The Poor Ye Shall Always Have With You

Actually, there is a correlation between the corporate bought and paid for media, the resulting loss of reporting in the public interest, and the subjugation of the working poor and middle classes, which includes declining educational standards.

You can twist and spin it any way you choose, but the truth is the truth. There are fundamentalists of all stripes, including on the left, even athiests and Islamacists who are fundamentalists and many of them are very well educated. You can't blame or write off the poor or under educated by attempting to cast them as "fundamentalist".

As below was my last post. Anonymouses and real names et al who posted after that have nothing to do with me. I did not post poems on dragons to distract and entertain the bloggers either. My views on abortion have remained consistent and is science based, (read: Fetology and Hippocratic Oath). I'm not arguing with myself offering different points of view (as Farnaz/Pseudo/Wiglaf/Amro/Starbucks trio et al were suspected of doing).

This is a public forum, so it does not matter that Arminius and PAM does not respond to me. PAM and I have exchanged our views in several posts.

Even if one person has changed their mind about abortion on demand, and have come to accept the human embryo/fetus as an unborn child with a right to its life, due to the scientific information I have sought to present here with links etc, the small amount of time I invested in searching for the information and writing the comments will have been well worth it.

Regarding a previous comment about the death of a child at the hands of an abusive mother who happened to be the member of a religious cult, as reported in a newspaper, it is typical that religious belief per se is being held responsible for the abuse of a child that led to its death. Millions of children all over the world suffer and sometimes die at the hands of abusive parents, although no religion preaches abuse of children. It is sick to portray religion as the cause of child abuse. Drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness, and most times just downright cruelty born of selfishness, tendency to abuse power and lack of respect for the rights of those who have no power are all REAL causes of abuse of children.

Abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade OTOH is a policy permitting women to have their unborn children killed. Abortion clinics allegedly are being run like a business enterprise since Roe vs Wade made abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy legal. Watch the YouTube video via the link provided for more info from a medical doctor who knows the inside story of abortions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anonymous:

The reason why anyone with REAL compassion should be against abortion ---

The Silent Scream - Dr B Nathanson MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek&feature=related

August 13, 2008 2:59 AM

Well, just to make it an even 500 posts...

"I'm not that anonymous."

If all you Anonymi would just choose handles for yourselves, it would alleviate a lot of the confusion. Really, it's not that hard to do, and it need not reveal any more about you than "Anonymous" does.

I'm just about at the same point as Arminius - that of refusing to respond to any posts written by someone who can't be bothered to choose a name.

Real Name ( ya sure) - I'm not that anonymous.

Anonymous, does it make you feel bad that Pam and Arminius have stopped giving you attention, choosing instead to talk about dragons?

Abortion is the extant legal remedy for an unwanted pregnancy - this has been explained even here on this thread numerous times. Arguing pro and con doesn't change minds, and so far hasn't changed the law - hopefully it never will.

Broad sex and reproductive education beginning at an early age would serve to prevent a good many unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the future. Teaching sexual abstinence has been very clearly shown to be no substitute for real sex education.

By law, people in the USA (and throughout Western Europe) have relatively complete control over the final phase of their reproductive destiny e.g. whether or not to give birth. Although they don't always have control of the circumstances along the way that lead to an unwanted pregnancy.

Adopting out an unwanted child is a choice that some women (and girls) make - many terminate a prenancy in it's early or very early stages.

If 'morning after' pills were readily available across pharmacy counters everywhere, there would probably be far few abortions - something to keep in mind. This prospect doesn't make the pro-lifers happy of course, but it's to be preferred over outright abortion. Some pharmacists and physicians won't prescribe birth control pills OR the moring after pill, based on their personal/religious ethics.

They should at the very least be required by law to refer a patient to a pharmacist and/or physician that will meet the medical needs of a customer (hopefully this will become a legislative issue in the future).

There are times when abortion is the best option.....religion and religious belief fits in only when they apply to individual situations. The Catholic Church, as an example, demonstrates the height of unreason when it comes to birth control, sex education, and reproductive rights.

Fortunately, secular law and secular ethics have the final word in the case of reproductive rights.

The reason why anyone with REAL compassion should be against abortion ---

The Silent Scream - Dr B Nathanson MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek&feature=related

Ah, here is a dragon after my own heart.

The Tale of Custard the Dragon

By Ogden Nash

Belinda lived in a little white house,
With a little black kitten and a little gray mouse,
And a little yellow dog and a little red wagon,
And a realio, trulio, little pet dragon.

Now the name of the little black kitten was Ink,
And the little gray mouse, she called her Blink,
And the little yellow dog was sharp as Mustard,
But the dragon was a coward, and she called him Custard.

Custard the dragon had big sharp teeth,
And spikes on top of him and scales underneath,
Mouth like a fireplace, chimney for a nose,
And realio, trulio, daggers on his toes.

Belinda was as brave as a barrel full of bears,
And Ink and Blink chased lions down the stairs,
Mustard was as brave as a tiger in a rage,
But Custard cried for a nice safe cage.

Belinda tickled him, she tickled him unmerciful,
Ink, Blink and Mustard, they rudely called him Percival,
They all sat laughing in the little red wagon
At the realio, trulio, cowardly dragon.

Belinda giggled till she shook the house,
And Blink said Week!, which is giggling for a mouse,
Ink and Mustard rudely asked his age,
When Custard cried for a nice safe cage.

Suddenly, suddenly they heard a nasty sound,
And Mustard growled, and they all looked around.
Meowch! cried Ink, and Ooh! cried Belinda,
For there was a pirate, climbing in the winda.

Pistol in his left hand, pistol in his right,
And he held in his teeth a cutlass bright,
His beard was black, one leg was wood;
It was clear that the pirate meant no good.

Belinda paled, and she cried, Help! Help!
But Mustard fled with a terrified yelp,
Ink trickled down to the bottom of the household,
And little mouse Blink strategically mouseholed.

But up jumped Custard, snorting like an engine,
Clashed his tail like irons in a dungeon,
With a clatter and a clank and a jangling squirm
He went at the pirate like a robin at a worm.

The pirate gaped at Belinda's dragon,
And gulped some grog from his pocket flagon,
He fired two bullets but they didn't hit,
And Custard gobbled him, every bit.

Belinda embraced him, Mustard licked him,
No one mourned for his pirate victim
Ink and Blink in glee did gyrate
Around the dragon that ate the pyrate.

Belinda still lives in her little white house,
With her little black kitten and her little gray mouse,
And her little yellow dog and her little red wagon,
And her realio, trulio, little pet dragon.

Belinda is as brave as a barrel full of bears,
And Ink and Blink chase lions down the stairs,
Mustard is as brave as a tiger in a rage,
But Custard keeps crying for a nice safe cage.

The Silent Scream - Dr B Nathanson MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek&feature=related

Another poet who was interested in dragons, albeit mildly. Note allusion to Job.
-----------------------------
The Realists
William Butler Yeats

HOPE that you may understand!
What can books of men that wive
In a dragon-guarded land,
paintings of the dolphin-drawn
Sea-nymphs in their pearly wagons
Do, but awake a hope to live
That had gone
With the dragons?

From Responsibilities (1914)

From the Adventures of Tom Bombadil

There was an old dragon under gray stone;
his red eyes blinked as he lay alone.
His joy was dead and his youth spent,
he was knobbed and wrinkled,
and his limbs bent in the long years to his gold chained;
in his heart's furnace the fire waned.
To his belly's slime gems stuck thick,
silver and gold he would snuff and lick:
he knew the place of the least ring
beneath the shadow of his black wing.
Of thieves he thought on his hard bed,
and dreamed that on their flesh he fed,
their bones-crushed, and their blood drunk:
his ears drooped and his breath sank.
Mail-rings rang. He heard them not.
A voice echoed in his deep grot:
a young warrior with a bright sword
called him forth to defend his hoard.
His teeth were knives, and on horn his hide,
but iron tore him, and his flame died.

J.R.R. Tolkien

According to the GE commercial shown during Olympics coverage, dragons are hayburners - literally. :)

Ronald Reagan and the Roe v. Wade Anniversary
By Michael Novak

[Mr. Novak is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute contributing editor to the National Review.]

Not until he became governor and faced a bill on his desk did Ronald Reagan ever think much about abortion, he tells us in his new book, and then he boiled his queries down to one commonsense question. Tell me what would happen, he asked his lawyer friends, if a man died, leaving his estate half to his pregnant wife and half to the child in her womb. If the wife then procured an abortion, so that she could keep the estate for herself, would that be murder for financial gain? Nobody wanted to answer that.

The law protects the unborn child in two or three important areas, Reagan concluded, including inheritance laws and laws against the abuse of pregnant women that causes the death of the unborn child. That gave Reagan the foundation for his view that, in the general case, the unborn deserve the protection of their lives. They are human individuals and have long been so treated by the law. They have rights to be protected.

Reagan's radio address upon this subject should be read in full; it is a marvelous record of how one man faced his own puzzlement and made up his mind. It may be found in Reagan, In His Own Hand, just published by the Hoover Institution Press. It was reprinted recently in The New York Times Magazine (Dec. 31, 2000). It is one of the advance scripts for Reagan's radio show, drafted and corrected in his own hand.

This text appears just in time to prepare us for today's great March for Life, on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, to mourn the deaths of 40 million citizens ripped untimely from the womb, and to pray God to bless this nation with a more civilized and benign moral practice.

The 40 million dead represent almost exactly the number of young workers needed to fend off the immense crisis of unsustainable Social Security burdens. With every year that passes, not enough younger people are working to finance the retirement of the older. The young workers have been winnowed out. Their cohort is lacking 40 million.

The oldest of those now dead would be in their 27th year. Each year now, there would be another 1.4 million of them turning six and entering first grade, and an equal number graduating into the work force from high school or college. But they are absent.

Some 13 million of these missing ones were black children, just about one-third of all aborted ones. The winnowing in the black community has been the most severe. (If this were any other activity, less protected by the liberal elites, this fact alone would brand abortion a racist policy.)

The people of the United States have never voted for the abortion regime. When they have had a chance to vote, they have usually voted for some modest method of restricting it; but the courts have aborted legislative will.

No issue is so divisive in our public disputations. No issue so inflames liberal women. No issue is surrounded so by lies and euphemism, evasion, even refusal to keep statistics. It is virtually certain that many more women today are maimed or die from complications due to abortion procedures than in "the bad old days before Roe v. Wade," both because of lack of policing of abortion facilities, and because of the massive annual number of abortions (more than 3,000 every day), hugely swollen since 1973. But the government refuses in this one instance to keep statistics about death and injury from abortion procedures. The truth is abortion's enemy.

Many consciences in America believe abortion is benign. It is not difficult to respect their consciences. But lack of investigative reporting, truth telling, and public argument from all points of view is a grave weakness of our public life.

Some who rabidly promote abortion do not dare to tell the truth about it. They defame any who oppose them, as most recently against John Ashcroft. They turn to calling names with passion. The fundamental lie they propagate is this: The unborn is "part of the woman's body." Genetic science no longer allows them such a claim. Like the common law that Ronald Reagan reflected on, science too studies in the womb a genetically independent human individual. If its life is not prematurely taken from it, this individual can become no other than a developed human child. That is science, not moral judgment.

A college student wrote recently that the generation born since 1973 is the first in history to reflect that they might have been aborted. They lacked security even in their mother's womb.

There is no rock of trust on which they can depend.

But the profoundest thing that has changed since 1973 is that the arguments have swung decisively toward the protection of the human rights of the genetically independent child in the womb. Millions are now committed to defending what has happened since 1973, of course, and do not want to hear of argument. They have planned their lives around some falsehoods. Ice is creaking underneath their feet.

But still, in the wind and the cold, the great March for Life of January 22 goes on, year by dreary year. More and more people are beginning to awaken. There is a better way to live. Better laws are coming. Public consciences are thawing. After winter, spring is always on its way.

----------------


Amen!

What of the "Nathanson" movie?

A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, "The Silent Scream," narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby´s mouth clearly opens wide -- hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600).

Pro-abortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p.A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did the abortion in "Silent Scream" definitely debunks any criticism of "Silent Scream´s accuracy.

"The Answer," Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.

"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus, at that point, the fetal organic response to pain is more than a reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to avert the noxious stimuli."

--- Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN

"When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned that he would."

--- Dr. A. Liley, Prof. of Fetology

"As early as eight to ten weeks gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain."

--- V. Collins, M.D., Diplomate and Fellow, Amer. Board of Anesthesiologists

For more view ---

http://www.mpomerle.com/NoAbort/Reagan_Fetal_Pain.shtml

If all the unborn children returned to talk about the lack of compassion towards them since Roe vs Wade 1973, there would be THIRTY FIVE MILLION of the most macabre newspaper stories as each child related how it was killed and what pain they went through before they finally died.

rb-freedom-for-all:

Anonymous, You Wrote:

"What is annoying about pro-abortionist rhetoric is the way they portray anyone who speaks on behalf of the right of life of the innocent unborn child, as someone who lacks compassion for the health and well being of the mother. What is blatantly ignored is the fact that they, the pro-abortion group, are completely lacking in compassion for the totally innocent unborn child."

Yes, you religious fanatics are so compassionate about innocent children, as evidenced by the following recent news story:

"BALTIMORE: A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult, including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after meals, police said."

August 12, 2008 11:49 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is typical that a pro-abortionist (atheist, in this case but there are also some Christians like Arminius who are also pro-abortionists) would highlight a macabre newspaper story of a religious cult to justify denying the right to life of an unborn child.

Unfortunately nobody EVER gets to hear of the ONE MILLION unborn children EVERY YEAR since Roe vs Wade came into effect in 1973 (that is THIRTY FIVE MILLION UNBORN CHILDREN SO FAR IN THE US) who NEVER get a chance to exercise their right to life that was granted to them by their Creator God because they happened to be in the womb of a mother who did not have a place for them in her life. Sure they don't turn up to talk about the lack of compassion towards them.

Many of the Native American creation myths don't end with a separation between humans and nature--quite the contrary. There is no dominance over nature. Some Native Americans are still wondering why the West, signified in this case by all who are not Native American still can't grasp where we are being led by our desire to control nature, e.g., an international food shortage (famine, in some quarters).

Maybe, someone would like to comment on myths of other cultures.

Farnaz

Autonomous:

"The Gnostics believed the 'wily' snake in the Garden of Eden represented wisdom and knowledge rather than evil - and the root of man's salvation. This mythos may have actually pointed to an early recognition that self-consciousness is the foundation of our existence.

For more on this theory of self-consciousness and when this differentiation in consciousness may have occurred, see Julian Jaynes and 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'. This is of course the same mind famously recognized by Descartes."

A very interesting post. Thank you! You know the Garden of Eden myth has many interpretations all of them interesting. Judaism sees it as explanatory, going to the creation of humanity. It contains nothing, for Jews, suggesting that sex is in some way negative. Judaism, and I believe Christianity, too, sees in the "Fall" the need to be on guard against evil, no matter how one's situation may appear. ONe sees this topos in Milton, with Adam not grasping that since he had been warned, prohibited, there had to be a reason, and that he should be wary no matter how trivial the warning may have seemed to HIM. For Jews and some Christians, too, it represents the beginning of society, history, civilization. Up through the Renaissance, this entrance signified a fall into time, among Catholics and Protestants. Does it still?

For Jews, it also signifies damage to the world which must be repaired. This mission is carried in Tikkun Olam, repair, healing of the world.

The "Fall," in its Christian interpretations is made much of by anti-foundationalists of all stripes: feminists, post-colonialists, etc. (gender, dominance over nature, the knowing Western subject to which it is related), but IMHO the story is complicated.

Of course, there is gender hierarchy, gendered labor, but the former was there in one of the two Eden accounts from the start, i.e., before the Fall. Also from the start, we have ADAM, which means "human" and EVE (Chava), which means mother--interesting since only with the "fall" came pregnancy. Whether this is meant to suggest biological determinism in the conventional sense, I don't know. In Judaism, motherhood is a near sacred state. On the other hand, we note that Eve, not Adam, was deceived; Adam united with Eve due to his love (not sexual) for her, but when Adam (we recall) whined and complained about Eve's responsibility for his plight, he was justly chastised by Hashem. In the end, though, one can't argue that the myth doesn't close with gender hierarchy, division of labor, etc.

