nature produces even entities who seriously (for a time) produce and believe in gods, as I did many years ago.

He stepped into his own trap, as far as the "green" topic goes, as Jay so patiently explained to him (probably to no avail). Green is what our brain makes out of a certain spectrum of frequencies, just like the god idea is only existent in a person's brain - there is no other receptor or organizer for such ideas than the brain, that is, than us, man.

Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.)

Vol.3.1.1

Chapter I.—The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.33093309 See 1 Tim. iii. 15, where these terms are used in reference to the Church. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews33103310 On this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr. Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel maintained. in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced 415 by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Vol. 2.28.1

Chapter XXVIII.—Perfect knowledge cannot be attained in the present life: many questions must be submissively left in the hands of God.

1. Having therefore the truth itself as our rule and the testimony concerning God set clearly before us, we ought not, by running after numerous and diverse answers to questions, to cast away the firm and true knowledge of God. But it is much more suitable that we, directing our inquiries after this fashion, should exercise ourselves in the investigation of the mystery and administration of the living God, and should increase in the love of Him who has done, and still does, so great things for us; but never should fall from the belief by which it is most clearly proclaimed that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who both formed this world, fashioned man, and bestowed the faculty of increase on His own creation, and called him upwards from lesser things to those greater ones which are in His own presence, just as He brings an infant which has been conceived in the womb into the light of the sun, and lays up wheat in the barn after He has given it full strength on the stalk. But it is one and the same Creator who both fashioned the womb and created the sun; and one and the same Lord who both reared the stalk of corn, increased and multiplied the wheat, and prepared the barn.

2. If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account32133213 Or, “to that degree.” destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. And there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend our knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God. For it is fitting that He should excel all [in knowledge]. For how stands the case, for instance, if we endeavour to explain the cause of the rising of the Nile? We may say a great deal, plausible or otherwise, on the subject; but what is true, sure, and incontrovertible regarding it, belongs only to God.

PS. You can find the writings @ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

Hi Peter:

Most humans can agree that green is green, regardless of the shade or language in which the concept is communicated ... except maybe when it is blue-green or yellow-green. (There's that disturbing continuum again, which those who prefer black-and-white thinking often find so inconvenient.) I'm not an anthropologist, but I think it would be fascinating to know how very different cultures categorize colors in their languages. My hunch (as an evolutionist) is that you will see a fair amount of variation in the concept.

Everything you said still collapses down to what is generated in a human brain. And the fact that animals other than humans (yes, humans are animals too) can have very different perceptions of color is just a fascinating aspect of biology. There's also growing evidence that women on average may have better perception of color gradients (especially in the orange-red spectrum) than men, thanks to their two X chromosomes (could explain a lot about why my wife is so conscious about subtleties in paint color that I can't get excited about). All part of the wonderful variation in nature.

I find an evolutionary universe very fulfilling and wondrous. The fact that we are "biological bags in motion" (to use your term) does not bother me in the least, and in fact provides an amazing depth of understanding about what it is to be a human. Our ability to grasp even a portion of it gives my life a great deal of meaning.

Take care.

Hi Everyone. Here is a start to the proof that the early church fathers believed that the Scriptures were the infallible word of God.

Justin Martyr (before 150 A.D.)

ANF, Vol. 1, Dialogue of Justin with Trypho

Chapter VII.—The knowledge of truth to be sought from the prophets alone.

“ ‘Should any one, then, employ a teacher?’ I say, ‘or whence may any one be helped, if not even in them there is truth?’
“ ‘There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him: which, indeed, the false prophets, who are filled with the lying unclean spirit, neither have done nor do, but venture to work certain wonderful deeds for the purpose of astonishing men, and glorify the spirits and demons of error. But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.’

AFN, Vol. 1, Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection

Chapter I.—The self-evidencing power of truth.

The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak.

Morning Jay,

You said,

"Green is not an absolute, it refers to a particular range of wavelengths of light that the human eye and brain can perceive and has been designated by us as "green"."

So when you talk about the color green are you really talking about the color red?

You said,

"Your perception of green is quite possibly not identical to mine, and a color-blind person has a very different perception of it (what we folks without color-blindness would call "not green")."

True, but does that change the fact that green is still green and not black? When we talk about a shade of green are we now talking about a shade of red?

What I am getting at is that words have meaning that are a given by the context we use them in and you understand those meanings. So when I say I have lots of green backs, you know I am referring to money. When I say I am green with envy you know I'm talking figuratively. When I say the grass is green you know I am referring to the overall color of the grass (not using a metaphor) and that that color is not brown or yellow overall.

You said,

"Many other animals perceive what we call green very differently, if at all. In short, "green" does not exist in nature, it is what our individual brains perceive within a certain spectrum of light."

That is the difference between us and animals. We have been made in God's image and likeness in that we have the ability to reason about His creation and are self-aware.

Green is an abstract term, a concept to identify something. It applies to all people in this world. You will not find people calling something that is green orange unless, like you say they have an impairment in which they find it hard to distinguish shades. If someone kept referring to something that was green as black you would soon correct them, would you not?

The question in an evolutionary universe, where everything can from matter, is how do we arrive at concepts and abstract ideas (non-physical) like green that are not part of the physical world? Are they just our electro-chemical impulses? How do we know that the chemicals will react together in the same way next time in a universe governed by chance beginnings? Why is everyone (generally) able to distinguish green? It is because we are programmed? If all we are is biological bags in motion then all this doesn't matter anyway. In such a case why are you looking for meaning? Maybe you are searching for a way out of this without God?

You said,

"In short, "green" does not exist in nature, it is what our individual brains perceive within a certain spectrum of light."

Why are we able to perceive that spectrum of light and distinguish the wavelengths between 490 to 570 nanometers consistently as shades of green instead of black or white? Because words have meaning and apply to make sense of the world. Therefore green cannot be green and not green at the same time and in the same sense.

"We can take your color analogy one step further. There are many shades of green - kelly, emerald, chartreuse, pine, forest, hunter, teal, and lime, to name a few. Not all greens are identical, but they are all green."

PH: "Yes, but you are describing a different circumstance, not the one I presented. Are they shades of greens and not shades of greens? That is my point, green cannot be green and not green. It is either green or not green. So when it is said that God is the only true God and polytheism is true you have statements that contradict. Both cannot be true"

Green is not an absolute, it refers to a particular range of wavelengths of light that the human eye and brain can perceive and has been designated by us as "green". Your perception of green is quite possibly not identical to mine, and a color-blind person has a very different perception of it (what we folks without color-blindness would call "not green"). Many other animals perceive what we call green very differently, if at all. In short, "green" does not exist in nature, it is what our individual brains perceive within a certain spectrum of light.

Hello to the author of Presuppositionalist, Christian Reconstructist Peter,

You said,

“G'day! Now how is it exactly, that you came to the ABSOLUTE position that the Bible is in fact true about anything? Will you cite Calvin who says this kind of position is a gift of god? Or will you cite a church father who stated, "we believe it because it makes no sense?"

Hello,
Either the Bible is true in what it states or the God of the Bible could not be trusted. The Bible conforms to what is real. Either you take God at His Word that He cannot lie and does not change or you reject it. If you reject it then you have to make sense of the world by some other way, but no other way can make sense of the world without borrowing from the outlook of the Christian God.

I would cite Calvin, with reference to the Bible. Since there is no higher appeal we can make other than to God’s absolute, ultimate, objective Word why would I cite a subjective opinion that opposes what He says?

As for the church father, who are you referring to?

You said,

“At bottom, you posit yourself, now, here as the summation of all legitimate human knowledge. You stake out a claim for this highly exalted position how? Oh yeah, the Bible told you so. I forgot. Oh yes, the Holy Spirit impressed upon your mind the absolute truth of the Bible.”

Well, how do you posit yourself. You start with a basic presupposition and build your worldview on it, whether that is the God of the Bible or none at all.

The problem is that if your position is relative to you, how do you ever prove that it is true? Do you say it is true because I believe it to be true? That is circular reasoning.

Do you say it is true because science says it is true and because science says it is true it is true? That is circular reasoning. Facts need to be interpreted. They never come with a stamp that says “This is how you interpret me.” Scientist are constantly revising there theories, as well as making statements that are false, especially in the evolutionary field. The problem is the one that God confronted Job with, “Where were you when I laid the earths foundation? Tell me if you understand.” (Job 38:4) Scientists have to start with a foundation that they were not there to see and then interpret a whole bunch of theories into the facts that they observe, since the facts do not speak for themselves.

So how do you make sense of it all. Without an objective standard – God – you cannot.

How do you determine truth without God? It becomes one man’s subjective opinion against others.

You said,

“Now, lessee... since under the propositions of Calvinism, one can only come to such a solid position about the Bible (uhh...which one?) as absolute, errant fact about any topic one wishes to explore (biology and cosmology as examples) does this not give YOU an enormous problem?”

No, you have to start from the standpoint that God reveals, otherwise you make your own subjective one. And you have to read out of the text the Author's meaning (exegesis) or you read into the text your subjective opinion and something the text does not say (isogesis)

"We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." ( Acts 17:11)

You said,

“Your problem derives from the fact that you folks do assert that the Holy Spirit convinces you that the Bible (again, which one of hundreds?) Within your view of the matter the situation devolves to "God said it, I believe it."

It is not a problem that cannot be resolved like some of yours. We refer to the original language manuscripts and rely on the science of hermeneutics. Since God has spoken and since God is the originator of language He is able to communicate to His creatures in ways that we will understand.

He has done this in three ways, as revealed in His Word; by the general knowledge of what has been created, by His special revelation of who He is – His Word, and by His Spirit. Just because you do not necessarily believe this confirms the truth of what He has said over and over again.

You said,

“Now, supposedly, since the Bible (which one???) states the things you try to convince all humanity of, and that understanding of the Bible is the sole epistemology as coming from God Almighty, then WHY is your position a very, very, recent so-called Christian position in the history of Christianity? If 'God' is in fact immutable (unchanging), and he alone, via the Holy Spirit, the Church, etc is the ONE who has written truth, and informs the believer... why is it that the Holy Spirit evidently been so confused about so many issues which are written in Holy Writ? “

Well, how about you name one and give me the verse. I may be able to answer the question. If I can’t, I will try to get back to you.

You said,

“Perhaps you can name those topics of holy writ which have been accepted as absolute truth from the history of the Christian faith? Perhaps you can start with abortion. That should be very interesting.”

Right from the beginning of His special revelation to man, that happened during the life of Adam and Eve and their family, He has said that it is wrong to shed innocent blood. (Genesis 4:10; 9:6). So murder is one of them, and that includes abortion.

So is the institution of marriage between male and female. They were created to procreate and to have families. The physical union is a picture and object lesson also of God and Israel and Christ and the church. Christ and His bride is an absolute.

Then you have the covenants that God makes with man, all having God set the boundaries of what He will and will not permit and man either agreeing or disobeying. Through their disobedience we see the consequences of doing things our own way, even after God has warned us, “The soul that sins will die.”

You also have from the very beginning of His Word a picture, through actual physical history of God’s redemptive plan on how He will save His people, those who put their trust in Him, by the only means He has given, His Son. That is an absolute.

The list goes on.

You said,

“The passion of the rhetoric coming from the Christian/Recon/Evangelical/Roman Catholic Right Wing and those of us who object brings an echo of the kinds of rhetoric found just prior to the Civil War.”

I’m a Calvinist. I do not place my trust in the Roman Catholic Church, but in God’s Word and Calvinism best stays with His Word.

You said,

“Perhaps you folks long for another civil war. Seems that is the case.”

I know from what His Word reveals that I am in a war. It is called the battle for your and my mind and it is a spiritual battle, not a battle against flesh and blood, or a physical battle. (See Ephesians 6:10-18, or 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 for instance, if you are interested)

You said,

“In any event, it should be apparent to anyone reading your posts, that there is no platform (say political pluralism) from which any meeting of the minds may take place. The Christian Reconstructionalist/Presuppositionalist apologist have the COMPLETE, TOTAL, end all of divinely, revealed, absolute TRUTH. To hell with all others, eh? Your Word from God explains it all, for ALL mankind. “

It depends on God and His mercy and grace. Your mind is hostile to the gospel of truth (Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1-10). As for what I say, check it out with His standard. On points you disagree on (probably everything), take me to the verse and we can check it out. I am like you, human. But I can point to His absolute standard which can be understood, or He would not have said it could (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16)

You said,

“How are you, intrinsically any different from the Taliban? I for one, can see no real distinction based on your appeals.”

The difference is in the revelation and by His mercy. One revelation comes from God and the other is an invention of man.

You said,

“Have a day!”

You too!

Hi lepidopteryx,

You said,

"I never said that what is good for one society is good for all. In Society A, where overpopulation is a problem, and there is not enough food or other resources to go around, being fruitful and multiplying is harmful to the society. In Society B, which has negative population growth, being fruitful and multiplying is necessary for the continuation of that society. These two societies can and do exist simultaneously and what is good for one is harmful to the other."

Good point! Do you think that Society A should then kill off the percentage of its population that is draining the resources?

Unfortunately in a world dominated by evolutionary thinking, where only the strong survive, we will watch them starve to death. Why not send them the resources they need, whether that be food, technology or education! The problems are not overpopulation, but how we use what God has given us and our inability to share. The population of the world can fit into one of the smaller States, so I have been told. It my be a tight squeeze though???

You said,

"We can take your color analogy one step further. There are many shades of green - kelly, emerald, chartreuse, pine, forest, hunter, teal, and lime, to name a few. Not all greens are identical, but they are all green."

Yes, but you are describing a different circumstance, not the one I presented. Are they shades of greens and not shades of greens? That is my point, green cannot be green and not green. It is either green or not green. So when it is said that God is the only true God and polytheism is true you have statements that contradict. Both cannot be true.

You said,

"Thou shalt not kill" is not an absolute. There are situations in which it is permissible (defending oneself against an attacker) or even required (war) that one person kill another."

There again the Bible makes the distinction.

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated and Arminius,

I suggest you find out how to properly interpret the Bible. R.C. Sproul has some excellent video presentations that you would both learn greatly by.

If you are interested I would recommend, "The Science of Interpretation," "Literal Interpretation," "Literary Forms (Pt. 1 & 2)," "Reading the Bible Existentially," "The Historical Narrative," "The Explicit and the Implicit," "Parallelisms," "Scripture and Culture," "Principle vs. Custom," "The Biblical Witness," "Early Controversies," "Fifth-Century Heresies," "Contradiction vs. Mystery."

These are a good starting point to discover why your ideas about the Bible are wrong.

It will give you insight into why these 20th century historical revisionists are so, so wrong. Take it or leave it, here is the web address:

http://www.ligonier.org/rym.php

P.S. To the atheists, Muslims and pagans reading this post, check it out!

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated, you said,

Like many of us, you have been bred, born and brainwashed in your religion. To escape, I highly recommend reading the books of the many of the NT scholars listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

I have already looked at your site when you posted it before.

You said,

"This will put you well on the road to religious reality where "pretty wingie talking flying fictional thingies" and the demons of the demented do not exist."

Whose reality, yours? I prefer God's ultimate standard. Thanks!

Godfrey, you said,

"Maybe I'm being recondite, or maybe literal-minded, but doesn't the idea of the gospel being "God-breathed" suggest the Gnostic doctrine of emanations?"

I don't know what you are getting at. Please define your terms more.

Hey, Jay,

You said,

"You are missing the point of my argument about good. I reject the idea that there are absolutes concerning what is good, because too many times it depends on context. It is good to not kill another person, unless that person is threatening you, or threatening your country (in war), etc. Some say it is good to kill a convicted murderer, others disagree. There are many such examples, which is why our laws are so complex and why lawyers and judges recognize shades of gray in what we determine to be bad (illegal)."

Well Jay, you reject that there are absolutes concerning what is good, except of course the absolute that there are no absolutes concerning what is good. So actually do you?

The Bible gives us the guidelines in such situations. As societies we need to implement justice and act against hostile aggression. There is a difference between intentional killing and accidental killing, or killing a person in defense of property or for country. In the OT, the command in Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments) is the Hebrew word "rasah" and refers to intentional killing of a person(s), where as in other places such as during times of war or capital punishment the word for killing is "harag."

In the NT, there is a distinction between two Greek words also.

You said,

"Your benchmark is the bible. For a Muslim it is the Koran. If you both are scriptural literalists, the two of you are at an impasse on some issues. I happen to think that both can provide insights to what is good and bad, but neither should be viewed as the last word on the subject. It's already been mentioned that slavery is a topic that the bible seems to condone, and yet we have made the good decision that slavery is not good. On this topic alone, we are ahead of the bible."

Two thoughts, why would I turn to another source to make ethical judgments. God's Word is the highest source of appeal that can be used. I do not recognize the Qur'an as the authoritative source. It was derived after the Bible and contradicts the Bible in many important doctrines. I do not deny that it borrows truths from the Bible, but two sources that contradict each other cannot both true on the points of contention.

Second thought, as for slavery being a topic that the Bible condones, God used slavery in the Old Testament both in judgment and as an object lesson, in that it taught that the slave is not free to do as he chooses but according to the will of his master. Since the Jews were in a covenant relation with God there was an agreement they kept breaking. God gave them many object lessons.

Part of what led to the abolition of slavery was the Christian concept that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) For those the Son sets free are free indeed (John 8:36) otherwise you are a slave to whatever is in control of you (your vices or sins that probably very few, if anyone knows, apart from God have control of you. You know those evil thoughts that are counter to the Ten Commandments. You just tend to justify them by pleading ignorance in your fight for autonomy from God).

You said,

"No, I would not jump off a cliff if the majority judged it to be good. That's the whole point of my argument. We should be independent enough in our thinking that we can make our own judgments. Sometimes the minority is right, and it just takes a while for the rest to come around."

There is a loaded sentence. You may not jump off a cliff, but you will certainly buy into much of what the majority sells.

BTW, all judgments come from core values that you build upon during your lifetime. Sometimes they change, but it takes a lot to rock a foundational belief, whether that belief is built on sinking sand, like yours, or on the very Word of God. (Matthew 7:24-27)

The question is how the majority tell when something is right. Who decides for them, some subjective person, or group of subjective people??? What happens if you are wrong, since I take it you do believe that the majority can be wrong? How do you tell when they are wrong? By the shifting majority that is sometimes right? Seems like a circular argument to me, the very type I have been accused of.

You said,

"Yes, I think all societies (including our own) accept bad things as good."

You think, but how do you know? Which subjective standard are you going to appeal too?

So here is your rule of thumb, your standard, so to speak,

"If you need a rule of thumb it would be: if it diminishes the rights and freedoms of any individual, it's "goodness" should be carefully examined and weighed against what it is intended to serve."

So in other words we have anarchy where everyone does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25)

How does a subjective opinion establish goodness outside of an objective framework?

You said,

"I think it is in the gray areas and the tops of those slippery slopes that we find ways to improve the lives of all people and make a better earth. It's messy business, but it's what we have."

You think?

Wikipedia quotes,

"Karl Marx and Judaism
An atheist as an adult, Marx was raised as a Lutheran, his father having converted when Marx was a child in order to escape discrimination by the Prussian state. Marx himself has been accused of being an anti-Semite, though most critical scholars today tend to reject this argument.
With a measure of irony, Marx goes on to link the emancipation of Jews to a general emancipation of society from huckstering and its conditions. Still, his focus was not on the Jewish religion, but rather on replacing “freedom to” with “freedom from”.[citation needed]

Instead of men being free to practice whatever religion they choose, they should be free from religion."

Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, said,

“IN the contradiction between Faith and Love which has just been exhibited, we see the practical, palpable ground of necessity that we should raise ourselves above Christianity, above the peculiar stand-point of all religion. We have shown that the substance and object of religion is altogether human; we have shown that divine wisdom is human wisdom; that the secret of theology is anthropology; that the absolute mind is the so-called finite subjective mind. But religion is not conscious that its elements are human; on the contrary, it places itself in opposition to the human, or at least it does not admit that its elements are human. The necessary turning-point of history is therefore the open confession, that the consciousness of God is nothing else than the consciousness of the species; that man can and should raise himself only above the limits of his individuality, and not above the laws, the positive essential conditions of his species; that there is no other essence which man can think, dream of, imagine, feel, believe in, wish for, love and adore as the absolute, than the essence of human nature itself.”

How does that tie into Karl Marx. Feuerbach was one of those people who influenced Marx,

"Marx's theory of alienation (Entfremdung in German), as expressed in the writings of young Karl Marx, refers to the separation of things that naturally belong together, or to antagonism between things that are properly in harmony. In the concept's most important use, it refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" (Gattungswesen, usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). Marx believed that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. His theory relies on Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1841), which argues that the idea of God has alienated the characteristics of the human being.”

End of Wikipedia quotes.

The history of Communism shows how Stalin and Mao eliminated freedom of religion in both Russia and China. Both these "gentlemen" were atheists, a by-product of what Marxism and Darwinism can lead to.

Karl Marx quotes from the Internet,

“Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

“Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.”

To continue Godfrey with your thought,

"Earlier, you equated atheism with communism. Here's an excerpt from a post at daylightatheism.org :

"A major problem... is in... conflating atheism with communism. Even Marx himself denied that there was any necessary connection between Marxism and atheism..."

Well, lets see what the Communist Manifesto says,

“The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the
old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary
bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

The Communist Manifesto ends,

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

End of quote.

To me that sounds like the aim is to overthrow any form of oppression, religion being identified as one of the many.

Good evening Godfrey,

You said,

"Earlier, you equated atheism with communism. Here's an excerpt from a post at daylightatheism.org :

"A major problem... is in... conflating atheism with communism. Even Marx himself denied that there was any necessary connection between Marxism and atheism. Nevertheless, many theist writers continue to attribute the atrocities committed by militant Marxists/communists with atheists. This communism = atheism is a categorical error, but, it seems to me that the error is so obvious that it is ...likely that those who use it are... doing so* deliberately in order to mislead people."

Have you ever thought of the possibility that you have been misled? I was first introduced to the idea when I read Henry Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Unfortunately I lent the book out and it was never returned, but in it this is documented.

Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, has also documented it. Here is a quote,

"From Evolution to Atheism
At first Darwin's Origin was primarily accepted not on any scientific merit but rather because it offered an apparently rational alternative to the miraculous; the early followers were, therefore, not the scientists of the day but rather theologians who found themselves in the profession for any number of personal reasons, the least of which was they had been "called" to that vocation. There was no doubt much truth in the Victorian quip that the fool of the family was either sent into the army or the church, and Charles Darwin's father may have considered these alternatives when he sent young Darwin to Cambridge for clerical training. Darwin's followers each had their particular motive: some, like Huxley, because the theory was anticlerical and others simply because it was antiestablishment. Perhaps the most notable was Karl Marx, at the time living in London and attending Huxley's public lectures on Darwinian evolution. Marx found the struggle-to-the-death principle in natural selection a perfect confirmation of his own view of man's class struggle and, in appreciation, sent Darwin a copy of his Das Kapital, in 1873 -- it had been published in 1867 (Padover 1979, 139).[26] Six years later, Marx wrote to Darwin requesting permission to dedicate his next volume to him; however, Darwin declined the offer explaining "that it would pain certain members of his family if he were associated with so atheistic a book" (Keith 1955, 234). Darwin would turn in his grave if he knew of the excesses his theory has been asked to justify in this twenty-first century!
Chapter 14, Note # 26 Marx had just finished reading Darwin's Natural selection and commented to his friend Engels in his letter of 19 December 1860, "Although it is developed in a crude English way, this is the book that contains the natural history foundation for our viewpoint" (p. 139).

It had taken less than a generation from the time Hegel's philosophy had been given credibility by Darwin's Origin to the formal declaration of atheism. Only acceptable to the apostate extremists at first, the high road to atheism had been established, and now, through the new world order set out by Karl Marx (1850) in his Communist Manifesto, man was seen to be at last totally freed from the shackles of religion.[28]

Note # 28 Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare the manifesto at a secret Congress of the Communist League held in London in 1847. The first draft was drawn up in German while a French translation was quickly prepared for the abortive Paris uprising of June 1848. There were subsequently many translations and revisions."

End of quote.

In the next segment I will include quotes from the Communist Manifesto and other works. I learned a long time ago that if you want to know a man find out who influenced him. Ever thought about reading into the people who Marx hung around with. Remember, no worldview or ideology is neutral.

Hi Peter:

You are missing the point of my argument about good. I reject the idea that there are absolutes concerning what is good, because too many times it depends on context. It is good to not kill another person, unless that person is threatening you, or threatening your country (in war), etc. Some say it is good to kill a convicted murderer, others disagree. There are many such examples, which is why our laws are so complex and why lawyers and judges recognize shades of gray in what we determine to be bad (illegal).

Your benchmark is the bible. For a Muslim it is the Koran. If you both are scriptural literalists, the two of you are at an impasse on some issues. I happen to think that both can provide insights to what is good and bad, but neither should be viewed as the last word on the subject. It's already been mentioned that slavery is a topic that the bible seems to condone, and yet we have made the good decision that slavery is not good. On this topic alone, we are ahead of the bible.

No, I would not jump off a cliff if the majority judged it to be good. That's the whole point of my argument. We should be independent enough in our thinking that we can make our own judgments. Sometimes the minority is right, and it just takes a while for the rest to come around.

Yes, I think all societies (including our own)accept bad things as good. Female circumcision is bad, because it impinges on the right of the woman, even though it is culturally acceptable in some nations. Our country used to have child labor, even after we gave up slavery. There are many examples. If you need a rule of thumb it would be: if it diminishes the rights and freedoms of any individual, it's "goodness" should be carefully examined and weighed against what it is intended to serve.

I know that you are a black-and-white kind of guy and gray seems to scare you. You see slippery slopes everywhere and that makes you stick to a very narrow path. I think it is in the gray areas and the tops of those slippery slopes that we find ways to improve the lives of all people and make a better earth. It's messy business, but it's what we have.

Maybe I'm being recondite, or maybe literal-minded, but doesn't the idea of the gospel being "God-breathed" suggest the Gnostic doctrine of emanations?

Godfrey,

When I said,

“(What passage are you referring to about Timothy?)”

Your reply was,

"The one you quoted above, and I commented on at the time. Thread back. Something to do with scripture being breathed by God."

Sorry, I thought you were referring to what Timothy said about slavery as per your thread,

"Incidentally, I can see why you decline to further discuss slavery; I have you in the bag, there. But I was hoping you would touch on whether or not Timothy held the theory of emanations."

For some reason my mind registered emanation as emancipation since I thought you were tying the two sentences together.

Yes, I definitely believe that Timothy held to the teaching of Scripture as being God speaking to us, just as Paul reminded him, for Paul says,

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God breathed and is for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..."

Paul gives this admonition to Timothy,

"Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching." (1 Timothy 4:12, 13)

We are given evidence that what Paul is writing is God breathed to Him in verses like,

"If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command." (1 Corinthians 14:37)

Therefore there is a written record way before 70 A.D., that Paul is calling Scripture and that the other apostles who were eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus confirm is from God. (2 Corinthians 10:7, 8)

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, wqhich are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30, 31)

Both Paul and Peter refer to each others writings as Scripture which confirms that the Church had written manuscripts of the apostles teaching well before Paul died.

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Just refer to the number of times that Paul refers to writing to someone in the New Testament and how these documents would have been read in certain churches until they were gathered together and combined into one manuscript.

Incidentally, my phrase "extraordinarily bad writing" is bad writing. The addition of the adverb weakens, rather than strengthens.

I was tired.

If I hadn't been, I would have kept it to myself in the first place.

P.H.:

Earlier, you equated atheism with communism. Here's an excerpt from a post at daylightatheism.org :

"A major problem... is in... conflating atheism with communism. Even Marx himself denied that there was any necessary connection between Marxism and atheism. Nevertheless, many theist writers continue to attribute the atrocities committed by militant Marxists/communists with atheists. This communism = atheism is a categorical error, but, it seems to me that the error is so obvious that it is ...likely that those who use it are... doing so* deliberately in order to mislead people."

* [Spelling corrected from "do."]

Comment by: Archi Medez | August 13, 2007, 10:24 am

Peter Huff:

I know "what in effect" you're saying. I just point out it's a bad way of saying it. You could have said, "you have no foundation," or, "you're out of touch with reality," or, "if you don't believe what I believe, your arguments are false."

The third is better, because the other two are figures.

As for objective versus subjective, I'll explain this one more time, then I'll give up. Beliefs based on observed reality are objective. Beliefs based on a mystical realm are subjective. Your inversions of the English language are cheap tricks, and they're getting old. (Three figures in one sentence. That's how they do it Uptown.)

Hello Godfrey,

Your comments on "feet firmly planted in mid-air" confirms you are missing the central idea of what is being conveyed. It is using irony to convey imagery and humor on the condition of a belief that is grounded in ones subjective opinion. What, in effect I am saying is that you have nothing to base your foundation on. What relativism does is places morals and anything else a person believes as valid and true in the mind of each particular person. There is no objectivity there at all. Therefore truth is whatever you make it and subject to your whims. There is no foundation for it, so therefore you are basing truth on your invention. In such an evolutionary framework truth is enforced by the powerful and influential.

When you say "Feet cannot be planted in midair. Nothing can be planted in midair" you are coming close to the idea conveyed for neither can ideas for them to make sense. They need an objective foundation.

And I think you get the idea when you say that "And "firmly" is a weak attempt to make a weak figure strong" which is precisely the idea conveyed about subjective opinion. Over and over again the posts are trying to make a weak idea strong based on subjective opinion. It is like trying to place your feet firmly in mid-air. It is impossible to do, at this point in time to my knowledge.

I wasn't going to do this, but I've changed my mind. "Your feet are firmly planted in midair" is extraordinarily bad writing. It's trite, and it's a bad figure. Feet cannot be planted in midair. Nothing can be planted in midair. And "firmly" is a weak attempt to make a weak figure strong. It doesn't work.

Stop using other people's figures. Especially ones you hear all the time. Get some figures of your own. If you have no poetry in you, leave figures alone. You're messing with things you don't understand.

Peter Huff:

“(What passage are you referring to about Timothy?)”

The one you quoted above, and I commented on at the time. Thread back. Something to do with scripture being breathed by God.

All your quotations and expatiation on the Bible and slavery: irrelevant. The point remains that the Bible says no word against slavery, and a number of words for it. It even tells you where to buy your slaves.

“God cannot be mocked. One day, unless you repent and turn to God, He will judge your actions and demand the punishment/payment of His justice.”

Now begin the threats. Spare me. It's altogether childish, and I’m not impressed by your threats. I don’t believe, remember?

“Your reference to Tertullian, On The Ornamentation of Women Bk. I, Ch. 1 start like this...”

I know how it starts. It attempts to attribute all the evil in the world to women. Adam gets a free ride. It was all Eve’s fault. I say hateful.

“The introduction and first chapter of "Manifested in the Flesh: How the Original Jesus Tradition Refutes Modern Mystics and Atheists" by Joel McDurmon has been given free on line to read at, (site cited).”

I read your site. All 40 pages. I found one relevant statement that looked like a fact: The book of Acts doesn’t mention the fall of Jerusalem. I will, for now, assume this is true. It isn’t much. The rest of the site included a bunch of assertions about what scholarship says, and about what scholarship is dead, but offers not one single quotation as evidence. It’s mostly repetition of Biblical quotations that are doubtless convincing for the convince Christian, but are so much air for the rest of us.

Now. I’ve read your site. Are you going to read mine?

“It just reinforces my point is that scholars can be pitted against scholars all day long, so your starting foundation is very important. Without God you cannot make sense of all this because your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.”

I regard this as an insult. Also a falsehood, because I’m the one standing on observed reality. You’re the one standing in the Cloud Cuckoo Land of ancient mythology.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

When you say,

"I see no scriptural attestations proving your points about the literacy of Jesus."

Maybe you should ask yourself another question then. Could a Man who is illiterate bring forth such noble, ethical, weighty arguments and discourses? Could he refer to and quote so many verses from the Scriptures without having read them and knowing the arguments? Could He say to the men on the road to Emmaus, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" without having read any of the above listed?

Why would He appeal to the populous to read what is written if nearly everyone was illiterate in this agrarian society?

Again, you have an opinion that is molded by 20th century historical revisionist.

Hi Jay,

The first coat is on Jay and I managed to paint the corner without painting myself into it. So now I can focus on your words of wisdom. When you say,

"You don't have to accept my definition of good. If "good" and "bad" happen to be codified in civil law, you might want to adhere to the "good", but that's your business."

That is not the point I am making. Where did the standard of good come from? I'm asking what standard can account for good. A standard that comes from a subjective human being is not objective. As if we could ever see clearly enough to disallow our biases to sway our judgment. The only difference between an individual subjective opinion and one million individual subjective opinions is the number. Majority does not make subjective opinion more objective. Only objective opinion can do that.

So when seven Supreme Court judges get together and decide abortion is a right of a woman, why should they decide that that is going to be the "functionality" (as your Texas friend put it) for the rest of society? I thought he said functionality was based on what the society deemed "good" or "normal" not just on the governing upper crust. Is it not a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Why did seven decide for the people?

Why should good or normal be determined by the greatest number, and when the greatest number shift their opinion on what good is then where does it leave those who were the majority, but are no longer in the consensus of this shifting value? It leaves them saying that the old good is still the good even if the majority says otherwise.

Why should subjective preferences bind anyone? If morals are just derived from human experience then why is "good" binding on the majority. Cannot one person determine good for themselves?

Now, in the case of Germany during WWII, if my whole society is anti-Semitic and is oppressing the Jews, does that mean that I am now obligated to go along with this trend, because it is the social norm and therefore "good?"

What happens if I live in a society where the culture is controlled not by the majority, but by an oligarchy or dictatorship? Must now what is considered "functional" and therefore "good" be determined by these individuals? Again, why does the subjective opinion of one or a few determine what is good. The answer always boils down to power. That is why atheistic regimes are often the most ruthless. Take a look at the 20th century, the age of the atheist. Mao killed between 20 and 60 million Chinese (Look up Wikipedia on genocide) or Stalin’s mass murder or Hitler's.

Abortion is killing the unborn, infanticide is killing the born. Look at the countries that still encourage such practices to control population growth. Is that good too. If you are going to kill the infant, in these societies it is going to be more than likely the female. China and India are two examples. Is this good? If it is are right to kill the infant, then why not the adult?

Columbia Encyclopedia:
"infanticide (ĭnfăn'təsīd) [Lat.,=child murder], the putting to death of the newborn with the consent of the parent, family, or community. Infanticide often occurs among peoples whose food supply is insecure (e.g., the Chinese and the Eskimo). Female infanticide was common in some traditional patriarchal societies. In certain societies children who are deformed or are believed tainted by evil (e.g., twins) may be slain at birth. In Greece and ancient Rome a child was virtually its father's chattel—e.g., in Roman law, the Patria Potestas granted the father the right to dispose of his offspring as he saw fit. In Sparta the decision was made by a public official. Child sacrifice occurs in many traditional societies for religious reasons, but human sacrificial victims were generally appreciated members of society, unlike victims of infanticide, who were devalued. Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, condemns infanticide as murder, and in all countries the act is a crime. If infanticide served as a means of limiting family size, as many anthropologists believe, then the introduction of contraceptives, abortion, and other methods of population control may have rendered it obsolete."

Without moral absolutes anything goes. One persons evil is another person's good.

The irrational thing about denying absolute morals is that you have to have at least one absolute, that there are no moral absolutes. It becomes a self refuting argument.

So when you say, Jay,

"I am perfectly happy, in an evolving society such as ours, that today's good may be revised tomorrow, if evidence appears that we were wrong. It keeps things interesting and allows us to be constantly in search of a "better good"."

So if it ever comes to the time when your society determines that there needs to be a mass cultural suicide for the good of everyone concerned, I hope that you will be the first to volunteer, since you are perfectly happy to cater to its evolving values. When society decides that one child families is the limit are you going to volunteer your extra family members for the "better good?"
When gay marriage, then polygamy, then incest, then child molestation, then human sacrifice, then cannibalism becomes the standard are you going to be perfectly happy if the evidence appears that your previous position was wrong? After all, I could cite an example of different cultures that accepted these things.

When you say that you are perfectly happy in an evolving society when today’s good may be revised. How are you going to determine it is a better good without an absolute standard? Of course, with your outlook what right do you have to critisize a society that practices something that your society says is bad? The other society has determined it good. Since you have no absolute moral guidelines the only thing you can do is turn your head the other way and look on. Or your society can decide to change the views of the other society by playing the big bully, that is, if your society is morally, excuse me, militarily superior.