"I know my perspective is pretty limited."

Never too late to change that, Paul - or Horatio.

Mr Mark and Paul C,

Indeed, let's keep up the dialog, dragons, flying snakes, Shakespeare, Isaiah, and all. It's been pretty civil here - and instructive - and entertaining!

Paul c writes:

"Mr. Mark,
I agree with you. I know my perspective is pretty limited."

But, hope springs eternal!

Keep posting at On Faith. Where else could one ask a question concerning snakes/dragons in Isaiah and find themselves answered via a quote from "Hamlet?"

Mr. Mark,
I agree with you. I know my perspective is pretty limited.

Paul c writes:

"Mr. Mark,
I am continuously reading the bible so I was surprised when you said that there were fire breathing dragons in it."

There are more things in heaven and earth (and, apparently, the Bible), Paul, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

;)

Everything anyone would want to know about dragons, here.

http://www.mysticvoodoo.com/dragons_and_dragon_lore.htm

Arminius writes:

"FYI, everyone: google 'flying snake'. They do exist - gliding, of course, no wings."

Yes, but are any indigenous to the Holy Land? All I could find were "flying" snakes that live in SE Asia.

Anonymous, You Wrote:

"What is annoying about pro-abortionist rhetoric is the way they portray anyone who speaks on behalf of the right of life of the innocent unborn child, as someone who lacks compassion for the health and well being of the mother. What is blatantly ignored is the fact that they, the pro-abortion group, are completely lacking in compassion for the totally innocent unborn child."

Yes, you religious fanatics are so compassionate about innocent children, as evidenced by the following recent news story:

"BALTIMORE: A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult, including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after meals, police said."

Pterodactylls were flyiing reptiles that lived during the time of the dinosaurs, but have been extinct for tens of millions of years.

They had featherless wings of skin streched between their hind legs and a very long "finger" similar to a modern bat. It is believed that they were really flying reptiles, though perhaps they could not fly quite as well as modern birds.

Any little kid interested in dinosaurs can tell you all about them. Evidently, their fossils are numerous, since a great deal seems to be known about them. Maybe observations of these fossils helped contribute to the mythology of dragons. But it is certain that no human being ever saw a living pterodactyll.

See Ouroboros, an ancient alchemical (cosmic snake) symbol for unity or infinity.....Carl Jung believed it to be a universal archetype.

The Gnostics believed the 'wily' snake in the Garden of Eden represented wisdom and knowledge rather than evil - and the root of man's salvation. This mythos may have actually pointed to an early recognition that self-consciousness is the foundation of our existence.

We'll recall that the Gnostics and their esoteric version of Christianity were persecuted and fully suppressed to the point of nearly disappearing in the early Christian era.

For more on this theory of self-consciousness and when this differentiation in consciousness may have occurred, see Julian Jaynes and 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'. This is of course the same mind famously recognized by Descartes.

Snakes and dragons are generally a positive force in mythology. The medical profession's symbol for healing is the Caduseus, a winged staff with entwined snakes that is carried by Mercury as a messanger of the gods.

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

FYI, everyone: google 'flying snake'. They do exist - gliding, of course, no wings. Videos are available.

What is annoying about pro-abortionist rhetoric is the way they portray anyone who speaks on behalf of the right of life of the innocent unborn child, as someone who lacks compassion for the health and well being of the mother. What is blatantly ignored is the fact that they, the pro-abortion group, are completely lacking in compassion for the totally innocent unborn child.

Offering abortion as a nonjudgmental option is compassionate towards the unborn child?

ALLEGEDLY, according to a man who once ran abortion clinics, "options counseling" offered by abortion clinics usually present abortion as the best option. The emotional vulnerability of the woman is usually exploited to make such an option seem the best and she is provided with rationalization not to feel guilty. However when she does end up feeling guilty afterwards, which many women do, she is comforted with the explanation that her hormones are playing up and the guilt will disappear with time.

Thus the conscience is manipulated and schooled to believe the lie that there is nothing wrong with an abortion. The life of the unborn child doesn't matter.

rb-freedom-for-all:

Burdened Now:

You wrote:

"After I killed my baby, out of guilt I confessed to my mother. It was then my Dad reminded me that my Mom had me when my Dad was a senior in High School and she was a junior and both of them made it through college while they raised me. My *choice* was to kill my baby so I would not have to take on responsibility and do the work required to raise a child."

You should have definitely discussed this with your parents before you had an abortion. Most young women today do discuss their options with at least one parent before taking the step to have an abortion. What made you think it was okay to discuss it with your boyfriend's mother but not your own?

You wrote:

"but we allow people and even encourage people to kill their own children because it is perceived as the easy way out. Why?"

We do not encourage anyone to have an abortion. We encourage options counseling which tries to help someone determine what their true feelings are, and if not compatible with having an abortion, they are encouraged not to have an abortion.

We allow people to have an abortion because we know that if we do not provide a safe, legal avenue for women to have abortions, they will go to great lengths to get one illegally, endangering their life and future reproductive health. We do this because reliable, verified statistics show that more abortions occur per capita in places where abortions are illegal -- and the life of the woman is in far greater jeopardy. The sanctimonious among us will say that women deserve to be butchered by back alley aborionists for their adultery. The compassionate among us have fought for women to have an option that is nonjudgmental and preserves the life and well-being of the woman who decides she just can't have a child this time.

August 11, 2008 1:05 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"The ? COMPASSIONATE among us have fought for women to have an OPTION that is NONJUDGMENTAL and preserves the life and well-being of the woman who decides she just can't have a child this time."

What about compassion for the innocent child in the womb? Is taking its life nonjudgmental for the human being in development? What about preserving the life and well being of the child? The child doesn't get another go at life.

Dear Paul C -

Thanks for your comment.

Consider: even if we stipulate that the "serpent" in Isaiah 30 is a snake, he is still a FIERY FLYING snake.

Now, which species of snake flies? Which species of snake is fiery?

If one were to follow your oft-stated advice to take the Bible "in context." one could easily see that a snake- or serpent-like creature who is fiery and who flies sounds an awful lot like a dragon.

But of course, there is disagreement over whether the words "fiery" and "flying" offer a correct meaning in this passage as well. Some translations translate fiery as "poisonous" and flying as "darting." Indeed, a darting snake with a poisonous bite makes more sense than a fire-breathing dragon! But let's at least admit that this is a reading that has gained acceptance as science has triumphed and the Bible believers are left to "adjust" their translations to appear more acceptable to the modern mind, a mind that sees fire-breathing dragons as the stuff of kid's cartoons.

Final word - we can set aside Isaiah 30:6 and deal only with the Bible verses that use the word "dragon" as opposed to snake or serpent, if you like. Please don't tell me those were all snakes as well...or Komodo Dragons.

Perhaps it goes the other way as well, and the "serpent" from Eden was actually a dragon!
;)

"Wow! It was a snake, then? What kind? What did you do with it?"

Yes, a young blacksnake. Harmless. I got a broom and herded him out the door that led to the top of the porch. I didn't worry about how he was going to make it down to the ground. Woke me up better than any cup of coffee ever did!

Have to confess that I always thought that serpent was just an archaic word for snake, but Wikipedia says:
"Serpent is a word of Latin origin (from serpens, serpentis "something that creeps, snake") that is commonly used in a specifically mythic or religious context, signifying a snake that is to be regarded not as a mundane natural phenomenon nor as an object of scientific zoology, but as the bearer of some symbolic value."

So I guess you're right that it has an extra mythical element to it.

I knew that there were gliding lizards, but I think you're going to have to look hard for a flying snake. Serpent, maybe ;)

Hi Maya,
Yes, I agree with your life definitions. Doesn't fit neatly into a single sentence, though, does it? :)

I'm not sure that all of it applies to viruses, either. Do you consider them living? And prions?

I think most of us have a feeling for what's living and what isn't, but it's not so easy to define concisely.

Arminius, Pam:

RE: Flying serpents

Check this out. I googled "flying lizards," and got results. This is from Wikipedia.

Flying lizard can refer to species of lizard that move by gliding between trees. They are contained by Draco (genus):

BTW Arminius the Biblical passage Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1, was addressed to a Christian. Sorry, if I made a mistake in addressing it to you.

Pam,

"Walking across my bedroom floor one morning, half asleep, I was about to put my foot down on what I thought was a belt I'd accidentally dropped on the floor. But before I did, the "belt" suddenly "wrinkled" as the snake tensed for motion. Made me hop instead of taking that step!"

Wow! It was a snake, then? What kind? What did you do with it?

Arminius,

"Well, I usually hear the serpent in the garden of eden often referred to as a snake - something to do with the legs and loss thereof?"

Honestly, I don't know. I was hoping the topic might interest PAM, whose knowledgeable of nature is evident.

Biblically speaking, we can't say for certain that all the creatures referenced did not exist. How can we always know with certainty when we are dealing with myth? An analogous case might be found in the writings of early "explorers," like Columbus, who saw flora and fauna they'd never previously encountered, and, so, named them in accordance with those they'd read about (only some of which existed) or groped for ways in which to describe them.

Farnaz,
Artistically, I loved the rattlesnake poem, but it was sad.

I liked the Dickinson, too. This verse brought back memories:

"Have passed, I thought, a whip-lash
Unbraiding in the sun,—
When, stooping to secure it,
It wrinkled, and was gone."

Walking across my bedroom floor one morning, half asleep, I was about to put my foot down on what I thought was a belt I'd accidentally dropped on the floor. But before I did, the "belt" suddenly "wrinkled" as the snake tensed for motion. Made me hop instead of taking that step!

Still not sure how he made it up to the third floor.

Farnaz,

No problem, I will recognize your posts. Just having a bit of fun here.... shame on me.

Well, I usually hear the serpent in the garden of eden often referred to as a snake - something to do with the legs and loss thereof?

Sorry, Arminius. I should pay attention. However, I believe I no longer have any attention to pay. You would think this of me, too, if you knew the completely idiotic thing I did today, but you don't and you won't.

But I will do my best to remember my name. It's the least I can do for a friend.

Arminius:

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: ser·pent
Pronunciation: \ˈsər-pənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin serpent-, serpens, from present participle of serpere to creep; akin to Greek herpein to creep, Sanskrit sarpati he creeps
Date: 13th century
1 aarchaic : a noxious creature that creeps, hisses, or stings b: snake
2: devil 1
3: a treacherous person

So, serpent seems to have mythic connotations, no?
I mean it's not used as a synonym for snake. What intrigues me about Ghiselin's poem is that although a rattlesnake is always dangerous in the abstract, this one wasn't in the concrete in which the poet actually did encounter it. Notice the soft, almost romantic imagery, the analogy to a cat. Ghiselin was a Mormon.

Damnit, Farnaz! Pay attention to your handle! I don't answer posts to myself or to those offered by 'anonymous'. LOL!

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LUKE 1:39-45 (NIV)

Mary Visits Elizabeth

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea,

40 where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth.

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, THE BABY LEAPED IN HER WOMB, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, THE BABY IN MY WOMB LEAPED FOR JOY.

45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

ARminius,

I honestly don't know why I distinguish serpents from snakes. I shall look up both immediately and report back.

Farnaz,

I make no difference between snakes and serpents. Why do you?

Farnaz,

As always, a poem by Ms Dickinson is to be admired.

Yes, a close call with a rattlesnake would bring a chill. But they only strike when threatened, therefore they are not to be feared like a true predator. And they, unlike any other snake, give warning. That is, IMHO, to be admired.

Well, maybe snakes aren't as good as serpents.

Burdened Now:

I aborted my child because my boyfriend's mom found out and she persuaded me that if we had the child her son would not be able to go to college and my life would also be ruined. After I killed my baby, out of guilt I confessed to my mother. It was then my Dad reminded me that my Mom had me when my Dad was a senior in High School and she was a junior and both of them made it through college while they raised me. My *choice* was to kill my baby so I would not have to take on responsibility and do the work required to raise a child. I murdered my own offspring in order to preserved my self-centered, convenient life style. I did this but in the past my parents were willing to trust in God and make the sacrifices required to raise children in difficult circumstances or I would not even be here. My burden now is perhaps even greater for being such a self-centered individual than if I would have gone through with my pregnancy. Murder should never be allowed as a choice. What I did was similar to a person who kills their spouse because they see this as an easy way out of a relationship. We put people in jail for this but we allow people and even encourage people to kill their own children because it is perceived as the easy way out. Why?

August 11, 2008 9:24 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So sorry to hear of your past and your current pain. There is no point in crying about the past. You must forgive yourself over and over again and put the past behind you. You must concentrate on the present instead and see how you could help those who are uninformed as you once were. If you could help young women to understand the full meaning of abortion and even turn one young woman from aborting her child, you will have done good as reparation for what you did in your ignorance as a young woman.

What I have tried to do in my own small way is to create an awareness about the human quality of the fetus in the womb, the dignity of human life and rights of the unborn child. The pro-abortionist camp harp on and on about the right of the mother to kill her child as long as it is in her womb. They are willing to admit it constitutes infanticide/murder if the infant is killed the minute it is born.

Go to a hospital ward which takes care of premature infants and see how little ones born before their time to mothers who love them and want them are kept alive, looked after with much care round the clock, and sent home healthy.

Pam, Arminius:

The Anonymous who just posted the Dickinson, c'est moi.

Pam,

Arminius is right. People listen when others make sense and don't abuse them. I'm very fond of the posts of Thomas Baum, although I'm not a Christian.

On the other hand, if just for a minute we could move into the natural and artistic realms, I wonder what you and Arminius think of the poem I posted below: "Rattlesnake."

Here's another take on snakes. You both probably know this one, and, you know, IMHO, snakes are as good as serpents.

A Narrow Fellow in the Grass

A NARROW fellow in the grass
Occasionally rides;
You may have met him,—did you not?
His notice sudden is.

The grass divides as with a comb, 5
A spotted shaft is seen;
And then it closes at your feet
And opens further on.

He likes a boggy acre,
A floor too cool for corn. 10
Yet when a child, and barefoot,
I more than once, at morn,

Have passed, I thought, a whip-lash
Unbraiding in the sun,—
When, stooping to secure it, 15
It wrinkled, and was gone.

Several of nature’s people
I know, and they know me;
I feel for them a transport
Of cordiality; 20

But never met this fellow,
Attended or alone,
Without a tighter breathing,
And zero at the bone.

Emily Dickinson

Pam,

Some of us, even die-hard believers like me, and also Farnaz (not really a believer), are listening. Please keep it up.

Arminius

PAM:

"You also keep harping on the parasite thing. I used the term as it used in biology to describe the way that the fetus lives. It is not a perjorative.

I told you that I am not "for" abortion, so why would I try to denigrate the fetus? It is just biology. Get over it...

"... the relationship is NOT parabiotic. It IS parasitic.

"As a biological term, parasitism does not just apply to separate species, nor does it imply harmfulness. Your reaction to the term is purely emotional, and not to your credit...

August 11, 2008 1:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pam:

"As I have stated more than once, although nothing seems to get through to you, I prefer contraception to abortion. By miles. But I *am* in favor of the Roe v. Wade decision. I don't believe that the state, or *anybody else* has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, and when she decides against bearing a child, terminating the pregnancy should be safe and legal..."

August 11, 2008 3:37 PM

Farnaz,

Well, damnit! You really make me think.

As to 'order' in artistry. I firmly believe that true artists defy the existing order, and rise above it, creating their own order. This was instilled in me when I learned calligraphy: learn the rules first, and always obey them. When you have absolutely learned the rules, then you may bend and break them, and be truly creative.

By the way, I would never kill a rattler (= rattlesnake here), unless in utmost defense. Just wear boots and watch out - they always warn you.

Thanks for the kind words Arminius and Farnaz. I try, but sometimes I think I'm just spitting in the wind.

Said PAM ---

"Yes, the circulation of an individual human being is continuous. In the lungs the veins branch gradually down to capillaries which exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen then come together into an artery to return blood to the heart and from there to the tissues. They are all connected - you don't have two separate systems, one of arteries, the other of veins..."

August 11, 2008 1:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PAM:

Anonymous posts a link for a page on the circulatory system. Here is a line from that page:

"Capillaries connect the arterial and venous circulatory subsystems. Capillaries are very small blood vessels."

Which is precisely what I said.

I'm learning, Anony, that you are not very bright.

August 11, 2008 3:28 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anonymous:

On circulation and blood vessels ---

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/hhw/hhw_circulation.html

August 11, 2008 4:40 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From the above NIH link:

Circulation and Blood Vessels

Your heart and blood vessels make up your overall blood circulatory system. Your overall blood circulatory system is made up of FOUR SUBSYSTEMS..."

From Wikipedia on the circulatory system ---

"As blood circulates through the body, oxygen and nutrients diffuse from the blood into cells surrounding the capillaries, and carbon dioxide diffuses into the blood from the capillary cells...

"The cardiovascular systems of humans are closed, meaning that the blood never leaves the network of blood vessels. IN CONTRAST, OXYGEN AND NUTRIENTS DIFFUSE ACROSS THE BLOOD VESSEL LAYERS AND ENTERS INTERSTITIAL FLUID, WHICH CARRIES OXYGEN AND NUTRIENTS TO THE TARGET CELLS, AND CARBON DIOXIDE AND WASTES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION..."

With rare exceptions, our blood does not come into direct contact with the cells it nourishes. As blood enters the capillaries surrounding a tissue space, a large fraction of it is filtered into the tissue space. It is this interstitial or extracellular fluid (ECF) that brings to cells all of their requirements and takes away their products. The number and distribution of capillaries is such that probably no cell is ever farther away than 50 µm from a capillary...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Google terms

"arterial system" and

"venous system"

Paul C. says:
"I believe that the proper translation of Isaiah 30:6 is talking about a snake, not a fire breathing dragon."

Oh, *well*, then. Fiery flying snakes are SOOOO much more believable.

Sorry, Paul, but you crack me up. LOL.

Arminius,

Thanks for your reply. The comment on Beethoven finds echoes in the words of many writers who say they write to live, stay alive, survive.

What I really meant to say to you was that I wonder what imposing artistic order on something like "talking without speakin" or "hearing without listening" gives to an artist.

Below is a poem by Brewster Ghiselin, still not well known, although honored by Richard Hugo and Ted Kooser. It concerns a rattlesnake, not a serpent, and according to Hugo, is based on a "real" event, a gratuitous killing.

Rattlesnake

I found him asleep in the heat
And dust of a gopher burrow,
Coiled in loose folds of silence
In a pit of the noonday hillside.
I saw the wedged bulge
Of a head hard as a fist.
I remembered his delicate ways:
The mouth a cat's mouth yawning.
I crushed him deep in dust,
And heard the loud seethe of life
In the dead beads of the tail
Fade as wind fades
In the wild grain of the hills.

Farnaz,

Paul Simon went out on his own, and did a lot of really great stuff in South Africa, singing with blacks there gently against apartheid.

As to why artists do what they do - many, many years ago, someone asked me why Beethoven composed the wonders that he did. I replied, "Because he had to." To this day, I hold by that - a true artist is driven by... something. And I also hold that when Beethoven composed his 9th Symphony, he reached up and touched heaven.

Arminius,

Thank you for those lyrics. Paul Simon really was brilliant, wasn't he? What stunning language.
You're so fortunate to have the original album. I know other people who grew up with Simon and Garfunkel, very lucky. Yet, the music sticks with you no matter what. Just reading the lyrics I can hear it in my head.

What happens, I wonder, to those who can write or paint about such things? Who can bring artistic order to them?

Mr. Mark,
I believe that the proper translation of Isaiah 30:6 is talking about a snake, not a fire breathing dragon. The reason I called you on it, was not to distract the conversation about the poor, but to point out that your mockery of the bible was based on a translation issue.

P.S. I am continuously reading the bible so I was surprised when you said that there were fire breathing dragons in it.

Arminius,

Whoops! Meant to write saddEST. Sorry.

Farnaz,

Here is the entire song, "The Sounds of Silence". I have the original album. Mid 1960's. My apologies to others.

Hello darkness, my old friend,
Ive come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone,
neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare Disturb the sound of silence.

Fools said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you.
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence.

Hammerhead,

I don't think there's any correlation among having a college degree, being "intelligent," or being wise.

The very notion that the three go together, or even that the first two go together, held by many college graduates, goes to my point.

Last comment on this.

I strongly believe that we need to get off this stuff and move on the something less polarizing. I mean is a blog called OnFaith supposed to generate this much fury? Not talking about you Hammerhead.

Arminius,

Those lyrics are among the saddist I've ever heard and sadder, still, they remain true. I wonder why we can't have more fun on these blogs.
Laughter can speak eloquently, someone said. (It could have been me. :-)

Farnaz,

The legends of dragons, as far as I know, are centered in North Europe and China. But apparently they existed in the Mideast as well.

Legends of werewolf figures are worldwide. It depends on the local top predator. In Europe, the wolf. In Southeast Europe, the tiger. In Africa, the lion. In South America, the jaguar.

Same for vampires, I think.

I can do without werewolves. But dragons - they are noble.

Autonmous,
Thats right,the only "correlation" is that the mass murders have all been committed by college educated cowards.
Since you can't dispute the facts you should learn to deal with them.

Said PAM ---

"You also keep harping on the parasite thing. I used the term as it used in biology to describe the way that the fetus lives. It is not a perjorative. I told you that I am not "for" abortion, so why would I try to denigrate the fetus? It is just biology. Get over it. You are wrong (again) about the fetal circulation. Yes, the circulation of an individual human being is continuous. In the lungs the veins branch gradually down to capillaries which exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen then come together into an artery to return blood to the heart and from there to the tissues. They are all connected - you don't have two separate systems, one of arteries, the other of veins.

"The same is NOT true of the fetus. Fetal capillaries DO NOT connect with maternal ones. The fetus has one circulatory system, the mother another. This is why the baby may have a blood type different from its mother's. Therefore, the relationship is NOT parabiotic. It IS parasitic.

"As a biological term, parasitism does not just apply to separate species, nor does it imply harmfulness. Your reaction to the term is purely emotional, and not to your credit. Did you know that there is such a thing as a parasitic twin? Google it.

You say "in science life is defined as anything that has the capacity to live and grow."

Horsepuckey. Science doesn't even *have* a good definiton of life, but the best attempts to define it are nothing like your statement above. In the first place, saying it applies to something that has the "capacity to live" is tautological. And crystals grow, but do not live..."

August 11, 2008 1:21 AM

Farnaz,

In the words of Simon and Garfunkel, the singers,

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence.

Arminius:
Farnaz,

Er... um.... we have many paintings of Adam and Eve too. Did they really exist?
--------------------
An excellent point, Arminius. This brings to mind "Nude Descending a Staircase." Although there was only the one painting, clearly there was no live model.
--------------------

Still, as far as dragons go, there is the argument from Lew. Here's another possible topic.
Although it's not directly religion related, it does go to imaginary and mythic creatures, so, somewhere, there might be a connection. What do people think about Bruno Bettelheim's famous theory that fairy tales, no matter how superficially scary are good narratives for children?

Arminius:

Pam,

Your posts here have been magnificent. I admire your patience to reply to those who are so lazy as to use the handle 'anonymous' instead of at least investing 30 seconds to think up something different.

August 11, 2008 7:05 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Arminius, and you call yourself a Christian?

Although the existence of dragons remains an open, empirical question, the following lyric was discovered at the 2nd Ave. Subway Station in 1956.

I submit it for your speculation.

A Dragon Named Lew

There once was a dragon named Lew,
Who said, "I exist, but can't prove it's true."
"Well," said the folks, "Lew's better than most,
So we believe him and say so should you."

What to make of this half-century-old mystery.

From Maya Markova ----

"The subject of biology is shown in its name – "biology" means "science of life" in Greek. Life can be defined as the ability of an object to maintain and expand an identity ot its own, resisting the pressure directed toward maximum thermodynamic stability. Living objects (organisms) can be recognized because they do some things non-living objects cannot do. These "things" are called life processes or functions. Here are the most important of them:

* as long as it lives, the organism maintains a relatively stable steady state (self-perpetuation or self-regulation), and this is achieved not by immobilization of the molecules in its body, but by their periodic exchange (self-renewal) while preserving the general way they are arranged;

* the organism expands its identity onto the surrounding matter by including it into its own body (growth) and into similar new organisms (reproduction);

* to perform these processes, the organism absorbs exogenous free energy (energy flow) and substances (flow of matter) and changes these substances within its body (metabolism);

* the organism absorbs information from the environment (information flow) and reacts by appropriate changes in its life processes (reactivity).

Living organisms can do all these things because they are appropriately made. The way non-living objects are made, on the contrary, makes the life processes a priori impossible. Hence, life is characterized not only by functions but also by corresponding structures. They are ordered, i.e. it is highly unlikely that the molecules of an organism will arrange themselves in this way by chance. This order is not imposed by an external force, but by mutual recognition between the most important molecules – self-assembly (self-organization).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CRYSTALS:

It is interesting to compare organisms to crystals, which superficially resemble some properties of life. Like organisms, crystals have an ordered structure and can grow, including new particles from the environment. If a crystal is broken apart by an external force, the parts can grow on their own. However, the crystal has no spontaneous "reproduction". It can take particles from the surrounding solution or leave particles there, but does nothing akin to metabolism. And, perhaps most important, when we damage a crystal, it does not resist, while each organism tries to avoid damage. The organism will move away from the damaging agent, or grow in the opposite direction, or enhance its metabolism to endure the assault, or, on the contrary, fall into quiescent state until the hard time is over. In short, while non-living things are inert under any circumstances, organisms defend themselves actively. While the non-living object does not care whether it will exist or not, the living thing wants to exist. For any organism the environment is not neutral. It is a set of problems the organism has to solve in order to survive and reproduce.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This does not mean that life as such is conscious. Obviously some organisms are conscious – we are among them, after all. But as far as we can judge, the vast majority of organisms are not conscious and care for themselves and their progeny just because they are programmed to do so."

http://www.mayamarkova.com/biology/B1Life/B1Life.htm

Farnaz,

Er... um.... we have many paintings of Adam and Eve too. Did they really exist?

Hi again, Mr Mark,

I have no use for St George and his dragon. That just ain't Christianity, at least as I see it. My religion starts in the Gospels - no dragons there.

No, I don't believe in dragons. But I really wish they were real, they are endlessly fascinating.

Arminius, Mr. Mark,

Let's face it. Dragons exist. If they didn't we wouldn't have so many paintings of them. Ditto, unicorns etc. Just common sense....

Dear Arminius -

What do you - and other Xians - make of St George and his iconic place in some Xian sects? After all, he's a saint for ONE reason - he slew a dragon. But it's clear that dragons don't and didn't exist, ergo the tale of him slaying a dragon is a bald-faced crock of sheet.

Yet, the old fart is still venerated by Xians. According to Wikipedia, "St. George is the patron saint of Aragon, Catalonia, England, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Palestine, Portugal, and Russia, as well as the cities of Amersfoort, Beirut, Bteghrine, Cáceres, Ferrara, Freiburg, Genoa, Ljubljana, Lod and Moscow, as well as a wide range of professions, organizations and disease sufferers."

And people wonder why so many of us can't take Xianity and its adherents seriously.

Hi, Mr Mark,

Agreed that most of the questions here are Christian oriented. One might suppose that this is the result of the fact that a majority of this country counts itself as Christian.

Agreed that many of the questions are lame, especially lately.

It would help if more religions were discussed - maybe. Look at it this way - a discussion on Judaism would attract countless bigots, and any discussion on Islam (there have been some) would attract even more bigots. Perhaps this could be productive - I don't know. On the other hand, a discussion on Buddhism would probably go nowhere.

Scientology has been discussed, and was notable in that something like 95% of replies were in vehement disagreement with the essay. Including my replies.

Well, then - a question like "Do Christians believe in Unicorns?" just might be entertaining.

Do non-believers believe in dragons?

Pam,

Ditto, Arminius. Your posts are always a pleasure for me to read.
---------------

Arminius:

"Hi, Farnaz,

Yes, my Hero Odysseus certainly faced a bunch of monsters! But we should not forget Medusa, or the Sphinx, and others. Or Heracles vs the Hydra, among others....

Or Beowulf.

And even Christianity had St George."
--------------------
Yes, well, there you go. Care to comment? (Do giants count? I'm thinking of David and Goliath, for example.)
------------------
Also, wasn't there some monster found recently? Photograph in WaPo, etc.?

And haven't you recently written a limerick about a monster? Or am I mistaken?!

BACKONTOPIC writes:

"The topic is the relation between religious faith and social class. Let's keep to it please, or move on to dragons."

Actually, I think it would be refreshing if Jon & Sally took about a month of On Faith questions and addressed the inanities in the world's religions. Things like winged horses, dragons and unicorns. Things like diseases being the judgment of god. That could lead to some interesting discussions around here. Like, do Xians believe unicorns exist/existed?

Most of the topics Sally & Jon throw out for discussion are Xian-centered...and lame.

Hi, Farnaz,

Yes, my Hero Odysseus certainly faced a bunch of monsters! But we should not forget Medusa, or the Sphinx, and others. Or Heracles vs the Hydra, among others....

Or Beowulf.

And even Christianity had St George.

Gods and goddesses? Myths and legends? Poetry on myths, legends, gods and goddesses?

Pam,

Your posts here have been magnificent. I admire your patience to reply to those who are so lazy as to use the handle 'anonymous' instead of at least investing 30 seconds to think up something different.

Arminius, Pam,

Arminius, thanks for the suggestions, and, Pam, thanks for the link. Maybe we can also broaden the topic to include monsters, e.g., cyclops, trolls, fairies, faeries, etc. (Arminius: Cyclops was a hint.)

In Monty Python's Happy Valley skit, Prince Charming supplied his own dragon to kill. See it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoRY3ZjiNLU

It's in two parts - I believe the dragon appears in part 2, but by all means watch both. :)

Hi, Farnaz, Well Met!

As I recall - I am no expert either - Chinese dragons are generally benign, even 'lucky'. Someone here might elaborate on this. Nordic dragons do seem to be a nasty lot. Smaug, in Tolkien's "The Hobbit", is a good example. Tolkien was an expert in Anglo-Saxon, among other proficiencies.

I'm no expert on dragons, except for those I meet at work. I can say that a dragon caused the end of civilization in Beowulf, which doesn't speak well for the species.

On the other hand, there was Puff, the magic one, who seemed to have much to commend him.

This nearly exhausts my fund of knowledge re dragons.

Yeah, I prefer dragons, too.

Question for Paul C. - is it more believable if the dragons *don't* breathe fire?

Dear Paul C -

Fire-breathing dragons in the Bible:

Isaiah 30:6 "The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and FIERY FLYING SERPENT, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them."

Hmm? I had forgotten that the Biblical dragons could fly.

Read your Bible, my friend.

Hey, there are unicorns as well!

BACKONTOPIC:

The best way to get things back on topic is to post something that IS back on topic. I'm trying to think of something. Meanwhile, dragons are kind of interesting.

The topic is the relation between religious faith and social class.

Let's keep to it please, or move on to dragons. Those who want to resolve another controversy should find another blog.

PLEEZ.

"PAM, if I may venture to offer a personal opinion about you: You do have a strange way of demonstrating that you are NOT for abortion, for this is what you posted ---"

Gee thanks, because I couldn't remember what I had posted just hours ago.

As I have stated more than once, although nothing seems to get through to you, I prefer contraception to abortion. By miles. But I *am* in favor of the Roe v. Wade decision. I don't believe that the state, or *anybody else* has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, and when she decides against bearing a child, terminating the pregnancy should be safe and legal.

Mr. Mark,
where does the bible reference Fire breathing dragons?

Anonymous posts a link for a page on the circulatory system. Here is a line from that page:

"Capillaries connect the arterial and venous circulatory subsystems. Capillaries are very small blood vessels."

Which is precisely what I said.

I'm learning, Anony, that you are not very bright.

Here's a site that has links to quotations from the KJB about dragons:
http://www.fairrosa.info/dragon/bible.html

"I’m so glad I am an atheist. Believers are so stupid."

Why of course they are, when I think of the times I passed up a good fu*k it makes me sick now.