You make moral evaluations of other societies as an individual, but according to the Texas bush kickers, the functionality of society should decide what the norm of good is, and if you disagree on a certain issue you should not make that moral judgment yourself but leave it to the functional majority.

So do you think that your worldview really makes sense? Of course you do, but again you cannot supply a standard that will stick.

Moderate,

I see no scriptural attestations proving your points about the literacy of Jesus. I assume you are referring to the passages in Mark 12. With the exception of the common sense "Render to Caesar" passage, the rest of the "debates" have insufficient attestations to conclude they were from the historical Jesus. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

And his discourse at age 12, "where, to their great astonishment he was holding a serious conversation with learned men that were astonished by his wisdom" is a single attestation, 433-. Jesus at Twelve: (1) Luke 2:41-52; putting this passage in the embellishment pile along with the "doodling" comment.

Moderate, you wrote:

"Peter Huff is flat out right on this. Jesus was clearly and deeply literate. This does not rest only upon a couple of proof texts. He repeatedly entered into, and won, debates with the best of the Pharisaic lawyers and came out on top."

My answer:

I don't think it is a 'Slam dunk', but I will hold that the total evidence, when subject to a historical analysis, yields a high probability that Jesus was indeed literate. I accept that, until proven otherwise. Back to the bomb shelter....

Moderate,

"I have known a couple women who had abortions. It was no picnic for them. Neither is it always free of morbidity. To pretend that this difficult procedure is innocuous is to do a grave disservice to the women of America and across the world."
I don't think that's what Susan meant. It's just not a proven syndrome. No one claims abortions are a walk in the park for women, but threatening women with "post-abortion trauma syndrome" is the same as telling them they'll be sterile after having an abortion, or that abortions cause breast cancer (with anti-choice groups do). It's an unfounded claim, and these women are basically being lied to.

I understand you point, but I also take issue with your sample size. I know many women who have had abortions. It was difficult for them at the time, but they're just fine now. No trama syndrome. Of course, I know these women through my work with clinics and shelters, so my sample size is quite concentrated in regards to how these women view their choice. I don't use these women's examples to make a general claim about all women who get abortions because I can see the bias behind the sample.

Dear Concerned..., and Anonymous,

Peter Huff is flat out right on this. Jesus was clearly and deeply literate. This does not rest only upon a couple of proof texts. He repeatedly entered into, and won, debates with the best of the Pharisaic lawyers and came out on top.

Also, the literacy rates in the ancient world were quite a lot higher than the twentieth century faculty lounge lizards thought. For example, there have been recent discoveries of letters to and from Roman Legionaries in first century Britain; from the troops, not just the officer corps.

Also, the recent and careful analysis of the existing codeces by David Trobisch in his "The First Edition of the New Testament" strongly indicates that

"The history of the New Testament is hte history of an edition, a book that has been published and edited by a specific group of editors, at a specific place and a specific time."

This canonical edition may have come out of the collaboration between Luke, Paul, Mathew, Mark, James and Peter in years between 57 to 62 AD. It now clear that it did not accumulate by accretion from the oral tradition over first four centuries AD.

It is the twentieth century revisionists like "Crossan, Borg, Spong, Funnk and the likes of the Jesus Seminar." who actually up their "history" out of whole cloth. There is no real evidence used by any of them to reject large parts of the New Testament accounts. They just don't think it could have happened that way.

Peter,
When you talk of Jesus reading from a scroll presented to him you will find some discrepancy in that event.

Luke says: [And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.] Luke 4

Compare that to what is in Isaiah which Jesus was supposed to have read from:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.” Isaiah 61

Notice how ‘recovery of sight to the blind’ was missing in Isaiah and added in what Jesus was supposed to be reading in the narration of Luke. You might say Jesus couldn’t read what was presented to him, otherwise that phrase shouldn’t be there; or Luke was making the whole thing up to fit his own theology.

Peter, Peter, Peter,

You indeed are thoroughly and biblically brainwashed.

It is all about attestations, publication stratums and common sense applied not only to the history and archeology of first to third century events but to all historical records. Come to grips with it all and escape to reality.

By the way the "doodling" of Jesus is only found in Luke's Gospel. Strange that such an important event is a single attestation and not found in any other Gospel or supporting texts. This lack of attestations is by the way is one of the backbones of modern NT analyses. e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Let us start with some basics like the belief in angels. One assumes you believe in them?

But if you look at "angelic" history, belief in these "pretty wingy talking flying thingies" quickly relegates them to the myth pile.

A few notes from history:

"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Conclusions:

Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

Then there are the "prophets" and prophecies. As noted by Professor Crossan in his book, Who is Jesus, "All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

It is too bad that you base your theology on 20th century revisionist historians such as Crossan, Borg, Spong, Funnk and the likes of the Jesus Seminar. What ever happened to the Word of God? Why don't you check out some of the better theologians or some of the debates between Crossan or Spong with James R.White. See how well they bring their viewpoint across. Wow!

aomin.org/index.php?query=crossan+debate&amount=0&blogid=1

Check out the audio on 09/13/05 or 07/05/05

Or on the scholarship of today check out the debunking of "Jesus: The Search Continues
A Response to ABC and Peter Jennings' Special, "The Search for Jesus" (8 parts) @

garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm

Use http:// to access these sites.

You said,

"To understand the reality of the first to third century CE, one must peruse at the minimum the list of documents posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/"

I have read some of them and I don't understand how people are saying what they are about these early church fathers.

You said,

"A synopsis of the conclusions of many contemporary NT scholars:"

"Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth."

You said it, contemporary NT scholars. More on the illiterate part later.

"Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents and archeology have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic."

Yes, the Jesus Seminar was quite a conglomeration of religious "experts" who decided which saying were actually attributed to Jesus by using colors to vote.

http://www.rim.org/muslim/jesusseminar.htm

You said,

"The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed and/or improved from those that came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics."

There again, both you and Arminius do a disservice to the truth by your lack of trust in God’s Word.

When I first read you posts on other forums I thought you were an atheist by your outlook and opinions. Titus had this to say of the false teachers during his day,

"For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things that they ought not to teach - and for the sake of dishonest gain....Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupt and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good."
(Titus 1:10, 11, 13-16)

I say this to your shame for taking the words of men above the words of God.

By the way, how can Jesus be illiterate when,

"The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it is written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor..." (Luke 4:17, 18)

Did He just take a luck guess in finding the place that said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me."?

How about this,

"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger." (John 8:6b)

Was He just doodling?

"Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground" (Vs 8)

Obviously, with what He said and wrote it had enough impact on those who were present to disperse the crowd.

Those NT scholars of yours probably picked these verses as things and sayings that Jesus did not do so that they could come up with some of their preposterous allegations.

Arminius - my guess is you're a reasonable believer as opposed to a 'true' believer that typically engages in one-way conversations about religion because the only voice they hear (or want to hear) is their own - and is often a recapitulation of what the preacher said the last 42 Sundays in a row.....in the Deep South where there is no shortage of fundamentalists everyone can quote the Bible extensively, and some folks wouldn't consider reading anything else. To me, this kind of religion seems excessively programmed to the point where the concept or exercise of 'thinking outside the box' in matters of religion and faith is a foreign and deeply unwelcome idea - when engaged in a discussion about religion the ammunition is always direct quotes from the bible, as though these words were simply undisputable truth - end of story. This is a frozen mind, arrested in mid-flight and there's no other way to describe it - that is a true believer. Curiously, I find Protestants, and especially of the evangelical variety, to be more conversant with the bible than your typical Catholic (my childhood was absent bibles, even in Catholic grade school). Well, who knows what that means??

Religious mystics of every creed agree that the truth is within - on that they are in unanimous agreement. I always recommend The Perennial Philosophy and Varieties of Religious Experience to get a sense of how similar mystical experience is among all faiths, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic/Sufi, Gnostic, Shamanist or Hindu to name a few. Believing is one thing, but knowing is another.

Dear Susan,

"Physicians who warn women about so-called "post-abortion trauma syndrome" -- the existence of which is supported by no scientific evidence -- are simply faith-based liars..."

I have known a couple women who had abortions. It was no picnic for them. Neither is it always free of morbidity. To pretend that this difficult procedure is innocuous is to do a grave disservice to the women of America and across the world.

Terra - I'm partial to Buddhism of the Zen and Tibetan schools, including the Bon Dzogchen school of the Great Perfection....in the end these define ultimate nature in a more impersonal light, although the relative world of many gods and goddesses are always in play.

The Way of Buddhism, Zen, and the One Mind all refer to the one ineffable Nature that all sentient beings share as consisting of emptiness and pure awareness or clarity - so in this vision of reality all apparent manifestations including gods and goddesses are necessarily of one substance or quality - there is no stand-alone Creator and none is necessary (and so contrary to what most Abrahamic creationists consider perfect common sense that the very notion is rejected out of hand - but Buddhism is pure religion and not atheism or nihilism by any stretch).

I've made the study of religion my primary and abiding interest for a very long time, and I always come back to Zen, so that punches my ticket....still, all religions point toward the Source, as you say and it's the only journey worth making in the end.

I think people stall out on the structure and artifacts of religion and forget the ultimate function - finding what you're looking for. While this seems to be different for different people, I think it's always the quest for the Original Source that drives every seeker - whatever the distractions may be along the way.

One poster here made a reference to Joseph Campbell and his work with mythology - anyone interested in the human psyche and religion needs to read his work - a vastly knowledgeable and insightful man that was just looking for his 'bliss' like everyone else and managed to take some pretty interesting detours along the way.

Dear Susan,

What about Dr. Kevorkian? Didn't he put the wishes of the patients first? Even when he was dealing with a depressed victim of chronic fatigue syndrome who might have benefited from an antidepressant rather than The Long Sleep?

Would he have been playing God if he resisted the patients wishes?

Was he playing God when he killed them?

Were the courts playing God when they intervened?

Hi Terra Gazelle,

Your rebuttal goes,

"Why? Cause I said so..! Why? Because god wants you to. Why? Cause I said so!"

Well, let's look at your side of it,

"Why, because the majority tells me it is so. Why, because my subjective but all knowing mind determines for itself what the standard is, never mind that it constantly changes and I can't give a reason for why anyone should believe it other than it seems good at this moment in time and the majority is going along with it. Can the majority ever be wrong? Why, because moral values are relative and todays bad is tomorrows good, so at this moment it is bad, but wait long enough and that will change.

You said,

"Isn't that something like Jim Jones or Rev. Moon?"

People have been calling God's standard evil because they want to live according to their rules. As for Jim Jones or Sun Myung Moon, they preached/preach a different gospel other than the once for all faith delivered to the saints. The Apostle Paul had/has a warning for them,

"I am so astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the ONE we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-8)

They preached another gospel and another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4).

You said,

"It is because it is...and I said so!"

That is your belief, not mine. I believe that it is so because God has said so, and He determines what is so that I can know. His standard is not fickle like yours is.

Peter,

With respect to biases, one who has studied the OT, NT and related documents and archeology, e.g. the religious scholars on the On Faith panel, have a significantly larger knowledge base to make conclusions about the history of said literature and events. They therefore are significantly less biased than someone who has only read only the bible.

To understand the reality of the first to third century CE, one must peruse at the minimum the list of documents posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

A synopsis of the conclusions of many contemporary NT scholars:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents and archeology have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles, healing- to stay on topic, and otherwise)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed and/or improved from those that came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, were founders of Christ-based religions who also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Terry, you said:

"I see true believers here (always religion of the fundamentalist sort, wouldn't you know) spewing page after page of evidence to support what they consider incontrovertible truth..."

Not entirely. I am a believer (not sure what you mean by 'true'), and I am not a fundamentalist. Please read my posts.

Terra, you said:
"As Jesus said, the kingdom of God is within - and that's exactly where it's always been....you either find it for yourself or waste everybody's time talking with great authority about something you know nothing about."

And you are absolutely correct.

Terry-
As Jesus said, the kingdom of God is within - and that's exactly where it's always been....you either find it for yourself or waste everybody's time talking with great authority about something you know nothing about. This Master was telling you how to find it directly, not how to follow him expecting salvation by proxy.