I plan on living life and living it to the fullest and making up for all the lost sex, fun, and other things. Bot I can't wait until the week-end!

This is a lot of people sound....not so nice is it. I'll keep waiting for the righ one and when they come along, they will apreciate the time that I did invest in self-control and self discipline.

Even if I haven't been that good of a Christian.

Spidey says:
"How come there are still no FLYING DRAGONS YET?"

As Spidey well knows, the Bible claims that fire-breathing dragons exist. Sea dragons also exist in the Bible. Perhaps god is still working on the flying variety?

Hammerhead - your absurd attempts to establish a correlation between high educational achievement and a penchant for terrorism really does place you firmly among the under-educated, to put it kindly. Do you hold higher education in such contempt?

Your torturous efforts to make this point completely miss the fact that the Islamic terrorism you're bent on discussing, arises from religious fanaticism, among a constellation of associated causes - it has little or nothing to do with education per se.

By virtue of this fact, over-educated Islamic terrorists are no different in kind or in character than poverty-stricken under-educated Islamic terrorists, suicide bombers, et al.

Further, the vast majority of Islamic terrorists are most likely to be found in this second category of fundamentally deprived but vulnerable followers - are their leaders more educated than the masses they hope to convert to their cause? Probably so, and in some cases with Western educations. But what exactly is your point?

You've strayed very far from the original thesis of the article with this diatribe against higher education - a not-so-subtle dig at 'educated smart alecks' of the atheist and liberal persuasion that cause all kinds of problems for 'real' Christain patriots like yourself.

IMO, you're just not making very much sense.....

The topic is religion and social class. It's high time we get back to it, IMO.

Burdened Now:

You wrote:

"After I killed my baby, out of guilt I confessed to my mother. It was then my Dad reminded me that my Mom had me when my Dad was a senior in High School and she was a junior and both of them made it through college while they raised me. My *choice* was to kill my baby so I would not have to take on responsibility and do the work required to raise a child."

You should have definitely discussed this with your parents before you had an abortion. Most young women today do discuss their options with at least one parent before taking the step to have an abortion. What made you think it was okay to discuss it with your boyfriend's mother but not your own?

You wrote:

"but we allow people and even encourage people to kill their own children because it is perceived as the easy way out. Why?"

We do not encourage anyone to have an abortion. We encourage options counseling which tries to help someone determine what their true feelings are, and if not compatible with having an abortion, they are encouraged not to have an abortion.

We allow people to have an abortion because we know that if we do not provide a safe, legal avenue for women to have abortions, they will go to great lengths to get one illegally, endangering their life and future reproductive health. We do this because reliable, verified statistics show that more abortions occur per capita in places where abortions are illegal -- and the life of the woman is in far greater jeopardy. The sanctimonious among us will say that women deserve to be butchered by back alley aborionists for their adultery. The compassionate among us have fought for women to have an option that is nonjudgmental and preserves the life and well-being of the woman who decides she just can't have a child this time.

Burdened Now

Do you think that having an abortion is the same as if you had taken a gun and killed your mother?

I think it is different. What do you think is different about it?

Give this some thought.

Dear Spiderman

It is you isn't it? If you are anonymous already, tney why seek further anonymity? We all know it's you, even though we don't know who you are.

This kind of childishness, and the inabiltiy to disguise yourself when you post with a different name is why I think you must be a boy. Are you?

Whenever I have asked before, you never anwer? Shouldn't you be in school? Maybe you are being home-schooled? You mother does not seem to keep a very good eye on you does she, since I assume she does not know that post childish rants here.

Have you ever heard of Beveryly and Tim LaHaye?

I aborted my child because my boyfriend's mom found out and she persuaded me that if we had the child her son would not be able to go to college and my life would also be ruined. After I killed my baby, out of guilt I confessed to my mother. It was then my Dad reminded me that my Mom had me when my Dad was a senior in High School and she was a junior and both of them made it through college while they raised me. My *choice* was to kill my baby so I would not have to take on responsibility and do the work required to raise a child. I murdered my own offspring in order to preserved my self-centered, convenient life style. I did this but in the past my parents were willing to trust in God and make the sacrifices required to raise children in difficult circumstances or I would not even be here. My burden now is perhaps even greater for being such a self-centered individual than if I would have gone through with my pregnancy. Murder should never be allowed as a choice. What I did was similar to a person who kills their spouse because they see this as an easy way out of a relationship. We put people in jail for this but we allow people and even encourage people to kill their own children because it is perceived as the easy way out. Why?

And besides their witless ‘beliefs’, the religious actually have the unmitigated gall to attempt to save MY unborn babies. The effrontery! The cheek! Those are MY unborn offspring and I have the right to kill them when I choose and as often as I want. They are trampling on MY RIGHTS here.

I’m so GLAD I’m an atheist. Believers are SO STUPID. They are so stupid they believe their unborn babies are PEOPLE, and they can’t flush/dismember and kill them by lethal injection. So they GO AHEAD and HAVE their BRATS. How dumb is that? They are propagating so fast that in and a generation or so there are going to be more of them than there are of me and other INTELLIGENT ATHEISTS! Boy, are those religious DUMB.

And their creed! It is just so moronic. They actually believe that matter didn’t always exist, despite my telling them so AGAIN and AGAIN . They just don’t listen. They can’t conceive how SOMETHING could come out of NOTHING. They are such dumb fecks, I’m sorry to curse, but they are such nitwits!! You buffoonish believers...You pathetic pea brains, LISTEN:

First there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of everything
magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits
which turned into dinosaurs.

I’m so glad I am an atheist. Believers are so stupid.

PAM, I have tried to address all the points in your post to me, in spite of announcing there was not much point to continuing a discussion.

If you googled the term "human parasites" you would notice that the human fetus is not listed under it. The word parasite with relation to a human fetus is an invention of the pro-abortion camp. Such a word in relation to a human fetus with its mother does not occur in human embryology.

Exit.

Said PAM ---

"You keep repeating that Roe v. Wade overrides any state law to make abortion "on demand" legal at any stage of pregnancy. This is just completely false. Here's a quote from an article on the decision:

"The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester 'in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health', and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ('except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother')"...

Like it or not, it can very well be an economic decision - children are very expensive to raise. So put your money where your mouth is, Anonyass - when you've adopted ten or more unwanteds, then come back and talk to us.

August 11, 2008 1:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"'except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother'"

The Supreme Court ruling Roe vs Wade is for instances when medical judgment does NOT indicate abortion. As explained in more than one post, when there is a medical indication to justify abortion, a medical doctor does NOT need legal protection.

Legally, in Roe vs Wade, there is mention of a right to abortion in the first trimester. There is no such "right" in medical ethics. Abortion is ethical in medicine only to preserve the life and health of the mother when there is a medical indication for it, and such instances are rare.

PAM has pointed out that abortion can also be an economic decision. Medical doctors are not permitted by medical ethics to perform abortions for economic consideration of the mother. Hence the law to protect the abortionist who is acting with the permission of the state although not in strict conformity with medical ethics. The medical rationalization however is that the woman may endanger her life if she accepted the services of a quack. Convenience, socio-economic factors etc does not count as medical indication. Hence the law.

Said PAM: "Horsepuckey. Science doesn't even *have* a good definiton of life, but the best attempts to define it are nothing like your statement above. In the first place, saying it applies to something that has the "capacity to live" is tautological. And crystals grow, but do not live."

Medical science does not include a human embryo/fetus among the non-living. Wasn't the discussion about a human embryo/fetus and its right to life?

Btw when I wrote, "Only psychopaths kill for the sheer joy of killing. Even the worst criminals usually have a reason for committing murder," what I meant was that having a reason for abortion does not make it right. I sought to compare the justification for abortion more to the rationalization of a criminal, and NOT to the joy of a psychopath. Yet PAM in her eagerness to paint me black has interpreted my statement as I did not write it, much less mean it.

It is the rationalization that the fetus was a parasite, a clump of cells, the woman has a right to her body, abortion was merely about exercising reproduction right etc etc that made me draw such a comparison in the first place.

On circulation and blood vessels ---

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/hhw/hhw_circulation.html

PAM, if I may venture to offer a personal opinion about you: You do have a strange way of demonstrating that you are NOT for abortion, for this is what you posted ---

Pam:

You know, Anonymous, you're throwing a lot of statements out there that are just so lacking in any kind of truth, that I'm forced to get back into this at least long enough to tell you how full of sh*t you are.

You keep repeating that Roe v. Wade overrides any state law to make abortion "on demand" legal at any stage of pregnancy. This is just completely false. Here's a quote from an article on the decision:
"The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester 'in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health', and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ('except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother')."

You also keep harping on the parasite thing. I used the term as it used in biology to describe the way that the fetus lives. It is not a perjorative. I told you that I am not "for" abortion, so why would I try to denigrate the fetus? It is just biology. Get over it. You are wrong (again) about the fetal circulation. Yes, the circulation of an individual human being is continuous. In the lungs the veins branch gradually down to capillaries which exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen then come together into an artery to return blood to the heart and from there to the tissues. They are all connected - you don't have two separate systems, one of arteries, the other of veins.

The same is NOT true of the fetus. Fetal capillaries DO NOT connect with maternal ones. The fetus has one circulatory system, the mother another. This is why the baby may have a blood type different from its mother's. Therefore, the relationship is NOT parabiotic. It IS parasitic.

As a biological term, parasitism does not just apply to separate species, nor does it imply harmfulness. Your reaction to the term is purely emotional, and not to your credit. Did you know that there is such a thing as a parasitic twin? Google it.

You say "in science life is defined as anything that has the capacity to live and grow."

Horsepuckey. Science doesn't even *have* a good definiton of life, but the best attempts to define it are nothing like your statement above. In the first place, saying it applies to something that has the "capacity to live" is tautological. And crystals grow, but do not live.

You said "only pyschopaths kill for the sheer pleasure of killing."

Are you meaning to imply that women who have abortions are doing it for *pleasure*??? You sick, twisted, little turd.

BTW - you haven't answered my earlier question about how many unwanted children you've adopted so far. Still waiting.

Like it or not, it can very well be an economic decision - children are very expensive to raise. So put your money where your mouth is, Anonyass - when you've adopted ten or more unwanteds, then come back and talk to us.

August 11, 2008 1:21 AM

Kerby Anderson, the president of Probe Ministries International on abortion ---

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html

The last time I checked this was a public blog of The Washington Post, not the private blog of someone who goes by the name PAM.

Another interesting link ---

Libertarians for Life

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

Gee, Anony, You keep saying that you've said all you have to say, and then you go right on posting feverishly.

You say:
"It is disingenuous for pro-abortionists to ask those who highlight the right of an unborn to its life: How many kids have you adopted? It is the same as saying, I have the right to my sex life but you have to take the responsibility for its consequences."

Not at all. Abortion is absolutely taking the responsibility for the consequences. You're the one who wants every baby conceived to be born and raised. Some people can't raise them. You want them adopted instead of eliminated, therefore it behooves you to step up to the plate. Otherwise you're just saying "let someone else do it." Easy for you to say.

So put up or shut up. You clearly don't have the courage of your convictions.

Here one more view ---

http://www.courageunfettered.com/stuf/abortion/

For Spidey:
http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html

It is disingenuous for pro-abortionists to ask those who highlight the right of an unborn to its life: How many kids have you adopted? It is the same as saying, I have the right to my sex life but you have to take the responsibility for its consequences.

The right questions to ask would be:

Have you always taken responsibility for your own sex life?
(Pro-abortionists are keen to point out the right of a woman to have sex but not the responsibility for its consequences.)

Have you aborted any child of your own?

Spidey says:
"How come there are still no FLYING DRAGONS YET? There are so many animals like snakes which has scales and yet non of which are flying after millions of years with scales. Dinosaurs turned into birds? "

Yes, Spidey, dinosaurs did become birds. Ever heard of Archaeopteryx? Ever compared a plucked chicken to a drawing of T-Rex? Especially the legs?

Snakes are cold-blooded, Sweetie. Feathers wouldn't keep them warm. Also, they have a different type of scale altogether than that of the dinosaurs.

You want lab experiments? Remember those scaly chicken legs? By experimentally changing a single protein, those scales have been turned into feathers. That the propensity exists can also be shown by what chicken breeders have been able to create:
http://www.mypetchicken.com/Bantams-Buff_Brahma_Bantams-P261.aspx
Check it out. No scaly legs here.

PAM, if you were an abortionist, who was trained to be a medical doctor, I would simply ask you to reread the textbook of human embryology and reread the Hippocratic Oath. I would in addition remind you of a time, may two centuries ago, or even more recently than that, when medical doctors were thrown in jail for aborting healthy fetuses of healthy pregnant women. Abortion of "convenience" still remains outside normal medical practice.

Read the thoughts of Republican Senator Ron Paul who was trained as an obstetrician. In him you have a medical doctor and politician rolled into one.

This discussion does not need to go any further because I have contributed everything I could.

Even if one person without a preformed opinion about abortion benefits from the scientific information provided, my posts will have served its purpose. It was not meant to change the minds of women and men with strong pro-abortion positions.

We would merely repeat all the same arguments over and over again. That's boring.

PAM, if you were an abortionist, who was trained to be a medical doctor, I would simply ask you to reread the textbook of human embryology and reread the Hippocratic Oath. I would in addition remind you of a time, may two centuries ago, or even more recently than that, when medical doctors were thrown in jail for aborting healthy fetuses of healthy pregnant women. Abortion of "convenience" still remains outside normal medical practice.

Read the thoughts of Republican Senator Ron Paul who was trained as an obstetrician. In him you have a medical doctor and politician rolled into one.

This discussion does not need to go

PAM, your arguments make me sick. Read a textbook of human embryology and the Hippocratic Oath. Enough said.

You know, Anonymous, you're throwing a lot of statements out there that are just so lacking in any kind of truth, that I'm forced to get back into this at least long enough to tell you how full of sh*t you are.

You keep repeating that Roe v. Wade overrides any state law to make abortion "on demand" legal at any stage of pregnancy. This is just completely false. Here's a quote from an article on the decision:
"The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester 'in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health', and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ('except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother')."

You also keep harping on the parasite thing. I used the term as it used in biology to describe the way that the fetus lives. It is not a perjorative. I told you that I am not "for" abortion, so why would I try to denigrate the fetus? It is just biology. Get over it. You are wrong (again) about the fetal circulation. Yes, the circulation of an individual human being is continuous. In the lungs the veins branch gradually down to capillaries which exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen then come together into an artery to return blood to the heart and from there to the tissues. They are all connected - you don't have two separate systems, one of arteries, the other of veins.

The same is NOT true of the fetus. Fetal capillaries DO NOT connect with maternal ones. The fetus has one circulatory system, the mother another. This is why the baby may have a blood type different from its mother's. Therefore, the relationship is NOT parabiotic. It IS parasitic.

As a biological term, parasitism does not just apply to separate species, nor does it imply harmfulness. Your reaction to the term is purely emotional, and not to your credit. Did you know that there is such a thing as a parasitic twin? Google it.

You say "in science life is defined as anything that has the capacity to live and grow."

Horsepuckey. Science doesn't even *have* a good definiton of life, but the best attempts to define it are nothing like your statement above. In the first place, saying it applies to something that has the "capacity to live" is tautological. And crystals grow, but do not live.

You said "only pyschopaths kill for the sheer pleasure of killing."

Are you meaning to imply that women who have abortions are doing it for *pleasure*??? You sick, twisted, little turd.

BTW - you haven't answered my earlier question about how many unwanted children you've adopted so far. Still waiting.

Like it or not, it can very well be an economic decision - children are very expensive to raise. So put your money where your mouth is, Anonyass - when you've adopted ten or more unwanteds, then come back and talk to us.

Contraception is perfectly understandable and legitimate, but abortion as late stage contraception is not.

Google the term "fetal development" and watch some really great videos and read more than sufficient information on the topic of the development of the child in the womb.

End of contribution to discussion on Roe vs Wade.

Defining a growing child in the womb as a clump of cells, a clot of blood, a bun, a cake, a parasite etc does not make it so. The clump of cells, the clot of blood, the bun, the cake, the parasite does not suddenly become a baby on the day it is born, and that too only to parents who has desired its birth. The child remains a human being in development as much inside the womb as outside it from the day it is born, whether the mother desires the baby or not.