From the Charge of the Goddess-

And thou who think to seek for me, know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not unless thou know the mystery; that if that which thou seek thou find not within thee, thou wilt never find it without thee. For behold I have been with thee from the beginning, and I am that which is attained at the end of desire.

~~~~~~~
Terry,
religion means to realign back to the Source. Faith is a journey...I think you need to stumble, you need to go off on detours...you need to discover what you are made of. That is why Pagans sometimes call their religion, the path.

terra

terra

This post gathers more evidence all the time confirming the theory that 'beliefs are addicting' - sure we all have beliefs but among a great number of believers certain core beliefs eg. regarding religion and/or politics for example, simply do not yield to what the believer perceives as contrary (albeit often higher order) evidence. No indeed, mighty defenses gather immediately!! I see true believers here (always religion of the fundamentalist sort, wouldn't you know) spewing page after page of evidence to support what they consider incontrovertible truth, and yet in the end prove nothing whatsoever (it's beliefs, afterall, not objective fact in the scientific sense). In such cases you have to wonder which is the stronger addiction, drugs or religion?? Which addiction has in fact killed the greater number of people over the centuries? Reasonable religion of any kind, denomination, or persuasion whatsoever is and always has been a positive force. You can forget about converting the addicts to the power of reason however.

On the other hand, I believe I saw one poster disparaging mysticism, and if religion ever had a basis for truth, it is only through mystical experience that one can speak authoritatively of spiritual matters - there are no exceptions in my opinion. The great mystics were not 'seeing through a glass darkly' but were participating in the fundamental reality in the moment - knowing their true nature but unable to speak it. As Jesus said, the kingdom of God is within - and that's exactly where it's always been....you either find it for yourself or waste everybody's time talking with great authority about something you know nothing about. This Master was telling you how to find it directly, not how to follow him expecting salvation by proxy.

Jay,

Yeah, Peter is pretty beatuppable, and it is fun to spar with him. And he is apparently teflon coated; everything we throw at him slides off and never reaches his nerve center. But he is always friendly and polite, and for that he has my respect.

Peter, we'll simply have to disagree.

I hope Peter doesn't literally paint himself into a corner today. He's kind of fun.

Terra and Lepi,

Peter is arguing from authority, i.e., as you said, 'The bible says thus-and-so, and therefore it is so.' So any argument he offers automatically fails unless one accepts his premise that the bible is the total sum of all truth. He is unable to comprehend this, apparently.

I've pretty much given up debating him, altho I will doubtless put in a word occasionally.

Lepi,
Wow...lol.

Why? Cause I said so..! Why? Because god wants you to. Why? Cause I said so!

Isn't that something like Jim Jones or Rev. Moon?

It is because it is...and I said so!

; ) terra

Peter:
**because it doesn't cut it with you is neither hear nor there. Some things God has chosen not to reveal to us as yet. Maybe another Christian can help you out on this one. I do not know the answer or have I thought about it enough.**

Don't sweat it. I have a path that does provide me with answers that make sense and I can accept.

Peter, I thought you had a room to paint? Is it good you are wasting time on the computer?

You don't have to accept my definition of good. If "good" and "bad" happen to be codified in civil law, you might want to adhere to the "good", but that's your business.

I am perfectly happy, in an evolving society such as ours, that today's good may be revised tomorrow, if evidence appears that we were wrong. It keeps things interesting and allows us to be constantly in search of a "better good".

Lepidopteryx, because it doesn't cut it with you is neither hear nor there. Some things God has chosen not to reveal to us as yet. Maybe another Christian can help you out on this one. I do not know the answer or have I thought about it enough.

Hello Jay,

You said,

""Good" is a human concept ... what I think is "good" may vary from what you say it is. Most of the time we can settle on some general ideas about what is and is not good, but obviously consensus is impossible 100% of the time. That's life on planet Earth."

If good is a human construct then why should I accept our definition of it. I say your view is wrong and that settles it in a relativistic world.

Again and again, you cannot determine a definition of "good" that does not change. So why should I believe the current definition you espouse is good today?

Peter:

**Because God has chosen it to be that way.**

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I don't give my daughter "Because I say so." as a reason when I tell her to do something - or not to do something. I give her a logical, rational reason. I would expect no less from a deity.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You said,

"Like many of us, you have been bred, born and brainwashed in your religion."

Like yours isn't. The difference is that I recognize God as the unchanging ultimate authority who determines truth. Where does you standard come from, the ideas of man that are constantly changing. I have already looked at your site from previous posts.

Again, those scholars are looking at the evidence through their presupposition that the Bible is not the very Words of God. I look to God's Word itself as truth and I can provide the scholars to refute these liberal revisionist historians with just as good an evidence to support the Bible as God's very Word. Don't give me the position that your position is right when you are relying on the ideas of subjective opinion. Give me an objective standard that I can know for sure. Any evidence needs to be interpreted. You were not there, neither were they. They start with a bias; just like you and I do, but in the big picture you cannot make sense of this world without God.

Peter:

**Really, so how can you say that your good is good when another society say exactly the opposite is good and what you believe is bad? How do you determine you societal values are the good ones in such a case?**

I never said that what is good for one society is good for all. In Society A, where overpopulation is a problem, and there is not enough food or other resources to go around, being fruitful and multiplying is harmful to the society. In Society B, which has negative population growth, being fruitful and multiplying is necessary for the continuation of that society. These two societies can and do exist simultaneously and what is good for one is harmful to the other.

**So how do you know your information is correct and true if another society has views that oppose yours? Again you fail to answer the problem of how you determine your societies measure is good. You do not know when it is going to change again. The next president may influence the definition so that it is opposite the one currently experienced. So you will be going to jail for something that used to be considered good.**

And that happens all the time. Cocaine used to be an ingredient in OTC patent medicines and even soft drinks. It's now illegal.

**"If you're asking me to make sense of life w/o your god, no problem. My life hums along quite well, and quite sensibly w/o him."
Yes I am asking you to make sense of it and so far it does not. Every opinion has the potential to be true when they are diametrically opposite. It's like saying "The color green is green and the color green is not green." It does not make sense.**

So are you saying that I'm actually not satisfied and happy with my life because I don't worship your god? I'm quite fulfilled physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
We can take your color analogy one step further. There are many shades of green - kelly, emerald, chartreuse, pine, forest, hunter, teal, and lime, to name a few. Not all greens are identical, but they are all green.

**"That's circular logic. Turning in circles doesn't convince people of anything, it just makes them barf."
Like yours isn't? Good is what society says good is, so good is determined by society. Society says abortion is good in certain situations so in those situation abortion is good. Anything can be circular, but is it true?**

Living is messy and there are few absolutes. In certain situations abortion is a good thing. In certain situations, death is a good thing. If I become terminally ill and am inintractable pain, my family has been told that I WILL end my own suffering. I don't ask that they help me, because that would put them at odds with the law in my state, but I do require that they honor my decision. You know - my body and all.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not an absolute. There are situations in which it is permissible (defending oneelf against an attacker) or even required (war) that one person kill another.

What a tiresome discussion. Peter seems to think that "good" is some clearly defined absolute, floating out there in space that we can simply tap into.

"Good" is a human concept ... what I think is "good" may vary from what you say it is. Most of the time we can settle on some general ideas about what is and is not good, but obviously consensus is impossible 100% of the time. That's life on planet Earth.

Treating your slaves well was apparently "good" in the bible. We reject the idea that slavery itself is good. Societies evolve, our concepts of "good" evolve. But then Peter apparently rejects evolution of any kind, so there's no reference frame to work with there.

Peter,

Like many of us, you have been bred, born and brainwashed in your religion. To escape, I highly recommend reading the books of the many of the NT scholars listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

This will put you well on the road to religious reality where "pretty wingie talking flying fictional thingies" and the demons of the demented do not exist.

Lepidopteryx, you said,

"If pain in giving birth is a curse resulting from the fall, then why do animals, who never fell, also experience pain when giving birth?"

Because God has chosen it to be that way. Not all things are reveal by God but what He has revealed, we can know they are true. You cannot know anything as true without an absolute objective ultimate standard. You have proved that with your ideas on society determining good. Just because you refuse to accept God's Word does not make it any less true. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Sorry, I have to paint a room. I will get back to your train of thought later this evening, or I will have to answer to the wrath of my wife.

Hello Lepidopteryx,

You said,

"To a large extent, each culture does make up its own. Because cultures differ, there is no one-size-fits-all."

Really, so how can you say that your good is good when another society say exactly the opposite is good and what you believe is bad? How do you determine you societal values are the good ones in such a case?

You said,

"Societies make their policies according to the information they have about how the world works. As knowledge increases, sometimes the things that were once thought to be good for society are found to be not good, and the laws were changed accordingly."

So how do you know your information is correct and true if another society has views that oppose yours? Again you fail to answer the problem of how you determine your societies measure is good. You do not know when it is going to change again. The next president may influence the definition so that it is opposite the one currently experienced. So you will be going to jail for something that used to be considered good.

You said,

"If you're asking me to make sense of life w/o your god, no problem. My life hums along quite well, and quite sensibly w/o him."

Yes I am asking you to make sense of it and so far it does not. Every opinion has the potential to be true when they are diametrically opposite. It's like saying "The color green is green and the color green is not green." It does not make sense.

You said,

"That's circular logic. Turning in circles doesn't convince people of anything, it just makes them barf."

Like yours isn't? Good is what society says good is, so good is determined by society. Society says abortion is good in certain situations so in those situation abortion is good. Anything can be circular, but is it true? Why is good so relative to your era or your particular society when to another it is the opposite. I'll tell you why, because the particular social good in your society is governed by the intellectual elite who in turn feed it to the masses.

If pain in giving birth is a curse resulting from the fall, then why do animals, who never fell, also experience pain when giving birth?

Pain is the natural result of pushing an object, whether it is an egg, a kitten, a calf, or a baby through a vulva (or cloaca in the case of birds) that is replete with nerve endings and quite small relative to the size of the object exiting it.

Hello Lepidopteryx,

I made a faux pas. Sorry to mislead you. It was late and I meant "the curse of pain in childbirth."

I never meant to say that childbirth was a curse. God from the beginning gave the mandate to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue. (Genesis 1:28)

Pain in childbirth is a reminder of the Fall. The pain is the curse.

Mike K., you said,

"Peter, you stated "So far no one has been able to provide anything but subjective human preference and bring forth nothing objective or a measure for good that is sensible."

"That is sensible *to you*. But the question is disingenuous as you know that you won't accept any basis for morality that isn't based on your particular brand of superstition."

Mike, as usual you avoid the question that I am asking. How do you determine good when good has a beginning that is changing as the "functionality” of society changes?

Your reason is just as circular as mine, plus you have no stable, objective basis to justify your position. It goes like this; 'Good is what is "functional" to society and what is functional is good.' But the definition changes depending on who is in control and what the current "norms" are. Which was good, the first definition or the second? What makes one good better than the other, or one “good” bad because the times, they are a changing?

You cannot make sense of why one society functions with its definition of abortion as bad and another as good? Which one is correct? They are both making value judgments. They are both saying the opposite is good, just in different time periods or different cultures. Who’s to say that the definition will not change again with the next change of the intellectual gatekeepers of that particular society?

Why should I believe that your definition of "functionality" is the correct definition when I look at my neighbor, to the south, and see a different functionality operating? So how do you determine good?????? You have failed to give a rational response to why good is good in a relative world, where one opinion is as good as any other, depending on where you live.

Without an objective, absolute measure you are the B ALL and End All of what good is and I am the same, and if your good opposes my good then force wins the debate. That is the law of survival of the fittest from an evolutionary perspective. Why should I rise above my relative, the monkeys or the leech? It is a selfish universe like this in which I do what I define as good in my mind with the goal of stimulating my pleasure response and avoiding my pain response, that produces the Epicurean philosophies and mottoes such as "look out for number one" or "you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself" or "its him or me" or “if I don’t get to it first then he is going to get the choice morsels.

As usual, Mike, still waiting for you to make sense of this. You are just the after though of a rock. Ciao!

Peter:
**So far it has boiled down to we decide or our culture decides. So how do you get good out of that, that can be understood? It is just personal opinion or cultural preference and each culture makes up their own.**

To a large extent, each culture does make up its own. Because cultures differ, there is no one-size-fits-all. That's part of what makes acclimation difficult when people emigrate from a country/culture they have known all their lives to one that is vastly different. It's not just learning a new language, but often a different values system.

**It would be interesting to see how something that was once considered dysfunctional and bad is now considered functional and good such as abortion and same sex marriage; however they simply dismiss these examples.**

Societies make their policies according to the information they have about how the world works. As knowledge increases, sometimes the things that were once thought to be good for society are found to be not good, and the laws were changed accordingly. School segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, and the other legal trappings of Jim Crow come to mind.
It was once thought that denying certain partions of the population (women, racial minorities, the poor) the right to vote was a good thing. We now know better.

**"That you believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God? OK, fine for you. You're welcome to it. It doesn't work for everyone, and we have the right to not believe."
I know that, I have just challenged you to make sense of it without the Christian God.**

Antecedent ofr "it", please? Make sense of what w/o the Christian God? The Bible? Of course the Bible doesn't make sense without the Christian God. Nor does the Qu'Ran make sense w/o Allah. And Curious George doesn't make sense w/o the man in the yellow hat.
If you're asking me to make sense of life w/o your god, no problem. My life hums along quite well, and quite sensibly w/o him.

**Right from the start with the Old Testament prophesy, eye-witnesses - the Apostles - to the early Church father's and beyond, the Scriptures were recognized as the Word of God without error. I will continue to document this.**

Quoting scripture to "prove" the accuracy of scripture is not documentation. Nor is "What was canonized is the Truth because only that which was accepted as true was canonized." That's circular logic. Turning in circles doesn't convince people of anything, it just makes them barf.

** It is irrational to believe that two different viewpoints that are opposite can both be true. 2 + 2 cannot both equal 4 and one thousand other numbers and still be true. 2 + 2 is not 5 or 7.**

Yes, but 2 + 2 can be objectively proven to equal 4 every time. Religious beliefs cannot be objectively proven. That's why they're referred to as "faiths."

**All I hear is your right and your body. Who gave you that right and why are you/they right?**

My body is mine because I am an adult. When I was a minor, my parents had the right to make decisions regarding my body - what vaccinations I should have, whether a particular illness merited a trip to the doctor's office or a home remedy, whether or not I could get piercings or tattooes, even what clothing I could wear.

**Is your life that much more important than that of the unborn when all you believe life to be is eventually dust in the wind?**

I'd say that the lives of those already born always trump those not yet born unless the pregnant woman chooses to place her own unborn at a higher priority than herself. I have no right to tell another woman what to do with the contents of her uterus.

**Do you view the unborn as a person and human being? Why do you get to determine when life begins?**

Human in the sense of 46 chromosomes? Sure. A person in the sense of a total being? Not until it's born or at least capable of surviving ex utero.

**Are you not denying human life when you kill the unborn? Therefore are you not guilty of murder?**

No and no. Aborting a pre-viable fetus is not the same as killing a fully developed, functional person. And not all taking of life is murder. In the case of my abortion, I was in a committed relationship, and was on BCP's. My doctor had neglected to tell me that other meds I was taking could interfere with the efficacy of the BCP's. Had I known that, we would have taken extra precautions. I already had one child, and was barely keeping food on the table as it was. In addition, the meds I was on were known teratogens. I certainly did not have the resources to care for another healthy child, much less one that would have very likely had severe handicaps. I did what was best for the child I already had, as well as for myself and the father, and for the one I aborted. It would not have been fair to anyone involved for me to have had another baby. I don't consider that murder.
Do you consider all soldiers murderers? What about police officers who kill in the line of duty?

**I grant you that there are times when the mother is raped, but in the majority of statistical abortions, sex was through consent. Either way, does that make the taking of life right just because it is inconvenient?**

There are plenty of "inconvenient" children in the world already. When every child in the foster care system has been adopted into a loving home, and every child born is born into a loving home where all of its physical and emotional needs will be met, then come back and talk to me about abortion being evil.

**...Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman."
Maybe harsh, but he is driving home a point. The curse of childbirth is still a reminder for women today of what both Adam and Eve did in considering good outside of God's council.**

I don't consider my daughter a curse, nor do I consider her punishment for a sin.

Ah, yes .... Peter refers to the "curse of childbirth". Every woman in history who becomes pregnant gets to suffer through labor because Eve snatched a fruit and her dimwitted boyfriend ate it with her. Now there's an explanation of a natural phenomenon that really holds up under reasoned consideration and objective scrutiny!

I don't know if anyone has mentioned that in the 19th and possibly into the 20th centuries, drugs to reduce the pain of childbirth were often criticized and even rejected by physicians because they "violated" the biblical purpose for labor pains. This is similar to the resistance to use of lightning rods in 18th century America by some Christians who thought that the rods thwarted acts of god, like home fires caused by lightning.

How many Christians today reject the use of drugs for labor pain or lightning rods? I think we've advanced a little beyond what the bible supposedly tells us is right.

Peter, you stated "So far no one has been able to provide anything but subjective human preference and bring forth nothing objective or a measure for good that is sensible."

That is sensible *to you*. But the question is disingenuous as you know that you won't accept any basis for morality that isn't based on your particular brand of superstition.

BTW Godfrey,

Your reference to Tertullian, On The Ornamentation of Women, Bk. I, Ch. 1 start like this,

"Chapter I. ----Introduction. Modesty in Apparel Becoming to Women, in Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman."

Maybe harsh, but he is driving home a point. The curse of childbirth is still a reminder for women today of what both Adam and Eve did in considering good outside of God's council.

As for your reference to www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm,

The introduction and first chapter of "Manifested in the Flesh: How the Original Jesus Tradition Refutes Modern Mystics and Atheists" by Joel McDurmon has been given free on line to read at,

http://www.americanvision.org/downloads/Manifested%20in%20the%20Flesh%20Web.pdf

For all the atheists and pagans out there that like to lead people into believing that Jesus is a mythical figure borrowed from pagan religions or invented by Paul, it is worth a read.

I could make a reply to "Jesus Never Existed" but it would take a long time and others have said it better anyway. Please refer to the link.

It just reinforces my point is that scholars can be pitted against scholars all day long, so your starting foundation is very important. Without God you cannot make sense of all this because your feet are firmly planted in mid-air (As Francis J.
Beckwith,Gregory Koukl titled a book).

Hello Jihadist,

Thank you for your kind words at the bottom of your post. It is the middle contents that I would like to comment on. However it is getting very late again, and my wife likes me to spend time with her during the day and early evening so I need to get some sleep. Hope you will tune in later this week.

Godfrey my man,

How are you?

You said,

"Incidentally, I can see why you decline to further discuss slavery; I have you in the bag, there. But I was hoping you would touch on whether or not Timothy held the theory of emanations."

(What passage are you referring to about Timothy?)

I would bet, if I was a betting man that Titus held the same views that the Apostle Paul did,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

That is where true equality lies for Christians, in Christ Jesus, as members of His family. And I believe that verses such as these led to the abolishment of slavery in the form it had taken during the colonization of America (and to nations who did not believe in the Christian God). After all, Darwinian theory was seeping into the minds of men and teaching them that certain men were on the lower scale of the animal kingdom, and others a were more advanced breed. (Survival of the fittest old chap)

When Paul says to Titus,

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about our God and Savior attractive." (Titus 2:9-10)

I think Ephesians 6:5-9 explains the reason more sufficiently,

"Slaves, obey your earthy masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him."

So God again provides an object lesson, just like He did in the Old Testament, for those who are slaves, but also for those who are Masters.

"Masters, treat your slaves in the same way (i.e. see previous verse - because God will reward them for the goodness they do). Do not threaten them."

The object lesson that God is teaching is to put others ahead of yourselves by doing what is in their best interests, above your own best interests, as Jesus gave us the example when He came to earth (Philippians 2:3-11 – by the way this verse was an early creed in the church)

As for Israel in the Old Testament, God had made a covenant with this people (just as He had made one with Noah (Gen. 9:9) and others earlier [Adam & Eve] and later [those in Christ Jesus]), for He chose them among all the peoples of the world to make Himself known to the nations, and through them bring the Messiah into the world (Exodus 19:5).

But the people whom He made that covenant continued to disobey Him and decide what was right in their own eyes. They continued to bring in pagan gods, who are really no gods at all, and give their allegiance to them instead of God. As a result God taught them another kind of slavery (different from Exodus 21:2-11 in which the person owned had the right to be set free on the seventh year and the year of Jubilee). But any kind of service is humbling and it makes us realize that we are to walk humbly before the Almighty because He resists the proud and arrogant, but gives grace to the humble.

As for His instructions to kill all the inhabitants of the promise land, as they went into it, He did not want His people led astray with false gods and false prophets. Again they did not obey and fell victim to what is false. So a just and righteous God judged them in both cases with bondages as He had promised in Deuteronomy 26:16-19; and chapter 28. See the conditions of the covenant if you are interested.

Again, Godfrey, as a man you are trying to lay down the law before God by denying His existence and sovereignty and putting yourself in His place on both counts. God cannot be mocked. One day, unless you repent and turn to God, He will judge your actions and demand the punishment/payment of His justice. Right now you may have it good, but neither one of us are guaranteed tomorrow. Best wishes to you sir.

Hi Lepidopteryx,

You said,

"I'm no longer sure what exactly it is that you're trying to prove."

What I originally signed up for was for someone to make sense of "good" without an ultimate, objective, absolute standard - the Christian God since they were throwing around the term so freely. In the process I have been answering questions as they come along.

So far no one has been able to provide anything but subjective human preference and bring forth nothing objective or a measure for good that is sensible.

So far it has boiled down to we decide or our culture decides. So how do you get good out of that, that can be understood? It is just personal opinion or cultural preference and each culture makes up their own.

Even those merry bush kickers down in Texas have come up with nothing different, just changed the terminology to "functional" and "dysfunctional." It would be interesting to see how something that was once considered dysfunctional and bad is now considered functional and good such as abortion and same sex marriage; however they simply dismiss these examples. Can they give me some examples of consistency in "good" that are objective, which apply to all people of all times, without borrowing capital from the Christian measure? If not they are faced with the same problem you are. That is how you explain "good" when the measure and definition constantly changes. I keep telling them, and you, that you can't without God. Therefore your view on "good" is absurd and nonsense. You are in a quagmire.

You said,

"That you believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God? OK, fine for you. You're welcome to it. It doesn't work for everyone, and we have the right to not believe."

I know that, I have just challenged you to make sense of it without the Christian God.

You said,

"That the Nicean Council believed that the writings they chose to canonize into what has become known as the Bible believed they were guided by God and that their choices of scriptures to include and exclude comprised the entire and inerrant Word of God for all of humanity? Perhaps they did. I happen to believe that their choces reflect early church politics as much as they do faith."

The history is there to back up my belief. Right from the start with the Old Testament prophesy, eye-witnesses - the Apostles - to the early Church father's and beyond, the Scriptures were recognized as the Word of God without error. I will continue to document this.

You said,

You obviously fervently believe your religion to be The One True Faith. You have every right to believe that, and others have every right to not believe."

Yes, I do, and like you say, you have every right not to believe, but try to make sense of it. It is irrational to believe that two different viewpoints that are opposite can both be true. 2 + 2 cannot both equal 4 and one thousand other numbers and still be true. 2 + 2 is not 5 or 7.

You said,

"But when it comes to medicine, I have the right to not have another person's religious beliefs imposed on my body. That means that if my OB/GN would not perform a late-term abortion to save my life, I need to be informed of that when I call to make the first appointment, so that I don't waste my time and money in an office visit with a doctor who does not respect my preferences for the treatment of my body."

All I hear is your right and your body. Who gave you that right and why are you/they right? Is your life that much more important than that of the unborn when all you believe life to be is eventually dust in the wind? Do you view the unborn as a person and human being? Why do you get to determine when life begins? Are you not denying human life when you kill the unborn? Therefore are you not guilty of murder? I grant you that there are times when the mother is raped, but in the majority of statistical abortions, sex was through consent. Either way, does that make the taking of life right just because it is inconvenient?

You said,

"If there are legal drugs that you feel should not be available, then don't become a pharmacist and then refuse to fill prescriptions. That would be no different than my tee-totaling Baptist mother taking a job at a liquor store and then refusing to sell alcohol because she beleives drinking is a sin."

There again you assume that abortion is not murder, or at least that you have the right to take an innocent life because your society has given you that right back in the 1970's when seven judges ruled in favor of abortion. What makes seven judges the supreme authority on a moral issue of life? What is wrong should be viewed as wrong.

Sorry to take so long in replying.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated - Homosexuality appears to be gene related and maybe Nature's way of addressing the population problem.

You appear to be assigning agency to nature in much the same way that religious people assign agency to some supreme being. From an evolutionary perspective, this doesn't work. In evolutionary terms, individuals with genes that favor survival and reproduction persist, whereas individuals with deleterious genes do not, regardless of whether they are good for nature or the species or whatever. Therefore, if homosexuality has a genetic component it must confer some advantage in enhancing reproduction over individuals without this genetic variant. On the face of it, this doesn't seem to hold water; i.e. homosexuals would seem to have no fitness whatsoever unless they had heterosexual relationships in addition to homosexual ones. Unfortunately, even gays in such situations probably still suffer fitness disadvantages from homophobia and other societal pressures.

So how would a gay allele (gene variant) persist and not be driven to extinction in the general population? There is one way. Genes often affect more than one trait. If a gene for male homosexuality enhanced fitness more in females with the gene than males suffered from having it, such a gene would persist and spread.

In addition, homosexuality may have a biological basis without having a genetic basis. You may ask how this could be? Gene by environment interactions are common in all organisms. What this means is that the same gene variant may be expressed differently in different environment. There is some evidence that the maternal-fetal environment may play a role in the expression of homosexual behavior at maturity.

Homosexuality appears to have a biological basis and is almost certainly not a "choice" in the way the debate is framed by religious fanatics. At the same time, even if it was a choice, it would still not be any of their damn business. It is also most certainly not a way for "Nature" to control population growth. Nature is made up of organisms that compete and eat each other, and the ones that do it the best leave more offspring.

Ahh, The Jihadist continues her "wishy wash" as she again does not address one of the most important issues of contemporary times i.e. the foundations of contemporary religions to include Islam's foundations.

Here again Jihadist are the problems with Islam's foundations:

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these terror activities??? The Islamic state of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Islamic "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Once you address this important issue, your words concerning medical treatments and religion and other religious issues might have some real meaning.

I find it interesting that no commenting Muslim ever condemns the conduct of Iran. I wonder why that is???

By the way, I am not homophobic. Homosexuality appears to be gene related and maybe Nature's way of addressing the population problem. As with heterosexuality, the issue is to recognize the potential harm someone can do by inappropriate sexual activity. Sexually active persons must take appropriate measures to prevent the transmission of diseases. Not doing so can result in significant health hazards as evidenced by the AIDS epidemics in many African countries.

Arminius

I don't think Jihadist will come back to this thread. She just got home from business trips abroad and is off work today. I just read her post following Susan Jacoby's latest in On Faith.

As for keeping the faith, she is a devout believer like you, but more curious and interested in other beliefs than I am. Just don't talk to her about Shariah and fatwas by some Muslims. We don't want to get her started on that. LOL

Cheers mate

Jihadist, on baptism:

Baptism can be done very cheaply indeed in the Catholic Church. Anyone, anyone at all, can poor water over the child's head and say "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The only requirement is that the water continue to flow until all the words are said.

At least, that's the way it was when I was Catholic, long, long ago.

Looking in:

This is something the Bible says about slaves:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

That sounds like “go out and buy slaves” to me.

Here are a couple of others:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

That sounds like “go out and make free people slaves by force.”

Jihadist!

I always devour your posts with intense interest. I have a lot to say, but, alas!, my eyelids are drooping. As a teaser, let us agree (hopefully, I presume) that any organization, be it religious, business, bureaucracy, or military, or whatever, accumulates its baggage. This, of course, is defended by assorted varients of 'we have always done it this way...'. So, then, I offer that the Episcopal Church of America has shed a lot of this baggage in the last 3 decades or so. And we are paying the price.

More tomorrow.

Keep the faith, whatever good faith it is.

....and Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

before I get off On Faith, since you are homophobic, a wee "advise" or thought from you on gays in Malaysia.

We have a law inherited from the British that says sodomy is a crime. No gays was ever punished for being gay under that law. Malaysian Muslims also take a "don't ask, don't tell" stance on gays, even if one is apparent by his/her mannerism etc. nor were gays ever targetted for verbal harassments or physical bashing.

Now, there is a young gay pastor, who live with his American partner, who have a gay wedding in a church over the weekend. The Christian churches are up in arms and pressured the Malaysian goverment to ban such gay marraiges.

There is already one silly statement from a minister on the importance of promoting Malaysia as a family oriented tourist destination. Ummmm...never mind the fact that Kuala Lumpur is said to have one the the liveliest gay scene in Southeast Asia for those who know where to go and look for action.

On my table there are letters and request for support for petitions, as well as e-mails receieved, both for and anti-gay marraiges.

Should Muslim groups get together with Christian organisations and churches to ban such gay marraiges in churches, or is that inteference in the internal affairs of another faith?

The young brave gay pastor already receive nasty messages for doing what he did - to have a gay marraige and try to start the first gay church in Malaysia.

I thought I'd give you something to chew on "Is Malaysia a Secular or an Islamic state?" question. :) :) :)

Regards
J

Hello Arminius

Always a pleasure to read your posts Arminius, and only you would catch on rites associated with core beliefs.

What I posted are certainly to be disagreed with as well. I am always poking and probing here too, in exploring other beliefs, including Christianity, including on dogmas and rites and what Christians think of it, especially men of the cloth and members of the clergy and tenders and performers, or master of ceremonies of those rites.

The rite of the Holy Eucharist is core to your faith and belief and not to be disposed of. No one has any right to demand that of you on your faith and beliefs. There are core beliefs and rites, and then, there are, shall we say, excess baggages and unnecessary accessories disguised as rites that can be rethink, adapted, modified or do away with.

For Muslims, the Hajj is one such core rite, a pillar of Islam, that no Muslim would want to dispose of, but do certainly want the Saudis to be adapt more to reality, to be more flexible with the security and safety of pligrims in mind during some of the Hajj rites.

For example, the symbolic stoning of Satan. Some Salafist/Wahhabi members of ulema of Saudi Arabia insisted it be done before noon only. Imagine the rush and pressure of pilgrims. Good thing the Saudi authorities are starting to ignore those ulmemas on this.

The Malaysian ulema are more flexible and said it can be done throughout the day. Malaysian pilgrims do the symbolic stoning of Satan late at night or early morning. Less human pressure and not one Malaysian pligrim got killed doing that in incidences of the past Hajj where bridges collapsed and pilgrims died from human overload, panic and stampede.

Performing rites in line with dogmas, tenets of beliefs as spiritual affirmation of faith is unquestionably part of the religious experience. But there are aspects of it that seems to benefit the church more than the believer.

For example baptism. It is a beautiful and required rite, but seems to be quite expensive to have it done. Any way the church can do it cheaper, less formal, and less financially burdensome for poorer parents? I could be wrong. The only two baptism I attended were Catholic ones, and the families involved are not exactly poor.

On the Shariah, it really, really must be addressed. And yet, in my darker moments, I do think that stoning and/or whipping rapists and men who commit incest on their daughters is not such a bad punishment under some Shariah law in some Muslim countries:)

Best regards
J

Oh, damn, Jihadist! That last reply from 'Anonymous' was mine. Sorry.

Jihadist, you said:

"Both Christian "church" dogmas and rites as well as Islamic Shariah are man-formulated and implemented, and should be changed, adapted or completely disposed of."

Although I agree with you on most of your statements, I take issue with this. I think you used too broad a stroke here. Are you telling me that my Christian (Episcopal) rite of the Holy Eucharist should be abolished? Do you really want to cut the heart out of one of the most progressive churches in America? Shariah is one thing - do not, please, put our beautiful service in the same sentence with that.

But you are quite correct about Peter. God knows I have been butting heads with him. But I respect him for his continuing courtesy.

Maurie Beck

Hello. Concerned is not an atheist. He is a "Crossanized Christian" and/or "Christian of Reality" by what he said of himself in other posts. Frankly, I prefer to read JD Crossan's essays in On Faith rather than what Concerned posts here.

With regard to my posts to Peter Huff, I was probing him on his reasonings on his personal beliefs - am not having an inter-faith war or a Christian-Muslim theological debate.

"Professional" believers, meaning members of the clergy, can never answer a question without referencing their faith's dogma and institutionalised beliefs. Hence, they are constrained by it, and tend to be rather narrow.

Christianity is loaded down with dogmas and rites that a burden to lay believers.

Islam is loaded down with Shariah that is a burden to lay believers.

Both Christian "church" dogmas and rites as well as Islamic Shariah are man-formulated and implemented, and should be changed, adapted or completely disposed of.

Members of the clergy, both Muslims and Christians, in being dogmatic rather than humanistic in response to the needs of their flocks, lost their humanism.

They always forget that for many believers, belief in God is not just a spiritual experience and source of personal comfort, strength and faith not only in a deity, but in fellow humans to be good and do the rigth thing.

The minds rationalising dogmas and rites have become cobwebbed or stuck in one. No surprise then, that institutionalised or organised church/religious entities, are losing members who found respite and freedom as secular humanists.

Anonymous

I hope Peter Huff met Canyon Shearer too. I admire their personal convictions, passion and persistent on their beliefs. Both are very civil posters, regardless of what other posters said.
I believe both to be men of the cloth, or men of God.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Good to see you again! I was getting worried about your silence on this issue as you are most certainly a pro-lifer.

Only I can bring you out of the woodwork eh! The Islamic "death squads" of Malaysia has given my fingers a thousand lashes, cut off my tongue and stoned me with boulders for what I've said and done.

As for Islamic banking, I have been very, very busy starting a Jewish-Muslim conspiracy to dominate global banking and finance. There's now a document circulating - The Protocols of the Muslim and Jewish Financiers for Global Economic Hegemony. We are, indeed, unleashing takeover barbarians to terrorise, rape and pillage businessess from America to Japan.

And kudos for Peter Huff for being not dastardly in stating what he thinks on this issue here with grace, charm and patience.

All the best
J

Butterfly,

Let's hope that is true,what you say about 3rd term abortions. I can accept that. Otherwise, it truly is murder.

Generally speaking, if a woman carries a pregnancy into the third trimester, it's a pretty safe bet that she wants the baby. It doesn't take a woman six months after finding out she's pregnant to decide if she wants it or not. Third trimester abortions carry an elevated risk of hemorrhage for the woman and are not done on a whim. If a woman chooses to abort during the third trimester, it's because there is something critically wrong with the fetus or her health is being jeopardized by continuing to carry it.

Arminius:

Thanks for your response. I wish there were more of us who were pro-choice who understood that it can't just be a blanket "pro-choice"; that there still have to be some kinds of rules in place. Or that the pro-choice "movement" would simply specify more openly that they do not promote late-term abortions. A lot of people who don't consider themselves pro-choice are only that way because they don't like the images and information about late-term abortions.

Curious, you said:

"I never did see any comments from anyone regarding late-term, specifically 3rd trimester abortions... anyone?"

I am pro-choice, but only by accepting it as the lesser of two evils. IMHO, 3rd trimester abortions are only acceptable when the life of the mother is truly at stake, or it is obvious that the baby will not survive. Anyone who has seen his unborn children on a sonogram, as I have, is going to be very queasy about 3rd term abortions.

I never did see any comments from anyone regarding late-term, specifically 3rd trimester abortions... anyone?

There is nothing in the bible about slavery as that was a cultural norm. Even the authors of the bible thought slavery was a given...

There are other things seen as cultural givens...violent patriarchy for instance.

There are bad translations..
Suffer not a Witch to live.

If you say that the bible is the perfect word of God you have to admit that God made mistakes..and that makes him not so perfect.

terra

Has Peter Huff met Canyon Shearer? I think they will get along very well :D

Anon:

I'd say we could pare the 10 down to one. If it ain't yours, don't feck with it.

"I guess there could have been more stone tablets, and then there could have been the 50 Commandments, or maybe the 100 Commandments, but then who would have bothered to remember them all?"

Apparently not many Christian Americans can remember even ten, based on recent polls. Maybe we can dumb it down a little for our fellow countrymen, who are too busy following the latest reality TV show. Perhaps the Three Commandments:

1.I'm god. Remember me?

2. Don't kill, steal, lie, or do any of the other things you already know are bad.

3. Mind your own business.

Lepidopteryx:

Which is exactly why Leviticus was not written for us.

Oh, damn. My post about babies being miracles was meant to go to Curious, not Jay. My bad. Sorry in the extreme, Curious.

Peter Huff,

God is not a liar. An entity we made up ourselves cannot be a liar. It only can be a lie. Anything happening and existing can be related to any imaginable god. Since god is above reason, anything ever happening with or without discernible reason can be attributed to some god. It also can be related to the fact that there is no god. Faith abandons reason, otherwise it cannot be faith.

Curious: Anything which happens is possible, otherwise it would not happen. It may be very improbable, surprising, rare, but it is no miracle. Nature does not need to make exceptions of its laws, it is miraculous as it is anyway.

I always found it overbearing that people, with the help of their god imagination, put themselves above the immeasurable wonders ("miracles", if you wish) of nature.

Looking In:
**Honestly, how many people would pay attention to a book full of rules?**

You mean like Leviticus?

Jay:

I guess there could have been more stone tablets, and then there could have been the 50 Commandments, or maybe the 100 Commandments, but then who would have bothered to remember them all? The point is God wasn't going to spell it all out at once for everyone. He gave us these incredible reasoning brains for a reason. There are a lot of things that He didn't specifically tell us that we should have been able to figure out for ourselves; most of the time people don't even do well with the 10 that he told us, much less all of the other wisdom that is within the Bible. Honestly, how many people would pay attention to a book full of rules?

Sure, kids are miracles, in the mundane sense of the word. They are extraordinarily special, particularly to their parents ... no argument there. There have been billions of such miracles throughout human history. Sadly, some "miraculous" births lead to very short and painful lives, for a variety of reasons. I assume you'd agree these particular miracles are not curses in disguise.

Jay,

Jeez, I was being supportive! 'Miracles' happen; perhaps they are just events that we cannot account for, adding on to Arthur C Clarks's adage, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I have two kids of my own - not preemies. To me they were miracles too - and still are.

Curious: No sarcasm intended. Lots of prematurely-born infants require extensive medical care, some less, and some not at all. Some, sadly, don't make it. Within the range of human variability, you will see all possibilities. Why should those neonates who do well be considered miraculous (rather than simply extraordinary), when so many others do poorly or die?

Jay,

Your children ARE miracles.

Jay:

It was a miracle that my 2 pound baby boy did not need oxygen to breathe when he was born, according to the doctors. It was a miracle that my 1 pound 13 ounce baby girl had no brain bleeds, hearing or vision loss, according to the doctors. It was a miracle that neither of my children needed blood transfusions or medical procedures of any kind. The doctors all asked me what I had done during my pregnancies to make my babies so strong, but I had done nothing special. There is nothing you can say that can convince me they are not miracles, so you can skip your sarcastic parenthasized side-comments.

Looking in:

Still, if the Ten Commandments could be fairly straightforward about things like killing, honoring your parents, eschewing false gods and the like, don't you think there could have been room for something like not owning another person?

Was there no space left on the tablets? Even as a footnote?

The fact that slavery was not mentioned as an abomination (in the OT or NT) strongly suggests that the writers of the bible were not that forward-thinking. Their worldview was very provincial.

Butterfly, you said:

"Everything and everyone has something to teach me, and I would be a fool to eschew any source - by the same token, I would be a fool to limit myself to one source. In that, I think you and I think much alike."

And you are correct!

Jay:

There's a whole boatload of things that we humans have had to figure out for ourselves; God gave us a lot of help and guidelines, but he certainly didn't give us all of the answers. How different this world would have been if we never had to learn to think for ourselves. God always gives us the benefit of the doubt, which is what you do when you love someone.

And no, our view certainly is not against God's view of slavery, it just took us horrendously long to catch up to Him.

Arminius:

From my p-o-v, to say that your book is one among many is not to deny that it contains anything of value. IMO, it, like any other book on spiritual matters, contains some history, some folklore, some wisdom, and some dreck.

That's why I accept no book as inerrant, and why I draw wisdom from as many places as it shows itself - scriptures from various established religions, the research of Albert Einstien and Stephen Hawking, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Federico Garcia Lorca, ee cummings, Marge Piercy, and Emily Dickinson, the music of Bob Dylan, Greg Brown, John Prine, or Leonard Cohen, the writings of Dr. Suess, Barbara Kingsolver, Byrd Baylor, Laura Esquivel, Carlos Casteneda, and William Shakespeare, the imaginations of the youngsters in my life from my friend's toddler who is just learning to describe the things she sees in her mind's eye, to my grade-school age niece and nephew, to my teenage daughter and her friends, the plant and animla life in my backyard - you get the picture.

Everything and everyone has something to teach me, and I would be a fool to eschew any source - by the same token, I would be a fool to limit myself to one source. In that, I think you and I think much alike.

Curious:

What is considered a viable fetus has certainly changed over the years. That has nothing to do with religion and everything to so with advancements in medical science and care for premature births (no miracles). It is just a matter of time before artificial wombs may be constructed to carry a fetus to term outside of a woman's body, freeing her from part or all of her pregnancy. What ethical questions about a woman's rights will arise in that brave new world?

To Pete & other Recons, etc:

Right on! I am a vet, 1968-1970, did not go to Nam. I am also a practicing Christian who holds that God created our wonderful universe a bit over 14 billion years ago. And that Darwin was quite correct.

I still hold true to the first part of a soldier's oath: "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME...". (The rest has to do with obeying the orders of my superiors in the chain of command; this has no relevance now.)

So, then, I will put my life on the line to defend that belief against those here who intend to pervert or destroy it. And that includes any of the religious right that want to force their beliefs down American throats.

Hey, what about those of us in the middle? You know, the ones who are "religious", who say, "ok, you're a grown-up person who can make up your own mind about what you do with your body," but who also say "partial-birth abortions should not be allowed"? I just don't think it's a straight yes or no issue. Women in their 3rd trimester shouldn't be getting abortions, unless their own life is at risk.

I have 2 children who were both born prematurely - one at 27 weeks, the other at 25 weeks. They were both breathing and crying when they were born, and neither had any medical or developmental problems. My son is now 16 years old and my daughter is 8 years old, and you'd never know any of what happened by looking at them. They are my 2 miracles. And people are aborting at 25 and 27 weeks. There must be a point at which it's considered killing a viable person.

Looking in:

I would think that a book that allegedly provides moral and ethical guidance from a deity would have something straightforward to say about whether slavery is right or wrong. It seems mere humans had to come up with the idea that owning fellow humans is wrong. Any reader of the bible certainly would not get that clear message.

You're not saying that our "enlightened" view that slavery is bad is against god's will, are you?

Slavery is a good example of where the bible falls far short of being a shining example of morality.

Howdy folks,

I accepted your fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to hold whatever private, personal beliefs you wish. In fact, I served our country with my body to stand for such things.

What I am against is ANY religion, or sect of any religion, or any so-called cult, or any so-called secularist, etc., to gain political power so they can pass laws which reflect their shifting, ephemeral, relative ideas of morality and ethics which is imposed on ALL Americans.

In the case of abortion for example, the so-called secularists have never claimed, nor sought that each pregnant woman get an abortion, but have simply sought the right, on the basis of individual freedom to seek one if they so have decided that is the most rational choice they have.

The so-called, evil 'secular progressives' have sought those things which support individual, human freedoms. The Religious Right (in its many forms) seeks to IMPOSE their MORALITY and ETHIC upon ALL Americans.

The Religious Right rejects any idea that morality or ethics is possible WITHOUT religion, or a 'word' from almighty god.

The so-called, 'secular progressives' only wish each person have the right to do what they deem a rational course for their own lives, without those of Religion telling them what is, and what is not moral or ethical.

In my view, the Religionists are all for IMPOSING their particular, shifting, ephemeral, relative morality upon ALL Americans. The secularists only seek the right under law to live life, make the rational decisions about their OWN lives as they see necessary.

The secularist seeks a personal freedom in line with our Founders, while the Christian Reconstructionists, many Evangelicals (those who subscribe to Recon rhetoric - and there are many), and many Roman Catholics will only REST once some relative form of 'biblical Christianity' is IMPOSED as the law of the land, and ALL Americans are held down, pushed to the fringes, and dominated by this most 'holy appeal.'

Show me any secularist, humanist, agnostic, atheist, or those of Eastern, minority points of view which seeks to IMPOSE their views of morality and ethics upon ALL AMERICANS, you won't find it.

What you will find in our political/religious discourse over the discussion, at least since the early 1980's is this Christian, fundamentalist, Evangelical, Roman Catholic desire to make THEIR morality the law of the land, which denies the rights of anyone outside their 'holy huddle' to think and decide for himself.

For those so-called Christian moral ethicists, one finds a paradigm that is not intrinsically different than the other 'holy rule' of the Taliban, and those folks who think it is 'Allah's Will' that we walk onto a bus of school children and detonate a body pack of C-4.

In my view, I can find no intrinsic difference. You think I am off base? It was a Christian Reconstructionist who bombed and killed people in an abortion clinic. Prior to that, those particular folks were seen as good, Christian soldiers, laboring for the Kingdom of Almighty God.

Operation Rescue developed from the Christian Reconstructionist point of view.

Do some research folks....

Is that the kind of America our Founders fought for?

Peter says: "I do not reject science, just evolutionary science."

Well, if you accept the idea that the earth is about 6000 years old, you reject the sciences of geology, astrophysics, and much of chemistry.

If you accept the idea that the earth was completely flooded by water only a few thousand years ago, you reject information from geology, meteorology, and climatology.

If you accept the idea that the continents could not have moved significant distances (since there was not enough time in earth's history), you reject plate tectonics.

If you accept that Noah's Ark existed and dumped all of its occupants at one place on earth, you reject biogeography.

If you accept that representatives of all the life forms on earth (there are millions) could have been placed in a man-made boat, you reject the information provided by zoology and botany .. not to mention much of engineering science.

There's a whole lot of science left out of your worldview other than evolutionary biology when you swallow a literalist view of the bible. In fact, there is not much science left that will still fit.

Godfrey:

The bible does not tell people "go out and own slaves." The bible was written during times when slavery of many kinds was normal, and it addresses how those people should treat their slaves. Of course we don't think the same way now about slavery, and the bible doesn't tell us that we should have slaves. Those things were obviously written for a particular audience. It is very easy to take things from the Bible out of context and make it appear as if it is saying something that it is not. Some of what was written was for specific peoples, some is for all. Knowing the difference requires studying the Bible, not simply reading it.

I should add that the NT teachings were quite different for their times in that they taught people that they should treat their slaves with the same care and respect that they would give their own family members. This was not the kind of slavery that you might be thinking of...

Terra,

You should care about what the bible says. But that does NOT mean that you should automatically buy into it. That book, with all its weird parts and confusion, has an immense amount of wisdom and beauty.

Read my post above - Peter sees this in black and white, and will not be budged out of his cage.

I am going to read some of your books. What little I know about Pagans/Druids/Wiccans has impressed me.

Nothing in the bible worthwhile? Check out the two Great commandments:

You shall love your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

Substitute 'God' in the first commandment with 'Gods' or whatever you believe in - does it not fit in with what you believe? Do we not journey on similar paths?

Terra,

You should care about what the bible says. But that does NOT mean that you should automatically buy into it. That book, with all its weird parts and confusion, has an immense amount of wisdom and beauty.

Read my post above - Peter sees this in black and white, and will not be budged out of his cage.

I am going to read some of your books. What little I know about Pagans/Druids/Wiccans has impressed me.

Nothing in the bible worthwhile? Check out the two Great commandments:

You shall love your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind.
This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it:
Love your neighbor as yourself.

Substitute 'God' in the first commandment with 'Gods' or whatever you believe in - does it not fit in with what you believe? Do we not journey on similar paths?

Pete,

G'day! Now how is it exactly, that you came to the ABSOLUTE position that the Bible is in fact true about anything? Will you cite Calvin who says this kind of position is a gift of god? Or will you cite a church father who stated, "we believe it because it makes no sense.?"

At bottom, you posit yourself, now, here as the summation of all legitimate human knowledge. You stake out a claim for this highly exalted position how? Oh yeah, the Bible told you so. I forgot. Oh yes, the Holy Spirit impressed upon your mind the absolute truth of the Bible.

Now, lessee... since under the propositions of Calvinism, one can only come to such a solid position about the Bible (uhh...which one?) as absolute, errant fact about any topic one wishes to explore (biology and cosmology as examples) does this not give YOU an enormous problem?

Your problem derives from the fact that you folks do assert that the Holy Spirit convinces you that the Bible (again, which one of hundreds?) Within your view of the matter the situation devolves to "God said it, I believe it."

Now, supposedly, since the Bible (which one???) states the things you try to convince all humanity of, and that understanding of the Bible is the sole epistemology as coming from God Almighty, then WHY is your position a very, very, recent so-called Christian position in the history of Christianity? If 'God' is in fact immutable (unchanging), and he alone, via the Holy Spirit, the Church, etc is the ONE who has written truth, and informs the believer... why is it that the Holy Spirit evidently been so confused about so many issues which are written in Holy Writ?

Perhaps you can name those topics of holy writ which have been accepted as absolute truth from the history of the Christian faith? Perhaps you can start with abortion. That should be very interesting.

The passion of the rhetoric coming from the Christian/Recon/Evangelical/Roman Catholic Right Wing and those of us who object brings an echo of the kinds of rhetoric found just prior to the Civil War.

Perhaps you folks long for another civil war. Seems that is the case.

In any event, it should be apparent to anyone reading your posts, that there is no platform (say political pluralism) from which any meeting of the minds may take place. The Christian Reconstructionalist/Presuppositionalist apologist have the COMPLETE, TOTAL, end all of divinely, revealed, absolute TRUTH. To hell with all others, eh? Your Word from God explains it all, for ALL mankind.

How are you, intrinsically any different from the Taliban? I for one, can see no real distinction based on your appeals.

Have a day!

Peter:"Don't kid yourself, it does detract greatly. All the pagans and atheists on this site understand this. That is why they fight tooth and nail to make it nothing more than a fairy tail or one religious book among many".

You seem to think that Pagans care what your book says. Peter, it is your book, your faith. While we respect and many have great love for Jesus...we are not Christian. We have our own beliefs but are not against you having all rights to believe as you wish. What we fight is not your religion..it is your assuming that we all need to follow it.

We do not believe in your view of God. We have our own view. We do not say your belief is wrong...only wrong for us.You believe your religion is the only truth...we disagree.

You would have made a great crusader. Go to the Holy Land and wash it in blood because they do not believe in your God of Peace. You have every right to see deity as your wish. After all believeing in deity is kinda like your view on the theory of evolution...its just a theory. Though in science theory means something different then in philosophical debate. In science, theory means the best known fact. Hypothesis means a guess.

Your hypothesis is that we hate Christians. Your theory is that we believe your bible is a fairy tale. We do not hate Chriatisn and like myths, fairytales are cultural truths wrapped in a thick layer of entertainment.

I will not speak for all Pagans..I can't. But I do not believe that the bible is the word of god...I do believe that some in it was inspired by a version of god. Just like we have writings that are inspired by our Deities...but the moving finger did not write The Charge...but I do believe that the love of the goddess did inspire Doreen Valiente to rewrite it in the form we know. I believe Tony Kelly was inspired by the love of the Pagan community to write Pagan Musings...and the ancient writer that wrote or told the first story of enlightenment and what we call The Descent of the Goddess, was incredably inspired. I believe these are all inspired and so many more...because they teach us to be better, stronger people.

Peter, What I am clumsily trying to say is; We do not hate your religion...we love ours. We have as much love for our own beliefs and gods as your do for your's. So because we respect the right that you have to be wrong...give us that right also. If our belief is wrong, each of us will learn that in our time...if there is a judgement, let the power that has set the laws call us on it.

You argueing about what we believe will not work, because you know nothing about what we believe. You argue from a place of ignorance.

Yes we do see it as one more book in many. In fact that is what the word bible means...book. It is a book. As the torah is a book (scroll) the Koran is a book... and Wicca has Many, Many books. They all have truth and they all have personal politics as well as cultural bias and history...all any of us can go by is what our spirits say to us. Maybe if you were not so busy hearing your own ego, you could hear the truths other say.

terra

All this dribble is kind of getting annoying.

Peter Huff:

You didn't answer my question. You dodged it, are you a politician?

All jokes aside, how in the world did we go from arguing medical and spiritual conflicts to the geneaology of Jesus? Pointless.

Once people realize that the Bible is a collection of borrowed stories, they might learn to get on with their lives. The creation story? BORROWED. Noah and the flood? BORROWED. Moses and the story of Jesus? BORROWED and mirror each other.
I find more originality in children's books.

When I ask if you read the Bible as the sheep or the shepard, all you need to do is realize what I am asking. Do you read it with blind faith or do you actually read it and wonder if it could be wrong? No more dodging Peter. Time to face reality and look more at what you are reading.

Arminius:

**- do faeries really have no tails?!? **

None of the ones I've seen had tails.

Lepidopteryx:

Good reply to Peter, Butterfly. Those were his counters to a previous post of mine.

Damn right separate is not equal. I remember segregation all too well, and even though I was a WASP kid, I was appalled by it. And religion? I attend 2 Episcopal churches; one is run by 2 male and 2 female priests, the other by two females. All are outstanding people, all are great spiritual leaders.

I returned to the church after over 30 years of being an agnostic/atheist, depending on how I felt that day. I know well where they come from, and have no problem with them in general. I try to show the same acceptance to them as I try to show to any decent religion, and that includes Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Wicca, Paganism, the Druids, etc. I sometimes think I am part Druid because my front yard is the only one in the neighborhood that is completely covered with trees, not by a putting green. I planted all those trees myself.
(I must admit, though, that I HATE yardwork!)

Ya gotta remember that Peter, like fundamentalists of all stripes, sees everything in black and white. He cannot function otherwise. And neither he nor the others of his breed, whether atheists or Islamists, will not listen to us when we try to point out all the beautiful colors that are there.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot - do faeries really have no tails?!?

Peter:
**There you go, "despite what Paul said" in many places about many issues you are ignoring his admonitions.**

And you set the word of Paul as equal to those of Jesus, even when they conflict.

**You understand that women are equal in God’s eyes but their function is different than that of man’s. But only men are to be elders in the church.**

Separate is not equal. One of my dearest friends and my most trusted advisor on spiritual matters is a Unitarian minister who also happens to be a lesbian.

**You said,
"By saying the Bible is not consistent in no way detracts from the truth and wisdom there."

Don't kid yourself, it does detract greatly. All the pagans and atheists on this site understand this. That is why they fight tooth and nail to make it nothing more than a fairy tail or one religious book among many.**

We Pagans don't fight tooth and nail to make your book anything - we simply believe it to be one book among many (or at least I believe it to be simply one book among many - I can't speak for all Pagans, any more than you can speak for all Christians). And fairies don't have tails.

Here are the ancestors of Jesus as found in Matthew and Luke. The two of them seem to relate genealogy of Jesus through Joseph and not Mary. Maybe Peter can tell us how he came to say that “One is taken from the genealogy of Joseph, the other from Mary.”

Matthew:
An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob… Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke’s account:
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathias, son of Amos, … son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Peter,

The pi = 3 is from I Kings 7.23:
"The sea was then cast; it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference."

A straight reading yields pi = 30 / 10 = 3. A great deal of hoop-jumping has been done to prove otherwise by juggling the meaning of 'cubit'. I personally think that someone just got lazy when they first wrote it down, and rounded things off. The story of Alabama trying to make a law that pi must = 3 is an urban legend.

As to the generation counts in Matthew and Luke. Luke counts 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Matthew gives a count of 42, and lists Solomon in there. Luke has no mention of Solomon. Both are the lineage of Jesus, from Joseph. Not Mary.

You take the whole bible as true because that is your basis of belief, your prime unprovable axiom of your metaphysics. Mine is not that, I remain a skeptic. I'm not even sure that the path I have taken is the only true one. This does not make it false, there can be many paths to the top of a mountain.

It is obvious that we will never come to any agreement on this subject. But we can keep talking anyway.

Maurie Beck,

You noted:

"Although I am an atheist like yourself, Jihadist's "words of wisdom" are the way. She represents the "grand bargain" of open societies that not only allow, but encourage tolerance and expression of diverse viewpoints. Her worldview does not divide faith from reason, but embraces both, instead of creating a false choice as some true believers."

First, I am not an atheist but a believer is some type of Singularity that started this grand experiment with the laws of science which by design cannot be changed.

Second, The Jihadist supposedley lives in Malaysia, a country that is nearing the "conversion" to an Islamic state. This being the case, she must carefully watch what she says about Islam knowing what happens to dissenters in said states. Therefore, everything she says is tainted in "wishy wash" and fear of Islamic death squads. She also supposedly works in the world of Islamic finances and money, a large percentage of which supports global terrorism.

Good commentary for all the non-believers at:

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/

Good commentary for all the non-believers at:

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/

Hello to everyone who has responded to my posts. Thanks for taking the time and I will try to answer you as time permits in the next couple of days if you are still interested.

Mark in Texas, if it makes you happy keep kicking those bushes, get rid of some of that pent up aggression. I do not expect anything less (Matthew 5:11)

Jihadist, Maurie, Lepidopteryx, Godfrey, Russel D, the Concerned Christian and John Boy. Good night!

Hi Arminius:

Before I go to bed I wanted to answer this post.

You said,

"Well, well, boy howdies, am I dumb as a stump or what? I have, in the past several years, read the Gospels at least 4 times, and I am still having problems with the overall picture. But I am at least in good company - our Lord had to explain His parables to the disciples on occasion."

Yes, He explained them.

Let's take the parable of the Sower and the Seed in Matthew 13. He told us that the knowledge of the kingdom had been given to them (as it has to us when we read the Word). (vs. 11)

"Listen to what the parable means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart." (vs. 18, 19) Then the one who receives the seed (i.e. the Word of God) that fell on rocky ground is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root (i.e. he beings to doubt), he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who receives the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who receives the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop..."

Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice. “He who has ears, let him hear.”

So my advice to you brother is not to let the love of this world overcome you. You cannot serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other (MATTHEW 6:24). Build you base on the solid foundation of God's Word, on the Rock that is Jesus Christ, and you will not see it come crashing down. Don't just hear the word, put it into practice. (Matthew 7:24-27)

I see you have lack of trust in His Word. Tell me how you can pick and chose what you will and won't accept as truth? Did He not tell you that His Word is truth? (John 17:17). Study it to understand it. Do not love the world or anything in the world. You can't have the world's value and God's values. The two don't mix.

My advice is don't trust men over God. They are not all wise and all knowing. There is a warning against rejecting God's wisdom, His Word to us. It goes like this:

"How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you. But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you...Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD, since they would not accept My advice and spurned MY rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to Me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm." (Proverbs 1:20-33)

You said,

"Liberal Christian? Yes, in social matters. After all I am Episcopal, and we have a gay bishop. And women as priests and bishops, despite what Paul said about women keeping their mouths shut in church."

There you go, "despite what Paul said" in many places about many issues you are ignoring his admonitions. You understand that women are equal in God’s eyes but their function is different than that of man’s. But only men are to be elders in the church.

You said,

"By saying the Bible is not consistent in no way detracts from the truth and wisdom there."

Don't kid yourself, it does detract greatly. All the pagans and atheists on this site understand this. That is why they fight tooth and nail to make it nothing more than a fairy tail or one religious book among many.

In effect what you are doing is calling God a liar. Either the Bible is His Word and revelation to us in who He is or the Bible is not to be trusted, period. God does not lie, my friend in Christ Jesus.

You said,

"If it is so consistent, why don't we all agree on it?"

Because when it is taken out of context it become a pretext. People like to read into it things that are not there to suit their theology."

You said,

"And why do Matthew and Luke have two different versions of the genealogy of Christ?"

One is taken from the genealogy of Joseph, the other from Mary. One traces the promised seed back to the first man and woman and the other to the seed of Abraham, counting the generations from that time to His birth. Remember the promised seed was to come through a specific lineage.

You said,

"And how about the two separate creation stories in Genesis? Or is the second one, the Adam and Eve one, a flashback?"

Simple, they over lap and look at it from different perspectives, one gets into more detail and explains God's interaction with the first man, Adam and the creation of Eve.

You said,

"And how about the value of pi being equal to 3 in the description of Solomon's temple?"

I'm not familiar with that.

You said,

"I won't go into all the weird dietary laws - our Lord overturned those when He said "It is not what enters one's mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one." (Matthew 15.11) Interesting how religion, well, evolves......"

Our God is a covenant God, He makes covenants with people(S). Jesus is the Mediator of a new covenant (Hebrews 7, 8, 9 would be good to read). Those who have faith in Him have met all the requirements of the other covenants.

You said,

"By your rejection of science, you have cut yourself off from a wide, great, and beautiful view of God's creation. You have built yourself a cage, and sit in it with blinders on."

I do not reject science, just evolutionary science.

You said,

"Not trying to be rude, but I feel very strongly about this. Our Lord said, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden light." It is, it is! But it is not easy to understand."

Yes, it is light. He has taken our sins upon Himself, suffered the punishment that should have been ours and replaced our righteousness (which Incidentally is but filthy rags) and replaced it with His own. That is why the Father can say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. He has nailed the condemnation to the cross by dying the sinners death in his place, but only for those who believe.

By the way, all God's blessing and promises are yes in Christ Jesus the Lord. (2 Corinthians 1:20; Ephesians 1:3) Blessings!

Excuse me if this appears twice. The website is being twitchy.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated - Without said commentary, her "words of wisdom" falls short of being important.

Although I am an atheist like yourself, Jihadist's "words of wisdom" are the way. She represents the "grand bargain" of open societies that not only allow, but encourage tolerance and expression of diverse viewpoints. Her worldview does not divide faith from reason, but embraces both, instead of creating a false choice as some true believers (e.g. Peter Huff and his ilk) claim when they suggest that only blind faith is the answer to God's test.

Hi Jihadist. As I said earlier, Peter Huff just doesn't like change. He finds solace in answers (whether true or false) rather than questions.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated - Without said commentary, her "words of wisdom" falls short of being important.

Although I am an atheist like yourself, Jihadist's "words of wisdom" are the way. She represents the "grand bargain" of open societies that not only allow, but encourage tolerance and expression of diverse viewpoints. Her worldview does not divide faith from reason, but embraces both, instead of creating a false choice as some true believers (e.g. Peter Huff and his ilk) claim when they suggest that only blind faith is the answer to God's test.

Hi Jihadist. As I said earlier, Peter Huff just doesn't like change. He finds solace in answers (whether true or false) rather than questions.

Hi Godfrey,

Actually I have not had time to correspond to your posts. I'm not finished with slavery yet or your posts.

Ah, I see The Jihadist continues her commentary about some issues but continues to "duck" the important issues about the foundations of religions especially Islam.

Without said commentary, her "words of wisdom" falls short of being important.

Once again for her perusal and response:

As noted many times previously but without rebuttal so far: (this is your chance)

A synopsis of the foundations of the major contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who supports these terrorists????
The third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees of Saudi Arabia.( Strange how Muslims from other countries never condemn the action of these terrorist organizations!!!!!)

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

hallucinations Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the /embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Non-believers. Please skip this post less you retch in this wee battle for God among believers:)

Mr. Peter Huff

Good morning. Thank you for your patient response. My apologies in not responding to your subsequent posts in another of Jacoby's thread.

I must admit, Peter, the way atheists/agnostics/freethinkers think and pursue knowledge are more in line with the inquiry methods of Muslim theological and Shariah scholars. I understood easily what they are saying in their posts.

Unlike God, I am not All Knowing or All Mighty, nor do I seek to be a clone of God or to be like God or God. We are mere mortals, a creation of God with human nature, warts and all. A carbon-based bipedal specie with a DNA difference of less than 3% from apes among God's creations that God left alone to evolve and develop after a "mid-term" reminder, so to speak, through revelations by prophets and no subsequent interference in our affairs after that.

Peter, you do live in an evolutionary world. The world is not static, nor shallow, nor unloving. We chose to be static, shallow and unloving or otherwise. The world is in a perpetual state of evolving in how we think, what we feel, what we do. The world is constantly evolving and developing in science and technology, fashions, values.

How can anyone assume that God, the All Mighty, the All Knowing, would feel challenged, be challenged by mere man if man is to pursue knowledge and use reasoning on matters pertaining to man's existence and well-being here on earth - to do what is right and just and to seek the truth on human foibles and existence?

Being burdened with the notion that all is born in sin, and salvation is only possible through one is a dampener of the human spirits and a shifting of personal responsibilities. Anyone who came up with that notion (certainly not God), should rethink that suppression of the human spirit and will for the truth and the right path.

I admire your personal conviction that the Bible is the one and only true book. Muslims certainly don't consider the Qur'an to be the one and only true book among the Abrahamic faiths. It is regarded as a continuation, a supplement, if you like, of the other texts on the fundamentally belief in God Its myriad manisfestions and characteristics.

Only on some aspects of the New Testament and the so-called "innovations" such as the Nicene Creed did our beliefs differ. Like most Muslims, I have no desire nor interest to argue with the other People of the Book on their core beliefs, or any other faith for that matter, including Hinduism or Paganism. The revelation and realisation on, and of God comes in different ways to all, even for those of the same faith.

I agree with you that God is infinite in Its Compassion and Mercy. Only that, we as mortals are responsible for our own actions and will be judge for what we have done.

Thank you for sharing what you believe and think Jesus would have done for a woman who is a victim of rape and incest - that the woman forgive her offense of looking at the child in a such a way that it does not become a bitter root that devours her in hatred for the child; that the child is not the guilty party here.

But then, we should not forget the perpetrators of rape and incest too, the really guilty ones in the "eyes" of God and in secular laws, who should perhaps, not be shown any compassion and mercy for such trangressions. Jesus would have chided them at the very least.

You would ask a woman to give up her life to have a child - "Laying down your life for another"? Let the mother die to save the child? There could be a Crusade/Jihad of saving a mother's life over the baby's when the hard choice has to be made - putting the mother and family before the unborn child, thinking of their needs above all as "a truly a noble investment for the family".

A fallen world? We decide if we want we want to fall as humans in giving in to our basest instincts, fears and prejudices. Or to rise in hope and faith that there can be a better world. The stories in the Bible are full of sacrifices which are to be treated as cautionary tales on the hard choices that man has to make and live with for better or for worse.

You said that God has already judged "murder" and revealed it in His Word? Yes. Surely God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, while knowing the ultimate outcome of man's personal and collective behavior and choices in this world, is not prejudging the outcome when It gave man the right and chance to decide on right and wrong, to do the right thing, and the opportunity for personal salvation that is up to everyone to pursue in his/her own way?

And you asked," Why do you think women are the final arbitrator?" on life. Because any woman and a few honest men will tell you that men, throughout history are the worst perpetrators of rape, pillage, genocide and murder. Surely the Bible tells men not to do so, but men still transgress on all of God's commandments, especially the basic and simple Ten Commandments.

Yes, murder is wrong, wrong and wrong. But who decides? Man decides to have categories and levels of murder - murder one, involuntary manslaughter, crime of passion etc and consequent level of acceptable and "just" punishments. Of course, killing of civilians during war is not murder at all, but deem necessary by some and are called, collateral damage or victims or friendly fire and such. What is murder is no longer decided by God, but by man in myriad secular and international laws.

So, what is the charge for a woman, who was raped or is the victim of an incest, who don't want the child to be born for any given reason? An electric chair?

Thanks for the websites on abortion. I've met women who are forced to have abortions. It may be shocking to you, but in some Asian societies (not necessarily Muslim), it is the male family members of the female victims of rape and incest who insisted that she must have an abortion for family honour etc. It is not for the woman, but for the family, meaning, male honour.

Again I ask you. When women are involved, and men are responsible for a child against her free will, why should a woman/women not be a final arbitrator until and unless men themselves, or with the help of priests and/or psychiatists, stop the practice of incest and rape?

Want to have sill power still over women by religious scriptures and sermons, even when they are victims of incest and rape by blaming them and not the perpetrators?

I am sure God, the Most Merciful and Most Compassionate, would be shocked (but perhaps definitely not) by the unjust reasonings we all gave here for punishing our fellow humans in not listening to them, their needs, and in excusing our own human failings and deflecting our own responsibilities to the victims.

I hope we all would stop blaming the victim. Stop making them responsible for the acts of others. Stop shifting the burden of guilt onto them. Stop misusing the compassion and mercy fo God to rationalise our own current heatlessness and insensitivity to the pain and sufferings of others.

I will always accept God as a source of strength for believers. I will never accept God being used as an excuse or to be twisted for any reason for our own failures to address real human needs.

Unless anyone can tell me God spoke to anyone lately, or send down new "revelations" about abortion, we are to decide what is just and right medically, socially, ethically and morally on abortion as guided by the Holy Text's reminders on the sacredness of life and the secular laws on "murder".

Since abortions are allowed by secular laws in many countries, as one believer to another, let God decide if a woman who goes for abortion whether she'll go to heaven or hell. Let the doctor who perform an abortion be decided by God if he will go to heaven or hell.

I am very comfortable and certain that God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, will be a kinder judge of us than any other human. God the All Mighty and All Knowing, knows best and is the final judge of us. You know that as a believer, but thanks for the reminder on the sacredness of life at all cost to the bringer of human life on her expendable life in bringing new life.

Thank you and best regards

J

The most Holy Circles here folks. Around, and around, and around poor ole Pete goes. Ole Pete is your typical, run of the mill, Christian, 'presuppositionalist' apologist. See what you get? It's a tidy, vicious lil' enterprise ain't it?

One starts out with the unsupportable, unjustifiable assertion, then ignores or declines to see any way an objection COULD be supported, "cuz God said, don't ya know'...

The so-called 'apologetic' is the superlative artful dodge. This approach is the 'intellectual framework' of Christian Reconstructionism (you know, those fellas who want to reinstitute Biblical as the criminal code in the United States. The preferred method of killing the criminals is stoning.

One can watch any of the 'logic' of these types of folks and see the cookie cutter argument, ad infinitum. But oh well, seems folks have most always things like merry-go-rounds. Maybe it is in the genes.

One thing to note, is impossibility to have a conversation with a 'presuppositionalist' UNLESS you ACCEPT his or her presuppositions from the outset. Since many of you don't, you can see how the alleged discussion just goes in these little, holy circles.

This so-called Christian 'defense of the faith' is the reigning approach to things within the conservative Presyterian/Reformed circles (no pun) in America. It does have and has had a few detractors from within conservative, and traditional Calvinism. One is R.C. Sproul, and John Gerstner, in a book titled "Classical Apologetics: A rational analysis of presuppositional apologetics."

There are some good published debates between 'presuppositionalists and professional philosophers on Infidels.org. I'd suggest looking up one with Michael Martin as a good starting point, but there are many.

from North West Texas, where you can kick a bush and a presuppositionalist jumps out and goes into the fanatical, spinning throws of an 'intellectual' whirling dervish. :)

Godfrey:

Wow! Duck and cover! INCOMING!!!

Man, you are using the big guns on Peter, I'm starting to feel sorry for him.

Remember that I am a Christian here, but I am not in step with Peter. I have a more inquiring mind about it, rather than accepting the bible as is. The bible, IMHO, is NOT the 'all in all'; no, it is a doorway, or rather, a series of doorways. I think I'm past at least one, in the Gospels. I am by no means a fundamentalist.

Where I disagree with you is your citing the web site that Jesus did not exist. Or the Apostles. Or Paul. Sure, a timeline was not presented, it did not occur to the writers. And these works were written by men, not dictated by God, and written from oral history in several places. Of course there will be discrepancies! But the overall story hangs together well, in my view.

Yeah, some of those early Christians were a bit weird. Check out Simon Stylites. And sometimes I wonder if the dude who wrote that last book of the New Testament wasn't hooked on some really heavy drugs....

Incidentally, I can see why you decline to further discuss slavery; I have you in the bag, there. But I was hoping you would touch on whether or not Timothy held the theory of emanations.

Sorry. Thought I got that second "And no" out of there.

Aw, jeeze, what am I, an index? I thought you had read the church fathers.

Check it out:

Tertullian, On The Ornamentation of Women, Bk. I, Ch. 1:

"And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins? Come, now; if from the beginning of the world the Milesians sheared sheep, and the Serians spun trees, and the Tyrians dyed, and the Phrygians embroidered with the needle, and the Babylonians with the loom, and pearls gleamed, and onyx-stones flashed; if gold itself also had already issued, with the cupidity (which accompanies it), from the ground; if the mirror, too, already had licence to lie so largely, Eve, expelled from paradise, (Eve) already dead, would also have coveted these things, I imagine! No more, then, ought she now to crave, or be acquainted with (if she desires to live again), what, when she was living, she had neither had nor known. Accordingly these things are all the baggage of woman in her condemned and dead state, instituted as if to swell the pomp of her funeral."

As I said, I haven't read Jerome, but I'm sure you can google on "jerome on women" and get your reference. And I cannot, of course, give citations for something that isn't there, to wit, objections to slavery.

As for your quotations, spare me. It's pretty well known that the idea of the Apostolic Succession was something cooked up to give the Roman church the whiff of authority. (The first identifiable bishop of Rome: Anicetus, 156-166.) Want a reference? See the above mentioned Walter Bauer. As for the apostles, modern history has pretty much done away with them, along with St. Ignatius and possibly Paul. The apostles are characters from an old story, meant to correspond with the twelve tribes of Israel, with earliest origins in the twelve signs, the twelve months, the twelve moons.

As for Ignatius, we have letters he supposedly wrote to the Virgin Mary (come on!) and a bishop who wasn't even born when he died. If you read the letters, you find they put fourth century church concerns in the mouth of a early second century man.

And no, I'm not going to give a reference. Look it up yourself.

St. Paul... but you can read it yourself. Start here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm

And no, I'm not providing a reference. You can look it up as well as Ican.

Peter:

I'm no longer sure what exactly it is that you're trying to prove.

That you belive the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God? OK, fine for you. You're welcome to it. It doesn't work for everyone, and we have the right to not believe.

That the Nicean Council believed that the writings they chose to canonize into what has become known as the Bible believed they were guided by God and that their choices of scriptures to include and exclude comprised the entire and inerrant Word of God for all of humanity? Perhaps they did. I happen to believe that their choces reflect early church politics as much as they do faith.

You obviously fervently believe your religion to be The One True Faith. You have every right to beleive that, and others have every right to not believe.
But when it comes to medicine, I have the right to not have another person's religious beliefs imposed on my body. That means that if my OB/GN would not perform a late-term abortion to save my life, I need to be informed of that when I call to make the first appointment, so that I don't waste my time and money in an office visit with a doctor who does not respect my preferences for the treatment of my body.
As for pharmacists, their job is to fill presecriptions as written. Period. Not to fill those prescriptions they think their god would approve of.
If there are legal drugs that you feel should not be available, then don't become a pharmacist and then refuse to fill prescriptions. That would be no different than my tee-totaling Baptist mother taking a job at a liquor store and then refusing to sell alcohol because she beleives drinking is a sin.

BTW Godfrey,

Please supply the reference next time you make a statement such as this,

"On the subject of church fathers: Tertullian was amazingly hateful towards women. I hear that Jerome was even more so (but I haven't read Jerome). I don't recall any of them objecting to slavery."

Hi Godfrey,

I'm willing to invest in extracting quotes in context from the early church fathers showing just what they believe about the Word of God, how they fought heresy and false doctrine to defend the true faith once, for all delivered to saints. That will take a few days.

Your opinion is already formed and you have the blinders on so unless God changes your heart it is going to be looked at with the skepticism that you view everything concerning Christianity. But maybe it will be of use to someone else. Remember that no one come to any position with neutrality.

In the early church fathers we find a constant appeal to both Old and New Testaments as the very Word of God. Some of these early Christians were actual disciples of the Apostles or knew of someone who was. They all believed the Scriptures to be inspired by God. Polycarp (70–A.D. 156) was a disciple of the Apostle John and quoted the writing of Paul, calling them sacred Scripture. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.),did the same in his Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.)and Tertullian (160-220 A.D.) both refer to Scripture as being handed down from the Apostles, in which they refer to the teachings as the rule of faith or the canon of truth as they fought against the gnostic heresy. These are just a few. Listen to Irenaeus,

"Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him." Against Heresies III.5.1

About the Gnostic heresy he had this to say,

Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boasted that beyond all others they have perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. (Ibid II.28.8; I.8.1)

What did he think of the Scriptures?

"Our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures." (Ibid., Against Heresies III.21.3)

All quotes taken from William Websters book,
holy Scripture, The Ground and Pilliar of our Faith, Volume II.

The list of early quotes is long. I will go to the website and pull some of these quotes so that you can see for yourself. As I said, give me a few days. What I can do is add a couple each day and go on for weeks if you want the evidence? You have made some allegations without providing proof, so let me counter by actually providing proof to the contrary on what you have said, and in the process so that the Christian faith is a faith based on history, that is His Story.

On the subject of church fathers: Tertullian was amazingly hateful towards women. I hear that Jerome was even more so (but I haven't read Jerome). I don't recall any of them objecting to slavery.

Peter Huff:

“So basically what you are saying is that your subjective opinion tells you that when you are dead you are dead.”

No. Catch up. My objective opinion tells me when we’re dead, we’re dead. Listen tight, I’ll say it again: Objectivity means looking at reality and making you’re best judgment on the basis of the data. Can your judgment be wrong? Of course it can. You do the best you can. Subjective opinion is opinion based on emotion, whim, or wish, such as wishing that people who thought it took a god to make the wind blow knew what they were talking about when it came to gods.

“Let me see if I have got this right. So what makes you different than me is just the way the chemicals react in your physical brain.”

“Chemicals” is a loose way of speaking. Part of what makes us different is the difference in the physical structures of our brains. Part is how the physical structure of the brain uses chemical and electrical signals to do what the brain does. Part is other physical characteristics.

“You are no more than matter being manipulated by your environment.”

You may feel manipulated by your environment. Me, not so much. I feel like I work with my environment, react to my environment, and, to some extent, control my environment.

"Your thoughts and your personality are nothing more than electro-chemical reactions that are responding to your environment.”

That also seems a little loose, but I’ll let it go by.

“There is nothing intangible and non-physical about you?”

Of course there is. There are thinking, feeling, wishing, dreaming, creating. Remember, you’re talking to a poet here.

“When your body dies that is all there is of you?”

Other than what’s left behind in the minds of the people who love me.

“If that is the case, then how do you determine "good?" Your matter is responding differently to your environmental conditions than mine is.”

So? Listen, I believe that when I die, that’s the end of me. Life and death, in that context, are absolute. Those are the absolutes that determine good and evil. It’s really pretty simple.

“Second, how do you get non-physical, abstract principles out of matter reacting to its environment? Are rocks self aware? Did we not originally come from molten matter cooling down to become rocks in your worldview? For that matter (pardon the pun), where did we get self awareness from in a material universe? Are chemicals self aware? If I am just electro-chemical impulses why am I aware of myself and others? Do you think the rock is also aware of itself and we do not know it?”

This is carrying the argument from analogy (generally a fallacy) to ridiculous extremes. Not much analogy between me and a rock. I have billions (at least) of neurons in my head. A rock doesn’t have any at all. Those neurons do what they do. A rock just lies there.

“I have an easy explanation for all of this.”

Of course you do. Easy questions and easy answers. God forbid that you actually do the work of trying to wring the hard answers out of nearly infinitely complex reality.

“ In the beginning God...and God said, "Let us make man in Our likeness." So God created us from the elements of this earth so that we could interact and feed off what was created, and He breathed life into us. That is why we share commonalities with animals, (etc., etc.)

And God makes the wind to blow and the grass to grow. That should be too easy for anyone.

“[T]he Almighty has revealed what happens when we die [and] I know that the physical death of my body is not the end of me.”

This is known as wishful thinking. Subjective in the extreme. Face it, pal. You’re going to die. Don’t get so involved in wishing for the next world that you forget to live in this one.

“Well, I'm doing it for you. You are raising a lot yourself.”

Doing what? Finding answers? Raising objections? And what objections to evolution am I raising?

“Are you saying that every theory is fact since every or should I say "any" theory has been established?”

I’m saying evolution is an established fact. Your 25 objections are hogwash.

“First give me your source and quote [about the Diatesseron] so I can look into it.”

Sorry, I was speaking from memory. It wasn’t Eusebius, it was Theodoret of Cyrus, in Epiphanus’s _Against Heresies (Panarion)_, 1.20. I’ve turned the house upside down looking for my copy, but it’s hiding. You can get it from Amazon. I found the reference in Bauer, Walter; _Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity_.

“Which church fathers have you read?”

What is this, a contest? I’ve read Eusebius, Some Tertullian (boring), Origen (sharp fellow), Tatian (Diatesseron), Augustine, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria.... oh, a bunch. You?