The lame excuse that is given is the state of the undeveloped lung while in the womb. Many organs of the baby are not fully developed even when it is born and a lot of care is needed for its proper growth and development. What exactly can a new born baby do on its own? A human being takes the longest time to develop fully. Nine months in the womb is a short time in comparison, and it is a time when the baby manages its own business quite well - the development proceeds naturally - without any conscious help from its mother.

Many of the pro-abortionists would be undying pacifists, loud in their protest of genocide elsewhere in the world, yet strangely in denial of the horror of abortion.

Women who talk of "reproduction rights" in connection with abortions consider abortion merely a form of contraception. Considering artificial contraception was not available for much of human history and extra-marital sex has become the norm only in the last half century along with the advent of artificial contraception, they wish to take contraception to the extent of denying an unborn child its right to life.

However advance in medicine does the opposite of confirming that an embryo/fetus is only a clump of cells. As medicine advances younger and younger fetuses are being kept alive outside a mother's womb. Pro-abortionists however defy medical knowledge and use law as a loophole/scapegoat to let their own selfish agenda rule.

How many women would say "no" to a relationship with the "right" man if he should appear in a life that is not convenient to her? Yet, child who appears at a time that is inconvenient to her is done away with, denied its very right to life, on the grounds of "reproductive freedom."

Many of those who would deny unborn children their right to life, would be seen passionately fighting for animal rights. Perverse.

Susan Jacoby:
You make the statement that there is a correlation between faith and low education attainment. This statement is not supported in the US according to the latest "Pew Report on Religion" (Google that statement to verify)... In fact, Catholics skew for income and education is virtually the same as that for the nation as a whole and for "unaffiliated", which of course contains all the atheists. As an example 19% of Catholics make over $100K per year, compared to 18% of all Households and 19% of unaffiliated households.

You may believe in that as people are educated, they leave their faith and many of the atheists who post on this board have made similar statements. That, however, clearly doesn't make it true. Keep in mind that our individual perspectives are very limited and we can easily mistake the norm of our acquaintences to be the norm of the world in general. In MY world (the people I interact most with) there are many very educated people who are very strong in the Catholic faith. This is clearly not YOUR world, (although you apparently did know Tim Russert.)

In any case, as long as you are a contributor to the ON FAITH website, try to be a little less cynical about religion. Sometimes the educated and affluent turn to religion for reasons other than political or economic gain. Many find that money and power do not bring the happiness they expected and start to search for real meaning in their lives. Similarly, the poor are capable of wanting more than the material goods they lack on earth. They too can be looking for meaning in their lives and finding it through religion.

Anonymous,
I see.
So you think that in spite of the advanced college degrees they have attained,it is their fundemental beliefs that causes them to:

"behave exactly like poverty-stricken,brainwased,religionists of the worse kind".
(Anonymous)

So now they are only distinguished in your mind by the fact that they do not act "poverty-stricken"?
This is a new development.
Up until now you have not challanged the reality of the bloodthristy mass murdering acts their bloodthirsty religious beliefs inspire and drive them to plan and carry out.

If only acting "poverty-stricken" were their most unsavory characteristc and they were "exactly like" the poor brainwashed and barefoot rubes of hardscrabble USA you seem to have such a disdain for, and yet seem to have developed this sudden penchant to equate them with.
If only this alternate universe of yours, and Ward Churchill's,Jacoby's,etc,etc,,, really did exist and these mass-murdering,bloodthirsty animals were only guilty of nothing more than acting "poverty-stricken",thousands of people would actually be breathing and going to work in the World Trade Center tommorow.

A child is not more a "parasite" while it is in its mother's womb than an apple is on an apple tree. The apple does not have roots to take water and nutrients from the soil, it does not have leaves to absorb sunlight for photosynthesis. It is connected to the "mother" tree only by a little stalk, like the umbilical cord of a fetus. The apple derives all its needs to grow from the mother tree. When it is ripe it falls off the tree(if not plucked by a human hand) and under the right conditions it grows into another apple tree just like its mother.

It is natural for an apple tree to produce apples. The apple is not a "parasite" of the apple tree.

Summary of Roe vs Wade 1973 ---

It is about the right of abortion at all stages of pregnancy in healthy mothers carrying healthy babies.

In cases where there is a medical indication for abortion, to save the life of the mother, a medical doctor does not need legal protection. Socio-economic factors and free will decisions (read: convenience) made by healthy mothers to abort the child does not count as medical indication, hence the law.

The law prevents abortionists from being sued, when they are merely doing what a quack would otherwise readily do, thus endangering the life of the woman.

An abortionist is fully informed about the scientific knowledge presented in textbook of human embryology and the Hippocrates oath. The medical doctor is trained to save lives, not to take them.

No textbook of human embryology describes the human embryo/fetus as a parasite or a clump of cells. Such terms have been introduced by pro-abortionist groups to downplay the seriousness of abortion.

Men who do not want to take responsibility for their sexual behavior that has led to the woman getting pregnant are only too happy to support Roe vs Wade. Since abortion does not affect male bodies, they do not carry the personal guilt that women are subjected to.

Women who do not want to be forced with motherhood when it does not suit their convenience are willing to abort their children. In order to deny the guilt, they choose to define the growing child in their womb as a parasite/clump of cells (which magically resembles a little baby very early on). All mothers who love their children first loved the "parasite" while it was still in the womb.

"What makes the Bible compelling is not the so-called truth of its divine lessons but its complex and contradictory insights into human character."

This is a contradictory statement. Because it is a devine lesson anytime you are given a view into the complex and contradictory nature of our existence.

If the Bible offers us complex and contradictory insights into human character, then it offers truth. This same Bible is do not lie about other things.

James 3:11-12 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish? Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

Actually Hammerhead, I thought Jacoby's article here was coherent from start to finish. Nothing she says falls short of the mark. The poor and uneducated do gravitate to the promise of salvation 'at a later date'. I live in the Deep South and know exactly what she's talking about in that regard - the phenomenon of fundamentalism in the South cuts a wide swath across the entire population, regardless of racial considerations.

The fact that a small number of Islamic terrorists (here, Great Britain, and elsewhere) had achieved advanced degrees in no way implies a correlation between doctoral degrees and a tendency toward terrorism. It probably did increase their international mobility and allow for strategic self-placement (thinking of the US terrorists). Any idea how many students with advanced degrees matriculate from American universities in a given year? It must number in the many thousands. So far, none are terrorists that we know of.

As to these highly educated terrorists that you speak of, their allegiance to Islamic fundamentalism completely subsumed their ability to think rationally, so in spite of their high educational achievements, they chose to behave exactly like provery-stricken, uneducated and brain-washed religionists of the worst kind.

The impact of higher learning and even the built-in allegience of natural citizenship (e.g. British physicians) can clearly be undone by the deeply embedded hyper-emotionalism and fanaticism of religion, as was proven by these few educated terrorists in question.

Were they thinking and acting intelligently and rationally? That part of their make-up and in some cases the affect of their completely Westernized lifestyle was totally suppressed (compartmentalization, as the psychologists call it).

As near as anyone can tell, terrorists tend to see themselves as politically and religiously oppressed - in the Mideast we know there is little difference between the two, as governments tend toward authoritarian autocracies/theocracies.

Why do these great masses of people seem to prefer this way of life, even to the point of religious warfare? Lack of education, enforced medieval religious traditions, and rotten economies are reasons that come to mind. This situation is very reinforcing & rewarding to the people at the top of these governmental/religious structures.

Don't let the exceptions to every rule become the basis for a global theory on terrorism - this would be a gross mistake in my view.

By the way, while not necessarily among the stupid, our own non-politically inspired native-born revenge killers, mass murderers and serial killers are typically not highly educated. We see in cases of bio-terrorism an exception to that rule (because of the complexity of the weaponry).

In the end, I believe you're offended by Susan Jacoby's pragmatic approach to the functions of religion in society - her approach is no different than that of any social scientist, or specialist in religious history or comparative religions. They all look for the structures, functions, and role of religion in society - the 'truth' of any religion is left up to the faithful to decide.

And finally, learning the artful employment of an objective, empirical view is typically a necessary component for achieving an advanced degree. I think Susan has demonstrated her adroitness in that area on more than one occasion.

Anonymous,
It was Jocoby who spoke of the relevance of higher education and the predilection to believe in "fundemental" religion.
Thats a yes or no?
Having broached the subject,portraying herself as someone well informed and well studied on the matter,do you think the reason she made no mention at all of the ubiquitously high education levels attained by "fundemental" religious mass murderers was:
a) Complete ignorance of the fact?
b) Complete avoidance of the fact?

In addition do you think that in disscussing this same subject matter Ward Churchill would be just as inclined as Jacoby to refrain from any mentioning of the advanced educational levels of fundemental mass murderers?
Or do you think he would be more forthcoming?

Confounded Anonymous:

"The Anonymous who posted the above comment is different from the anti-abortion Anonymous who posted several comments in response to Wiglaf, Anti-Life Farnaz and Pseudo..."

If you're not the same,
Can you please take a name?
So I don't get the blame
Unless you are secretly Pseudo...
But No, I guess, I mean that I know,
That that would be me,
But its doubted you see
about anonymous posts.
Or do you think that you are my host?

Pseudo:

"Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz"

Anti Civility Anon,

I remind you that Pseudo is not Farnaz
He just doesn't have her pizzaz

And you've given no answer to the question
About human life detection
Or the real question
of when human life begins.

Is it a sperm,
or a baby full term?
Is a sperm half a person
So why are you cursin'
Them to remain uncertain?

And what do you think of RU 486
Being added to the mix?
And a gamete you say
is full human today?

This question is not simple

August 9, 2008 12:19 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no question about what is life.

There is no doubt that an embryo is a developing human being with a right to its life.

The "war" is only about a mother granting the developing human being its right to life, for the life is growing within her body and needs her.

A new born child needs others for a long long time for its life and growth too, but since it is physically separated from the mother, she is unable to exercise her free will to kill it as freely as she could when the child is in her womb.

The question is simple. The answers are not because the mother holds all the power in her hands to grant her child death or life.

Anonymous:

pseudo's here too. we like being together.

one of our favorite things is when we disagree with ourselves and draw other unsuspecting bloggers into our conversation.

stop it. we're ruining it for the rest of us.

sometimes we can't help ourselves.

August 9, 2008 7:37 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pseudo:

Confused Anonymous

"pseudo's here too. we like being together."

Can't cope with Pseudo's
Rhetorical Judo...

And so you just holler
What's there on the Dollar

And soon you are doin'
"E Pluribus Unum"

August 9, 2008 10:50 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pseudo or Anti-Life Farnaz...

FYI

The Anonymous who posted the above comment is different from the anti-abortion Anonymous who posted several comments in response to Wiglaf, Anti-Life Farnaz and Pseudo...without changing positions on the issue. For some reason best known to the Anonymous of August 9, 2008 7:37 AM, I'm being portrayed as another face of Pseudo. Anonymous Aug 9, 2008 7:37 AM is up to a little trick of his/her own.

Maria Janna - thanks for the link. Bill Maher is a very funny guy. The topic of religion is somber only to religionists - to the rest of the world, it's a source of endless mirth and laughter. Much appreciated!!

Hammerhead - perhaps we should close down all institutes of higher learning, and thereby default to your level of wisdom? Surely you couldn't mean that.

But then, not all higher ed credentials necessarily lead to liberal politics. As an example, haven't we suffered enough under Bush, the Yale Ivy Leaguer that somehow purloined a Harvard MBA?

You're the kind of person that puts all of your scrambled eggs of enmity in one basket - that way the universal 'enemy' can be easily fingered when it comes time to launch into one of your righteous rightwing tirades.

Here's you - today we must beware of the highly educated among us....they clearly have unstable tendencies, with obvious leanings toward terrorism. You're really beginning to sound like a McCarthyite...but just so you know, Pete Seeger is off limits this time around.

And Ward Churchill? I don't know any liberal that would affiliate with that extremist poser - he once tried to pass himself off as a Native American to lend credence to his extensive research on American Indian culture (or First American, as the original Americans prefer).

He was indeed a pretty smart guy with alot of research cred, but crippled by his own ego, it seems. His bizarre assessment of 9/11 wasn't supported by anyone I've ever known. Why do you put Obama and Jacoby in this camp? Based on what?

All in all, you'r kind of a strange bird, el Hammerhead.

Religon and IQ

"Clip 2":

http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=1014&item=3

Anonymous,
Your post,completely void of any challange of the bloodthirsty,bitterly clinging,religious, mass murdering nature of the HIGHLY EDUCATED,such as MIT/Brandeis PHD Aafia Siddiqui,charged with attempted mass murder this very week,qualifies you as being a member of those in desperate need of a collective clue club,Jacoby,Obama,Ward Churchill,etc,etc,,,.
Welcome to the club.

Hammerhead, if you only realized how absolutely brain-addled you sound, you'd keep your trap shut. You're an affront to people with real closed head injuries. But I believe in the 1st ammendment, so rant on.

The "low educational attainment" of Jacoby's and Obama's "bitter gun clingers" in hardscrabble mississippi notwithstanding.
The most savage brutal acts of mass murder committed in the name of religious "bitterness" in our lifetimes have been committed by the HIGHLY EDUCATED.
Just how many harvard educated chemical engineers have to commit mass murder before Jacoby&Obama, will "attain" a collective clue remains to be seen.
It is a testement to her colossal ignorance that she would write such intellectual squander the very week that a MIT/Bandeis PHD, Aafia Siddiqui,is charged with planning the mass murder of hundreds of innocent people.
All because of her PHD inspired bitterness.
But not to worry for her.
The extremely high level of education she has attained assures her that leaving this world in in a bloodstained orgy of mass murder,butchery, and mayhem means that the world she is going to will not contain any of these elements.

"Thanks for thorns as well as roses,thanks for weakness and for health,thanks for clouds as well as sunshine,thanks for poverty and wealth!
Thanks for pain as well as pleasure-all thou sendest day by day,and Thy Word,our dearest treasure,shedding light upon our way."
(August Ludvig Storm)

Confused Anonymous

"pseudo's here too. we like being together."

Can't cope with Pseudo's
Rhetorical Judo...

And so you just holler
What's there on the Dollar

And soon you are doin'
"E Pluribus Unum"

pseudo's here too. we like being together.

one of our favorite things is when we disagree with ourselves and draw other unsuspecting bloggers into our conversation.

stop it. we're ruining it for the rest of us.

sometimes we can't help ourselves.

It must be taken for granted that the maternal instinct is not so well developed in all women. As human beings with free will, women are able to suppress their maternal instinct for any number of reasons.

It must be taken for granted that the maternal instinct is not so well developed in all women, and as human beings with free will women are able to suppress their maternal instinct for

As an afterthought, Pseudo, Anti-Life Farnaz et al...

Roe vs Wade is not a mandate to abort at any stage of pregnancy. It is merely legal protection for abortionists who are willing to perform a procedure that would otherwise be done by quacks, endangering the life of the woman. Law enforcement officers do not drag pregnant women into abortion clinics to force them to abort their child; neither do obstetricians recruit their patients for abortions as if they were conducting a clinical trial on abortions.

The choice to abort the child is ultimately made by the pregnant woman and she must bear the full moral responsibility. Abortion clinics have vested interest in the woman opting for abortion. But a pregnant woman does not seek out an abortion clinic if she was not considering abortion in the first place.

So fighting the Supreme Court ruling Roe vs Wade may not be the best answer. Changing attitudes of women who opt for abortion easily, with little or no thought about the innocent life they are about to sacrifice, is the real task. The best possible education for men and women, and offering real alternatives to abortion, is the best prevention. The sad fact of life however is that there is no guarantee that a woman would not opt for abortion as the easy way out anyway. That is however a risk that must be taken. Love for one's child is a choice like all others.

From America The Beautiful:

"Confirm thy Soul in Self-Control !!!!"

I wish you goodnight PROLIFE Pseudo!

For a fool who recognizes no difference between an unfertilized egg/sperm and a human embryo growing in the womb, the only cure is 39 lashes.

"Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, I consider it an honor to be considered anti-civil by an Anti-Life person."

I am far from anti-life.
But there are errors that blight
Made on behalf of what's right
On both sides of this debate
So its wrong to berate

But now it is so late
That I bid you good night.

-- Prolife Pseudo

Being Pseudo clever is no recommendation.

Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, in science life is defined as anything that has the capacity to live and grow. A fertilized egg has the capacity to live and grow into a full human being. It is never a non-living thing.

"Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz"

Anti Civility Anon,

I remind you that Pseudo is not Farnaz
He just doesn't have her pizzaz

And you've given no answer to the question
About human life detection
Or the real question
of when human life begins.

Is it a sperm,
or a baby full term?
Is a sperm half a person
So why are you cursin'
Them to remain uncertain?

And what do you think of RU 486
Being added to the mix?
And a gamete you say
is full human today?

This question is not simple

Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, I consider it an honor to be considered anti-civil by an Anti-Life person.

Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, all you need to do is read a standard textbook of human embryology. But no need to go into such great scientific detail. A few simple facts will do.

An ovum and a sperm have only HALF the chromosomes. It is only during fertilization (conception - when the egg and sperm unite) that the embryo acquires a full set of human chromosomes combined uniquely as a separate human being. So anyone trying to sound clever by saying every sperm/egg is a lost baby is making a fool of themselves.

Since not all fertilized eggs implants itself successfully in the uterus of the mother, one can say that the development of the separate human being begins to proceed only after implantation. The heart of the fetus is one of the earliest organs to develop. It beats at its OWN pace and pumps blood to its fast developing body. At the end of eight weeks the embryo is called a fetus, the little one, because it has developed all its organs in its earliest stages and needs only further growth.

The nervous system develops very early on and if you looked at the pictures of fetuses you'd notice how large the head usually is from the earliest stages.

So IF ever there was a right time for abortion, then it is before the fetal heart begins to beat, because a beating fetal heart is the heart of a separate human being.

Hello anti civility anon...

The question it seems
Is where in between
The short life of a sperm
And a baby full term
Do you draw the line
Where life is defined?

Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, to the innocent life in the womb, when its life is taken, it doesn't matter if the decision to kill it was taken by the most not-uncouth of mothers. And if the war to protect its life was fought by the most uncouth of human beings.

Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz, your pseudo definition of life in the womb is the problem.

"To the Pseudo argument..."

They might seem the worst
Just because of the curse
That they're phrased in bad verse

But if you've got thirst
For a quest for the truth
Well then from the first
You should not be uncouth.

And the truth to illumine
First treat others as human.

Pseudo:

Anti-Civility Anon
Why do you really just go on?
And what is the use
Of all this abuse?
As if there were some kind of war on?

Perhaps the hard choice
Is best given given its voice
Way early much better than far on.

August 8, 2008 11:13 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pseudo (?another name for Farnaz) come to the rescue of Anti-Life Farnaz within minutes?

To the Pseudo argument:

"Perhaps the hard choice
Is best given given its voice
Way early much better than far on."

The guilt ought to be directly proportional to the age of the victim, right? Sure, sure, killing a baby when it is one year old is better than killing a baby when it has started going to school. So killing a hundred year old man carries hundred times more guilt than killing a one year old child. Maybe? In your court of law?

Another Pseudo argument:

"Anti-Civility Anon
Why do you really just go on?
And what is the use
Of all this abuse?
As if there were some kind of war on?"

To define life as the textbook of human embryology defines it and to understand abortion as Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, understood it, constitutes anti-civility...in Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz's court of law? To draw attention to what abortion is really about, constitutes abuse...in Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz's court of law?

War there is none. If laying out facts constitutes war, then war it is, according to Pseudo/Anti-Life Farnaz. If the "war" can lead to only one child to escaping the life-ending decision of a pregnant mother, the "war" of facts will have been well worth it.

If those who object to Roe vs Wade, [which must be repeated is about abortion of healthy babies at all stages of pregnancy, by healthy mothers out of convenience/socio-economic reasons of their own defining (considering poor women in many really poor countries do not resort to abortion as late stage contraception)], were against the health and happiness of women, then they would champion for other choices - for the mothers! Why not a pro-choice to kill the mother instead? Why not make suicide of mothers who are about to abort their child as legitimate as euthanasia? After all, one woman could end up aborting many children in her lifetime. The woman's death prevents many children being aborted... All possibilities that really anti-women anti-abortion people could consider, but they DON'T!

So as long as people fighting for the rights of the unborn are not calling for the death of the woman who chooses abortion, they are merely fighting for human rights of the innocent unborn children who cannot speak for themselves.

If that is war, then it is a war being fought on behalf of children who cannot fight their own war to protect their own life.

Is a zygote a life?
Or an egg in a wife?

Every wriggling sperm
How would you bring term?

Or are most just lost
At what ever sad cost?

Dear anti-civility anon
What means it if debate goes on?
And should just we ask
When does life come to pass?
To find the best answer to go on?

Pseudo:

Anti-Civility Anon
Why do you really just go on?
And what is the use
Of all this abuse?
As if there were some kind of war on?

Perhaps the hard choice
Is best given given its voice
Way early much better than far on.

August 8, 2008 11:13 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pseudo come to the rescue of Anti-Life Farnaz?

To the Pseudo argument:

"Perhaps the hard choice
Is best given given its voice
Way early much better than far on."

The guilt is proportional to the age of the victim, right? Sure, sure, killing a baby when it is one year old is better than killing a baby when it has started going to school. So killing a hundred year old man carries hundred times more guilt than killing a one year old child. Maybe? In your court of law?

Another Pseudo argument:

"Anti-Civility Anon
Why do you really just go on?
And what is the use
Of all this abuse?
As if there were some kind of war on?"

To define life as the textbook of human embryology defines it and to understand abortion

Anti-Civility Anon
Why do you really just go on?
And what is the use
Of all this abuse?
As if there were some kind of war on?

Perhaps the hard choice
Is best given given its voice
Way early much better than far on.

Anti-Life Farnaz, only psychopaths kill for the sheer pleasure of killing. Even the worst criminals usually have a good reason for killing others. So what is your point?

"Anti-Life Farnaz, if every woman who chooses abortion could stand before her mirror and say -
I choose to abort my child, who is in my womb because of sexual activity that I indulged in knowing fully well that the consequence of sex could well be pregnancy, in spite of use of contraceptives. I choose my convenience over the life of my child who has no way of stopping me from having it killed before it is born. I do not feel guilty because the law of the land gives me the right to choose my convenience over the right of my child to its life as long as it is in my womb."

The first sentence is difficult for me to comprehend since it's a fragment. "If..."? What?
Hard though it may be for you to believe, men have a say in these things as well, particularly, when they are husbands. Many men, like Wiglaf who posted below, like to make love with their wives. This desire for union may surprise you, but it is a rather old historical phenomenon.

At any rate, as you know, this chat is pointless. Unfortunately, I have yet to witness a productive discussion between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, and it looks like we aren't going to be first to have one.

I don't know if you can grasp this, but no one wants to have an abortion. Sometimes, despite what you may think, there is no choice. That's why when abortion was illegal, this country witnessed many more pregnancy related horrors than it does now.

Anti-Life Farnaz, if every woman who chooses abortion could stand before her mirror and say - "I choose to abort my child, who is in my womb because of sexual activity that I indulged in knowing fully well that the consequence of sex could well be pregnancy, in spite of use of contraceptives. I choose my convenience over the life of my child who has no way of stopping me from having it killed before it is born. I do not feel guilty because the law of the land gives me the right to choose my convenience over the right of my child to its life as long as it is in my womb."

Anti-Life Farnaz, a Supreme Court ruling overrides ALL state legislations. So Roe vs Wade is valid in ALL states.

Anti-Life Farnaz, you choose to draw the line at defining life where it suits YOU. But life is not defined by what suits YOU.

AC/L Anon,

"Anti-Life Farnaz, using extreme cases (which should be treated as exceptions to the rule banning late term abortions) to support a Supreme Court ruling permitting ELECTIVE abortion at all stages of pregnancy in healthy women carrying healthy babies, is monstrous."

Again, I don't disagree about late-term abortions.
I disagree with anti-choice.

Anti-Choice/Life Anon,

You cannot legally have a late-term abotion in New York State. However, as I said, if the anti-choice/life (ACL's) would stay out of women's wombs, the problems left open by Roe v. Wade could be addressed.

The states can and do exercise some authority with respect to abortion. (Residual powers.)

Anti-Life Farnaz, using extreme cases (which should be treated as exceptions to the rule banning late term abortions) to support a Supreme Court ruling permitting ELECTIVE abortion at all stages of pregnancy in healthy women carrying healthy babies, is monstrous.

Anti-Life Farnaz, YOU say that late term abortion is not right. But Roe vs Wade makes late term abortion legal in ALL states and those who demand/perform late term abortions consider it alright.

So your opinion on late term abortion is simply YOUR opinion. The law (which is what Roe vs Wade is all about) permits late term abortion.

Anti-Life Farnaz, if denying a child the right to its life because it is in the womb of its mother is justifiable...

then look at yourself in the mirror and ask why a child who needs to be taken care of even more after it is born deserves to live.

A mother would kill a new born child or a child at any stage of its development as long as it is dependent on its parents, if someday a legislation Farnaz vs XYZ would give them the permission.

Anti-Choice/Life Anon,

We crossed posts. The state I live in has outlawed late-stage abortions. That is as it should be. I didn't read Robyn say she supported them.

The question, if we can be rational for a moment, is this: whether to leave certain aspects concerning abortion up to the states as is currently the case or to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Last year, a young woman who became pregnant in another state was imprisoned. (She had no visible means of support.) The father? If anti-choice fanatics and others like those who locked up that young woman were not constantly trying to take over women's bodies and lives, more of us would consider a federal solution to the problem of late-term abortions. Of course, we'd like a federal solution to the numbers of women who deliver in their homes since they can't afford to go to hospitals, and end up dying in the process or suffering long-term health problems. Then there are the babies....

Anti-Choice/Life Anon,

"Anti-Life Farnaz, I have nothing new to say."

Correct. You don't. You haven't had anything new to say from your first post. I can't speak for Robyn, but he/she said nothing about late-term abortions, which I can't accept either.

However, any person who thinks a twelve-year-old-girl raped by her sick f*ck father should carry to term is a person who hates life and the living.
Anti-Choice/Life Anon, have you considered what carrying to term might have done to the girl? Assuming, that is, that she didn't kill herself trying to self-abort? And she might have. Then girl and fetus all gone bye bye. Like seventeen-year-old Yolanda.

You see, Anti-Choice/Life, making abortion illegal won't mean the end of abortion, suicide, death from botched abortions to mother and fetus. I guess being anti-choice/life, you think it's all good. Your way the woman/girl/fetus all die together.

Late term abortions are not acceptable. However, Anti-Choice/Life legislation, outlawing abortion altogether is murder.

Anti-Life Farnaz, every medical doctor who has of necessity studied the textbook of human embryology and read the Hippocratic Oath, knows elective abortion is wrong. Hence the protection with Roe vs Wade legislation.

Anti-Life Farnaz, there is a good reason why abortion clinics do not strictly belong to mainstream medicine.

Anti-Life Farnaz, Roe vs Wade is NOT about offering abortion for victims of incest and rape, so it is dishonest go off on an irrelevant tangent.

There are medical indications for abortion which a medical doctor is expected to do, and it would not need the legal protection that Roe vs Wade provides.

Roe vs Wade is about elective abortion at all stages of pregnancy in HEALTHY WOMEN CARRYING HEALTHY CHILDREN IN THEIR WOMB.

I surmise that the coconut shell are more useful than the head of these people. These people's brain seems like big rotten eggs. It's almost impossible taht they can be put to good use. I believe these people can't even build a descent treehouse. Scales into feathers? THEN WHY CAN'T THEY REPEAT IT IN THE LAB? STUPIDITY TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE!!

What has length of time got to do with such a transformation? Whay can't they SHOW it's validity in the lab? STUPID!!!

Anti-Choice Anon:

You have not said anything about her post, not about the girl who killed herself or the one who was incested. (Who's anti-life? Check the mirror.)

No wonder they abort fetuses. They treat it as PARASITES. Don't we have a big mental asylum to lock all these people in?

Pam wrote "Scales and feathers are not actually all that different, and some scales might become feather-like, at least on one part of the body, in a single generation. "

What kind of brain does these people have? How come there are still no FLYING DRAGONS YET? There are so many animals like snakes which has scales and yet non of which are flying after millions of years with scales. Dinosaurs turned into birds? WHHHAAATTT?

I can't take this anymore. These people are hypnotized to STUPIDITY.

Anti-Life Farnaz, I have nothing new to say.

Anti-Choice Anon:

Have you read Robyn's post? Scroll down. I'd be interested in your response.

Arminius,

Here's another option. Re-read Gargantua and Pantagruel, which I'm seriously contemplating in lieu of Beckett in light of my mood.

I haven't looked at it since I don't know when, but if I recall correctly it was good for my head. In fact, maybe we should all select a book, read it, or ask Susan to select one, and we inaugurate the Jacoby book club, not to be confused with Oprah's.

The only criterion is that it must be fiction, very good, and not sad.

Also, we can drink herbal tea. (I don't myself, but what the heck.)

Farnaz

Hi Jed,
You wrote:
"They change slo-o-o-w-l-y, a bit at a time. One of the weirdest misunderstandings of the creationists is the incremental pace of change. A sweet but pathetically ignorant woman asked me years ago: "You never see monkeys having human babies in the forest, so how could evolution be true?!?" Yikes."

Yes, one species becoming another quite different one doesn't occur quickly - one part changes at a time. With humans, upright stance came first. But (see punctuated equilibrium in my earlier post) a single feature may arise quite quickly. Scales and feathers are not actually all that different, and some scales might become feather-like, at least on one part of the body, in a single generation. They wouldn't have the refinements of the feathers we see today, of course, the vaned feathers with the barbules that "zip" together to form a solid surface and that have unequal sides to aid in flight. They'd be more like down feathers, soft and loose. Or there may have been an in-between stage, with a conical raised scute that later became a feather.

"Pam, your patience and good will amaze me. I would not spend so much effort spoon-feeding information to people such as Wes. They should learn evolutionary basics such as the source of altruistic behavior from an introductory textbook. Are you a teacher, by any chance?"

No, and I'm not always so patient, either. :)

I agree that they should get educated. I've told a lot of them so. But even though I know that many of the people I respond to on these boards are completely beyond reach, I have hope that there are a few readers whose heads are not quite so firmly buried in the sand, who might actually be intrigued enough to start doing some research and learning something on their own. So the ones like Spidey are just a foil for getting the real ideas out there.

You do it too. :)

If we had no hope of getting through to *anyone*, there would be no reason to post here, after all. :)

Going to spend the rest of the evening watching Olympics - have a good evening!

Anonymous2:

Wiglaf:

Unlike Anon, I didn't feel sick, so I laughed. Anon should try getting out more. Good for what ails. Sorry, Wiglaf, but I don't think Anon's going to contribute to the cause. Pro-life peeps had to draw the line somewhere so they drew it around their checking accounts. They like women to stay pregnant. If the ladies can swing medical care, all the better. If the babies can be born alive and not mangled, great. If the mother lives, no problem.

What happens after isn't their issue. That one goes to the pro-give-a-damn.

August 8, 2008 2:55 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sixty three years is really not that long ago. We heard all sorts of rationalizations for the master race theories. Gassing those who didn't fulfill the master race criteria sounded perfect to those who practiced it. So with regard to justifying abortion-on-demand the ability to find a clever sounding theory does not make it morally right.

Maybe you'd like to read about the experience of a homosexual male who was one hell of a supporter of abortion-on-demand. For him personally it was all about making big bucks running abortion clinics. Yet time after time when he rinsed out the parts of the baby 's bodies, after first checking if all the parts of the little body was there - body parts supposedly only clumps of cells according to Pam, but had distinct human features like little perfectly formed hands and legs, and faces - before packing them in plastic bags for disposal, his laughter slowly died. He was sick of telling women who had chosen abortion that their guilt and remorse was only hormones playing up not legitimate guilt for killing an innocent child. He started to take drugs to escape his own pain and guilt, not because he himself conducted the abortions or he aborted his own child/ren, but because he ran abortion clinics that propagated the lie abortion was simply about getting rid of a clump of cells.