I said,

"This is pointless jabber trying to do away with objectivity. If you can convince yourself objectivity is impossible, then you can excuse yourself to believe in the Bible. Whale away. It’s your funeral."

You said,

“Why, because you said so?”

Why what? Is it your funeral? Because I’m not stuck leading my life to that tiresome old mythology. Is it jabber? Because it accords with my long experience of pointless jabber. Your concept of objectivity is so far from standard that I can only conclude that you’re trying to confound the concept.

You stopped before you got to the interesting stuff. Hope you’re coming back to it.

Peter,

I'm tired and a bit cranky, and probably should not be writing. But what the hell.

You said:
I know I can stand firm upon His Word because He does not lie. Therefore there is no contradiction is what He says. It conforms to what is real and true. I know His Word is easy enough for a child to understand and deep enough that His whole council is bottomless.

Well, well, boy howdies, am I dumb as a stump or what? I have, in the past several years, read the Gospels at least 4 times, and I am still having problems with the overall picture. But I am at least in good company - our Lord had to explain His parables to the disciples on occasion.

Liberal Christian? Yes, in social matters. After all I am Episcopal, and we have a gay bishop. And women as priests and bishops, despite what Paul said about women keeping their mouths shut in church.

By saying the Bible is not consistent in no way detracts from the truth and wisdom there. If it is so consistent, why don't we all agree on it? And why do Matthew and Luke have two different versions of the genealogy of Christ? And how about the two separate creation stories in Genesis? Or is the second one, the Adam and Eve one, a flashback? And how about the value of pi being equal to 3 in the description of Solomon's temple? I won't go into all the weird dietary laws - our Lord overturned those when He said "It is not what enters one's mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one." (Matthew 15.11) Interesting how religion, well, evolves......

Do these problems negate the whole bible? NO!

By your rejection of science, you have cut yourself off from a wide, great, and beautiful view of God's creation. You have built yourself a cage, and sit in it with blinders on.

Not trying to be rude, but I feel very strongly about this. Our Lord said, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden light." It is, it is! But it is not easy to understand.

God bless, and good night.

Sorry Godfrey,

I did not mean to make the last post so long. I was trying to break it up and mistakenly included part of your post that I had not responded to yet. Here is the rest.

"If they are easy questions how can the answers be hard?"

You said,

"It’s a lot of work to find the answers. And you aren’t interested in the answers anyway. You’ll merely raise 250 objections."

Well, I'm doing it for you. You are raising a lot yourself.

You said,

"Evolution is as well established as any scientific theory out there."

Are you saying that every theory is fact since every or should I say "any" theory has been established?

You said,

"Some people do it, some talk about it. Give me the counter-evidence for Eusebius burning the Diatesseron."

First give me your source and quote so I can look into it.

Which church fathers have you read?

You said,

"This is pointless jabber trying to do away with objectivity. If you can convince yourself objectivity is impossible, then you can excuse yourself to believe in the Bible. Whale away. It’s your funeral."

Why, because you said so?

To continue Godfrey, I asked,

"Since you are not dead yet what makes you such an expert?"

Your reply,

"This is the argument from silence. Or blindness. You’re not dead yet, either. As a country boy, I’ve seen many and many a dead creature. They die, they rot away, they stink with the life that seethes in their remains. No sign of afterlife. You go by a book written by ignorant, superstitious barbarians a couple millennia ago, who didn’t even know why the wind blew. In 2000 years, we’ve gotten no solider evidence of life after death than that. You need to do better, pal."

So basically what you are saying is that your subjective opinion tells you that when you are dead you are dead.

Let me see if I have got this right. So what makes you different than me is just the way the chemicals react in your physical brain. You are no more than matter being manipulated by your environment. Your thoughts and your personality are nothing more than electro-chemical reactions that are responding to your environment. There is nothing intangible and non-physical about you? When your body dies that is all there is of you?

If that is the case, then how do you determine "good?" Your matter is responding differently to your environmental conditions than mine is.

Second, how do you get non-physical, abstract principles out of matter reacting to its environment? Are rocks self aware? Did we not originally come from molten matter cooling down to become rocks in your worldview? For that matter (pardon the pun), where did we get self awareness from in a material universe? Are chemicals self aware? If I am just electro-chemical impulses why am I aware of myself and others? Do you think the rock is also aware of itself and we do not know it?

I have an easy explanation for all of this. In the beginning God...and God said, "Let us make man in Our likeness." So God created us from the elements of this earth so that we could interact and feed off what was created, and He breathed life into us. That is why we share commonalities with animals, because we were all made to live in this world, not because we came from animals and further back from rocks and further back from hydrogen and helium gas mixing and forming other gases and further back from the Big Bang.

To continue on your thought,

"This is the argument from silence. Or blindness. You’re not dead yet, either.”

No, but because the Almighty has revealed what happens when we die I know that the physical death of my body is not the end of me.

"If they are easy questions how can the answers be hard?"

It’s easy to ask why the grass is green. It’s a lot harder to find out about chlorophyll. It’s easy to ask someone what his standard of value is. I imagine that it’s damned difficult to answer for a lot of people, because, who thinks about it? It’s easy to pose 25 or 50 objections to anything. It’s a lot of work to find the answers. And you aren’t interested in the answers anyway. You’ll merely raise 250 objections.

"You’re the one claiming that evolution is true. Explain why the textbooks are duping the kids into believing things that have been disproved a long time ago. Whose being false and dishonest there?"

You are. Evolution is as well established as any scientific theory out there. And it took me very little study of botany to see it at work. Your objections are smoke and mirrors.

“For the evidence you give I can give counter evidence.”

Some people do it, some talk about it. Give me the counter-evidence for Eusebius burning the Diatesseron.

“Ever read any of the early church fathers?”

You betcha, bub. Including the Diatesseron.

"Evidence is always looked at through the eyes of a person’s core/foundational presuppositions. You filter what I present through your web of belief as I do mine, that is why I got into the question of moral absolutes and supposed evolutionary principles because how do you make sense of them?"

This is pointless jabber trying to do away with objectivity. If you can convince yourself objectivity is impossible, then you can excuse yourself to believe in the Bible. Whale away. It’s your funeral.

"You said, "Oh yeah I forgot, majority makes might which in turn makes right, since majority [etc., etc., etc.]""

I didn’t say that. You did.

"I am just repeating the ideas espoused in an atheistic evolutionary framework."

The hell you are. You’re making up invidious statements and putting them in my mouth. Stop it.

"[God] has spoken to us and we have recorded that transaction in writing."

And no one can agree on what it says.

"The kind of slavery practiced by man is not the kind that is intended by God. The kind of slavery practiced by man is sexual slavery and cruelty."

But God did intend slavery?

"Slavery was used by God as an object lesson in both the Old & New Testaments... "

No it wasn’t. I’ve read what the Bible has to say about slavery. It means regular old chattel slavery. You can buy your slaves from countries around you. You can beat them to death as long as they don’t die immediately. You can (or can’t) sell your daughter into slavery. Even Christ says that slaves must be obedient to their masters. I know slavery when I hear it. I know b.s. when I hear it, too.

"You are in a form of slavery in an employer/employee relationship. You have agreed..."

Where’s my shovel? How can you equate working together by mutual consent to mutually agreed on ends... with slavery? That’s insane. Remember the auction blocks? Remember the whips? Remember forced illiteracy? Remember the rape? Remember the keeping of massa’s own children as slaves? Shame on you for trying that shabby trick.

"The contradictions between the two religions [Christianity & Islam] make it so that they cannot both be true. Although they both contain truths, only the Judeo-Christianity is without error."

What about condoning slavery?

"I mean God as He has revealed Himself by His Word, not what is read into His Word. There is a difference. When you read something into His Word ..."

And then interpret it as you please. Interpret it, say, that "slavery" means something else besides slavery.

"His Word is the standard of all truth, but it needs to be correctly interpreted."

I guess so. If words don’t mean what they mean, I guess I better get you to interpret it for me.

"1) “All Scripture is God breathed..."

That sounds like the Gnostic doctrine of emanation. Did scripture emanate from God? Did existence? I know that Christianity doesn’t hold with it, but it sounds like Timothy did.

“2) “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who correctly handles the word of truth." "

Such as, the word "slavery" means something else besides slavery?

"Abortion is murder."

Honest people disagree about that.

"But then you come riding in on your dark black horse to clarify the issue under the banner that the atheist knows best, because in an atheistic world truth is only as good as you can enforce it."

Again, I’m not the one that wants to enforce anything. That’s you Christians, with your efforts to institute The Christian equivalent of Sharia.

"Well, why don't you have an ogle on Google to find out what a human is as in human being."

Thus utterly ignoring my point. I concede, everyone concedes, that the fetus is human.

"Did you catch that – human – A person."

We were discussing the LEGAL definition of a person. The legal definition of a (natural) person is, "a living, breathing, human being." Does that include a fetus? Current legal opinion is, No.

"Thanks for your definition, but I will stick with God's definition in Leviticus 17:11..."

You go to the most disreputable book in the entire Bible. The book that tells us to kill homosexuals, to stone women who don’t scream loud enough if they’re raped, to kill disrespectful children, and to kill anyone who has sex with animals, along with the animals. Kindly don’t quote that trash hole to me.

"You quoted me saying, "She is left with the problem all atheists and free thinkers are left with - on whose authority?" Your reply, "And your answer, as explained above, is, yours. No thanks." I didn't think you would accept it."

Read that over and see what it is you’re trying to get me to accept.

"I just have to list the atheistic, secular human, evolutionary governments of the twentieth century to show you that an estimated 100 million people have born witness to this."

And the point has been made that those 100 million people didn’t die for atheism. They died for dogma that very much resembled religion. Atheism was just a means to dispose of the churches, which actually have, a few times, resisted mass murder.

And don’t get too proud of that. Too many times they have gone along with it. Check out Pius XII’s relationship with the Nazis.

Or, to boil it down, opinions based on what you observe are objective, not subjective.

You seem to hold that nothing based on observable reality can be objective. I hold that nothing based on the Cloud Cuckoo Land of mysticism can be objective, that objectivity starts with observable reality.

Denying everything real is the philosophical stance of skepticism. The problem of skepticism is, you have to have good reason to contradict sense data. To say, "Everything you see could be false, it could all be delusion," is wild speculation. The answer is, "I see it, I touch it, I believe it's there, prove it isn't," is actually a case where the proof is on the negative, because the evidence for the positive is so overwhelming.

That doesn't mean the negative can never be proven--no matter how much it looks like it, Houdini didn't escape from jail cels by magic; he had the key hidden in his mouth--it just means it's up to you to prove it.

I notice you only picked one point to answer out of my whole huge post.

Why is that?

Here we are again Godfrey,

You said,

"We do the best we can, buddy. I start with an absolute standard of value, and I apply it as best I can."

That is news to me Godfrey. What is this absolute standard of value and where did you get it from?

When I said,

"Your standard is your own subjective self in which you determine what "your" good is and if it is different from someone else's then you are in the right in your own eyes and that settles the discussion."

You said,

"Say what? How did you arrive at that? Sounds like projection to me."

I got it from your other posts on other forums. For instance, you told me that your absolute standard was that we live and die. Where does morality come from in that? Here is our interaction:

YOU: If you deny the possibility of any standard of good that emanates from the immanent world, then there’s no point trying to offer you one.

ME: So Godfrey, how do you make an absolute out of that?

YOU: There’s nothing more absolute than life or death.

ME: So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it?”

YOU: I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in right and wrong. I don’t get my ideas by watching to see which way other people jump. If you’re interested, you can get much more on the subject of life as the standard of value in Ayn Rand’s _The Virtue of Selfishness._

ME: How do you determine reality?”

YOU: You observe reality with your senses, and with the tools that extend the senses.

ME: From which of the senses can you observe logic from? And yet you use it to observe.”

YOU: I’m not clear on what you think “logic” means. I can say that logic is not a model of thinking. The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association. Logic is a formal tool with formal rules that serves the purpose of checking thinking against fundamental observations of reality, to wit, existence, identity, and the excluded middle.

ME: O, by the way you are certainly doing a "good" job in observing origins; life from non-life, non-material from material, intangible from tangible. O, where did you observe any of those?

YOU: I don’t think I follow the question. And I keep trying to tell you, I’m not interested in origins.
What, you think you have the only absolute in the universe? My standard of good is life. Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil. There’s much room for discussion here of course. Keep in mind that this is a brief statement of a deep subject.

ME: I think once you can determine that your standard for "good" is sensible we can certainly examine how sensible.”

YOU: My standard at least proceeds from observable reality.

So there you have it Godfrey, nothing more than your subjective opinion, based on what you have observed. How do you get absolute moral standards out of what you observe? How do you get them out of what your culture observes? Cultures change and so do values, so where is the absolute there?

Hi Terra,

Good to hear of your success and the success of others!

Hi Lepidopteryx:

You said,

"Since Paganism was around long before Christinaity, if there are overlaps and similarities, who borrowed from whom?"

You borrowed from the Old Testament, which is a written record taken back to the first man and woman. And in the Old Testament contained, in the New explained. Right from Genesis 3:15 God's plan of salvation starts to unfold. He uses the Jewish people to fulfill His prophesies about the coming Messiah of Genesis 3, at the time of the Fall.

Christianity is a proclamation, for one, of the Good News of what God has done in Christ Jesus.

As such man made religions have borrowed from the original standard and in the process twisted it to form new beliefs.

Hello Russell,

Good to hear from you again. As I was scrolling up I came across your post. It is going well at the moment, thanks!

You asked,

"When you read the Bible, how do you read it? Do you read it as a sheep or as the shepherd?"

I think you already know the answer to that question. There is only One good Shepherd.

I read it as it is, God's Word to me, and study to correctly interpret it. As with reading anything I seek the Author's meaning and try to avoid adding to His Word. As a human being I make mistakes but know that He never does. I rely on His Spirit to guide me into truth and understanding. Sometimes I wrestle with something I do not understand for years, until God, in His time, brings light to my understanding. Case in point, creation verses evolution.

I know I can stand firm upon His Word because He does not lie. Therefore there is no contradiction is what He says. It conforms to what is real and true. I know His Word is easy enough for a child to understand and deep enough that His whole council is bottomless.

I can understand His Word in the same way that you are now understanding me. Language has meaning, and the context and use of words determines the meaning. We could not understand anything unless that was the case.

I look at the passages to see who the subject and object are and determine whether the passage is speaking figuratively or narratively. I also examine the passages on a particular subject to compare and contrast the ideas presented.

Hi again Arminius:

I believe, from what I have read, that the dichotomy between Science and Faith really became apparent during the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the Modern Age, when man started to think he could figure this all out without God. Before that man used science as a tool to investigate and understand the wonders of God's creation.

So when you say,

I am most certainly a Christian, but I do not believe that the Bible is irrefutable truth."

You have conformed to the views of your time. The Bible calls us as Christians not to conform to the standards/patterns of this world but be transformed in the renewing of our mind (in Christ Jesus). (Romans 12:1-3)

When you say that the Bible is not irrefutable truth you bring into question verses like Romans 3:4:

"Let God be true, and every man a liar"

Or,

"I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right" (Isaiah 45:19b)

Or,

"And we also thank God continually because, when you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

The problem with a view like yours is every man decides for himself what verses he will accept as true or not true. Once you start down this slippery slope how can you determine anything as true? Is it all done on what you prefer to believe? One person believes that this verse is from God and another that it is not.

The battle I face whenever I post on a forum like this is whether I will compromise what God has said in order to be politically correct and tolerant with the views of unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel, which I know from the Word of God, are false views. If I do I nullify the Word of Truth instead of proclaiming it.

If the whole Bible is not the inspired, inerrant Word of God then we cannot know that any part of it is, and I might add cannot know truth. Everything becomes speculative.

You said,

"Look at the Gospels, the core of Christianity. Written down from oral history two generations after our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection. NOT dictated. Maybe inspired. But written down by men who saw through a glass darkly, as we do now. This does NOT make the truth in these four books any less, it just means that we must approach them with some caution because it is hard to get to."

I think you are contradicting yourself here Arminius. First you say "I do not believe the Bible is irrefutable truth" and then "This does NOT make the truth in these four books any less."

Either God did what He said He would do and preserved His Word, or the pagans and atheists rule the day. In such a case truth is what you make it.

As a professed brother in Christ I would encourage you to "be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms...Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist" (Ephesians 6:10-12, 14)

You said,

"We cannot know the mind of God, as you know. And none of the men who wrote down the bible could either."

We can know the mind of God in as much as He has revealed and had written down for our instruction and edification. (2 Timothy 3:15, 16; 2 Peter 1:19-21)

When you said,

"That in no way lessens my belief."

Actually it does. Our faith rests on the fact that God cannot lie and that Jesus is whom He said He is and that He died in our place in order to make us right with God. The Apostle Paul said that without the Resurrection of Jesus our faith is useless, we have believed in vain and we are to be pitted above all men. But we can know this. (1 John 2:3-5; 18-21; 3:2-3, 10, 14, 16; 4:6, 8, 13, 15-16; 5:2, 8-15, 20)

You said,

"I know (but of course cannot prove) that God is with me, always has been, and always will be. And I know that Jesus died for our sins."

Knowing that Jesus Christ has died for your sins is good!

"We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true - even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

Arminius, take care!

Peter Huff:
My man, how's it goin'?

I realize that you are full of conviction when it comes to the Bible and God, yet are also very kind and are willing to let others talk and rant.
I don't want to rant. I want to know. And for me to know, I have just one question for you. Please answer it honestly. When you read the Bible, how do you read it? Do you read it as a sheep oras the shepard?

Later bro.

Put on the coffee pot, Terra. Although I love herbal tea as well.

I meant that I gave up caffeine the entire time i was pregnant and breast-feeding. And when I started drinking it again after weaning my daughter, I did so in more judicios quantities. I never intended to quit caffeine permanently - just while it was bad for the baby. Never went back to the cigs though - I fully intended to quit those permanently.

How's tomorrow afternoon for a visit?

Hello Arminius,

I read both your posts and I have some thoughts and questions.When you said,

"I am a practicing Christian, a liberal one. I also firmly believe in evolution, and that the universe was created by the Big Bang some 14 billion years past. I also believe that God is the creator, so the Big Bang was his doing."

What do you mean by a liberal Christian? Do you follow the views of the Jesus Seminar crowd such as John Dominic Crossan or Marcus Borg or Fred Funk or John Shelby Spong?

The is a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is not Biblical. God has given us the ability to adapt to our environment but not change our kind. Read Genesis 1. Man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. Man was made different from the animals in that he was created in the image and likeness of God with the ability to think and reason unlike animals.

When you say,

"So how do I reconcile this? It began in my youth. One of our priests (Episcopal, not RC) was also a full-time atomic physicist, and had no problem with science and religion coexisting.
Look at it this way: both science and religion search for the truth, and are parallel roads on this search."

There again you start from a core foundation that is not Biblical. Then you keep building and building on the evidence in a way that meets your worldview. Everything is strained through the sieve of evolutionary thought.

The problem with evolutionary science is that it presupposes certain things to be true. Nobody but God was there when the universe was formed and He has told us how and in an approximate time frame when.

As He said to Job,

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me if you understand." (Job 38:4)

Fossils do not come stamped with the date on them. The evidence needs to be interpreted. If you want to rely on man's limited abilities rather than the Creator's then you will be living in deception more often than not. I will continue with this thought in answer to your next post.

Peter Huff:

"And my point to you is how do you know that what you do furthers life and is good?"

We do the best we can, buddy. I start with an absolute standard of value, and I apply it as best I can.

"Your standard is your own subjective self in which you determine what "your" good is and if it is different from someone else's then you are in the right in your own eyes and that settles the discussion. What is more, you offer no hope for a future, assign your own purpose and meaning in a world that unfortunately doesn't care anyway."

Say what? How did you arrive at that? Sounds like projection to me.

"Since you are not dead yet what makes you such an expert?"

This is the argument from silence. Or blindness. You’re not dead yet, either. As a country boy, I’ve seen many and many a dead creature. They die, they rot away, they stink with the life that seethes in their remains. No sign of afterlife. You go by a book written by ignorant, superstitious barbarians a couple millennia ago, who didn’t even know why the wind blew. In 2000 years, we’ve gotten no solider evidence of life after death than that. You need to do better, pal.

"If they are easy questions how can the answers be hard?"

It’s easy to ask why the grass is green. It’s a lot harder to find out about chlorophyll. It’s easy to ask someone what his standard of value is. I imagine that it’s damned difficult to answer for a lot of people, because, who thinks about it? It’s easy to pose 25 or 50 objections to anything. It’s a lot of work to find the answers. And you aren’t interested in the answers anyway. You’ll merely raise 250 objections.

"You’re the one claiming that evolution is true. Explain why the textbooks are duping the kids into believing things that have been disproved a long time ago. Whose being false and dishonest there?"

You are. Evolution is as well established as any scientific theory out there. And it took me very little study of botany to see it at work. Your objections are smoke and mirrors.

“For the evidence you give I can give counter evidence.”

Some people do it, some talk about it. Give me the counter-evidence for Eusebius burning the Diatesseron.

“Ever read any of the early church fathers?”

You betcha, bub. Including the Diatesseron.

"Evidence is always looked at through the eyes of a person’s core/foundational presuppositions. You filter what I present through your web of belief as I do mine, that is why I got into the question of moral absolutes and supposed evolutionary principles because how do you make sense of them?"

This is pointless jabber trying to do away with objectivity. If you can convince yourself objectivity is impossible, then you can excuse yourself to believe in the Bible. Whale away. It’s your funeral.

"You said, "Oh yeah I forgot, majority makes might which in turn makes right, since majority [etc., etc., etc.]""

I didn’t say that. You did.

"I am just repeating the ideas espoused in an atheistic evolutionary framework."

The hell you are. You’re making up invidious statements and putting them in my mouth. Stop it.

"[God] has spoken to us and we have recorded that transaction in writing."

And no one can agree on what it says.

"The kind of slavery practiced by man is not the kind that is intended by God. The kind of slavery practiced by man is sexual slavery and cruelty."

But God did intend slavery?

"Slavery was used by God as an object lesson in both the Old & New Testaments... "

No it wasn’t. I’ve read what the Bible has to say about slavery. It means regular old chattel slavery. You can buy your slaves from countries around you. You can beat them to death as long as they don’t die immediately. You can (or can’t) sell your daughter into slavery. Even Christ says that slaves must be obedient to their masters. I know slavery when I hear it. I know b.s. when I hear it, too.

"You are in a form of slavery in an employer/employee relationship. You have agreed..."

Where’s my shovel? How can you equate working together by mutual consent to mutually agreed on ends... with slavery? That’s insane. Remember the auction blocks? Remember the whips? Remember forced illiteracy? Remember the rape? Remember the keeping of massa’s own children as slaves? Shame on you for trying that shabby trick.

"The contradictions between the two religions [Christianity & Islam] make it so that they cannot both be true. Although they both contain truths, only the Judeo-Christianity is without error."

What about condoning slavery?

"I mean God as He has revealed Himself by His Word, not what is read into His Word. There is a difference. When you read something into His Word ..."

And then interpret it as you please. Interpret it, say, that "slavery" means something else besides slavery.

"His Word is the standard of all truth, but it needs to be correctly interpreted."

I guess so. If words don’t mean what they mean, I guess I better get you to interpret it for me.

"1) “All Scripture is God breathed..."

That sounds like the Gnostic doctrine of emanation. Did scripture emanate from God? Did existence? I know that Christianity doesn’t hold with it, but it sounds like Timothy did.

“2) “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who correctly handles the word of truth." "

Such as, the word "slavery" means something else besides slavery?

"Abortion is murder."

Honest people disagree about that.

"But then you come riding in on your dark black horse to clarify the issue under the banner that the atheist knows best, because in an atheistic world truth is only as good as you can enforce it."

Again, I’m not the one that wants to enforce anything. That’s you Christians, with your efforts to institute The Christian equivalent of Sharia.

"Well, why don't you have an ogle on Google to find out what a human is as in human being."

Thus utterly ignoring my point. I concede, everyone concedes, that the fetus is human.

"Did you catch that – human – A person."

We were discussing the LEGAL definition of a person. The legal definition of a (natural) person is, "a living, breathing, human being." Does that include a fetus? Current legal opinion is, No.

"Thanks for your definition, but I will stick with God's definition in Leviticus 17:11..."

You go to the most disreputable book in the entire Bible. The book that tells us to kill homosexuals, to stone women who don’t scream loud enough if they’re raped, to kill disrespectful children, and to kill anyone who has sex with animals, along with the animals. Kindly don’t quote that trash hole to me.

"You quoted me saying, "She is left with the problem all atheists and free thinkers are left with - on whose authority?" Your reply, "And your answer, as explained above, is, yours. No thanks." I didn't think you would accept it."

Read that over and see what it is you’re trying to get me to accept.

"I just have to list the atheistic, secular human, evolutionary governments of the twentieth century to show you that an estimated 100 million people have born witness to this."

And the point has been made that those 100 million people didn’t die for atheism. They died for dogma that very much resembled religion. Atheism was just a means to dispose of the churches, which actually have, a few times, resisted mass murder.

And don’t get too proud of that. Too many times they have gone along with it. Check out Pius XII’s relationship with the Nazis.

Lepi,

I quit smoking but I love my coffee. I can not go the cajun javva though...the stuff in the red bag can double for road tar...can rust the enamal right off your teeth.

It's a shame...well you come visit and it will be herbal tea...lol. As hot as it's been it can be iced. 103 right now...

terra

Peter Huff,
I also quit smoking cold turkey, about 12 years ago. I smoked 4 pks a day...I looked at that cig. and thought," I am giving that power over me." I quit.

terra

Viejita del oeste, you said:

Arminius
Are you talking about John Polkinghorne? I'm a big fan of his. You will find that Catholic schools have always taught the scientific method -- including evolution -- without finding in it any contradiction to Christian belief.

Well, Viejita, I don't know who that gentleman is! My bad, as the current saying goes. Anway, I agree with you. The Vatican itself has accepted the Big Bang theory, and has no particular problem with evolution. I don't often agree with the Vatican, but I should say I was a huge fan of John Paul II. I am not sure yet of the current pope, but we will see.

My first paragraph got deleted.

Since Paganism was around long before Christinaity, if there are overlaps and similarities, who borrowed from whom?

Peter:
**I never said that you could not be a moral and ethical person, just that you borrow from the Christian framework when you do such a thing, because you have not standard except what you make it to be otherwise.**

As for whether it's better for a child to be born into a situation where it is not wanted, not loved, not going to be cared for, or live a very short, painful life versus not being born at all, I vote for not being born at all.
And I feel the same way about the continuation of my own life. I have informed my family that if I am terminally ill and in intractable pain, when it reaches to point where there is nothing to look forward to but more pain, that I will end my own suffering. They don't all approve of my decision, but they have all vowed to honor it.

Several years ago, a pregnant friend's sonogram showed that the baby was anencephalic - the back of its skull did not form, and it had only a brain stem - no brain. The doctor told her that it would not live more than a couple of hours if it was born, and offered her the option of aborting. She said she would have to think it over, and asked her priest what to do. He told her that aborting it would constitute murder, even though it was not possible for it to live even 24 hours after being born. Then she talked to her husband. I would have talked to my spouse before my clergy, but maybe that's just me. The two of them decided that it was not fair to the unborn baby, to the child they already had, or to themselves to continue the pregnancy. I cannot fault their decision.

As for Paganism, you just don't get my religion., and that's fine - I really don't expect you to. But it's a bit arrogant for you to try to tell me what I beleive when you don't really know anything about my religion. I grew up Baptist - I know the basics of Christianity.

As for the writings of the Catholic church fathers - Augustine et al - I tried years ago to read some of them, and they either put me to sleep, or were so far out there that I had to wonder what they had been smoking and where I could get some.

Peter,

You exhaust me! Can't keep up with the dialog.

Read my post above for starters, then look at this.

I am most certainly a Christian, but I do not believe that the Bible is irrefutable truth. Look at the Gospels, the core of Christianity. Written down from oral history two generations after our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection. NOT dictated. Maybe inspired. But written down by men who saw through a glass darkly, as we do now. This does NOT make the truth in these four books any less, it just means that we must approach them with some caution because it is hard to get to.

We cannot know the mind of God, as you know. And none of the men who wrote down the bible could either.

That in no way lessens my belief. I know (but of course cannot prove) that God is with me, always has been, and always will be. And I know that Jesus died for our sins.

I'm ducking back into the bomb shelter, filling more sandbags! God bless, and keep the posts coming.

Arminius
Are you talking about John Polkinghorne? I'm a big fan of his. You will find that Catholic schools have always taught the scientific method -- including evolution -- without finding in it any contradiction to Christian belief.

Hi Lepidopteryx,

Sorry I did not get to your last post. I got swamped. Nice to hear from you.

You said,

"You want everyone to live according the bile because you believe it to be inerrant Truth. But you have no more proof of its inerrancy than any other faith has of the inerrancy of its scriptures. What if you're the one believing the incorrect scripture or worshipping the wrong god?"

You live according to whatever you deem as best. That is something I cannot change. That has to come from the heart. I'm just trying to point out that without the God of the Bible you can't make sense of this world, and yes I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And you have no more proof that it is not. You just look at it in a different light. Your starting presupposition is that it is not so you filter any evidence through that viewpoint.

Sorry Lepidopteryx, but your belief of your god is so hard to nail down that it is consistently wishy-washy. How do you know your god/goddess is like you say he/she/it is like since from our last chat what I gathered is he/she/it is worshiped on feelings. It is just your personal preference on how you construct him/her/it. Has your faith had a written revelation from that he/she/it that can be pointed to show that although there may be inconsistence from one person to another there is still a standard that can be used to clear up these inconsistencies?

To continue your thoughts,

"After all, this anthology that you consider inerrant was edited and compiled by a committee of clerics who had their own agenda. yet you want everyone to accept your book as their authority.
It's no fiber off my altar cloth what god you believe or don't believe in, and I certainly don't expect everyone to adopt my eclectic theology, but I do resent the living crap out of your assertion that I am incapable of being a truly moral and ethical person if I don't believe in your god."

I never said that you could not be a moral and ethical person, just that you borrow from the Christian framework when you do such a thing, because you have not standard except what you make it to be otherwise. It is just your personal opinion, or the opinion of a group of personal opinions that you adopt. And in any society the sway of personal opinion is always shifting. It depends who is most able to influence your thoughts. Abortion is a prime example, so is same sex marriage in my country. The voice that screams the loudest gets the special attention.

As for the councils that met, they met for a purpose, to correct and fight against heresies that were spreading about the Christian faith. The books that were canonized were the books that God ordained to be canonized and are consistent with His revelation to us in the Old Testament. They tie together and compliment each other in their unity.

Have you ever read Augustine, Irenaeus or Justin Martyr? Ever read Athanasius, Against the Heathen or Defense Against the Arians? How about Tertullian on Against All Heresies? Have you ever seen how these church fathers quoted and affirmed the principles of the Scriptures and the Apostles teaching? Have you ever compared what they said to the Old and New Testament Scriptures? When I was refuting a Jehovah's Witnesses I studied some of these early church fathers because Jehovah's Witnesses are just restating the Arian heresy. I also became interested in the Gnostic gospels with the buzz around Dan Brown and his allegations.

www.monergism.com/early_church_fathers.php
www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html
/www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/trustworthinessofthebible.html

Let's face it, no matter what evidences I give, you are going to dispute it, which is why I stick to the presuppositional argument.

You said,

"Re your misperception that there are plenty of people who would take care of all the babies born to mothers who didn't want them, or couldn't care for them, or who died in the process of giving birth:
If that's the case, then please explain why there are so many children right now with no parents and no real prospects for adoption, either because they are not young enough, not healthy enough, or not white enough."

I said there are many. We live in a barbaric world. Because of war, politics, money issues, predators and the traffic in children it is harder to adopt. Some countries also make it very expensive to adopt a child. Unfortunately too not many Christians take God at His Word. That is indicative of the times in which we live.

Would you rather murder the unborn child and deny it life. That is the other option that seems to be pushed for. What moral rights do you or does anyone else have to kill another human being that has done you no wrong?

You said,

"Re your comments on slavery:
Are you saying that it's ok for one person to own another as long as the owner treats the slave nicely, doesn't rape or beat them?
Employment is not a form of slavery, as my employer does not own me. I sought out my job, applied for it, and was offered it after an interview. I had the option of refusing it, and if I find the conditions or salary unsatifactory, I have the option of petitioning for a change in working conditions or a raise. If conditions or salary remain unsatisfactory, I have the
option of leaving without fear of being hunted down and returned against my will."

I did not say that employment is exactly the same as slavery practiced in Biblical times, just that it is similar in many ways. You, as an employee are under obligation to your employee. As such, if you do not perform according to the employer’s satisfaction you are in danger of losing that means of livelihood. The principles, in my opinion come from Biblical slavery. I qualified my thoughts by the words "a form of slavery."

slav•er•y (slā'və-rē, slāv'rē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ies.

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

You are subject to the specific influences of your employer.

You said,

"Imprisonment of criminals is not slavery, it is removal from society of those who commits acts harmful to society. If you don't play nicely, then you get booted from the game. It has nothing to do with one person owning another. Working for someone in order to pay off a debt is also not slavery."

There again, you are just looking at one particular definition of slavery.

The person in prison is bound and limited in what he can and cannot do. His freedom is limited to the restraints placed upon him by the institution. He is locked away until he finishes paying for his debt.

You said,

"Re being a slave to sin and trying to quit doing something that your book calls sin:
For those who don't define "sin" according to your book, the question is irrelevant. The only thing I've ever wanted to quit doing that was difficult to quit was smoking and caffeine. But I went from almost 3 packs of cigarettes and several pots of Cajun coffee (strong enough that it walks to the cup on its own) a day to 0 - simultaneously and cold turkey. And I didn't quit because I thought it was a sin. I quit because I was pregnant and had decided to carry the pregnancy. And I did it on my own willpower - no prayer, no divine intervention - just me."

So statistically you are the exception to the rule. I know of people who have been trying to quit smoking for years, including my wife. She has COPD and cannot walk for extended periods of time without gasping. She has tried several times to quit. But I wasn’t talking about smoking per say.

Sin is something that has control of us unless God as been graceful and changed our disposition to it (Ephesians 2:1-5). Some peoples disposition to God is to shake their fist at Him because He does not play by their rules. So they substitute gods/goddesses, because they are formed according to their own preferences, but they are as elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel. No one knows his/her/its/their true identity. Some pagans have a plurality of gods, some just worship Mother Nature as god, and some combine evolutionary principles with a spiritual essence out there that they cannot put their finger on. It truly is a mystery religion.

Thanks for the chat.

I suggest we take all those millions of kids that were mentioned: the ones who were given up, abandoned, unwanted, born addicted to something, born to teenage parents who couldn't care for them, abused and removed from homes because of it, disabled, etc, and send them over to live in the homes of those 'pro-life' folks.

Peter:

You want everyone to live according the bile because you believe it to be inerrant Truth. But you have no more proof of its inerrancy than any other faith has of the inerrancy of its scriptures. What if you're the one believeing the incorrect scripture or worshipping the wrong god?
After all, this anthology that you consider inerrant was edited and compiled by a committee of clerics who had their own agenda. yet you want everyone to accept your book as their authority.
It's no fiber off my altar cloth what god you believe or don't believe in, and I certainly don't expect everyone to adopt my eclectic theology, but I do resent the living crap out of your assertion that I am incapable of being a truly moral and ethical person if I don't believe in your god.

Re your misperception that there are plenty of people who would take care of all the babies born to mothers who didn't want them, or couldn't care for them, or who died in the process of giving birth:
If that's the case, then please explain why there are so many children right now with no parents and no real prospects for adoption, either because they are not young enough, not healthy enough, or not white enough.

Re your comments on slavery:
Are you saying that it's ok for one person to won another as long as the owner treats the slave nicely, doesn't rape or beat them?
Employment is not a form of slavery, as my employer does not own me. I sought out my job, applied for it, and was offered it after an interview. I had the option of refusing it, and if I find the conditions or salary unsatifactory, I have the option of petitioning for a change in working conditions or a raise. If conditions or salary remain unsatisfactory, I have the
option of leaving without fear of being hunted down and returned against my will.
Imprisonment of criminals is not slavery, it is removal from society of those who commits acts harmful to society. If you don't play nicely, then you get booted from the game. It has nothing to do with one person owning another.
Working for someone in order to pay off a debt is also not slavery. It's a variation on wage employment - you've basically gotten paid a lump sum in advance for a certain amount of work, which you then perform over time.

Re being a slave to sin and trying to quit doing something that your book calls sin:
For those who don't define "sin" according to your book, the question is irrelevant. The only thing I've ever wanted to quit doing that was difficult to quit was smoking and caffeine. But I went from almost 3 packs of cigarettes and several pots of Cajun coffee (strong enough that it walks to the cup on its own) a day to 0 - simultaneously and cold turkey. And I didn't quit because I thought it was a sin. I quit because I was pregnant and had decided to carry the pregnancy. And I did it on my own willpower - no prayer, no divine intervention - just me.

AndreaI echo your sentiments. I notice that some of those same pharmacists who would deny women access to birth control, or to Plan B - would have NO PROBLEM with filling a prescription to Levitra or Cialis or any number of ED drugs. So, what does that say about them?

Notes from the Bomb Shelter -

Whew! This stuff is getting pretty heavy. It's time for me to state where I stand.

I am a practicing Christian, a liberal one. I also firmly believe in evolution, and that the universe was created by the Big Bang some 14 billion years past. I also believe that God is the creator, so the Big Bang was his doing.

So how do I reconcile this? It began in my youth. One of our priests (Episcopal, not RC) was also a full-time atomic physicist, and had no problem with science and religion coexisting.
Look at it this way: both science and religion search for the truth, and are parallel roads on this search. Each one is imperfect because we are imperfect and see thru a glass darkly. So, then, parallel lines meet only at infinity, you say? Yup. In this case they meet at the infinity of God's love. Corny, I admit, but that is a simplistic summary of how I feel.

I think I need a few more sandbags at the bomb shelter door......

Hello Godfrey,

I'm back and I will admit my brain is getting fried.

You said,

"Crime is, of course, defined by legislatures (not by doctors).

Which are in turn made up of subjective human opinions that, if not based on objective moral standards is going to do the wrong thing, like killing unborn babies.

To continue your thoughts,

"As for morality, who else you gonna get to define it? God?"

Exactly!

"How do we know what God wants?"

He has spoken to us and we have recorded that transaction in writing.

"He doesn't speak to us. Or if he does, "we're straightway dangerous and handled with a chain."

That is your assumption bases on your worldview.

"Who do we trust to speak for God?"

God has spoken for Himself.

"And don't refer me to the Bible, because no two people agree on anything in the Bible. E.g., the Bible has been used to defend slavery and attack slavery."

Sure they do. And in understanding anything there is a correct way to interpret. You need to look at the Authors meaning, not bring your own meaning into the text or butcher the context. God is perfectly capable (and I emphasis "perfectly") of saying what He means and meaning what He says.

You said,

"If Christians can't agree about what the Bible says on slavery (hint: it's for it), how can we trust them on subtler points of individual rights?"

The kind of slavery practiced by man is not the kind that is intended by God. The kind of slavery practiced by man is sexual slavery and cruelty.

Slavery was used by God as an object lesson in both the Old & New Testaments, in that we are not free to do as we choose but must act according to the will of our Master. Doing so is in our best interests.

You are in a form of slavery in an employer/employee relationship. You have agreed to perform certain tasks required of you by the employer in exchange for a means to support yourself. There is also slavery today similar to that of slaves taken during conflict or caught doing something wrong. They pay for their being on the wrong side of the law or by being the losers of war in similar ways that happened in the Old & New Testaments; by prison or under the authority and control of another. In prison the law sets what is expected. So don't get too upset about slavery. Take a look around you.

It is also used to describe the human condition just as you are in slavery to your sin. Ever try to stop doing something that God has said is wrong?

It was used as a form of paying a debt (Exodus 22:3; 21:7; 2 Kings 4:1), but as an Israelite after six years of indebtedness the master was obligated to release the bonded man and consider the debt paid in full (Deuteronomy 15:1, 12-16, 17) unless the slave wanted to stay with the master because of the riches provided. There was also provision for the slave to be treated fairly (Exodus 21:7-11). Ever wonder where your system of justice originally came from?

You said,

"Let's see if we can break this down.
When you say God, you mean your god, the Christian god, not, say, the god of Islam."

Yes. The contradictions between the two religions make it so that they cannot both be true. Although they both contain truths, only the Judeo-Christianity is without error. To worship God as He is we need an accurate understanding of who He is. Jesus made this clear as does other portions of the Bible. If you want a for instance see John 4:23, 24.

To continue with your thoughts,

"When you say your Christian god, you mean God as understood by your particular sect."

I mean God as He has revealed Himself by His Word, not what is read into His Word. There is a difference. When you read something into His Word you are adding something that is not there or possibly taking a text or paragraph out of context, in which case it becomes a pretext.

"And if the people in your sect disagree? Then you mean your idea of what your sect says."

No, that is why we have His Word, to refer to misunderstandings between God's children and unbelievers. I will invite you to challenge me on anything you think I am saying that is taken out of context or read into Scripture when it is not there. His Word is the standard of all truth, but it needs to be correctly interpreted.

I will refer you to two verses of Scripture just to emphasis a point.

1) “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

2) “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

From these two verses we can deduce a number of things that I can get into with you if you like, but the point I want to make is that there is a correct way of handling Scripture. That also means there is an incorrect way.

"In other words, you want the arbiter of morality to be you."

Heaven forbid. I'm just a mere creature like you. God is the only One capable of that task, and He has made it known.

"I think the world will be much better off if we all make our own moral decisions, rather than going by those of Peter Huff."

Yeah, aren't we doing a great job? Whose standard of good shall I believe today? How about Godfrey's folks? How many other subjective people did he use to incorporate his idea of "good?" How many did they use? Who was the first to decide it was good? It was probably based on what was most beneficial to society or at least what was most functionally beneficial to the best functioning majority at least.

"This is what Dave Barry refers to as the "they'll f___ dogs argument." If you legalize x (drugs, say), then your children will be doing it with dogs. Well, they won't, and they won't "justify anything." You'll notice the controversy isn't about something that everyone agrees is bad, such as rape or murder, but something people everywhere honestly disagree on (abortion).

Abortion is murder.

"But rather than agree to disagree, you come riding in on your white horse under the banner of (silent, invisible) God, forcing, to the best of your ability, YOUR opinion on all of us. Then accuse us of justifying "anything."

But then you come riding in on your dark black horse to clarify the issue under the banner that the atheist knows best, because in an atheistic world truth is only as good as you can enforce it.

"Everyone freely acknowledges that the fetus is human. The question is, is it (legally) a person?
If you will Google "fetus not person," you will find many discussions (or rants) on the question, and you will also find numerous court decisions, all over the world, that the fetus is NOT a person."

Well, why don't you have an ogle on Google to find out what a human is as in human being.

hu•man (hyū'mən) pronunciation
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Did you catch that – human – A person.

Thanks for your definition, but I will stick with God's definition in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the creature is in the blood" and anyone who sheds innocent blood or "the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6) and since God has knitted or made man in the womb (Psalm 1139:13) regardless of what you think it is murder. See the back of the book for the outcome (Revelation 22:14, 15)

As a footnote did you notice what the Bible said about the life of the creature is in the blood. An unborn baby has blood coursing through its body, and another thing, up until recent times (somewhere in the last couple of hundred years – I’m too lazy to look it up right now) physicians were draining the blood out of the patient in order to heal them. In effect what they were doing is killing the patient. If they had taken God’s Word for it there would have been a lot less deaths while trying to cure.

You quoted me saying,

"She is left with the problem all atheists and free thinkers are left with - on whose authority?"

Your reply,

"And your answer, as explained above, is, yours. No thanks."

I didn't think you would accept it.

Another quote,

"Without God these questions become non-sense for nothing can be determined as being true,"

Your reply,

“Most especially the existence, or at least the opinions, of God.”

The Bible explains that very well (Psalm 14:1) Just quoting what it says. If you want to apply it to yourself as you did before that is your prerogative. :)

Another quote from me,

"it's all personal preference or enforcement by emotional or threat or physical force."

Your reply,

“The only one threatening physical force around here is you. When your opinions become law, they will be physically forced upon the rest of us.”

I just have to list the atheistic, secular human, evolutionary governments of the twentieth century to show you that an estimated 100 million people have born witness to this. I've already left that information on other posts and it is late.

Thanks for the chat.

Here we go Godfrey,

My question,

"Please explain your measure/standard for good."

Your thread,

"You asked me this question before, then twisted away from the answer like a desert snake. I said that human life is my standard of value. What furthers life is good, what hinders it is evil."

And my point to you is how do you know that what you do furthers life and is good? Do you have infinite wisdom and knowledge that you can see into the future and determine that what you do today will be beneficial and further life in the future? Your standard is your own subjective self in which you determine what "your" good is and if it is different from someone else's then you are in the right in your own eyes and that settles the discussion. What is more, you offer no hope for a future, assign your own purpose and meaning in a world that unfortunately doesn't care anyway.

You said,

"You somehow denied that life and death are absolute; how I never did get."

What I denied was that when you die you do not cease to exist. Your physical death is not the end of you; your spirit, your soul has been created to last for eternity in one of two places. Since you are not dead yet what makes you such an expert?

You said,

"The very question is false and dishonest, however."

Why? Because it does not fit into the way you look at life?

You said,

"Your tactic is to ask as many easy questions with hard answers as you can, hoping to bog me down in providing answers you'll ignore. I'll never forget you wanting answers to TWENTY-FIVE objections to evolution."

If they are easy questions how can the answers be hard? You’re the one claiming that evolution is true. Explain why the textbooks are duping the kids into believing things that have been disproved a long time ago. Whose being false and dishonest there?

To continue your thoughts,

"Or demanding evidence for every commonplace piece of history I mention, such as "where is the evidence" that early Christians burnt every manuscript they found heretical. (Hint: look in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, where he cops to burning twenty copies of the Diatesseron.) (True, my assertion was a little sweeping. They didn't always burn them. Sometimes they merely altered them. Want evidence? Read Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.)"

For the evidence you give I can give counter evidence. Ever read any of the early church fathers? Evidence is always looked at through the eyes of a person’s core/foundational presuppositions. You filter what I present through your web of belief as I do mine, that is why I got into the question of moral absolutes and supposed evolutionary principles because how do you make sense of them?

You said,

"Oh yeah I forgot, majority makes might which in turn makes right, since majority [etc., etc., etc.]"

Yeah, you're right, in an evolutionary worldview, but I go by the power of One - God.

When you said,

"Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, or fatuous ideas to my credit. It's the worst kind of straw man attack."

I am just repeating the ideas espoused in an atheistic evolutionary framework. Does not evolution deal with the survival of the fittest? I must be doing something right to have survived this long, or am I the weakest link??? Am I to be phased out next? Make way for the new model; faster, better, sleeker.

I’m not done yet.

Hi Godfrey,

Are you on the air waves? I'm just getting to your post now.

Hi Luke,

You said,

"I am battling with the idea that God could be loving but allow "jungle people" to die by not sending someone to teach them is problematic to me. Indifference to me is the direct polar opposite of love (far worse than hate), but this is coming from my own perspective so I cannot say it is absolute."

Well let me ask you a couple of questions that the bible asks.

1) Do you not think that an all knowing, all wise, just God will do what is right, even if you or I do not understand it? Do you not think that His thoughts and His ways are higher than ours?

2) Since all men have broken God's commands (have you ever stolen, ever lied or bore false witness, ever coveted another man's wife in whom he made a commitment before God with, ever coveted something he owned, ever dishonored your parents or more importantly taken God's name in vain or put other things before your Creator in importance?) How many, and how many times? Do you not think that you are guilty of punishment then?

3) When you see someone murder someone else you hope that when the guilty person comes before the judge that the judge will do what is right in convicting the guilty party. That is always the case of our righteous and just God. It is not in His nature to compromise who He is.

4) Do you not think the Creator has a right to say what is acceptable to His creatures? Do you not think He has the right to punish then too? How can a house divided stand. If we are always trying to undermine God are we not trying to control the Sovereign Lord and force Him to live according to our standards that are not just? All you have to do is look around you to confirm that; man's inhumanity to man. God did not try to hide the fact from us. He said, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

Well, God does not lie. We all die because we did not pass the moral test of trusting what He said, just as most people do not today. Since the fall, we have all inherited that rebellious nature. We want to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. That is why people are calling what God declares bad as good.

God has provided one means to escape from the wrath to come when He will judge the thoughts and actions of every human. What is that means:

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have there minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires." (Romans 8:1-5)

He offered His life of perfect righteousness and obedience to God in our place; that is for those who believe and trust in Him, and He took our punishment that we deserve upon Himself and suffered the wrath that should have been ours.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men love darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19-20)

That is the condition of mankind. I do not expect to get agreement on what I am saying, but I can push the point home of the absurdity of life without God in the hopes that God will use this by getting others to ask questions that no other framework can answer.

Luke, you said,

"I have trouble understanding and trusting in the idea of a God because it is very difficult to think of my own death and suffering (or that of the ones I love) as a "good" thing."

As a kid I always thought my parents would live forever. Now they are both dead and I am getting older. But, only because of His grace, I trust in His Word and what the Savior has done for me. The world makes sense to me. I can answer those hard questions. My prayer is that God will be merciful to you too and that He will shine His face on you and give you understanding, which brings me to my last point.

Someone, I forget who, described justice as getting what you deserve and mercy as not getting what you deserve and grace as giving mercy to those who deserve justice. There's more to it but that is all I recall at this time.

Thank you for the chat once again!

Incidentally, I broke off our previous discussion because you called me a fool.

Peter Huff:

The "twenty-five lies" are irrelevant to this thread and to my post. I will not be sidetracked.

Hello Jihadist, your comment to Islamist about the Bible was interesting in that it confirms what the Bible teaches (1 Corinthians 2:12-16)

"Never read the Bible as it is for we non-Christians don't understand the interpretations of the Bible nor the theology of Christianity."

You said,

"Peter Huff

How do you do? We had had a wee discussion in another Jacoby's thread had we not?"

Yes we did and you never went back to it. It must have lost your interest. Such is life.

You said,

"I look at abortion from a Muslim perspective."

That is understandable since you have built your worldview on a belief that the Qur'an is true, just as I have on the Bible as the Word of God. But we both know that one of us is wrong in our framework, since both books contradict each other in many crucial areas. You allege it is I and I you. I appreciate that we can still both dialogue.

To continue your thought,

"The circumstances of the birth of Prophet Jesus PBUH is exceptional. By Christian belief, he is divine, but we are not. I would never presume to compare us with Jesus, but only to emulate his examples and teachings. What is missing in your posts is the humanity, the compassion and the love of Jesus."

Well Jihadist, God is not done with me yet and in comparison there is no comparison between the Lord Jesus and myself from a standpoint of my own abilities. God is infinite in His compassion and love and mercy so I am grateful I am clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness and not my own. I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, but because of His incomparable love for me He has taken me out of the miry clay and giving me a heart and a new nature. One day I will be conformed completely to the image of His Son, in the mean time I am a work in progress. I have a lot of rough edges to smooth out.

What I am doing here is calling a spade a spade in pointing out that without God His creatures cannot make sense of anything, whether that is truth, logic, morals or existence. That is not something I found out in my own ability. So yeah, sometimes I flub up big time. But I persist in the hopes that God will use what I say to make someone inquire more deeply. That alone is God's sovereign right, not mine.

You said,

"If, in his time, Jesus was faced with a situation where a woman was raped, or is the victim of incest, would he insist that the woman have the child she do want that resulted?"

Yes.

"Would Jesus have asked the woman to have the child, raise it herself or give it up for adoption?"

Definitely have the child. Who else is going to look after it and love it as only a mother can?

"Would Jesus have considered the shame of the woman forced against her will in rape and incest to have a child that would remind her of transgressions against her body against her will?"

Yes, I believe He would most definitely consider her shame and have compassion, but would He not also ask her to forgive the offense of looking at the child in this way so that it does not become a bitter root that devours her in hatred for the child? The child is not the guilty party here.

"Would Jesus have allowed a woman who is mentally ill to have a child and then leave her to raise the child or to ask her to give it up for adoption or to be raised by family and friends?"

Yes, to having the child, but if she is incapable of looking after it there are many loving people in this world that would gladly provide the love the child needs. As Christians we are reminded to look after the orphans and widows in their distress. (James 1:27)

Would Jesus have allowed a woman, who in giving birth to another life, lose her own life to give birth to another life?

Yes. Laying down your life for another, and I don't mean holy Jihad (to me there is nothing holy about that), but putting others before yourself and thinking of their needs above your is truly a noble investment.

"What would Jesus have done? What would God expect us to do that is right and just for the unborn and the living?"

He would expect us not to shed innocent life and to protect those who need protecting, even to the point of death, yours that is.

"Would God want us to sacrifice another life for another life? If so, which life? The life of a mother with other children whose death would deprive them of a mother so another life can be brought forth?"

What do you think?

"If life is sacred, would Jesus have want man to be more responsible towards women as the bearer and primary sustainer of children?"

Yes, I think so.

"Would Jesus have want men to be equally, if not more responsible and accountable for bringing life here on earth beyond contributing the seeds of life that really begins in the womb of a woman?"

Sure, but in a fallen world that is not often the case.

"What do we do with the hints, the strictures, the guidance God gave us in the Holy Texts for doing the right and just thing for us?"

More often than not we are all guilty of ignoring them. Hence, the need to be born again (John 3:3-8) that God would be so gracious to give us a new nature that we may hear His Word to us.

"As for doctors who won't perform abortion at all regardless of how needed it is to save a mother's life, well, I don't think those who needed one would go to him/her anyway. There are other doctors who know their primary function is to save lives, who make the relevant recommendations to the woman and related persons affected, and do it based on their final decision."

Unfortunately in this fallen world there are times when one or the other will die. That is a moral decision that is not easy to answer. If you, in all your capacity can only save one, that’s tough.

"If those who believe in God decide to have abortions, or to perform them on others, well, let God be the judge of that in the hereafter. God knows best."

God has already judged it and revealed it in His Word. Murder is wrong.

"God help us from men who tell us women what to do in having or not having children."

Why, do you think women are the final arbitrator?

"Women felt life growing within them, felt it move within them, and undergo the greatest natural pain in delivering another life that no man can ever experience or know of. With that God given and nature's right to give birth to another life, it is only natural women would want to have the final say on starting another life."

What happened to God? According to an article I will leave the address to further on in this post, 99% of women consent to sexual intercourse. Do they not know the consequences and responsibilities? Oh yeah, we live in a disposable society where anything is justifiable.

"From an evolutionary point of view, survival of the fittest requires women to make decisions on the best providers of "life-seeds" (sperms), meaning not only physically fit, but materially able too. If she is really given that choice and right in secular law and religious dictates. And for the woman to be freely able to determine whether she can effectively ensure the care and feeding of the child she's bringing into the world."

I'm glad I don't live in an evolutionary world. How shallow and unloving.

"If life is really sacred as many men said so, perhaps they should consider not killing other men so much, not to commit rape and pillage too. Women are not mere replenishers of the depleted humans by these acts, no?"

I think you have a point there.

BTW, I was going through some of the passages that talk about the unborn in the Bible and God views these unborn as "children, sons," etc. I see no place where they are not treated like what they are, human beings with the same right to life that you and I have been granted.

Here is the website I promised. Hope you will consider it. I did not find any reference to the Bible in the actual presentation. I must warn you that the video portion and pictures are very graphic. (BTW, type in http:// before www since I did not put them here. For some reason I find the posts do not always take when I do that)

www.abort73.com/

Thanks for the chat! I enjoyed the discussion and your questions.

Hi Godfrey,

If I have to stay up until 3a.m. I will answer your post, but a couple have caught my eye that I will answer first. The problem is I'm swamped with the replies and have to pick and choose who I will address first because of time.

I recall the last forum we were on and I took a lot of time to answer you and most of your questions, whereas you dismissed many of mine and broke off the last communication when I quoted a Bible passage that applied to an unbeliever.

By the way, those twenty five lies commonly found in biological textbooks are valid concerns. Why have they not been removed? What you do is side step them by asserting they are not valid issues and leave it at that. That ends the discussion. I see that as a diversionary tactic, but so be it. If you believe that they are not lies that should have been taken out of the textbooks prove it.

I'm enjoying chatting with Mike K. because he is willing to go to the next level. Hopefully you will too!

Bomb Shelter Michael:

Would that more doctors were like you.

Last year, I broke a tooth over the weekend, and when I called my dentist's office Monday, she was out, but her receptionist referred me to another dentist who was taking calls for her. I went to him, and was told that the reason the tooth broke was that some dental work done several years ago had broken down, and that it would require a root canal to save the tooth. He ased me what I had been using for pain control, and I told him willow bark, teabags, and biofeedback. He said, "Then I guess you won't be needing any prescriptions for new-fangled painkillers." I left, called my regular dentist's office back, made an appointment for the first day she would be back, and lived with the pain until then.

Terra--

You said "It's a shame, because not all Christians are like that...and I know it. I have family that are Christian (my daughter) and friends...but we who are Pagan never know how we are going to be treated. What to expect."

If you come to my clinic, you'll be treated with the best available medical knowledge, compassion and respect, and hopefully that's what you'll expect when you walk in the door the first time, but at least you know now if you’re ever seen by me. It's sad to think that what you will get when you go elsewhere may not be the same.

Of course, getting something you don't expect isn't always bad. I have a few pagan patients, and for one the topic came up on how his religion impacted his health care. I've done what I can to accommodate him because it makes health care work better for him. I've got a book on my desk right now on "Medical Astrology," and I've got to admit I didn't get very far in it. I don't really understand it or agree with it, but I do know that it is important to him and his health care. I still don't fully understand how some days he wants to be seen on Tuesday instead of Wednesday, but I do have a better appreciation for why and try to accommodate him where and when possible. And, before anyone else gets the wrong idea, I'm not going to be using the book for anyone else's care, at least not until they tell me that is important to them too. I'm still using standard medical knowledge to treat him, but doing so in a way that works best for his beliefs. He also has asked about my religious tradition, and I have shared with him my beliefs as well. Contrary to what many posters here seem to think, there really hasn't ever been a conflict with religion and medical care in our encounters. Probably due to the fact that we are both approaching the doctor-patient relationship from the point of view of two whole individuals treating each other with respect. Novel concept, that seems to be here.

Brambleton,

Do you think I came out of the rainforest? I was raised in a Christian family...went to sunday school, even was an assistant in summer bible school....I have read the bible. Each word of the KJV and the Catholic Bible. I was 13 when I finished leaving the religion. I still have the Bibles I use for research. I also have a great friend who is a Pastor. If I have questions I go to him. He knows what the things mean from the original language...Greek.

It was reading the bible that put the finishing touches on my Christianity.

Why is it that you Fundamentalists assume we Pagans have not been told the good news? We mainly all come from more mainline religions. As it is said...with me Christianity did not take.

You assume alot, maybe you need to really stop looking down your nose at everyone not like you, and learn the truth of who we really are.
terra

Vie,

So correct. I live in a small town with one Drug Store. If I can not get a script filled in that drug store I have to travel 40 miles.

I live in the deep south..and I am Pagan. When I go to a Parish (county) Meeting I have to sit there looking at the 10 commandments and a sign that says in God we trust, while listening to a fire and brimstone prayer in the name of Jesus by some Southern Baptist preacher.

I don't go to parish meetings any longer. I can not afford to take them to court nor do I want to put my family and friends through having our lives disrupted because I happen to be Pagan. And I am made to feel that I am outside of society and taxed without representation.

Four years ago now I had my house broke into, where I was alone and I spent the night being beaten and terrified. Why? because I am Pagan. The cops never did find the man that did it..even though I told him where he was. They did not look.

So you think that I would get all the info I need for comprehensive health care? Or would I get the bible and bigotry?

It's a shame, because not all Christians are like that...and I know it. I have family that are Christian (my daughter) and friends...but we who are Pagan never know how we are going to be treated. What to expect.

terra

Brambleton,

Glad I could sneak that one in there.

Andrea,

Touche!

There is more to this question than abortion, and even then it is a completely different proposition depending on where you live.
Those of us who are writing from large cities where there is an abundance of choices in medical care can talk about referring patients to different professionals. In some places, whether because they are rural or deeply steeped in a single religious ethos, those choices do not exist.

Brambleton,

I don't believe the events in ROMEO & JULIET or JANE EYRE really happened, but I feel that I can quote them in applicable circumstances. ;)

Oops. The two previous posts were written by me, not Techno and Terra.

Sheesh. Where does one start. And not that I have to defend myself to you, but let's bring some truth and honesty to your psychobabble.

1) I did not "seek" out a virgin. I don't know where you live, but in the nation's capital, women (or men) who are virgins don't wear scarlet letters on their chest to identify themselves as such. I had no earthly clue when I met her that she was a virgin. I did know that she was extremely beautiful and I wanted to meet her. Whether or not she was a virgin was something I didn't give a first thought about.

2) Not having sex doesn't make you sexually ignorant. Those ideas are mutually exclusive. I thought this was an obvious concept, but apparently not. For instance, I've never been to Cuba, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant about the country. Again, maybe this is why shows like "are you dumber than a 5th grader" are so popular.

3) I'm always fascinated, and somewhat puzzled, by individuals who share no belief in the Bible, yet try and quote scripture from it. It's sad, really. Your "cast the first stone" reference is badly referenced. For example, pornography is a sin. If my brother in Christ tells me he watches porn everyday, do I not say or do anything because I too am without sin? Don't be absurd. I will hold him accountable for his sin just like I would expect him to do for me. There is a grand canyon-esque difference between "judging" others and holding each other "accountable".

The statement about premarital sex is hardly a double standard. My wife was raised in a Christian home and accepted Christ when she was a teenager. The fact that she remained a virgin until she was in her mid/late 20's is a testimony to her character and, more importantly, passion for Jesus Christ.

I, however, was not raised in a Christian home and did not accept Christ until my early 20's. From that point going forward, I refrained from premarital sex.

Obviously, I don't believe that women carry the sole responsibility for choosing to have sex and/or living with its consequences. If I didn't make that clear before, I am now.

Brambleton,

I only asked because I've visited a clinic, too. I'm guessing that since they allowed a visitor, there were no patients in that day.

Was it a Planned Parenthood? IMO they are the most helpful to patients. You said "'other' services," can I ask what you mean by that? Planned Parenthoods offer counseling before and after an abortion, as well as yearly exams/pap tests, STI treatment for both men and women, as well as other, general medical treatments for UTI's and the like.

What did you learn on your visit?

Brambleton,

Apology accepted.

I've been away from this discussion for a while, but from what I saw of your previous posts, you seem to think that only women carry the burden of the "choice" to have sex and having to live with the consequences. And now the apparent double standard regarding premarital sex. Applied to your wife...but not to you.

Andrea,

I went to the clinic to learn. I wanted to get some fraction of an idea about how the clinic worked, what help the doctors offered patients, and what "other" services were provided.

I honestly couldn't tell you if there were any abortion practices that day or not. I went from the waiting room to an exam room and spoke the entire time with one doctor. After that, I left. I must admit that I did feel a sense of being "watched" when I entered the building. It was most likely my own imagination and I didn't give it much pause, but the feeling was real.

Technicolor,

Apologies for being so transparent. I'll try better to keep my family's dirty little secrets to myself. To answer your question - No, I was not a virgin.

And could you tell me what double-standards you are referring to?

FYI -

Some of those clinics can be very nice inside, like top-level hospitals; all bright and cheery, the staff all smiles. Others are just as bad as you can imagine, and very scary inside... I have been inside both kinds. It all depends on where you live and how much money you have to spend. And sometimes the nurses have to escort women in through the protesters to protect them. No matter what, it is always a sad place to be.

Terra;

I'm glad I was not the only one on here struck by the obsurdity of that information.

Brambleton,
PS..
you say your wife was a virgin until you were married..that is very nice. I personally think that everyone should live together for a few years then if everything is ok...marry.

Why is virginity so highly sought for by some men? Is it like wanting to take a woman's virginity and having bragging rights? Does that make the female more valuable? I know in some cultures a man will pay large amounts of money to bed a virgin, even if that virgin is 12 years old. The original meaning of Virgin was a person that owned herself. Someone that was not married...it had nothing to do with sex.

It also is the reason in the Middle Ages a fudal lord would take a bride groom's first night with the bride. So you have pride over your wife being virgin? Why? does that make her a better person?

I am curious over your reasoning that a persons sexual ignorance makes them better?

terra

Brambleton,

Were you in that clinic on a day when abortions were being performed? Protesters don't normally show up on days when the clinic is closed, or days they do counseling and/or pelvics/routine healthcare. Why were you there?

Athena,

My responses were not in regards to a woman being raped. That is a completely separate topic - one which I don't think was being discussed.

Either way, I think you're missing my point. I could care less if an abortion is "convenient" or "extremely difficult". (Although I will add that I have been to a clinic that performs abortions and the odyssey wasn't anything like you've described - but that's not important). Again, you've raced to the end of the story. Aside from rape, why is the woman going to the abortion clinic in the first place? If you don't want to go through the pain and suffering of an abortion, don't. Don't have sex unless you're prepared to be held accountable for that action.

How can it be a surprise if two people have sex and also understand the concept of where babies come from?

Anyone ever heard the saying, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament,"?

Brambleton;

Since you were so comfortable divulging your wife's intimate secret on a website full of strangers, might I inquire as to your V-Card status upon getting hitched? Seeing that you have a penchant for double-standards regarding male/female responsibility in sex and childrearing, I am curious to know if that applies to remaining "pure" until marriage.

Juuuuust curious.

Brambleton,

The woman I was talking about had a husband...he decided that another child was one too many and he disappeared. She was left fighting for his share of the expences of HIS children and knowing she was going to have one more.

So its the old joke...a woman calls her doc and says I have 10 kids and my husband wants sex, how can I keep from getting pregnant again. The doctor says," put a quarter between your knees, hold it there and call me in the morning. That was a pre Birth Control joke.

Do you know that a woman can be divorced for turning down her husband for sex? You ever been beaten?

I will also remind you that Women used hangers, and falls down steps and butchers in back alleys before Roe v Wade. I personally can give you names of herbs that were used from ancient times. These herbs can be dangerous to take and cause great pain, but like going to back alleys with dirty instruments and botched surgeries...women will take the chance. Why? Because they are forced to.

You are one of those male as&*(%es that think with their egos. I am sure you are one of those Operation Rescue people...the ones that were led by Randall Terry...the same Mr. Terry that was involved in the Schiavo case. The same Randall Terry that was convicted under the RICO act.Ralph Reed, the Christian Right fighter against abortion and gambling but who made millions out of working with Abramoff...bilking the Indians.He was also the leader of the Christian Coalition...but then Grover Norquist was involved with Abramoff also.

Then there is Ted Haggard and so many other preachers that preach morality...includeing the preacher not far from where I live that got arrested. He, his wife and the so Christian cop... for molesting 24 kids and a small chihuahua. Then the other day a Preacher and his wife was arrested for incest against their own daughter. He also fought against abortion and gambling and gay rights.

SO you all fight against women and their rights.Like the John talking to a hooker trying to get the price. The John makes a bid...The Hooker says"What kind of girl do you think I am? The John says..we know what you are, it's just a matter of price." You all have your price...and the rest of us are just trying to figure out what it is.

Brambleton..those without sins cast your stones...until then, what women need to do to take care of what they need to care for...is none of your business.
You're all hypocrites.

terra

Jihadist,

I'm posting here simply to try to catch up with you.

I'm hoping that since you posted here yesterday, you will, like a jungle animal, return to this watering hole at dusk today.

Here's my message for you:

JIHADIST,

YOU MUST READ THIS ARTICLE IN TODAY'S NY TIMES:

"ISLAMIC FINANCE AND ITS CRITICS"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/09trust.html?em&ex=1186891200&en=2961fe8c80059fd3&ei=5087%0A

IT'S ABOUT SAUDI BILLIONAIRES AND SAUDI TRILLIONAIRE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TERRORISM.

BEING AS HOW [an illiterate American colloquialism] YOU ARE, OR HAVE JUST BEEN, IN SAUDI, I THINK YOU'LL FIND IT INTERESTING AND MAYBE RELEVANT TO YOUR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.

Regards.

Brambleton,

Does a woman choose to be raped? Should she be forced to bear the child of that rape? Would any loving God want to force a woman to suffer that fate?

You seem to think that it's a convenience for a woman to have an abortion. For many rural women, it is anything but. They often have to travel several hundred miles, find a clinic, run a gantlet of anti-abortion people who are protesting outside of said clinic, be forced to sit through state-mandated propaganda telling her that abortion causes breast cancer or depression (it doesn't), etc. Then, after having the procedure done, she's bleeding for several days afterwards. She's not out picking up guys to have sex with the same night - like you seem to think that single women are doing constantly.

I hope you and your wife never have to face the prospect of a surprise pregnancy, especially if the fetus has a genetic abnormality. Your black-and-white world may actually get shaken up.

Peter,

Using the Bible as a reference is not objective, it is subjective. It is a choice made. You can not prove the Bible is the word of God, you make a choice to believe it is the word of God. I choose not to believe it is the word of God. That is my choice. 2+2=4 is proveable. You cannot compare the bible to a mathematic equation.

Peter you have a theory that is unproveable. Knowing the Bible inside and out does not prove it is true.

If I understand you correctly from reading your previous posts, you feel that people of different faiths or no faith can have the same or similar morals as you, but the fact they they are not Christians would be cause for your God to send them to everlasting hell. You believe this because you can quote scriptures that back up your belief. My question is this: How do you accept a God that values his own worship more than the way someone lives their life?

Lepid,

Again, I think we're making this more complicated than it is. If my wife and I get married, and we agree that we don't want to start having children or we can't afford children for X number of years, then we also have to accept the responsibility that having sex might change that outcome. Does that mean that my wife and I didn't have sex until we were ready for children? Of course not. But we were accountable for our actions which might have led to children before we were prepared.

Regarding children with birth defects, where does it end? With a disease such as MS? Missing an arm or leg? Color blindness?

Brambleton.

"And where did I imply that men have no responsibility? Men should be held just as accountable if they decide to engage in sexual activity outside a committed relationship."

You implied that men have no responsibility when you omitted them from your previous tirades.

Outside a committed relationship is only part of the picture. Couples in committed relationships may not want/be able to support children, either.

Andrea,

Since when did holding someone accountable for their actions make them a terrible person?

And where did I imply that men have no responsibility? Men should be held just as accountable if they decide to engage in sexual activity outside a committed relationship.

Brambleton:

Sometimes people in committed relationships/marriages get pregnant despite having taken precautions. Sometimes they can't afford/don't want children (or more children). Not everyone who is capable of making a baby makes a good parent. Are you trying to say that a committed/married couple should not sexually express their feelings for each other if they don't want children? Do you and your wife only have sex when you're trying to get pregnant? What about committd/married couples who
want children, but find out that there are severe defects present that they are not capable of dealing with? Or that will result in a stillbirth or a very short, very miserable life?

**Unborn babies suffer the cruelest of fate because some women refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.**

No woman ever got pregnant by herself.

Andrea,

I can't think of a single friend or coworker who has not returned to their job after giving birth to a child. None. Given, what happens in my small world doesn't necessarily equate to the world at large, but it's all I have to go by.

Otherwise, I really don't know what you would expect a company to do. If there's a solution, I'm really all for it. But a company can't just sit idly by waiting for mom to determine when she's ready to work. Everywhere I've been, it generally ends up being the rest of the department picking up the work that's not being done because mom's at home with junior. I don't think there's any resentment because of that, but it has to be done nonetheless. And again, if we can find a compromise to make things easier/better for both mom and corporate America, I'm behind it 100%.

And while I certainly am not speaking for any other posters, perhaps the welfare of the mom is overshadowed by the welfare of the newborn because the newborn has no ability to choose. Ironic, isn't it? Mom had a choice to have sex and possible pregnancy. Mom had a choice to choose a career in a country where there may be obstacles to enjoying both a professional and family career. These are all choices which we are fully accountable for. Period.

Brambleton,

Wow, do these horrible women you imagine climb on top of themselves and get themselves pregnant? Where is the responsibility of the man in your view? Kudos to your wife for staying a virgin until marriage. How many men can say the same?

Terra,

I appreciate your passion, but shouldn't you be writing the first chapter before writing the last? How did the woman in your example get to the position of having to make an "unwinnable" decision?

Did she forget that having sex could lead to an unwanted pregnancy? Did she forget that adding another child to support, apparently without the help of a father, could cause enormous financial difficulties for her family?

My wife was a virgin when we married. My wife will never be in the situation you described above. And it has nothing to do with race or financial disposition. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that she did not put herself in a position to raise children without a husband in a committed relationship. And by committed, I mean a husband and wife who include the words, "Divorce is not an option" in their marriage vows.

Unborn babies suffer the cruelest of fate because some women refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. This is not a complicated issue. Don't want to have to make this "unwinnable" decision? Don't have sex. Period. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Brambleton,

Don't take the monetary suggestion as a bribe or a prize. Maybe it can be reworded into "assistance."

Companies could make it easier for women to reenter the workforce after taking maternity leave or returning after raising children. Many women decide to return to their jobs after 2-3 months of maternity leave to find out their post has been taken over. Women who decide to return to work after a few years taken off to raise their children have their resumes tossed in the circular file.

Aren't we the only industrialized country that doesn't offer paid maternity leave?

All some people on here are saying is that the anti-choice crowd is only concerned with the mother's life until she gives birth. After that, they could care less what happens to her or the child she now has to care for.

Hickman,
Thank you for providing further evidence of the "dumbing down of america" with your comment, "Offer her $50,000.00 to give birth and see how many abortions we have." And exactly how are women punished for having children?

Jihadist: Awesome post!

When I was a young man (late teens-early twenties) I had questions about life and about how one should behave,etc,etc. So I picked up a copy of The Ethics of Aristotle,and later Plato's Republic,and eventually to Marcus Aurelius and Montaigne.
In never even occurred to me to look at a bible to learn about ethics and morals.Simply never occurred to me. Religion wasn't even on my radar.
These days,with religion in our face much of the time,I have looked at the bible,and the Koran.
They may be books of historical interest,but both seem to be crammed with ancient superstitious drivel,and I was right to look to philosophy as a guide when I was young.
Those old religious books of supernatural hokum are more damaging than helpful in this modern world.And religious thinking is tearing the world apart.

Right on! I'm so sick of religion getting in the way of progress. These Dr's should have their license to practice revoked.

Peter Huff asked what kind of morals could exist without a god, well it is really very simple:

"Don't do to others what you wouldn't want others do to you"

There is no need of god to explain morals. This is actually obvious since around the world people have similar morals and code of behavior while having very different belief systems. Furthermore, since most atrocities in history have been made in the name of a god, a belief in god help justify immoral behaviors.

The bible is far from being a moral reference, for example in the case of rape, the rapist gets to marry his victim. Obviously our moral behavior have evolved in 2000 years. So how can the bible be an absolute reference on morality?

I'm a secular humanist. I imagine articles like this one attracts people like me. Saying something is wrong isn't good enough. When someone violates laws or their code of ethics they should be punished. The certanty of punishment is more important than the severity of punishment. Letting people off the hook because their religion made them neurotic and altered their ability to percieve reality creates a culture of special consideration for believers that atheists don't have. If we really want to end abortion we should provide an environment that makes it more practical for a woman to have a baby than an abortion. Offer her $50,000.00 to give birth and see how many abortions we have. We punish women for giving birth. That's why they have abortions.

I'm a secular humanist. I imagine articles like this one attracts people like me. Saying something is wrong isn't good enough. When someone violates laws or their code of ethics they should be punished. The certanty of punishment is more important than the severity of punishment. Letting people off the hook because their religion made them neurotic and altered their ability to percieve reality creates a culture of special consideration for believers that atheists don't have. If we really want to end abortion we should provide an environment that makes it more practical for a woman to have a baby than an abortion. Offer her $50,000.00 to give birth and see how many abortions we have. We punish women for giving birth. That's why they have abortions.

I'm a secular humanist. I imagine articles like this one attracts people like me. Saying something is wrong isn't good enough. When someone violates laws or their code of ethics they should be punished. The certanty of punishment is more important than the severity of punishment. Letting people off the hook because their religion made them neurotic and altered their ability to percieve reality creates a culture of special consideration for believers that atheists don't have. If we really want to end abortion we should provide an environment that makes it more practical for a woman to have a baby than an abortion. Offer her $50,000.00 to give birth and see how many abortions we have. We punish women for giving birth. That's why they have abortions.

I'm a secular humanist. I imagine articles like this one attracts people like me. Saying something is wrong isn't good enough. When someone violates laws or their code of ethics they should be punished. The certanty of punishment is more important than the severity of punishment. Letting people off the hook because their religion made them neurotic and altered their ability to percieve reality creates a culture of special consideration for believers that atheists don't have. If we really want to end abortion we should provide an environment that makes it more practical for a woman to have a baby than an abortion. Offer her $50,000.00 to give birth and see how many abortions we have. We punish women for giving birth. That's why they have abortions.

Peter Huff:

Still waiting....

Hello Arminius,

I was on my way to bed when I read your post. Thank you for your kind words.

Your question,

"since when does Christianity have a hammerlock on morality? I have known many of other faiths, as well as non-believers, whom I trust completely because they are all truly moral. I have also known some of other faiths, and non-believers, and also so-called Christians, that I would not trust to any extent."

I'm not saying that these people are not very moral, perhaps in many cases more so than I am, God is not done with me yet, thanks to His grace and mercy. I agree on this count to my shame. The question is more along the lines of who or what they are trusting in. One degree out over the course of the journey is not going to help you arrive at your destination. We need an accurate knowledge of God so that we may worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24)

God does not change or does He lie, therefore what He says is not contradictory. That is not the God that I serve, so when the spiritual attacks come I rely on His wisdom and truth to fight the spiritual battles. I do not wrestle against flesh and blood. Two different religions that both state different things about God cannot both be true although they can both have truths in them.

God has given us abundant blessings in Christ Jesus the Lord, "in whom are hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I [Paul] tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments...See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophies, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Colossians 2:3-4; 8; see also 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 brother, and may God bless the reading of His Word)

I am always willing to be corrected by His Word when I am wrong. If you feel this is so please explain so we can work through this.

Peter Huff, you stated, in regards to my value example "But, it cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same situation for the same person."

I didn't say it was, nor had to be, true for both parties involved. Only that the opposite "truths" exist simultaneously. Hence, truth can be subjective.

"Okay, in Nazi Germany during WWII it was the function of society to exterminate six million Jews in concentration camps. Those morals are good for you if you are living in Nazi Germany during WWII? "

Of course not. The extermination of millions of people is not functional for a society. Not to mention that my use of logic, reason and empathy futhers my belief that it was terribly wrong.

I must admit that I lack knowledge of the functionalness of practice in the New Guinea tribes so I can't comment on the functionalness of it. My moral judgement is irrelevant to their society.

"Abortion was once considered disfunctional in our own societies in North America not very long ago. Now it is considered functional. So, because it changed from disfunctional to functional it is now good for you?"

I disagree with your premise that it was considered disfunctional. I believe the opposition was and is religious in nature. Ditto for your same-sex marriage example. I see no detriment to society in either, hence I see them as both issues for the individual.

"In a chance, accidental universe why is there uniformity in nature? How does an accidental chance explosion produce order and predictability?"

I don't consider properties of molecules to be "order", nor the fact that our planet circles the sun in a predictible way. Order could be an equal allocation of natural resources, people being born with the same innate intelligence, planets circling the sun in the same orbit, but none of those exist.

"So how is this a change from one species to another?"

It's not. It's an example of evolution. The change in a gene pool of a specicies over time.

In regard to meaning you stated "There can't be, so you borrow from my Christian worldview yet again in recognizing your need for some."

I didn't borrow from your Christian world view at all, nor here. And I don't recognize a need for innate meaning in human life.

"Why are you on an On Faith forum arguing for your brand of meaning and truth when according to you there is no meaning and purpose except what you assign it?"

Because you asked questions for which you appeared to want answers from a view different from yours. Is my "brand of meaning and truth" not as worthy of consideration as yours, that you seem to free to argue here?

"In effect you assign what "good" is to you, in all your wisdom, or you get a bunch of individuals to assign it to you. Sorry, I do not accept it."