He quit his business, walked away from the millions he made and now earns a simple living with very little money. But he is happy because he doesn't have to kill innocent children as part of it.

Euthanasia is legal in some countries. It won't be long before it becomes legal in all countries. And who knows euthanasia would be extended towards all human beings who are inconvenient...

We would be hearing a variation of the argument that Wiglaf put forward (his argument went - if you don't want me to kill my child you would have to pay for it), "if you don't want me to tie my old sickly grandmother (sick/disabled family member/relative) to the railway tracks so that she can be run over by a train, you'll have to give me money for all her expenses."

"But they might on its progeny"

They might like zero percent like monkeys might turn tO humans. But now they've declared that it's not a theory anymore. They now say that ii did happen. WHO ARE YOU FOLKS GONNA FOOL.

A few years from now, a fetus would be declared a PARASITE.

Hi Arminius,

Please don't let anybody keep you from blogging here. I miss Jihadist, and I think all the crazies with their accusations drove her away. She can take care of herself, and that is just what she did. Don't blame her, but miss her.

I've been "accused" of being 106 different people, most recently Pseudo (HI PSEUDO!), "accused" of being Muslim, like that was some kind of crime. Some people, as you and I just saw on another thread, just don't like us Jews. Tough. Others just need to be mean and accusatory.

Just don't let anyone drive you away. Really, my friend, don't do it. The word Satan means "accuser." But IMO, the accusers who surface on threads hurt themselves more than anybody else. Don't stay away, my friend. Your posts are great, and you're needed on this blog, noble soul.

Warmest regards,
Farnaz

Pam wrote:

"1) You left the smiley face off the end of my quote. It was there because, of course, scales don't change into feathers on an individual animal. But they might on its progeny."

They change slo-o-o-w-l-y, a bit at a time. One of the weirdest misunderstandings of the creationists is the incremental pace of change. A sweet but pathetically ignorant woman asked me years ago: "You never see monkeys having human babies in the forest, so how could evolution be true?!?" Yikes.

Pam, your patience and good will amaze me. I would not spend so much effort spoon-feeding information to people such as Wes. They should learn evolutionary basics such as the source of altruistic behavior from an introductory textbook. Are you a teacher, by any chance?

- Jed

"LIKE ANON, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT AN AGENDA EITHER, EXCEPT THAT JJ SEEMS TO PICK ON CERTAIN POPULATIONS AND THEN ATTACK THEM, LIKE GAY PEOPLE, OR NOW THIS MORMON BUSINESS."

A little strange, considering that he was for Mitt Romney during the primaries.

Spidey wrote:
"Pam wrote 'They might, again for example, cause a dinosaur to turn it's scales into feathers'.

Tommorow, I'll start heating my aquarium so I can see for myself the transformation. Wow, my fishes would fly right before my eyes."

Spidey, could you *be* any more of an ignoramus??

You're embarrassing yourself, and you're too uneducated to even know it.

1) You left the smiley face off the end of my quote. It was there because, of course, scales don't change into feathers on an individual animal. But they might on its progeny.

2) You would have to turn the temperature *down*, not up - feathers are an adaptation for heat conservation - not loss.

3) It wouldn't work on fish - feathers don't conserve heat in water.

4) Feathers were for heat conservation first, and remained so for a very long time. They were adapted for flight much later.

5) When environmental stress occurs, the result for most affected organisms is simply death. I suspect it would be so with your fish. In a huge population, a favorable mutation might be triggered in a few individuals. They would produce young that might go on living as a new species, adapted to the new environment. Quite often though, the species just becomes extinct. This has happened to 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth. It will, almost surely, happen to us someday.

6) You sarcastically mentioned snakes turning to dragons in another post. Actually, the fossils of feathered dinosaurs, easily found in China, are precisely the source of dragon myths.

But keep right on posting, Spidey. If ever anyone wonders why I'm an atheist, all I have to do is point to your posts.

Try resigning from Liberty University and enrolling in a real school. If they'll have you.

ARMINIUS:

LIKE ANON, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT AN AGENDA EITHER, EXCEPT THAT JJ SEEMS TO PICK ON CERTAIN POPULATIONS AND THEN ATTACK THEM, LIKE GAY PEOPLE, OR NOW THIS MORMON BUSINESS.

I ALSO THINK WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT YOU IS WAY OVER THE LINE AND I'D RATHER HAVE YOU HERE THAN JJ. JUST CLICK ON OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, AND WRITE YOUR COMPLAINT. DAVID WATERS WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I DID IT AND THE BLOGGER'S COMMENTS WERE DELETED. JJ IS A NUISANCE. HE MAKES A NIGHTMARE OUT OF SCROLLING DOWN TO POST. HE ALSO SAYS HATEFUL AND NOW THREATENING THINGS. HATE SPEECH AND THREATS AREN'T PART OF FREE SPEECH. LIKE I SAID, DON'T LIKE TO CURTAIL ANYBODY'S RIGHT TO SELF-EXPRESSION BUT THIS IS TOO MUCH.

SUGGEST THAT WE ALL COMPLAIN.

Hi, Farnaz

Hi, Wiglaf

Hi, Anonymous

It's fun having three of our personalities all together in the same post.

Thanks for all the information about reporting abusive comments.

I initially mentioned the threat not because I was offended or that I wanted the threat silenced. I mentioned it because I was worried that this might be real.

As noted, the Eclati/Church of the New Song was created by inmates in prisons and is largely composed of criminals (and as mentioned probably the menatally infirm).

I think the threat could be real.

I justed wanted to point it out.

Overall, I have enjoyed reading JJ's comments in the past. If you are patient, it is posible to pull useful insights (although I don't typically agree). Anyway...

That was me (if you couldn't recognize my voice),

Anonymous

The WaPo is not reluctant to delete objectionable comments. If you complain, and they agree that the comment is objectionalbe, then they would delete it.

In the past, I have seen many comments from JJ that were later deleted. It makes him very angry and then he posts even more; if they are not deleting him, then maybe that is why.

I cannot really descern any kind of religious or political agenda or point of view in any of his posts; as long as they are short and not very many, I wouldn't mind them; but sometimes he does post alot of long commentss, and then he becomes dominating and intrusive.

I am not sure what the WaPo could do about him, other than to try and trace him, and then contact him or the facility where he lives, and see if they couldn't do something about it from his end.

There are many people who post here, besides JJ, who seem to have varying degrees of mental disturbance, and do not make much sense. That is just part of life, I suppose; it is the spectrum of mental health that we would encounter anywhere, and not just here.

Arminius

When you click on the "report offensive comments" link, then it causes your email software to generate an email which you then complete. If it is asking you questions about your server, then there is probably something going on in your internet connection that is blocking it, that it (the software) does not understand.

The complaint goes to onfaith@washingtonpost.com if you want to make up your own email of complaint. Of course, you have to figure out how to identify the comment in question, maybe give the panelest with the date and time of the comment. I think that they really do remove objectionable comments if you complain.

I don't worry about this being "censorship" because it is the WaPo monitoring its own blog, and because JJ is not really saying anything; he is attempting some kind of communication, but he is misfiring.

Anyway, some suggestions.

ARMINIUS:

RE: JJ

David Waters handles the complaints. You can use the link on the main page to email him. No one ever asked me about my server, though, so dont know what's up with that. I don't like interfering with people's right to express themselves, but hate speech is another story. Threats are crossing the line.

The question is whether more than one person is going to do complain. Threatening Mormons or anybody else is way over the line that JJ has crossed too many times.

RE: JJ

It would help to report JJ, but Waters is reluctant to delete due to freedom of speech issues. If we all agree that JJ is going to far, may even be dangerous, which this last post suggests, we should ALL report the problem. I don't know how seriously to take JJ's threat, but I don't much care for it.

The more who complain, the more effective the complaint. I'm speaking from past experience.

I know there are already too many comments, but the "studies have shown" canard makes me sick. Let me see if I follow the argument:

A.) Studies show a correlation between believing in a religion and a lack of education.
B.) Therefore, people who adhere to a religion are in general less intelligent or less informed than those that do not.

Evidently, the author's education is lacking, because she equates correlation with causation - a fundamental fallacy in any empirical research. One is supposed to consider other factors that may cause the observed correlation. Other factors in this are:

1.) School systems are primarily funded by the State
2.) The State requires schools by Law to take a secular point of view on all subjects.
3.) Teachers who are unwilling to teach from a secular point of view are marginalized, pushed out, ridiculed, or otherwise discredited.
4.) Public education at all levels focuses as a result exclusively on the material well-being of man, ignoring or scorning all metaphysical considerations.

It is therefore unsurprising that students "educated" in such an environment will adopt a materialistic view of life that leaves no room for the demands of a spiritual life.

It is however unjustifiable to equate success in such a school system as a sign of mental acuity with regard to things spiritual (which were omitted from the system). It is also a logical fallacy to equate failure to participate in such a system with intelligence and awareness of logical, social, or historical facts.

Anyone who has been even tangentially involved with academia at the collegiate level knows that in order to succeed there, one must be able to obtain funding. Thus those who provide the funds control what will be studied, who will study it, and, sadly, sometimes even what will be the outcome of the study [before it is conducted]. This latter is especially true in the social "sciences" and "history" as it is taught in today's colleges. In academia, you either "publish or perish". And if the publishers or the funders don't like your results, then the quality of your research is irrelevant. With regard to Christians in higher education, there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that is much repugnant than the military's treatment of gays.

The whole argument that "education removes religious belief, therefore religious belief is unintelligent" is nothing other than a social engineering effort that started by using funding to get irreligious [not just areligious] professors to predominate in higher education, and then used the result (secularism among the products of higher education) in order to claim that this secularism was the direct product of an education striving for nothing but "truth". Its success shows that even very capable and intelligent people can be manipulated to believe a predetermined set of ideas. Welcome to 1984. And I hope you like being on the side of Big Brother, Ms. Jacoby.

I say this as a Pentecostal who holds two Master's degrees and is working on a Ph.D.

The prison hypothesis is correct as to the origins of said religion and the poster in question. This was determined quite a while back.

We're not witnessing mental illness, we're witnessing the nastiness and typical rampant narcissism of a homophobic ex-con. Unfortunately the blog can't or won't control him.

Daniel ITLD,

I have tried to complain thru proper channels, but they insist I answer questions about my server, and I don't know the answers.

It is possible that JJ has been in prison. There is a prison 'religion' called Eclat, a word JJ uses often. It is apparently white supremacist. Prison might also explain JJ's hatred of homosexuals.

I have been aquainted with schizophrenic people before. The way that JJ expresses himself makes me think of this type of person. (I am trying to be polite, since I assume he may read this).

This type of person is not responsible for what they say; they cannot comminicate in a normal or coherent way. And even though people often are afraid of them, they are usually harmless.

I would imagine that if JJ had to fend for himself, he would be homeless, and without computer internet access. Since we hear from him so often, he is probably under treatment and being cared for at home or some other appropriate facility.

Tonio.

Good questions. I like questions. They tell us more than answers sometimes.

“How would a god hypothesis originate? What would it be intended to explain?”

I will answer the second question first. It could be used to explain where did all this, the universe, come from? What is the meaning of life?

I guess the hypothesis could originate in a couple of ways. First if one believes in God then one might surmise that there is an inbred quality to find God. I think that could be possible, but very squishy from a scientific perspective so let’s skip that. The hypothesis could also come from human reasoning and wonder.

The universe is a paradox being both very random and completely precise at the same time. I think it is quite possible there is some intelligent design around the universe but different than God playing with the universe, at least not as directly as many think. Perhaps at best he is the watch maker and the universe unfolds based on the scientific laws of the universe (physics, chemistry, evolution) that were designed. Physics and chemistry are very precise, evolution is one of the random elements of the universe; perhaps that’s God’s way of gambling, a fine game of chance. I guess the whole of creation could be random workings of an inanimate machine but that doesn’t answer what came before? What was the trigger? The hypothesis of God gives us something to explore.

“Why wouldn't some other explanation be considered?” I’m not sure. I think at some point other explanations should be considered and from time to time re-considered. The universe is not meant to stand still. At some point, even in science we make a leap of faith and decided that one theory is worth proving and another theory we leave to someone else. This is one I choose to explore.

You also asked “How would such a theory serve as a guideline?” To me I use an understanding that I have come to and see how it works in the “real” world. When ideas fail to “work” for us the rational thing to do would be to try something else. In my mind this is where the idea of God being static falls down. Maybe it is just a human construct that helps us evolve our thinking. If God does exist I think the traditional definition of God leaves so much unexplained and stands in defiance of the logic he created us to have – some of us anyway :)

The existence of deism shows that belief in a god doesn't automatically translate to belief in the god as a moral authority.” I agree. My belief lives in that most things are relative. The world we live in is relative. Without getting into a long discussion on moral authority, heaven and hell I will leave it at absolute moral authority has many logic flaws to it. Per above it doesn’t seem to work in the real world so I have moved on to everything is relative, more shades of grey than black and white.

“How can one have even an incomplete understanding or definition of a god if one cannot detect such a being?” Science does this all the time. We create a theory on something we can’t detect and one day when we come up with a way to detect it we get a better understanding of it. It was always there, we just didn’t know it. (dust mites, molecules.) That being said we don’t make laws that say don’t use this product because it emmits to much dark matter. Similar consideration should be made when we think of laws based on religion.

As for personal experience I have had moments that I have literally felt more than my self or transcended my normal consciousness. Once it happened while I was cutting the lawn in a sun shower that was more mist than rain. It was a phenomenal moment. Mostly I get those feelings periodically while meditating. I would say that I am more confident in consciousness surviving death than the existence of God. You could have one without the other though God still gets my vote of confidence.

Between readings, research, discussion, meditation and the rare transcendent experience I have come to my worldview. If you experienced what I experienced perhaps you would have my world view and vice versa and this is what people need to understand.

Tonio as you said “If one were going to assert the existence of, say, a black hole, a personal experience of the hole wouldn't qualify as evidence for the existence.” This is exactly why we can not base laws purely on a religious belief. Every experience only has the meaning we give it and what is true for one is not true for another.

There are many good ideas and teachings in religion but we lose them in the quagmire of story and dogma. When will we learn than everyone interprets scripture differently and no one has the right answer? Until we can take a pragmatic approach to God (be him real or concept) we will fail to realize we are something greater than we are.

At the bottom of each post, there is a link for "reporting offensive comments." Maybe it would help to try that.

Threat?,

Yes, you just read a threat to the LDS. From JJ, who is the worst spammer on these blogs. He also makes personal attacks on me and others. Hopefully, the moderator will wake up and delete his hate-filled posts.

Did I just read a threat against the mormon prophet? Violence against the mormon church in New York?

Wow...

Reality vs Religion - here's the difference.

Everything happens in spite of religion. Reality in all it's vastness knows nothing of religion, a man-made construct. Only man knows of religion.

Reasonable people must admit that religion offers no explanation for anything whatsoever, otherwise all reasonable people would be religious - and we know this is not the case. Reality is very hard to define, and is done in small and incremental bits and pieces only.

Meaning is created somewhat spontaneously as we travel along our randomly selected path of evolution. We do have our habits, patterns and traditions, and this allows for a certain predictability along the way - but not too much.

Religion is pre-packaged and comes with ready-made answers - to the very questions that it chooses to ask in advance. It's a closed belief system and for this reason a tautology - while believers feel better, and have achieved 'group cohesion' and beneficial support through the exercise of their group-driven gregarious animal instincts, they still have no real knowledge.

Everything is always done well in advance of man's intended purpose - reality is simply beyond human consciousness.

Jesse Jackson is not one of my favorite people and typically a poor example of a religious leader but he got it correct when he said:

"Too many of our schools are infested with a steady diet of violence, vandalism, drugs, INTERCOURSE WITHOUT DISCOURSE, alcohol and television addiction," says he. "The result has been to breed a passive and superficial generation."

And we then wonder why so many teenagers are poorly educated and thereby cannot find a job!!!!

Wiglaf:

Unlike Anon, I didn't feel sick, so I laughed. Anon should try getting out more. Good for what ails. Sorry, Wiglaf, but I don't think Anon's going to contribute to the cause. Pro-life peeps had to draw the line somewhere so they drew it around their checking accounts. They like women to stay pregnant. If the ladies can swing medical care, all the better. If the babies can be born alive and not mangled, great. If the mother lives, no problem.