No, I consider good to be subjective, not absolute, as I stated. I wasn't offering it for your acceptance, only only as another view. Unless you were being disingenuous, that's what you asked for.

Tim,
What a sanctimonious bunch of horse manure. A Mother won't protect her child anymore...? They just have sex anytime they want...? You're ignorant.

I am trying to be reasonable (believe me I am tempering my words) Have you held a woman after she had the unwinnable decision of having to have an abortion? Ever been around when that same woman looked at her other children and knew she had to care for the ones she had..? Have you EVER given a two pence for the children on this earth now with Mom's working two jobs to care for them, with blasted little help from men or judgemental dimbulbs?

I really do not think you all care what child lives and which dies. The same folks who hold up those horrible signs with full term dead babies..calling them abortions...(like any one who has ever seen a new born does not know them from an aborted fetus) are the same ones that hold up their rubber fingers and shouted we are #1 when it came to shock and awe in Iraq. They are the same ones that were silent when the cluster bombs hit children,and pregnant Moms..and what came with those cluster bombs? Depleted Uranioum. So now not only are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead...but babies will be born for generations mutated or dead in the womb.

Tim, you and your ilk could care less about life...you just like being the moral police.
And who is the easiest to be the Taliban about? Women of course...what is the one thing that woman have that men can not do...bring forth life. So make it a duty, not a choice like it has been from the beginning of time...but make it something else men can order.

Maybe in your next life you can come back as a woman...married to you.

terra

Hi Jihadist,

Thanks for the post. I will try to respond tomorrow night, the Lord willing.

Luke,

Thanks for your post also. Hopefully tomorrow night.

"Please explain your measure/standard for good."

You asked me this question before, then twisted away from the answer like a desert snake. I said that human life is my standard of value. What furthers life is good, what hinders it is evil. You somehow denied that life and death are absolute; how I never did get.

The very question is false and dishonest, however. Your tactic is to ask as many easy questions with hard answers as you can, hoping to bog me down in providing answers you'll ignore. I'll never forget you wanting answers to TWENTY-FIVE objections to evolution. Or demanding evidence for every commonplace piece of history I mention, such as "where is the evidence" that early Christians burnt every manuscript they found heretical. (Hint: look in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, where he cops to burning twenty copies of the Diatesseron.) (True, my assertion was a little sweeping. They didn't always burn them. Sometimes they merely altered them. Want evidence? Read Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.)

"Oh yeah I forgot, majority makes might which in turn makes right, since majority [etc., etc., etc.]"

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, or fatuous ideas to my credit. It's the worst kind of straw man attack.

"Since it is after one I look forward to tackling your post tomorrow, the Lord willing."

Waiting....

Hello Mike K,

Thanks for addressing some of my question. You realize that you have only created more.

You said,

"Truth *is* subjective but not absolute. A thing can be valuable to one person and worthless to another."

True in the fact that a thing can be valuable to one person and worthless to another, but false in the sense that truth is subjective, not objective. Truth is true regardless of whether or not you believe it. Truth cannot be both true and false at the same time. So in your example whether the person who hold the thing as worthless believes it or not, it is true that the other person views the thing as valuable at that particular time and in that situation. That is true for all time at that particular time and juncture. It is also true that another holds the opinion the thing is worthless at that particular time and juncture. That does not change. But, it cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same situation for the same person. He either did view the thing as valuable or he did not. He cannot view it as valuable and worthless at the same time and in the same way.

That is expressed in Law of Identity as A=A. If a statement is true it is true, for it cannot be both true and not true simultaneously. As Greg Bahnsen puts it,

"anything that exists in reality has a particular identity and it is not something else. The thing is what it is. A thing may be a cow but not simultaneously a cat. A dog may be all black, but not simultaneously all white." Pushing the Antithesis, p. 202.

It is also covered in the Law of Contradiction which states A is not not-A. As Greg says,

"no statement can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. A person cannot be both alive and not alive simultaneously and in the same way." p. 202, 203.

If one person says that 2 + 2 = 4 it cannot be both 4 and not 4. It is always true that 2 + 2 = 4.

"How do you make sense of morals?"

Your answer,

“Morals are defined by what is functional or disfunctional to a society.”

Let me see if I can wrap my mind around this one.

Morals are defined by what is functional or disfunctional to a society.

Okay, in Nazi Germany during WWII it was the function of society to exterminate six million Jews in concentration camps. Those morals are good for you if you are living in Nazi Germany during WWII?

Thirty years ago a tribe of headhunting cannibals in New Guinea are about to engage in a feast and you are the honored guest, and I might add, main course. That is good with you? It is just the functionality of the tribal society.

Abortion was once considered disfunctional in our own societies in North America not very long ago. Now it is considered functional. So, because it changed from disfunctional to functional it is now good for you?

Same sex marriage was once considered disfunctional in my country Canada but now is considered functional so now it is good?

So if something vacillates between good and bad you distinguish it as good when your society says it is good and bad when your society says it is bad. Therefore your standard or measure is always shifting. Furthermore, the standard of your neighbor is always shifting and his societal values are different than yours in regards to same sex marriage so who is right?

Well, I'm certainly glad that you can make sense of values that constantly change depending on preference and popular opinion. But in such a society how do you make moral judgments about another society because your good is not the same as theirs? Since your morality is constantly changing you may be very soon supporting the very thing that you rejected and then rejecting the very thing you supported. So how do you determine something as immoral, just because your society is "functional" today? Good was bad yesterday, good is good today but tomorrow good is bad again. It all depends on the gatekeepers of your particular society. As soon as the intellectual elite can take hold of an idea and make it acceptable then so it is.

Glad you can make sense of all this.

When I said,

"If all we are are biological bags of matter in motion what difference does it make if I eat you rather than socialize with you? It's just a matter of survival and you are competing for my space."

Your reply was,

"Because that wouldn't be functional for a society."

It was vogue until very recently in New Guinea. Could it happen in the future if the tribal society decides it was better off before Modernization?

But the question of what makes it right at one time and wrong in another is just the functionality of a society folks.

Society decides today that it is functional to murder all Muslims and all Christians because they are lower on the evolutionary scale of animals and impede the development of a “better” society. People over sixty-five years of age are deemed to be sponging off the limited resources needed for survival. Voluntary Euthanasia for you all. Step up folks. Demographics show you are in the minority and are now disfunctional.

When I said,

"How do you make sense of abstract, universal laws such as logic in a material universe governed by chance random evolutionary principles?"

Your reply was,

"Logic isn't a universal law. Nor is the universe governed by "chance random evolutionary principles". Those processes which contribute to evolution are not chance nor random, though the factors themselves might be."

Pardon? I seem to be getting a mixed opinion for some of the current evolutionary scientists.

Richard Dawkins: “In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 133.

You say that logic is not universal. In order for any individual to understand or explain or comprehend or talk about anything he/she must use logic to operate. Do you know of a case where logic does not apply to make sense of anything?
To quote Greg Bahnsen again (same book, p.202),

"As Van Til puts it: "If we wish to know the facts of this world, we must relate these facts to laws. That is, in every knowledge transaction, we must bring the particulars of our experience into relation with universals."

I asked you to explain the uniformity of nature.

Your response,

"What uniformity of nature are you referring to? In general, one can consider factors which brought about a certain effect and when factors align once again, one can expect similar effects."

Yes, that uniformity, where we can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east just like it did yesterday and today and at precisely what time depending on the location and time of year. Why can we know that at sea level water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius under normal atmospheric pressure?

In a chance, accidental universe why is there uniformity in nature? How does an accidental chance explosion produce order and predictability? What is to guarantee that electro-chemical reactions will produce the same behavior twice in a row, let alone repeatedly?

I said,

"If evolution is true then where are the transitions between species?"

You said,

"Everywhere. Look at the six-toed cats in Key West. A change in the gene pool of species over time. Evolution is not questionable."

Okay, you gave me an example of a cat with six toes instead of five. So how is this a change from one species to another? It is just mutation or adaptation within the same kind. I believe that God has given us the ability to adapt to the different environments, and because of the Fall, the earth is presently under a curse so mutations are also present, but not the ability to change form one kind to another.

Where is the transition between a dog and cat or man and ape? How about between a land animal and bird? Can you show me one in the millions of fossils we have around the world?

I said,

"How can there be any ultimate purpose and meaning if all we are is a result of a cosmological accident?"

Your reply,

"There can't be. The meaning of our individual lives are only those dictated by us, ourselves."

I think you are right on this count. There can't be, so you borrow from my Christian worldview yet again in recognizing your need for some.

Why are you on an On Faith forum arguing for your brand of meaning and truth when according to you there is no meaning and purpose except what you assign it? In effect you assign what "good" is to you, in all your wisdom, or you get a bunch of individuals to assign it to you. Sorry, I do not accept it. In an evolutionary world, it is just the way your electro-chemicals are reacting in your brain at this particular chance instance. Tomorrow they will react differently. Maybe we can reason then?

Thanks for the chat.

The issues are not based on faith or place of worship. Our country was founded upon the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When the issue is about killing unborn babies, I must not participate and must not refer. If I would, I would be unpatriotic and would in the process eliminate a neighbor, a citizen.

YOYO:

Actually robots have rather better defined ethics, per Asimov.

---FIUS

Yoyo

My dear chap! You sound robotic too with all the same posts. You are afraid of gods, demons, heaven and hell? I'm not. Don't walk under ladders mate. It is a good superstitious nonsense until the ladder fell on you. I bet you're terrified of Friday the 13th too.

Cheers mate.

How do you make people believe superstitious nonsense?

Get them when they're young.
Tell them stories of gods and demons and heaven and hell.
Insist the stories are true.
Tell them that if they believe they will live forever in heaven:
if they don't believe,they'll burn in hell.
Place the child in the appropriate religious community,
and let groupthink do its work;
And one day,God willing,Behold! Another robot.

"Elective abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong! How about using some contraceptives next time."

JT, without taking issue with your position on abortion, why do so many pro-life groups also oppose contraception? I would think these groups would be doing everything possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why wouldn't they be handing out contraceptives like Halloween candy, getting on their knees begging the women to take precautions?

I'm sure there are many pro-lifers who fully support contraception, and I respect that position. But I rarely hear from such people. Instead, I hear mostly from pro-lifers who oppose all sex that doesn't involve procreation.

Segueing into the contraception issue, that is the problem with the doctors and pharmacists under discussion. If there is no legitimate health issue involved, they have no business telling patients or clients they shouldn't have premarital sex, or using their power to discourage the sex.

"Any doctor or pharmacist who refuses to perform any legal operation or fill any legitimate prescription should be dismissed immediately."

Drankland, I would put it a different way - any aspiring pharmacist who believes that contraception is immoral should either choose to enter a different profession, or simply recognize that he or she cannot and should not control other people's personal lives.

Dr. Michael,

I guess you would be an OBGYN. Just do the best you can as every situation is different. Like others, I would not want to be in your position.

Also, it may have taken the USA only 150 years to get rid of slavery but slavery was legal for thousands of years. It still did not make it right. And, just because murdering an unborn child is legal does not make it right, as you have said.

We should not devise systems to punish women who have abortions. It would be impractical and so un-uniformly enforced as to be a joke. It would be like trying to stone homosexuals and adulteresses. A woman can use something as simple as a coat hanger and we don’t want to go back to those days. So the principal of "you who are without sin cast the first stone" applies.

The problem is that the mother won’t defend her unborn if it is inconvenient and we have made it very convenient for her to murder the unborn child. Convenience is her God and we have inoculated our young women with this doctrine. Bow down to the convenient life style of sex anytime you want at any age and damn the consequences because there are none. And if an accident does happen then no problem. Let’s not inconvenience anyone and the easy way out is just to kill the child.

Sacrifice the child to the idol of convenience on the altar of the abortion clinic of your choice.

Slaves at least were able to communicate their situation and to take actions but the unborn have no voice except their mother’s voice and if she is silent, then the blood is on her hands.

Dr., the blood is not on your hands just because you may feel obligated to make a referral to a patient who is not going to change her mind no matter what your council.

As for the person performing the abortions for a profit - well, I just don't know how they can do this for a living ... they would be voluntarily running a furnace in Auschwitz at another time and place.

Genesis 4:8-10

8. Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.
9. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?"
10. And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.

Jihadist. Good morning. Yes, the posts by Peter Huff left me confused and speechless. Should have listened to you in not getting into this issue. My better half miss you very much. Salam my dear friend.

Peter Huff - Thank you for responding to my post. We do have differences.

Cheers mate

Jihadist:

You move me. Much that I agree with, and much to think about. Keep it up. And it was NOT silly.

For non-believers of God and religion or beliefs, y'all can skip this post.. More from the religious folks here :).

Islamist

Got completely confused now judging by your subsequent silence here? Never read the Bible as it is for we non-Christians don't understand the interpretations of the Bible nor the theology of Christianity.

Peter Huff

How do you do? We had had a wee discussion in another Jacoby's thread had we not?

I followed you posts here on the the issue of abortion, the beginning of life from the Christian perspective and why you think abortion is murder.

I will go lightly here without quoting copious scriptures from religious Texts, all of which are also fundamentally specific guidelines and commandments from which all our ethical and moral values are derived from and elaborated in additional religious dictates and secular laws.

I look at abortion from a Muslim perspective. The question on when life started is indisputably with a sperm/germ/seed, a clot of blood, from clay as stated in various Suras of the Qur'an and proven by science too.

As a Muslim, I take it to mean we are all roused from this earth itself. That we all started as a wee sperm, and as a clot in the human body. That all beginnings of life is from a sperm, a germ, a seed from which all life spring here on earth and in the universe.

The circumstances of the birth of Prophet Jesus PBUH is exceptional. By Christian belief, he is divine, but we are not. I would never presume to compare us with Jesus, but only to emulate his examples and teachings. What is missing in your posts is the humanity, the compassion and the love of Jesus.

If, in his time, Jesus was faced with a situation where a woman was raped, or is the victim of incest, would he insist that the woman have the child she do want that resulted?

Would Jesus have asked the woman to have the child, raise it herself or give it up for adoption?

Would Jesus have considered the shame of the woman forced against her will in rape and incest to have a child that would remind her of transressions against her body against her will?

Would Jesus have allowed a woman who is mentally ill to have a child and then leave her to raise the child or to ask her to give it up for adoption or to be raised by family and friends?

Would Jesus have allowed a woman, who in giving birth to another life, lose her own life to give birth to another life?

What would Jesus have done? What would God expect us to do that is right and just for the unborn and the living?

Would God want us to sacrifice another life for another life? If so, which life? The life of a mother with other children whose death would deprive them of a mother so another life can be brought forth?

If life is sacred, would Jesus have want man to be more responsible towards women as the bearer and primary sustainer of children?

Would Jesus have want men to be equally, if not more responsible and accountable for bringing life here on earth beyond contributing the seeds of life that really begins in the womb of a woman?

What do we do with the hints, the strictures, the guidance God gave us in the Holy Texts for doing the right and just thing for us?

As for doctors who won't perform abortion at all regardless of how needed it is to save a mother's life, well, I don't think those who needed one would go to him/her anyway. There are other doctors who know their primary function is to save lives, who make the relevant recommendations to the woman and related persons affected, and do it based on their final decision.

If those who believe in God decide to have abortions, or to perform them on others, well, let God be the judge of that in the hereafter. God knows best.

God help us from men who tell us women what to do in having or not having children. My husband, who valiantly want to hold my hand and comfort me during the delivery of our first child, fainted during my final pangs of labour prior to delivery. Poor thing.

Women felt life growing within them, felt it move within them, and undergo the greatest natural pain in delivering another life that no man can ever experience or know of. With that God given and nature's right to give birth to another life, it is only natural women would want to have the final say on starting another life.

So, some women don't take too well being told on how sacred and precious life is if men would not give women the right to her own life and well-being in religious or secular legal dictates.

From an evolutionary point of view, survival of the fittest requires women to make decisions on the best providers of "life-seeds" (sperms), meaning not only physically fit, but materially able too. If she is really given that choice and right in secular law and religious dictates. And for the woman to be freely able to determine whether she can effectively ensure the care and feeding of the child she's bringing into the world.

If life is really sacred as many men said so, perhaps they should consider not killing other men so much, not to commit rape and pillage too. Women are not mere replenishers of the depleted humans by these acts, no?

I have enough of my own silly fun dishing out a feminist screed for today on the question of life and abortion.

Thank you, best regards and good luck.

J :)

Peter, always a pleasure reading your responses. I look forward to them every day. However, I am battling with the idea that God could be loving but allow "jungle people" to die by not sending someone to teach them is problematic to me. Indifference to me is the direct polar opposite of love (far worse than hate), but this is coming from my own perspective so I cannot say it is absolute. Your arguments are very clear and incredibly difficult to contest, although I and I'm sure many others are trying. I am glad that you are thinking about the scenario I presented, and I am sure you will have an answer that is difficult to debate. I have trouble understanding and trusting in the idea of a God because it is very difficult to think of my own death and suffering (or that of the ones I love) as a "good" thing.

Mark-

Your statement that those on the so called Religious right see democracy as antithetical to your ill-conceived notion of what people that are evangelicals think or what they believe. You are way off base. Those that are in this category believe no such thing.

This is a knee jerk reaction from those on the secular left that can't stand the POV of those that want to inject themselves into politics - which every American has a right to do so.

The Founders did believe that Christian religion was a positive influence on society , whether you want to believe it or not. They just did not believe in the bible word for word.

The same holds true today.

The difference is , people have become callous with the "me, me" attitude and have come through the birth canal on the other side. It is so easy to be that way when you "have gotten your"

Peter,

Re your comments to Dr Michael, who is here in my bomb shelter, drinking beer and praying with me. Your post to him shows, as I have commented before, your kindness and politeness - and also your compassion. You have my respect.

But I have a question: since when does Christianity have a hammerlock on morality? I have known many of other faiths, as well as non-believers, whom I trust completely because they are all truly moral. I have also known some of other faiths, and non-believers, and also so-called Christians, that I would not trust to any extent.

What say?

Dr. Michael,

I appreciate your comments and what you go through on a daily basis. I'm sure the decisions you make are very difficult at times and I apologize for treating the subject in such a cavalier attitude.

Hello north Texan against Reformed Apologetics and Evil,

Well, let's start on what we agree with, your statement,

"Under Pete's theology, or what seems to be Pete's theology, his god is absolutely sovereign. And according to the NT, I rather think the Reformed and Presbyterians rather do get to the heart of the matter."

With the rest of what you have to say, I disagree because you either caricature or misrepresent the God of Scripture. You said,

"Under that 'understanding' of the NT, then 'god' is ultimately happens in every detail. It is either 'allowed' by god, or it is something which this god 'actively' MAKES happen.

First of all although, if I am reading your thoughts correctly let me make the distinction, God is omnipresent, your outlook fails to separate Him from the creation in that He is transcendent. He is not His creation or part of His creature. That is pantheism, what my pagan friend’s practice, in which God is not separate from His creation but part of it.

Second, although God is actively involved in His creation and provides for it and nothing happens by chance, man (whom He created in His image and likeness, with some of the attributes that God has, that have been blurred with the Fall), has a volition or self will in which he rebels against his moral Maker.

Third, what God does is just and always right. You have broken His laws and the penalty is death. What you want is an unjust judge to overlook something that is wrong, your crime. He will not do that. You want God to play according to your rules. You want to be in heaven and yet live in open rebellion against what God has declared is good. You are a finite creature with limited abilities and knowledge who is decreeing to God what is and is not good and right.

Okay then, what is your standard. Why should I believe it is good and just and right? Because it is YOUR opinion? Because others have the same opinion you do? Or do you actually have a measure that is outside of yourself that you can make sense of and that is ultimate, absolute, objective?

"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will? "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:18-24)

You said,

"Under this view of the Bible, which I think is probably more in line with its stated propositions, we have a god who is that being which created billions and billions of folk on this planet over time, and has largely DECIDED beforehand that the overwhelming majority of them go directly to the eternal flames of everlasting torment and punishment."

There again, I refer you back to the last reply. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. For God to leave justice unpunished would be contrary to who God is. He is perfectly just in what He does. You however, are not willing to accept this. That is a matter between you and God.

When you say,

"What a wonderful picture of a tribal religion, with a god of war, who seeks to dominate, denigrate, and kill off his enemies."

A house divided will not stand. Good and evil living together is exactly what we have here on earth. I'm glad that God will separate good from evil and that evil is punished. One day Hitler and Stalin as well as everyone who is not a believer will answer for their wrongful actions. Here's hoping that some flee from the wrath that is to come.

You said,

"Yet, thinking people are supposed to gulp this nonsense down like life-sustaining holy water."

Try thinking about a world apart from God where every man does what is right in his own eyes.
Try making sense out of this world, apart from the revelation of God.
Try answering the question of why there is evil in this world no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Can you make sense of it???
I would like to see you try to answer the question and see how well your worldview can be sustained.
Try finding meaning and purpose in a world that had its beginning by a process of random chance.

You said,

"When we press these kinds of questions, we are quickly told that these things are 'hidden' in the ever-loving bosom of a holy god. He is then defined as transcendent, far above human capacity and comprehension. In fact, then we are told that he resides in darkness (no kidding!) we cannot know nor can even question such monstrous morality and ethics."

You in your wisdom are trying to comprehend Someone who is so far above us in our limited understanding that at this time we can only know Him in part. You want a god that fits into your limited understanding and that you can manipulate according to your purposes; your likes and dislikes. That is no god but a puppet.

You can certainly question His morals and ethics, but how do you explain them outside of Him with any level of certainty or sense?

You said,

"One then is quickly confronted with the abject irrationality of the Christian religions. We are told to take a leap into the dark void of holy morality, in the dark, far and away from earth, into the ever-expanding chasm."

You are the one characterizing it as dark and irrational, but I'm still waiting to hear how you make sense of this world and what is in it. Let's hear how rational your explanation is, O you of little faith. You would really surprise me if you answer some of these questions.

You said,

"Well, some other Christian comes along and says, "Hey! Wait a danged minute! God give each individual a choice to believe or not believe."

There again, our authority is His Word. I would invite a brother or sister to take it to the Scriptures where it should be taken, if there is a dispute or disagreement on what a passage says. God has given us a mind that we can worship Him in spirit and in truth in which we can know Him.

You said,

"But wait, if god is in fact all-knowing, then he would know BEFORE he created these unlucky souls who would and who would not 'believe.' God in his foreknowledge WOULD know in advance that he would choose to create a human who would not believe and who would be immediately sent to hell. He would still in fact, be creating a human which had 'no chance.'"

There again, each human has a volition and he/she is answerable on what he/she does, unless of course you put you faith and trust on what Someone else has done on your behalf. It boils down to the fact that you have done what is wrong in the sight of a holy, pure, just God. Do you have a spirit of repentance or rebellion? Are you going to trust in your own merits or those of Another? Are you going to deny or affirm the existence of God?

You said,

"This being, if such a thing exists, is surely not loving, surely not good, surely not something to which should be followed. This being is monster."

There again you are making moral distinctions that need a measure. How do you measure good, how do you O man measure love? If you are just a cosmological accident why are you talking about love and goodness? Please answer!

You said,

"From the Red Rolling Plains of North Texas, where a fella can kick a bush, and 5-8 different types of Christian fundamentalist will jump out and denigrate one for any doubt at all."

You guys are kicking a lot of bushes around. I think it is something you like to do, especially since both you and Mark in Texas seem to have the same past-time. Either that or you have not learned to by-pass the bush. You keep doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Maybe you should progress to the head-banging trees. Maybe one of your distant relatives will drop down, or even 5-8.
You know auntie Cheetah and the troop.

Julie:
**I was talking about moral issues too. I know the pot will help tremendously with my migraines, but people look down on it as morally wrong and would rather I swallow 3 different prescriptions.**

Unless you live in a state where medical marijuana is legal, your doctor isn't going to scrip it becuse there's no point. That's a legal issue, not a religious one.
IMO, it ought to be legal - alcohol is, so why not pot? Also, IMO, it's not immoral to moke pot, just illegal.
If you want to buy and smoke pot, your doctor won't stop you.

**Maybe the kids and job are making me insane, but my doc hands me a booklet on relaxation techniques instead of medication that could help me (true story, then I got a new doctor).**

Did he suggest you try relaxation before you tried tranqs because his religion forbids tranqs or because there were other health issues that would be exacerbated by the tranqs? Was he willing to prescribe if the relaxation techniques didn't work? Or did he simply refuse to even consuider pharma therapy at all? In other words, was his reluctance due to not wanting to create iatrogenic illness, or was he just sticking his fingers in his ears and singing LALALALA when you talked to him?

**And who is some doctor to say that I should lose weight by diet and exercise? I don't have the hour a day he says I need to exercise! Give me some pills!**

Again, was it because there were other health problems that would be exacerbated by diet pills? They're basically speed - if you're already stressed out, speed is not going to help and will make it worse. Or did he say that he wouldn't prescibe diet pills because God wanted you to diet and exercise and diet pills are sinful?

The incidents you describe don't sound like religious issues between you and your doctor - they sound like practical ones.

Curious,

Mike K. did not say cats are evolving into six-toed cats.

His point is gene mutations that survive over time are examples of the primary mechanism of evolution by natural selection.

Any fifth-grade biology student should know that.

If you're still curious, maybe a Biology 101 refresher is in order.

Mike K. wrote:

"Look at the six-toed cats in Key West. A change in the gene pool of species over time. Evolution is not questionable."

Polydactyl cats are NOT proof of evolution. They are an anatomical abnormality caused by a gene mutation that is now proliferated through breeding, and has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is in no way specific to Key West. Cats are not evolving into six-toed felines.

Thanks Mike K for your input. Very well written.........

Peter, if you need the Bible to prevent you from "eating me" rather than "socializing with me", then by all means please keep reading it. I on the other hand have never (even as a child) been part of any organized religion, Christianity or otherwise, and have never been tempted to steal from, injure, murder or eat another person. Please explain to me how I have been able to live 40 years as a law abiding citizen without reading the Bible and knowing "God" as you do? I will have to agree with Mike K and say it is because I want to function in our society.

Lepidopteryx:

I was talking about moral issues too. I know the pot will help tremendously with my migraines, but people look down on it as morally wrong and would rather I swallow 3 different prescriptions. Maybe the kids and job are making me insane, but my doc hands me a booklet on relaxation techniques instead of medication that could help me (true story, then I got a new doctor). And who is some doctor to say that I should lose weight by diet and exercise? I don't have the hour a day he says I need to exercise! Give me some pills!

Mike K.,

Excellent responses to Peter Huff.

Lep,

Peter gets it. His emotional attachment to his religion merely prevents him accepting well-documented scientific facts.

What I don't really understand is why so many of these "true believers" need to pretend that faith is logical?

Michael,

Plenty of room and beer, you are quite welcome! And I will pray with you.

God Bless.

Mike,

I'm Pagan, not atheist, but I addressed it from the perspective of utility - what is good for the community is ultimately good for the individuals within the community.

It turned into a game of "Define 'is'."

Arminius--
Any spare room in the bomb shelter? And mind if I pray?

Good post, by the way.

Lep, thanks and you're probably right.

I actually thought that perhaps no one had addressed those questions to him from an atheist perspective. *shrugs*

Peter Huff writes: "Again, only an absolute objective standard can identify whether something is morally wrong".

What is this absolute objective moral standard that you speak of? Where can I get a copy?

-Amoral Relativist.

Michael,

Dude, I would not have your job for anything. I have great respect for you, out there helping in the Great Gray of Reality, with a stress level I cannot begin to imagine.

Peter,
While I am a practicing Christian, I do disagree with a lot of what you say. But I commend you for stating what you believe in a polite, organized manner, without ranting, and being very courteous to others.

ALL,
"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate
So, then, what is it? I can postulate two types:

1) Scientific/Mathematic proof. 2 + 2 = 4 and all that. Actually, Russell and and Whitehead had to go for 100 pages to 'prove' that 1 + 1 = 2,
in Principia Mathematica, a monumental work which was totally overthrown by Goedel a few decades later. But I digress. Let's take plane geometry, the classical case on theorems being proven. And proven they are!

2) Non-Scientific Proof. Here we edge into fuzzy stuff. (Note: there is such a field as 'fuzzy logic'). Anyway, take this proposition: "My dog loves me." I can see by the behavior of your dog that this is indeed 'true'. Can I prove it? No way! Do I believe it? Hell yes!

OK, back to #1. Euclid's work is monumental, and singulary beautiful in its logical proofs. But where do these proofs come from? All eventually rest on his postulates, things like 'The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.'
D'oh, well of course! Common sense. Yes, common sense. Cannot be proved. Ever. All of Euclid resides on these postulates which c a n n o t be proved. All of science has them as well.

An exercise for you. Take some idea of science and pursue it analytically to its base. You won't find a base. If you try to define matter and get down to the quark level, and say, "Well, this is it, we have found the answer!", you are lying to yourself and taking something on faith without knowing it. Try to define the quark, and you edge perilously close to religion and/or philosophy.

Have at it. I'm headed to the bomb shelter....

Mike:

You might want to get a pillow - beating your head against that brick wall is going to start to hurt after a while.

I have had this conversation (damn near verbatim) with Peter on other boards, and he won't get it.

Peter Huff: Perhaps I can address a few of your questions.

"How do you make sense of truth unless your standard is objective and absolute? Can truth be true one minute and false the next? Please give me some examples."

Truth *is* subjective but not absolute. A thing can be valuable to one person and worthless to another.

"How do you make sense of morals?"

Morals are defined by what is functional or disfunctional to a society.

"If all we are are biological bags of matter in motion what difference does it make if I eat you rather than socialize with you? It's just a matter of survival and you are competing for my space."

Because that wouldn't be functional for a society.

"How do you make sense of abstract, universal laws such as logic in a material universe governed by chance random evolutionary principles? "

Logic isn't a universal law. Nor is the universe governed by "chance random evolutionary principles". Those processes which contribute to evolution are not chance nor random, though the factors themselves might be.

"How do you explain the uniformity of nature where scientists are able to predict that what happened yesterday and today will happen tomorrow in a universe that came about by chance and is constantly changing?"

What uniformity of nature are you referring to? In general, one can consider factors which brought about a certain effect and when factors align once again, one can expect similar effects.

"If evolution is true then where are the transitions between species?"

Everywhere. Look at the six-toed cats in Key West. A change in the gene pool of species over time. Evolution is not questionable.

"How can there be any ultimate purpose and meaning if all we are is a result of a cosmological accident?"

There can't be. The meaning of our individual lives are only those dicatated by us, ourselves.

Julie:
** I have decided that it is right for me to smoke pot daily for my migraines, (and to not pay taxes because it uses up my weed money). I will also be needing a much stronger dosage of my anti-depressants, as my kids have become increasingly annoying. And while my doc has that scrip pad out, he can go ahead and write me one for the strongest diet pill known to man - there's got to be something out there that works. Oh, and don't forget the Ritalin for the kiddoes - that ought to shut them up for a while....**

I meant right in the moral sense, not the diagnostic.
I have no problem with you smoking pot, whether for your migraines or just for the buzz.
I did not mean that doctors should scrip on demand drugs that do not fit your situation (although the adverts for prescription drugs encourage that very thing). Nor should he refuse to scrip drugs that will help your situation just because he has a religious hangup about them.

Hi Peter Huff,

I appreciate your points. I’m sorry you think that I’m pushing the problem off on the next physician. From my perspective, I’m struggling with these issues every day and trying to find the answer we can all live with. I do my best to protect the best interests of my patients and to talk truthfully with them. Sometimes that means bluntly telling them that I think they’re making the wrong decision, but in the end helping them to the extent that I can to do what they choose. However, in the end the patient has a right to do what they wish and they will live with the consequences of that decision, not me. I, respectfully, will do what I can for them, educate and advise where I can, and live with the consequences of my decisions.

As for why we as a society are scared to call something wrong that is wrong, for that all you need to do is look at a shadow. It is easy to tell where it is light and where it is dark, but the gray there at the edge is not nearly as well defined. Personally, I walk there every day, and try to help folks toward the light. But it is a scary place, and not easy either.

Hi Julie,

Thanks for your opinion on what is true and what is not. It is nice to be absolutely certain that the Bible is just a book and that there is no way to prove anything in it. The problem is that without it how do you make sense of anything?

How do you make sense of truth unless your standard is objective and absolute? Can truth be true one minute and false the next? Please give me some examples.

How do you make sense of morals? Is good really good if each person chooses what good is or if one society chooses to implement laws in one era that are opposite in another era. Which era was really correct in its assessment of "good?" If all we are are biological bags of matter in motion what difference does it make if I eat you rather than socialize with you? It's just a matter of survival and you are competing for my space.

Why should what I do be held accountable to anyone? Am I not just reacting as my genes dictate I should react? If I react out of tune with the way you react is that not just the material interaction of the atoms that make me different from you?

How do you make sense of abstract, universal laws such as logic in a material universe governed by chance random evolutionary principles? Ever seen matter come from non-matter; life from non-life; order come from chaos? You use logic to formulate any argument, to conduct any thinking, to analyze and separate truth and error, but in a universe governed by chance where did logic come from. In a universe where everything came from matter how do we get intangibles and non-physical principles? Ever seen a stone that is self aware or a tree debate the existence of God? Did we not supposedly start from non-living matter? So how do you get non-physical immaterial concepts out of physical matter?

How do you explain the uniformity of nature where scientists are able to predict that what happened yesterday and today will happen tomorrow in a universe that came about by chance and is constantly changing?

How can there be any ultimate purpose and meaning if all we are is a result of a cosmological accident?

If evolution is true then where are the transitions between species?

Since you form your worldview (the way you look at the world) by holding onto certain core/foundational starting points, and that all ideas are filtered though those starting points to form your web of belief, how in a random, chance, blind process called evolution can you be sure that you have started from the right beginning?

I like you do the same, I start with basic, foundational beliefs, but from them I can explain everything that I have asked you to explain and make sense of it because my standard comes from outside of myself and is objective.

You have already revealed what one of your starting points is, “that the Bible is just a book" and from that starting point you filter every proposition that comes through your mind to conform to your subjective standard. But maybe you will be so good as to answer some of the questions above so I can see how you make sense of this world?

Thank you!

What should concern those of us who have respect for the U.S. Constitution, its freedom to think as you will, the rights of the 1st Amendment, is that one of these two positions (in the final anaylysis) comprise the theological guts of the so-called Religious Right. Or should I say the Republican Party?

The Christian Reconstructionists, at least the minds which most largely developed it, came from within the confines of American, Reformed and Presbyterian circles, and should I say many 'circles' of theological thought.

For Rushdoony, Gary North, some others who provide the 'philosophical/theological' framework of the so-called Religious Right, democracy is categorically seen as antithetical to the inerrant, Word of God. Under their theological paradigm, only a theocracy is legitimate as shining forth from the most holy face of this eternal god.

I am the "Julie" who posted:

There is no point arguing with someone (i.e. Peter) who makes their decisions based on faith. All reason and logic are put aside. Religion is something that is taught and learned and it depends on to whom, where and when you were born. If Peter were born in Iran, he would just as likely be a devote Muslim. It is very obvious that Peter whole heartedly believes he is right and is well versed on the Bible, but it is just a book. There is no way to prove anything in it, just as there is no way to prove anything in the Koran or any other ancient, sacred text.

Since there is another Julie posting, I will now post with the name "Julie from Austin"

lepidopteryx @August 9, 2007 1:56 PM: I understand what you are saying. Obviously no pharmacy can have every medication on hand. But they can order the medication. (I have gone through the process at times). But if the medication has been prescribed, the pharmacist must fill it.

Susan,
I know that this is a bad way to ask your opinion about something but I don’t know of any other way to contact you.
I have been re-reading “The Power of Myth,” by Joseph Campbell, with Bill Moyers. I wonder what you think of some of the following things Mr. Campbell said.
Thank you.
Rascal222

Pages 4-5:
Campbell: People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about, and that’s what these clues help us to find within ourselves.
Moyers: Myths are clues?
Campbell: Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life.
…
What’s the meaning of the universe? What’s the meaning of a flea? It’s just there. We’re so engaged in doing things to achieve purposes of outer value that we forget that the inner value, the rapture that is associated with being alive, is what it’s all about.

Pages 284-285:
Campbell: I don’t believe life has a purpose. Life is a lot of protoplasm with an urge to reproduce and continue in being.
Moyers: Not true – not true.
Campbell: Wait a minute. Just sheer life cannot be said to have a purpose, because look at all the different purposes it has all over the place. But each incarnation, you might say, has a potentiality, and the mission of life is to live that potentiality. How do you do it? My answer is, “Follow your bliss.”

Page 266:
(Campbell tells of talking to a priest who was a professor at a Catholic university):
(Priest:) “Now, Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?”
I answered, “No, Father.”
He asked, “Are you a Catholic?”
I answered, “I was, Father.”
Then he asked – and I think it interesting that he phrased the question in this way – “Do you believe in a personal god?”
“No, Father,” I said.
And he replied, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal god.”
“If there were, Father,” said I, “what then would be the value of faith?”

Pages 258-260:
Campbell: … There is a pertinent saying in one of the Upanishads: “When before the beauty of a sunset or of a mountain you pause and exclaim, ‘Ah,’ you are participating in divinity.” Such a moment of participation involves a realization of the wonder and sheer beauty of existence. People living in the world of nature experience such moments every day. They live in the recognition of something there that is much greater than the human dimension. Man’s tendency, however, is to personify such experiences, to anthropomorphize natural forces.
Our way of thinking in the West sees God as the final source or cause of the energies and wonder of the universe. But in most Oriental thinking, and in primal thinking, also, the gods are rather manifestations and purveyors of an energy that is finally impersonal. They are not its source. The god is the vehicle of its energy. And the force or quality of the energy that is involved or represented determines the character and function of the god. There are gods of violence, there are gods of compassion, … These are all personifications of the energies in play. But the ultimate source of the energies remains a mystery.
Moyers: Doesn’t this make fate a kind of anarchy, a continuing war among principalities?
Campbell: Yes, as it is in life itself, Even in our minds – when it comes to making a decision, there will be a war …
Moyers: What does that do to faith? You are a man of faith, of wonder, and ---.
Campbell: No, I don’t have to have faith. I have experience.
Moyers: What kind of experience?
Campbell: I have experience of the wonder of life. I have experience of love. I have experience of hatred, malice, and wanting to punch this guy in the jaw. …
Moyers: Where do these energies come from?
Campbell: From your own life, from the energies of your own body. The different organs in the body, including your head, are in conflict with each other.
Moyers: And your life comes from where?
Campbell: From the ultimate energy that is the life of the universe. And then do you say, “Well, there must be somebody generating that energy”? Why do you have to say that? Why can’t the ultimate mystery be impersonal?

Page 40:
Moyers: Don’t you think modern Americans have rejected the ancient idea of nature as a divinity because it would have kept us from achieving dominance over nature? How can you cut down trees and uproot the land and turn the rivers into real estate without killing God?
Campbell: Yes, but that’s not simply a characteristic of modern Americans, that is the biblical condemnation of nature which they inherited from their own religion and brought with them, mainly from England. God is separate from nature, and nature is condemned of God. It’s right there in Genesis: we are to be the masters of the world.
But if you will think of ourselves as coming out of the earth, rather than having been thrown in here from somewhere else, you see that we are the earth, we are the consciousness of the earth. These are the eyes of the earth. And this is the voice of the earth.

Pages 15-16:
Moyers: You’ve seen what happens when primitive societies are unsettled by white man’s civilizations. They go to pieces, they disintegrate, they become diseased. Hasn’t the same thing been happening to us since our myths began to disappear?
Campbell: Absolutely, it has.
Moyers: Isn’t that why conservative religions today are calling for old-time religion?
Campbell: Yes, and they’re making a terrible mistake. They are going back to something that is vestigial, that doesn’t serve life.
…
Campbell: … On this immediate level of life and structure, myths offer life models. But the models have to be appropriate to the time in which you are living, and our time has changed so fast that what was proper fifty years ago is not proper today. The virtues of the past are the vices of today. And many of what were thought to be the vices of the past are the necessities to today. The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time, here and now. And that is what we are not doing. The old-time religion belongs to another age, another people, another set of human values, another universe. By going back you throw yourself out of sync with history. …

Page 22:
Moyers: “I have become Death, the Destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer said when he saw the first atomic bomb explode. But you don’t think that will be our end, do you?
Campbell: It won’t be the end. Maybe it will be the end of life on this planet, but that is not the end of the universe. It is just a bungled explosion in terms of all the explosions that are going on in all the suns of the universe. The universe is a bunch of exploding atomic furnaces like our sun. So this is just a little imitation of the whole big job.

Under Pete's theology, or what seems to be Pete's theology, his god is absolutely sovereign. And according to the NT, I rather think the Reformed and Presbyterians rather do get to the heart of the matter. Under that 'understanding' of the NT, then 'god' is ultimately happens in every detail. It is either 'allowed' by god, or it is something which this god 'actively' MAKES happen.

Under this view of the Bible, which I think is probably more in line with its stated propositions, we have a god who is that being which created billions and billions of folk on this planet over time, and has largely DECIDED beforehand that the overwhelming majority of them go directly to the eternal flames of everlasting torment and punishment.

What a wonderful picture of love this is. This ever-loving god, actively creates the overwhelming majority of humanity to be sent straight to hell, and apparently they do not pass 'GO.'

What a wonderful picture of a tribal religion, with a god of war, who seeks to dominate, denigrate, and kill off his enemies.

Yet, thinking people are supposed to gulp this nonsense down like life-sustaining holy water.

Humm....

When we press these kinds of questions, we are quickly told that these things are 'hidden' in the ever-loving bosom of a holy god. He is then defined as transcendent, far above human capacity and comprehension. In fact, then we are told that he resides in darkness (no kidding!) we cannot know nor can even question such monstrous morality and ethics. One then is quickly confronted with the abject irrationality of the Christian religions. We are told to take a leap into the dark void of holy morality, in the dark, far and away from earth, into the ever-expanding chasm.

Well, some other Christian comes along and says, "Hey! Wait a danged minute! God give each individual a choice to believe or not believe." Of course, this is said, in opposition to their good, mistaken, Holy Spirit-enlightened brothers and sisters. They have come to save 'god' from moral culpability. They say, 'God in his foreknowledge 'knew' who would and who would not 'accept' him and live under his rule.

But wait, if god is in fact all-knowing, then he would know BEFORE he created these unlucky souls who would and who would not 'believe.' God in his foreknowledge WOULD know in advance that he would choose to create a human who would not believe and who would be immediately sent to hell. He would still in fact, be creating a human which had 'no chance.'

This being, if such a thing exists, is surely not loving, surely not good, surely not something to which should be followed. This being is monster.

Apart from all the warm-fuzzies, and 'faithiness' and goo, one is left with one of these two positions coming from 2,000+ years of good Christian theology.

From the Red Rolling Plains of North Texas, where a fella can kick a bush, and 5-8 different types of Christian fundamentalist will jump out and denigrate one for any doubt at all.

I posted at 2:36 just above. I am a different Julie than the poster of 1:59 above!

Peter Huff - The point being up to where the issue is looked at from an objective standard (i.e. God).

Now that is an oxymoron.

Lepitoteryx wrote:

"I beleive that what SJ was actually saying is that it IS up to you to decide what is right for you, not up to a doctor to decide for you."

Well alrighty then! I have decided that it is right for me to smoke pot daily for my migraines, (and to not pay taxes because it uses up my weed money). I will also be needing a much stronger dosage of my anti-depressants, as my kids have become increasingly annoying. And while my doc has that scrip pad out, he can go ahead and write me one for the strongest diet pill known to man - there's got to be something out there that works. Oh, and don't forget the Ritalin for the kiddoes - that ought to shut them up for a while....

I like playing doctor......

Hi Dr. Michael,

You make a valid point, to my perspective, when you say,

"Laws are made by the majority of people, and sometimes they and the law they make can be wrong."

I also agree with you to a point when you say,

"How can I, as a doctor of faith, refer a patient to another doctor who doesn't agree with me?"

The point being up to where the issue is looked at from an objective standard (i.e. God).

Where we separate is when you say,

"The answer is that in a democratic society, a doctor doesn't get to define either sin or crime for a patient. The law and the patient's own beliefs do that."

There are two problems that I would like to highlight here, one being if society defines sin, it become relative and good is, as you say, a law that may be wrong. Again, only an absolute objective standard can identify whether something is morally wrong. Otherwise it is arbitrary, the mere personal preference of each individual that is hard to make sense of since opinion is virtually limitless.

But the heart of the issue is what you condone you allow. You are just pushing the problem off on the next physician and, pardon the pun, washing your hands of the whole ordeal. In such a case are you really protecting the best interests of your patient? Why are we, as societies so scared to call something wrong that is wrong? Do we not have a moral obligation to talk truthfully to people?

Peter Huff - There are many verses that refer to our life starting before birth.

There is nary a verse in the bible that even mentions abortion or even a term that was a facsimile for abortion when the bible was written. However, there are verses that state when killing a child or infant is permissible.

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Though this doesn't condone infanticide of female babies, it certainly sets the stage for it.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9

# Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
# I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The real problem that fundamentalists have with abortion is the implantation of the soul. Of course, science and modern medicine doesn't even recognize such a thing as a soul. The question is, should any law be passed that is based on a concept with no legal standing?

Humm...so god is all powerful, all good, all knowing, and there is evil.

Further god is ultimately responsible for any man, woman or child's 'eternal' destination.

Hummm... god allows a 3 year old child to starve to death after its family is killed off in some jihad.
The suffering and death of that child is supposed to fulfill some cosmic, redemptive purpose, not only for it but in the wonderfully loving 'plan of god.'

It is all so clear to me now.

There is no point arguing with someone (i.e. Peter) who makes their decisions based on faith. All reason and logic are put aside. Religion is something that is taught and learned and it depends on to whom, where and when you were born. If Peter were born in Iran, he would just as likely be a devote Muslim. It is very obvious that Peter whole heartedly believes he is right and is well versed on the Bible, but it is just a book. There is no way to prove anything in it, just as there is no way to prove anything in the Koran or any other ancient, sacred text.

Amviennava:

That's the problem with some of the pharmacists in question. The store has the drug in stock. But the pharmacist has a religious objection to its use. So he refuses to fill the prescription.
There have been stories in the news of pharmacists who refuse to fill BCP precriptions for single women - they have no business even asking if the woman is married! Some refuse to sell Plan B even if the store they work for carries it because they believe that life begins as soon as the sperm gets within sniffing distance of the egg, and that preventing implantation is murder.

A former room-mate of mine is rapid-cycling bipolar. Without her meds, she cannot function. Suppose she brings her scrips to be filled, and the pharmacist on duty refuses to fill them because he believes that mental illness is the result of possession by demons, and that she doesn't need medication, she needs exorcism. (I actually had a fundamentalist coworker tell me once that there was no such thing as mental illness - it was Satan having control of a person). Must my friend ask every time she goes to refill her meds to speak to a pharmaicist who recognizes bipolar disorder as an illness, and not a sin?

Or what about the doctor who refused to give my grandmother narcotics for her pain when she was dying of cancer with about six months to live because she might become addicted?

Hi Luke,

From your last post I think you are asking me to explain why God allows the problem of evil when God is all good and all powerful.

The argument goes like this:

God is all good.
God is all powerful
Evil exists
Therefore God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

Having said that, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of the law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

So God has a perfectly good reason for allowing the evil that presently exists (an example would be Genesis 37; 45:5-10; esp. 50:20). Ravi Zacharias wrote a book entitled "Can Man Live Without God" in which he points out the consequences of a life lived without God. Evil has been present since man's original rebellion against his/her Maker.

When you say Luke,

"How can something that, from my eyes, is not beneficial, positive, or "good" be good because God says it is so?"

That is because you are looking at it from your human perspective and wisdom which is subjective and limited in knowledge. God gives us an objective, true perspective to look at the problem from outside ourselves.

You said,

"I have heard that there is no excuse for not believing the Bible as true, but wouldn't it appear to be slightly unfair for someone who was born unable to communicate or understand speech or language to be sent to Hell for his/her birth defects?"

I would say there are lots of excuses we make, but they come about by suppressing the truth in what may be known about God. So in the long run, yes, we are without excuse.

As for the answer to you question about the person born without the ability to understand speech or language, I can only give you what God's word tells me, anything more is speculating. If you are telling me that he does not have the ability to comprehend God that is a question I will have to think about more. From Scripture I am still led to believe that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the only solution is the Savior.

But for a person who is able to understand language and speech, Romans 2 answers the question very nicely as does John 14:6 or Acts 4:12.

You said,

"From our perspective it is easy to say that it is our decision, but we wouldn't know what it would be like to live in a jungle and never hear of Jesus Christ. My point is that the Bible may be absolute in it's teachings, but it hasn't been entirely absolute in it's delivery."

For the person in the jungle, he has the natural revelation of God displayed in what has been made and he is guilty along with the rest of us of breaking God's commands. Therefore he, like the rest of us is in need of the Savior, and like those who have not heard or ignore the gospel, he will pay for his own sins along with all unbelievers. He is getting no less than any law breaker gets in breaking the law - justice. If God chose to save him he would do so in sending someone to preach the message or getting His Word to him. (see Romans 9:14-24; Isaiah 55:8-11)

As a practicing physician, here are some of my thoughts after reading the article and the posts:

-- Almost totally agree with Ms Jacoby, more with the core argument (Physicians should never be obligated to perform procedures or provide services that violate their personal moral code...but doctors should always be morally obligated to refer patients to another physician whose moral code puts the patient's choice first). Physicians and the health care industry in general should always provide the patient with enough information to make a rational and appropriate choice about his or her health care. If the patient chooses a treatment option that they can or will not provide, they should be referred to those who can. For those who posted that a doctor should "do the job, or get out of the field," I would note that all physicians choose which treatments and procedures that they can and will do--if my patient needs brain surgery, I send them to someone who can do that, since I don't feel comfortable doing that procedure. Same with abortions. In theory, I *could* do either, but doing so would be a disservice to both the patient and to myself. Sending the patient to someone who can is the appropriate thing to do. And, by the way, I have no intention of leaving the field.

-- Major point of disagreement: 'I can hear the paternalistic objection right now: "But abortion is murder. Suicide is a mortal sin. How can I, as a doctor of faith, refer a patient to another doctor who doesn't agree with me?" The answer is that in a democratic society, a doctor doesn't get to define either sin or crime for a patient. The law and the patient's own beliefs do that.' While I agree that we're a democratic society, we were 150 years ago when killing a slave was a problem more due to "destruction of personal property" than it was regarding the killing of another human. The law and the "own beliefs" of the slave-owners didn't have a problem, but some courageous individuals did...and changed society eventually, but did the right thing at the time despite violating the laws of the time. There can be some things were there is a moral right but the law says otherwise, and individuals (doctors or otherwise) must do what is right. Likewise, one of the posts states that abortion isn't murder because the law says it isn't. That's like saying segregation wasn't wrong, because all of the white folks got together and the majority of them thought it was a good idea, made it law, so of course it's the right thing to do. Laws are made by the majority of people, and sometimes they and the law they make can be wrong.

-- One other point-- one poster in particular noted, "Besides since the Hippocratic Oath and all of its fine details are universally accepted worldwide, and is considered to be the supreme value of the medial profession..." Uhm, no. Not even close, really. Actually the Hippocratic Oath is anything but universally accepted. I myself, as well as my entire graduating medical school class, did not take it. Among other things, it has you swearing to ancient Greek gods, and forbids surgery and specifically forbids abortion. Not the "supreme value of the medical profession" or of most folks posting here on either side of the argument. It is worthy to note that it does state “I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.” Seems to me that it would support the doctor making such moral choices, even if it is against the patient’s beliefs, if the *physician* thought it would benefit the patient.

Andrea: "What about a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication with a valid Rx?" The prescription must be dispensed. The pharmacist is not recommending it. Having said that, the pharmacist may not have it on hand and must order it, which is a delay. But as long as the pharmacist tells the patient up front, that is legitimate.

Tigg,

I beleive that what SJ was actually saying is that it IS up to you to decide what is right for you, not up to a doctor to decide for you.

Susan Jacoby:

"a doctor doesn't get to define either sin or crime for a patient"

Susan doesn't think YOU are smart enough to decide what is right or wrong for yourself. Why stop at Doctors, why not just say only liberals like Susan have a right to say what is right or wrong.

What a useless discussion.

Of course doctors are not gods. Doctors are not flying spaghetti monsters either.

Why do we waste so much efforts on discussing things whose existence is highly questionable at best?

Sok7,

"What’s so special about doctors and pharmacists that they need to be coddled?"

I don't think they need to be coddled...I just think Christians have found a new avenue to evangelize, and they're not about to give it up. If they weren't out for that purpose, they'd keep their faith private.

I’m all for morality. Morality’s great!

However even the most stanch moralist must recognize that morality is a two-edged sword. If a doctor or pharmacist has an objection (moral or otherwise) to performing some aspect of his or her job, then perhaps that person should find another line of work.

This is perhaps truer with any of the reproductive health fields of medicine than any other, because an ob-gyn is going to see evidence of promiscuity, adultery, and irresponsibility on a daily basis (including but not limited to STDs and unwanted pregnancies). If you are a doctor in this field and cannot deal with 'fallen' people and the problems they face - Get Another Job and stop wasting all out time.

I have absolutely no patience for a pharmacist who tries to come between a doctor and his patient. A pharmacist is MEDICALLY UNQUALIFIED to judge a physician-prescribed treatment. Any pharmacist who alters or denies any physician-prescribed treatment, should be arrested for trying to practice medicine without a license.

I don’t know why this is an issue? If a soldier has a moral objection to killing he would find himself working in the mess tent or booted out of the service. What’s so special about doctors and pharmacists that they need to be coddled?

Amviennava,

What about a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication with a valid Rx?

There is much discussion about the legality of abortions. That is irrelevant: A doctor (or anyone for that matter) is under no obligation to provide an elective service. That means that a doctor who refuses to provide a necessary blood transfusion has violated his oath; but a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion has not.

Once again, Peter, it is difficult to debate the absolute with you, but it is much harder for me to understand. How can something that, from my eyes, is not beneficial, positive, or "good" be good because God says it is so? I have heard that there is no excuse for not believing the Bible as true, but wouldn't it appear to be slightly unfair for someone who was born unable to communicate or understand speech or language to be sent to Hell for his/her birth defects? From our perspective it is easy to say that it is our decision, but we wouldn't know what it would be like to live in a jungle and never hear of Jesus Christ. My point is that the Bible may be absolute in it's teachings, but it hasn't been entirely absolute in it's delivery. I have more to say but must do it later.

The (original) Hippocrates Oath:

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation-- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men,in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

PRIVER: all I could think of was "Every sperm is SAAACRED.. Every sperm is great... If a sperm is wasted.. God gets quite irate"...

Python, anyone? :)

One of my all-time favorite movies...

Hello again to Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

Thanks for the comment. This feels like homecoming week. Nice to hear from you. It is one of the things I truly enjoy, to hear from someone that you have previously spoken with.

Hello Mark in Texas or is it Markin Texas?

Just a quick couple of thoughts before bed.

You said,

"I've a simple solution for you folks. If you are opposed to abortion, don't get one."

"If you are opposed to any of a variety of procedures, don't have them."

Well thanks, I didn't know there was a procedure where I could change my sex and still have an abortion.

You said,

"Stop demanding that YOUR personal moral 'convictions' be the law of the land, imposed on ALL Americans."

Stop. Is that a demand that you are imposing on me? :)

Does your country not grant freedom of speech? BTW, I'm just asking for anybody to identify what their standard and measure for good is and how it makes sense. Is it not a valid question on a forum that deals with ideologies? I don't hold any malice or ill will. Would you care to comment?

You said,

"You folks are simple religious totalitarians with no intrinsic difference from the Taliban."

Oh come on Mr. Taliban.

You said,

"Pete, since you like Bible study and think it is the beginning, middle, and end to all human knowledge, let me suggest you grab a copy of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and report back with your findings."

Why? Is his subjective experience of the "Age of Reason" good enough reason? Sorry, I'm getting silly and it is time for bed. One last comment from what you said,

"From North West Texas, where one can kick a bush and five or six or eight different types of Christian fundamentalist will jump out and attempt to make you into a second class citizen."

Stop kicking the bush then.

Peter Huff,

Excellent response to the question, when does human life start.

Hello Maurie Beck,

I will try to reply to your comments tomorrow. BTW, you never answered my last post on the other Forum.

I appreciate you taking the time now though.

Hello Islamist,

Nice to share a post with you, although I'm sure we have some disagreements. Thanks for the question.

You asked,

"I'm confused when you said abortion is murder. Where exactly in the Bible did it say so? I only have the King James version."

There are many verses that refer to our life starting before birth. Try Luke 1:41 for starters,

"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb."

Matthew 1:18b,

"...but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

vs. 20

"...what is conceived in her"

When you kill the baby before birth you deny it the chance to reach its full potential, as the person God intended.

What some call "fetus" is called a babe or baby, depending on the translation. When do you decide that a baby is not a human being or not a person? One minute before birth or one minute after birth? When do you decide when personality begins?

God treats those who have not been born yet as persons, displayed in such verses as Jeremiah 1:5;

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

To kill an unborn baby is to destroy someone who God knits together in the womb and knows intimately before life outside the womb begins.

Psalm 139:13-16 "For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well...All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be."

With more thought I can give you other examples if you wish.

Peter, and the rest of you presuppositionalists, Christian Reconstructionists, run of the mill Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, ad infinitum on the religious right side of this thread.

I've a simple solution for you folks. If you are opposed to abortion, don't get one.

If you are opposed to any of a variety of procedures, don't have them.

Stop demanding that YOUR personal moral 'convictions' be the law of the land, imposed on ALL Americans. You folks are simple religious totalitarians with no intrinsic difference from the Taliban.

Pete, since you like Bible study and think it is the beginning, middle, and end to all human knowledge, let me suggest you grab a copy of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and report back with your findings.

Another suggest read is "Hellfire Nation: The Politics Of Sin In American History"
Since some of you folks think SIN is the problem, then you'd find 'Hellfire' interesting.

From North West Texas, where one can kick a bush and five or six or eight different types of Christian fundamentalist will jump out and attempt to make you into a second class citizen.

Hey Godfrey, long time no hear.

Please explain your measure/standard for good. Is it your subjective self? Or do you place that burden on some other poor subjective person, or perhaps on a group of subjective people?

Oh yeah I forgot, majority makes might which in turn makes right, since majority always determines the best interest of the individual, which in turn follows the evolutionary process of only the strong survive, as determined by the scientist who is totally objective on the evidence for something that he was not there to observe and has not been observed since, but the facts speak for themselves. But I'll let Charlie Darwin speak for himself,

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 224

Since it is after one I look forward to tackling your post tomorrow, the Lord willing. Chao for now! Nice to hear from you again!

Hello again Luke,

To start with, you said,

Peter, I do understand your argument, and it is a very good one, but what is right at one time may not be right in future times, which is why the law needs to adjust."

So how do you determine when the law is right and when it is not, if it (as it does) constantly changes? Without an ultimate absolute standard how do you make sense of right? You will not be able to make sense of it without God, but I think it is strange that people try and even more strange that when they cannot make sense of it they ignore the question.

You said,

"As I said before, God and Jesus have no laws governing automobiles, internet usage, and the like."

No, not directly to my knowledge; indirectly yes. The Bible is a manual on the more important things in life such as our relationship to God, the problems in knowing God, how we treat others, and how we treat what God has given us.

You said,

"Have you ever considered that what you see through your eyes is not necessarily true?

Yes, I have, who hasn't?

You continue,

"My point is that what the Bible tells you may be ABSOLUTELY TRUE or FALSE."

That is where your presuppositions differ from mine. You base your worldview on the core foundation that the God of the Bible is not able to do what His Word says He will do, whereas (through the grace of God) I believe that it does and that He cannot lie - it goes against His nature and that is why we can determine truth. Truth does not change with every wind of doctrine. His Word is truth and He has revealed through it and by His Spirit that He has preserved it.

Can I misinterpret it? Yes, that is why I would invite you to question me when you think I do and study it for yourself. I would be glad to look at a particular passage with you.

You said,

"Although there are plenty of logical arguments for it there is the one big one against it. Why weren't Eskimos taught about Jesus? Why did the Far East hear of him so late? God may be consistent with his word but he doesn't have such a great record of spreading it. So what happens to those poor souls who simply are never exposed to it? There are no excuses, am I right?"

The answer I give will probably be offensive to you, unless, through the grace of God, He is touching your life in His mercy.

There is no excuse. Romans 1:18-20 says so much. You know the problem, man in open rebellion towards his Maker. Each one of us has done what is wrong according to our Maker. As far back as the first man and woman the decision was to do what was right in their own eyes, rather than take God at His word.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.'" (Genesis 2:16-17)

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it." (Genesis 3:6)

Since that time we have all sinned and done what is wrong in His sight. Hence our need for a Savior, for someone who can totally fulfill the law of God and meet every righteous requirement that God has set in place, as well as paying the penalty of dying in our stead and suffering our payment for sin, eternal torment away from the presence of God.

Good and bad will not always dwell together. Until that time, Christians have a purpose of telling others the Good New and also growing in the love of God and becoming more like Him by His grace. Without Jesus, as Lord and Savior here is God's verdict:

"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one..." (Romans 3:9-12)

Here is the Good News:

"But now righteousness from God, apart from the law [i.e. the law is good, but who has kept it? Read the Ten Commandments Ex. 20], has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:21-24)

Because of that original disobedience we live under the curse of God. But His Word promises that for those who truly believe in His Son, one day we will be restored to a perfect life with God.

The point I am making is that God is not unjust in declaring someone guilty. We have all broken His laws. Justice demands the right thing be done.

Therefore God says,

"'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (Romans 9:15)

Your "good" works will not make you right before a perfectly just God. Do you see your need for a Savior yet Luke? Are you going to pay the penalty yourself?

That is why Jesus came into this world.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation [Do you understand why putting your faith in Buddhism or Islam will not make you right before God?]: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. [That is what it takes to have you sin forgiven and never counted against you]. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: be reconciled to God. God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

You said,

"What about children who are aborted or die in birth or early childhood? Do they get a clean slate?"

I think so, although it is not stated implicitly in the Bible to my knowledge (Matthew 19:14; 18:3, 4; Mark 9:37; 10:14; Luke 18:16). But the person who murders the unborn will be judged according to one breaking the law, unless God has mercy on them and their price is paid by Jesus Christ.

You said,

"What if someone is unable to read the Bible, and no one teaches them about it, or lies to them? How does God speak to them? God destroyed Sodom, but he didn't destroy Rome - Barbarians did. He also hasn't destroyed America. God's word may be consistent, but his behavior is not."

There again, it depends on God's grace and mercy. If God decides then someone will be sent to preach the Good New, just as happened to the Ethiopian who could not understand what he was reading. God sent Phillip to him. (Acts 8:26-39) As for Rome, God's judgment was upon them, just as it was on the people of Canaan during the time of Joshua when he was told to take the land or on the Israelites when they continued to disobey God and were taken into captivity in Babylon. They got what they deserved, just as we get what we deserve without Christ.

As for America or any nation that forgets the only true God, the consequences are great. That is for God alone to decide and by His timing. Thank goodness that He has been merciful, so far, to you in the USA. But God's behavior is not inconsistent. He will punish sin. (2 Peter 3:9 comes to mind, not thinking of a better one for this occasion)

You said,

"How could a being with no actual human experience (Jesus doesn't count because he lived without sin) be the decider on what is right clearly? Is it simply because he is not human or that we call his standard true and perfect that it makes it so?

You forget that Jesus is God and He does count. God is all knowing. Jesus also experienced humanity in that He became human (see Hebrews 2:8-18, especially vs. 14 & 17, 18 if you are interested in the answer).

I take it you are referring to God when you say "a being with no human experience deciding on what is right clearly." His standard is right because that is who He is. His very nature is righteous, in that everything He does is good and right. Since He is the highest standard there is no higher standard to appeal to.

I'm sure you have experienced the problems we run into when we cannot properly determine what good is. There are problems in all our actions. What we mean as "good" or in the best interest of others does not always work out to be so because we do not see the whole picture.

His standard is true and perfect whether we call it so or not. The reason that man will argue against his Maker is that man is not all knowing or comprehending. The finite decides to judge the Infinite, but one day the tables will be turned. (Romans 8:1-3)

You said,

"Is it not dangerous to believe that an absolute authority who has not appeared in the most dire of human problems (the slaughtering of his chosen people, for one), or who took it upon himself to kill innocent children, or who created such a place is Hell), is worthy of trust and belief in his absolution?

Yes, it is. On what other ground are you going to know what "good" truly is or how are you going to make sense of this world on a value system that no one can agree on or that constantly changes?

Have you heard of the rock group King Crimson. They penned words that go something like this (if not exactly???):

"Knowledge is a deadly thing when no one sets the rules. The fate of all mankind I fear is in the hands of fools."

You said,

"Peter, it is always a pleasure debating with you...especially because you are absolutely impossible to argue with."

A pleasure talking to you about things that really matter Luke! My prayer is that God would bless you with understanding.

And to continue,

"There are many times where you really make me consider what I am thinking."

It is all worthwhile if God uses anything in these posts to bring a person to true repentance and a living, loving relationship with Him. That is up to His Sovereign grace but Romans 10:17.

I'm probably going to be sorry, but,

PETER HUFF:

"Susan Jacoby... leaves the door open for sin and crime to be defined in any way the person chooses."

Crime is, of course, defined by legislatures (not by doctors). As for morality, who else you gonna get to define it? God? How do we know what God wants? He doesn't speak to us. Or if he does, "we're straightway dangerous and handled with a chain." Who do we trust to speak for God? And don't refer me to the Bible, because no two people agree on anything in the Bible. E.g., the Bible has been used to defend slavery and attack slavery. If Christians can't agree about what the Bible says on slavery (hint: it's for it), how can we trust them on subtler points of individual rights?

Let's see if we can break this down.

When you say God, you mean your god, the Christian god, not, say, the god of Islam.

When you say your Christian god, you mean God as understood by your particular sect.

And if the people in your sect disagree? Then you mean your idea of what your sect says.

In other words, you want the arbiter of morality to be you.

I think the world will be much better off if we all make our own moral decisions, rather than going by those of Peter Huff.

"What this does is, in effect make any moral issue right in the persons own eyes, or taken a step further in the eyes of those who make the laws, therefore anything becomes justifiable."

This is what Dave Barry refers to as the "they'll f___ dogs argument." If you legalize x (drugs, say), then your children will be doing it with dogs. Well, they won't, and they won't "justify anything." You'll notice the controversy isn't about something that everyone agrees is bad, such as rape or murder, but something people everywhere honestly disagree on (abortion). But rather than agree to disagree, you come riding in on your white horse under the banner of (silent, invisible) God, forcing, to the best of your ability, YOUR opinion on all of us. Then accuse us of justifying "anything."

"So when she says "Doctors are not gods", in effect she is pushing for the right for every person to act as god in determining and deciding right and wrong."

You said it, pally.

"The problem in aborting the fetus is deciding when it become a human being..."

This is another issue, and a straw man. Everyone freely acknowledges that the fetus is human. The question is, is it (legally) a person?

If you will Google "fetus not person," you will find many discussions (or rants) on the question, and you will also find numerous court decisions, all over the world, that the fetus is NOT a person. This is legal opinion as it presently stands.

"She is left with the problem all atheists and free thinkers are left with - on whose authority?"

And your answer, as explained above, is, yours. No thanks.

"Without God these questions become non-sense for nothing can be determined as being true,"

Most especially the existence, or at least the opinions, of God.

"it's all personal preference or enforcement by emotional or threat or physical force."

The only one threatening physical force around here is you. When your opinions become law, they will be physically forced upon the rest of us.

I'm sorry all to do this but I couldn't resist. It's right there in her post when she says

"In his view, anyone who has premarital sex is less likely to form a healthy relationship later in life because every orgasm somehow reduces a person's capacity for deep emotional attachment. Dr. Keroack's view of orgasm was approximately that of Gen. Jack D. Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove. Gen. Ripper, as you may recall, was concerned about the Russians stealing his "precious bodily fluids."

all I could think of was "Every sperm is SAAACRED.. Every sperm is great... If a sperm is wasted.. God gets quite irate"...

Python, anyone? :)

On a more serious note though, I think she's absolutely right on this one. If a doctor ends up not doing his job because of his beliefs, he's got no business being a doctor.

And as Americans we have got to demand the kind of treatment that keeps religion elsewhere, where it belongs.

To be honest, from everything I've heard about the medical field these days, it's hard enough to find ANY doctor who will treat even common complaints now without ALSO having to look out for those who won't give the needed care because of their religion. Can doctors really afford to be that choosy and end up shooting themselves in the pocketbook?

Jihadist - Why are you getting into a fundamentally woman's right on this question of abortion? Men are sperm donors, no?

From an evolutionary point of view, Jihadist is correct; men are suped-up turkey basters. In fact in some species, the male has been whittled down to no more than a sack of gonads attached to a female. However, in humans men do provide some parental care, though I'm saying turkey baster because that is what I consider Peter Huff's contribution to this thread. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit. Considering his views on sex, he probably does not baste very much, if at all. I, on the other hand, take my meager duties (far more limited than women’s contributions), seriously. Therefore, I baste women with cheerful zeal as often as I can, fulfilling my evolutionary role as well as bringing pleasure wherever I can.

Peter, I agree with Susan Jacoby 100%. What I really wish though, is that you and your kind would only avail yourself of the type of cures practiced during Christ's time. Then, while the rest of us had an average life expectancy of 76 years for men and 80 years for women, you would probably not make it out of childhood. Such practices would give us "moderns" a huge selective advantage and within a few generations we would dominate the population.

P.s. If doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, they are required to provide their patients with the best medicine available, irrespective of their personal beliefs. The same goes for pharmacists, nurses, and any other health care providers. Until such time as biblical law is substituted for the laws of our open society, health care providers who do not conform to the law should be stripped of their licenses. BTW, if religious fanatics ever do seek to substitute biblical law for those of our liberal democracy, expect a civil war.

Peter Huff

I'm confused when you said abortion is murder. Where exactly in the Bible did it say so? I only have the King James version.

If anyone thinks abortion is murder even at very early stages of pregnancy for even victims of rape and incest, they should, as a start, stop eating chicken eggs from today if they do.

Consider the basic Muslim approach on abortion : -the life of the living is more important than the unborn or the dead. Arguments on finer points later.

Cheers mate.

Gods, Peter, there were so many posts between us on thesubject of authority, I wouldn't know where to begin going back to look for them all.

You want a world where everyone takes the Bible as the absolute authority. Which version? With or without the Apocrypha? Why should the scriptures of a god I don't worship be the authority for my life?

I take you back to the subject of community. People having babies they can't support or properly care for or simply don't want means someone else has to support and take care of them - not good for the community which has to expand limited resources to cover more people, not good for the parents who can't or won't take care of their own kids, not good for the kids who have to depend on other people to do the job their parents can't or won't do.

Yes, it's better to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but no contraceptive is fool-proof, not all sex is consensual, not everyone who is capable of making a baby is capable of being a parent, and there aren't enough adoptive parents to go around.

Luke asked - " What about children who are aborted or die in birth or early childhood?"

They go to heaven. But what do the Bible say about that since all children are born with sin according to some church beliefs? Do they get baptised when dead to cleanse them of sin they never commit?

Those Eskimos who were not taught about Jesus is because the missionaries have not got to them yet. Some people can't read the Bible because they are illiterate and can't read anything.

God get a set of guidlines in the Torah, Bible, Qur'an and left man alone to figure everything out for himself. So, don't blame God as God left us alone and to see if we can truly rise above the guidelines God set for us. You can say it's a test. The Ten Commandments is still a good guidline from which all fundamental secular laws are formulated.

Did I give the right answers Luke?

Cheers mate.

Peter, I do understand your argument, and it is a very good one, but what is right at one time may not be right in future times, which is why the law needs to adjust. As I said before, God and Jesus have no laws governing automobiles, internet usage, and the like. Have you ever considered that what you see through your eyes is not necessarily true? My point is that what the Bible tells you may be ABSOLUTELY TRUE or FALSE. Although there are plenty of logical arguments for it there is the one big one against it. Why weren't Eskimos taught about Jesus? Why did the Far East hear of him so late? God may be consistent with his word but he doesn't have such a great record of spreading it. So what happens to those poor souls who simply are never exposed to it? There are no excuses, am I right? What about children who are aborted or die in birth or early childhood? Do they get a clean slate? What if someone is unable to read the Bible, and no one teaches them about it, or lies to them? How does God speak to them? God destroyed Sodom, but he didn't destroy Rome - Barbarians did. He also hasn't destroyed America. God's word may be consistent, but his behavior is not. How could a being with no actual human experience (Jesus doesn't count because he lived without sin) be the decider on what is right clearly? Is it simply because he is not human or that we call his standard true and perfect that it makes it so? Is it not dangerous to believe that an absolute authority who has not appeared in the most dire of human problems (the slaughtering of his chosen people, for one), or who took it upon himself to kill innocent children, or who created such a place is Hell), is worthy of trust and belief in his absolution? Peter, it is always a pleasure debating with you...especially because you are absolutely impossible to argue with. There are many times where you really make me consider what I am thinking. I always look forward to your responses. Thanks.

Get it? Not. Your. Decision. To. Make.

Gods. I post here a lot. Do you really think I'd be one to say 'Abortion should be used for contraception?' Get real. I'm a Pagan, ...there's not much more sacred to us than *motherhood.* That also does mean it must not be compelled, not through trying to enforce ignorance about contraception, demonize sex and shove it into a shameful corner so much that people are ignorant enough to be 'fruitful and multiply' despite any cost to mothers or prospective children...

We're *all* for responsibility about sex, ...this is also a sacred thing to us.

The fact is, it's not the place of a doctor or pharmacist to place themselves in the middle of decisions that are *not theirs* just cause they happened to turn up with a Bible or a crucifix.

There is a reason that *this is not their jobs.*

Not their place. They don't like that place, it's on *them* to hang a shingle somewhere where people would walk in in full knowledge they aren't getting *medicine,* only what part of it a particular Fundie thinks is OK.

JT, if you can up and decide you have the right to assume you know better than people you don't even know, about what *their* life and conscience says, then you're a prime example why these things must be kept *out* of public medicine.

You want special rules for Christians to sit in judgement have their way, but this is not medicine, any more than Creation 'science' is science.

Stuff does happen. If you were ever out there actually caring for people in, or *being in* real situations, you wouldn't be expecting people to limit their lives by talking-points that obscure to some, the clear issues of whose life is whose and what the jobs entail...

...Or to what Christians have to say while whining that *they're* being 'oppressed' for not being allowed to lord it over people they have no right to.

Jihadist! Whoa!

Aren't you supposed to be quite spiritual right now? Okay young lady - abortion upon demand by a woman is the real issue as you stated before to me, and it is her choice ultimately. Yes, so, some of us men want to control a woman and her body too. Take that! LOL

Seriously my friend, I will read and learn from women their views on this issue. Our fundies are not quite into opposing all abortion as murder like western fundies. Who knows in the future.

Salam my dear friend. Good night, good morning to you too.

"T:

"Look... I agree that abortion may be necessary in limited situations... i.e. rape and incest."

Not all think so, either. If someone decides that cases of rape or incest *still* aren't good enough for them to butt out and do their jobs, is that still OK with you?

"But you are making the arguement that every abortion is an emergency! That just is not the truth."

I'm making the argument that allowing people to withhold medical information or resources on religious grounds *doesn't* necessarily make this distinction, and, more importantly,

It's not your business as a pharmacist whether or not I've *just been raped* when I go to fill a prescription! Especially not for Plan B, which isn't even the 'abortion pill' Fundies claim it is.

"I would probably agree with your position (not turn away a patiet) in the limited case of rape or incest. But to extrapolate that poition to all abortions is illogical."

Obviously, lying to patients about whether abortion is available, or safe, is OK with you?

If you as a doctor can't tell the truth, or understand that it is *not your decision in the first place* then it's on *you* to *not put yourself in the position where you might harm patients or their lives for *your* religious abstractions.

"You are right about "choice." But I would say choose ahead of time."

Not to be a doctor or pharmacist somewhere where you might decide to hurt people or deprive them of their rights over their bodies? Yes, you should choose ahead of time where you make your money.

Patients come first, or you're not being a doctor. You're imposing your religion on the sick or troubled.

"Abortion should not be on par with condoms or the pill, etc."

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

"I am only asking for accountability and responsibility. Sounds reasonable to me."

I'm sure. Here's what sounds reasonable to *me.*

We're not accountable to *you* for *our bodies and life-decisions.*

We expect trust and care from medical providers, not personal abuse and denial of care from *pharmacists* or anyone who thinks an MD is a license to call someone a *ahem* and impose their religious views on our futures.

Islamist, you wanker you!
You rugger bugger you!
You macho honcho you!

I'm still awake at this late hour, early morning. Why are you getting into a fundamentally woman's right on this question of abortion? Men are sperm donors, no? Women are child bearers, the true carriers and bringers of the human race, no? Men are to be consulted and women to have the final say to abort or otherwise for any reason, no?

Seriously, abortion is not that serious an issue for us where pills and condoms are available. Only at villages where access to them are unavailable and village midwives perform them at great personal risks to the women undergoing it.
STDs such as HIV/AID is slowly becoming a serious problem. Used to be low for Muslims and all due to Muslim men being careless and reckless.

So, as a man, you should really focus on telling men on safe sex and responsibility for the child that is the outcome, or to spread STD, and not to leave women alone to carry with them pills, condoms and babies on their own. Only a man would use DNA testing to prove he is not the father of a child instead of proving to be one. Take that low blow. Ouch!

Right, with that unreasonable but fun feminist rant on abortion, sex and responsibility by men, here's a story to cheer you up. Umm...... more for my small time cheap thrills actually, on the stupidity of some men:)

A family planning officer went to a village to teach villagers on family planning. To demonstrate to the men how to use a condom, he put one at the end of a stick of a broom, telling them, "This is how you put it on before having sex with your wife. You will not have children that you may not want if you think more children will be a burden for you." The village's men were also assured they will be given free condoms by the health clinic anytime they want them.

A year later, the family planning officer went to the village and was surprised to find there was a rise in the number of babies born over the previous years. He assembled the village's men and ask them why. The men look confused, and one answered, "We don't understand it too. We did what you taught us to do. We put the condoms on the tip of broom sticks as you showed us before we have sex with our wives."

Salam, good night, good morning and keep off this issue here. Read and learn instead. Their personal experiences may be the same as some of us.

J :)

{light clicks on} Oh, NOW I understand why the dumbya (silent m) is so insistent on limiting medical malpractice litigation. It is precisely for the reasons SJ noted that we must hold these quacks accountable.

Also, why would an otherwise normally intelligent woman when confronted with one of these non-doctors put any faith in their referral? The appropriate response to these rascals is a raised middle finger and as much bad press as possible. These are economic creatures after all.

I would suggest--not just for women, but everyone-- that we each develop some kind of vetting process before we hop up on the examining table.

---FIUS

Look... I agree that abortion may be necessary in limited situations... i.e. rape and incest.

But you are making the arguement that every abortion is an emergency! That just is not the truth.

I would probably agree with your position (not turn away a patiet) in the limited case of rape or incest. But to extrapolate that poition to all abortions is illogical.

You are right about "choice." But I would say choose ahead of time. Abortion should not be on par with condoms or the pill, etc.

I am only asking for accountability and responsibility. Sounds reasonable to me.

" JT:

Condoms don't require a prescription."

Yeah, rapists use condoms.

"Also, plan ahead and find a doctor that will prescribe the pill or what ever you like."

In the emergency room?

If the doctors and pharmacists can't do their jobs, they should find other avenues to suit *their* hangups without *hurting anyone,* if their 'morals' are so important that they have to impose them on people they may know nothing about and have no business to ask.

"Contrary to popular opinion on this site, the number of doctors and pharmasists who refuse is miniscule compared with the ones that dont."

Not miniscule enough, apparently. It's still *their* issue, not the patients'.

Their responsibility not to put themselves in situations where their religious ideas won't conflict with their jobs or oaths or promised services.

Your rationalizations don't hold water.

It's. Not. Their. Right.