What happens after isn't their issue. That one goes to the pro-give-a-damn.

When Ms. Jacoby says that persons who are poor, sick or suffering gravitate to religion because of the promise of an afterlife, she seriously mischaracterizes religion and its benefits to suffering people (and to anyone).

She mentions Pentecostal and Catholic Churches. Most of these churches offer a variety of benefits to a person who is suffering: a community of supportive people who can function as a second family; rites and liturgies that don't avoid the pain of suffering but give a structure for a person to face, process and manage pain (take a look at the Jewish rites for responding to the death of a family member for an example of a religion that offers resources for facing, processing and managing grief); the Christian idea that suffering while not good is also not void of meaning and ironic; worship as an uplifting, encouraging experience; etc., etc.

The promise of an afterlife is meaningful, but it is only part of the package and would not be sufficient to attract/assist a suffering person without rich resources for help in this life.

Wiglaf, before you decide to kill your child for arriving out of your schedule, you might like to google for a list of adoption agencies. I'm sure your child would be happy to be adopted rather than killed out of "love."

Here a couple of links for starters---

http://adoptionservices.org/

http://www.adoption.org/adopt/adoption-agencies-in-the-usa.php

Wiglaf, if I didn't feel so sick reading your post, I would laugh.

Dear Anon,

Anon: "Wiglaf, go right ahead and abort as many babies as you feel the need to. After all, they are your babies, and they can't stop you."

Wiglaf: Does this mean that you're declining to donate so that we can avoid abortion if my wife gets pregnant despite our use of contraception?

Anon: "Luckily pedophiles need to be publicly registered so that people can keep their distance from them."

Wiglaf: I could be mistaken, but I don't think they register voluntarily. I think they must first be arrested and convicted of pedophilia. Am I wrong about this?

Anon: "Those who have resorted to abortion-on- demand on the other hand we have no way of identifying to keep our distance from them."

Wiglaf: It doesn't seem like you've been near too many people.

In public, to be on the safe side, just follow the trend. Wear a very large button, an embroidered shirt, coat, etc., that specifies who may and may not be within a certain distance of you. I'm sure you've read about this in the Times. I'm surprised you haven't tried it yet.

Statistics show that any one of these approaches decreases the chances of a stranger being within 10 feet of you. (Averaged together, the difference is significant at the .03 level). Since pro-choice people tend to be more cautious, it stands to reason that the distance kept from you could exceed 10 feet. (You'd have to check the web on that.)

Good luck, and please let me know if your decision not to donate to us is final.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

PAM, what I meant to emphasize was that the embryo/fetus derives all its oxygen and nutrients from its mother without causing the mother any harm. The mother is expected to eat a little more than she normally does, that is all.

Anonymous:

PAM ---

Meaning of parasite when used in relation to
human beings ---

An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment.

Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.

A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite. Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease. ◇ A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite.

Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells.

Parasite: An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN EMBRYO/FETUS AND ITS MOTHER IS CALLED PARABIOSIS, BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL PHYSIOLOGICAL UNION WITH EXCHANGE OF BLOOD.

August 8, 2008 12:35 AM

PAM, while we are at providing links with information about fetal circulation, I found this one which might be of interest.

http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/23045/router.asp

Please reread the definition of a parasite in relation to human beings. A parasite belongs to another species... An embryo/fetus does not belong to another species.

Do you think the veins and arteries in our lungs are directly connected? How do you think arteries carry oxygenated blood and veins carry venous blood?

Pam wrote "So, for instance, if the stress is temperature-related, the mutations tend to affect genes that code for heat retention (or loss). They might, again for example, cause a dinosaur to turn it's scales into feathers. "

Or snakes' scales to turn into feathers and voila, we now have a FLYING DRAGON. Imagine, all these things are treated as SCIENCE. What made these people to become so IDIOTIC?

"The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God". That's the answer. These people have made themselves like FOOLS for not believeing in God.

These people are dangerous. Dangerous even to the FETUS in their womb. More dangerous if they hold high positions in government or society. Doomsday is very near.

Pregnant woman : "Doc, how's my condition?"
Quack Doctor : "Tsk, tsk, you have a big PARASITE inside".

Let the world listen to Pam for a day and you won't be able to distinguish Earth from Mars.

Wiglaf, go right ahead and abort as many babies as you feel the need to. After all, they are your babies, and they can't stop you.

It was not all that long ago in terms of human history that medical doctors were thrown in jail for performing abortions of convenienc/demand/request, when there was no medical indication for it. Unfortunately convenience of parents doesn't count as medical indication, hence the law to protect the abortionist and the mother of the child.

Luckily pedophiles need to be publicly registered so that people can keep their distance from them. Those who have resorted to abortion-on- demand on the other hand we have no way of identifying to keep our distance from them.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/placenta/index.html

Couldn't let this go:

"THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN EMBRYO/FETUS AND ITS MOTHER IS CALLED PARABIOSIS, BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL PHYSIOLOGICAL UNION WITH EXCHANGE OF BLOOD."

Absolutely untrue. Fetal circulation does not intersect with maternal circulation at any point. The capillaries of the placenta are close enough to the capillaries of the uterus for the osmotic exchange of gases and nutrients, but no blood cells cross the barrier. It does *not* meet the definition of parabiosis. It *does* meet the definition of parasitism.

"You will find experimental evidence of empathy in animals who know nothing of gods, religions, or Biblical morality."

Doesn't need any experiment, my pets love each other and they love me. What you don't know is WHO made them, stupid.

PAM, if you were a biologist or had training in any medical/paramedical field, you would not refer to a human embryo/fetus as a parasite.

Wes wrote:
"I have a knee-jerk distrust of anything that comes out of Berkeley, but I'll give your link a look."

The man who wrote it has no affiliation with Berkeley, they're merely the ones who published the PDF to the Web.

I hope you do read it. You will find experimental evidence of empathy in animals who know nothing of gods, religions, or Biblical morality. I think this does prove my proposition, and I'll be interested to hear your explanation of it.

Until then... I'm calling it a night.

PAM ---

Meaning of parasite when used in relation to
human beings ---

An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment.

Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.

A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite. Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease. ◇ A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite.

Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells.

Parasite: An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN EMBRYO/FETUS AND ITS MOTHER IS CALLED PARABIOSIS, BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL PHYSIOLOGICAL UNION WITH EXCHANGE OF BLOOD.

I like the post of Sherwood MacRae. I hope he can give his insight on this puzzling abortion issue.

I find abortion a bit puzzling. If a person like Pam goes to hell, wouldn't it have been better if she was aborted? I still have no answer for that.

Anon:"Wiglaf, read the Hippocratic oath if you wish to understand why the law needs to protect medical doctors who perform abortions.

Vasectomy and tubectomy are methods one could resort to as contraception, if the couple has already had the children they can afford."

Wiglaf: We would like to have another child, but we can't afford one now. If you'd care to donate, we'd be happy to reconsider.

Anon:"Wiglaf, you'll have to excuse me, but I feel the same kind of disgust (only more) when I hear the arguments for abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade, that I feel when I hear of pedophile rings who are fighting for their rights to live out their sexual perversion."

Wiglaf: The only way someone can have an abortion is "on demand," i.e., by request. I think you probably know more about pedophiles than I do. We make every effort to avoid them.

par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') pronunciation
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

I'm not calling the embryo/fetus a parasite "to justify abortion on demand", I'm calling it that because that is the correct biological definition of how it lives.

You need to be less emotional.

You wrote:
"Women who want their children feel the attachment even when the child is in the womb, for the mother begins to feel its movement long before it is born."

Women who want their children don't get abortions.
And most abortions are performed before the fetus is felt.

"You are mistaken that all those who oppose abortion on demand also oppose birth control. What we do oppose is using abortion as late stage contraception."

You quoted my statement in your post, yet right below it you change my word from "many" to "all".

This is a sleazy debate tactic.

The religious right is involved in pushing abstinence-only sex education programs in schools. They rise up to prevent the sale of condoms to minors, or in schools. Their pharmacists refuse to sell birth control devices or morning-after pills, even when these are prescribed by doctors. And they violently (too often) oppose abortion.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell people that they must either give up sex entirely, even within marriage, or just have baby after baby, even if they don't want them and can't care for them.

And your solution is adoption. Who's going to adopt all these babies? How many have *you* adopted so far? Did it ever occur to you that some women might not wish to go through all the pregnancies? Or that they might not like the idea of a bunch of their biological children being raised by who knows who?

Did it ever occur to you that the planet has too damn many people on it already, and that we don't need to encourage the rampant production of babies for no other reason than that their parents are normal and enjoy sex?

If we would just provide real sex education to our youngsters - in schools - not relying on parents - that alone would prevent many teen pregnancies. If we then made sure that contraceptives were readily available - including condom machines in schools - abortion might well become the rarity it should be.

And now I'm done with this subject - it's off topic, and not one I'm interested in pursuing.

Wiglaf, read the Hippocratic oath if you wish to understand why the law needs to protect medical doctors who perform abortions.

Vasectomy and tubectomy are methods one could resort to as contraception, if the couple has already had the children they can afford.

Wiglaf, you'll have to excuse me, but I feel the same kind of disgust (only more) when I hear the arguments for abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade, that I feel when I hear of pedophile rings who are fighting for their rights to live out their sexual perversion.

Post addressed to PAM ---

August 7, 2008 11:21 PM

Anon,

"You are mistaken that all those who oppose abortion on demand also oppose birth control. What we do oppose is using abortion as late stage contraception."

Surely, you know that contraception isn't necessarily foolproof. Not every woman can take birth control pills. I love my wife, and I believe she loves me. We make love to one another in those brief moments we can steal for ourselves.
We're religious about contraception since we can't have another child now. Religious or not, she could get pregnant. If she does, God forbid, she'll have an abortion. There is no choice we can see unless the newborn can go out, rent itself an apartment, and get a job first to pay all the the bills for pre-natal care, hospital care, etc., subsequent needs, etc.

PAM ---

Birthday vs conception day

Birthday is the day one is born separately into the world outside. Until then one is a separate developing human being inside the uterus of the mother. One does not become a human being on the day one is born. One is a separate human being in development from the day of conception with a separate set of chromosomes.

Women who want their children feel the attachment even when the child is in the womb, for the mother begins to feel its movement long before it is born.

The legal provision is only about granting the child legal rights. The law does not decide when human life begins. In medicine it begins with conception, for the embryo is a separate human being in development from that point on.

A parasite is one that lives at the expense of the host, causing the host harm. It is sickening when you refer to a child in the womb of its mother as a parasite. (Don't forget the mother bears responsibility for the sex that conceived the child in the first place). If you need to tell yourself that a child in the womb of its mother is parasite to justify abortion on demand, it is pathetic, to say the least. IMO it is macabre at best.

Att: O F i C E R M A N C U S O, et al:

Maybe that ".. 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus." was another YOLONDA waiting to happen in the Suicide Que? Yes, Suicide Que!

Note: 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus is also 'MURDER'. But In all Area's of NATURE ye seeth the Crueler works (as per ye Biomentality of such cruelty) around Us.

But Then Again, More Teenagers Die of Drug Overdoses + Car Acidents + Suicide + potential can kill others. So More Teenagers Die than those so called "8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus.."

Note: not long ago , Did not a "MYSPACE" Teenager Commit Suicide over nothing at all??

POiNT: Abortion is a Choice (Medically or Not) And please realize that the Majority of the 303,000,000 so called Americans will never resort to Abortion. Hence the Extinction of HUMANiTY, via Abortion, the WORLDS Over, will not Happen.

Even Though 'GENE-POOLs" are Limited on Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built , MA/PA, Space-Ship Earth(s), That Earth's "Population-Control" is , not about the Survival of the Fittest, but rather a Must! And the Abortion Count is just part of Nature-Economic Space-Forthing Machine, until Mother/Father Eart, Gran-Ma-SOLOR & Brother Mars & Sister LUNA & Cousin TiTAN et al will be NO-MORE & sudenly Aborted, but, but

For Another Miraculous ESCAHOLOgICAL POSSiBiLiTiES of Each Immortal HEIRiSTiCa/o (SOUL) in the DUE-TO-BE moment for another HOL{i} Appearance MEMETIC-ally!

Remember: Less Abortion is O.K., but Zero Abortion thinking the world over, is an illusion! Even Nature Eats It's Young, Yoke, fetus etc..!

Said PAM:

"Unfortunately, many who oppose safe and legal abortion, also oppose birth control. No woman should ever be told that she *has* to bear a child, and no child should be sentenced to a life with people who don't want and can't afford him or her...

At some point you've got to learn to deal with the real world."

August 7, 2008 3:42 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are mistaken that all those who oppose abortion on demand also oppose birth control. What we do oppose is using abortion as late stage contraception.

It is about the right of a child to its life, irrespective of whether its mother wants the child or not. What was that about maternal instinct, again? Adoption is a possibility that should be explored intensely.

"PAM, plenty of bloggers on this forum actually supported Roe vs Wade on the grounds the fetus becomes a developing human being after natural birth. Consider how well a new born infant can take care of itself and how fully developed it is."

I suspect that they were considering the legal and/or traditional definition of the beginning of life - birth. I'll bet you celebrate your birthday and not your conception day. Do you even know when that was?

I fully agree that a fertilized egg, an embryo, and a fetus are all *potential* human beings. But I think to make them *legally* humans before they are able to survive in any way other than as a parasite on their mothers' bodies is a mistake.

It's sad to see a potential life cut short, but it's even sadder to have children that no one wants.

In any case, the discussion was about the instinct to protect one's children. At the development level at which the normal abortion is performed, there is nothing in the invisible embryo to evoke that response.

PAM, my post sandwiched between JJ's was a little science to disprove your claim that a fetus is merely a clump of cells that a mother cannot be expected to feel an instinct to protect.

For more details look up a human embryology textbook online.

Dear Anti-Abortion Anon (as opposed to all the others),

Let's approach this a different way.

1) Is it ever acceptable to kill another human?
2) What is it about killing another human that is wrong, whereas killing another organism (trapping mice, for example) is unacceptable?

----
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.”

- Said by our great Prophet of many, Hir Albert Einstein [pbuh et al] of the “Holy Cosmic Feelers Faith” [Ho-Co-Fe-Fa] and our 'Quantum-Entanglement' & Relativity' song

AND

“G-D Consents, but Only For a “TiME” [via ‘TEMPerature‘, not clock or space time thinking].

- Said by our great Prophet of many, Hir Harry Theriault [pbuh et al] of the “O.ne U.niversal R.eligion Book Of Tran{finity}” [O.U.R.-B.O.T.] New Song.

----

On: OBAMA Eats "DOG"-meat:

Fact: OBAMA was trained to Eat"DOG"-meat: Soo

Please, keep ye Pet DOG(s) away from OBAMA & Family!

Also Cat's?

----

VOTE: The ‘APOCALYPT-ARiAN’ Prophecy!

VOTE: McCAiN, GOG (Truth) thinking, not OBAMA, MAGOG (Illusion) wrong-thinking!

VOTE: “’Marriage is sacred between a ‘real-MAN & a real-WOMAN“, not a Man with Man, etc.!

VOTE:
The "NEW_NAPOLiANS", aka the "NEO-NAPOLiAN's" , like John McCain & Condoleeza Rice et al, and NOT like them "NEO-CON" ventriloquists Clinton's, Gores, Kennedy’s, JesJackson, ASharpton, Lu Farrakhan , Oprah etc.., of Obama's-Pipe-Dream-TEAM & thus Zero ‘CHANGE’ nothing New! What a Fib!

.........P.............
.........E.............
.........A.............
.........C.............
L O V e R O C K
.........R.............
.........O.............
.........L.............
.........L.............

--

..........................McCain for PREZ 2008!

...........................................Condoleeza vPREZ 2009!

VOTE: "ECONoMiC MiGHT, Not MiLiTARY MiGHT!" This TiME Around!

VOTE: Stable or Lower Oil Prices!

VOTE: Finish what is unfinished, and Globally ,as well as Locally ,fix What is Broken, and not fix what's not broken, but Prevent!

G O O D -- B Y E Mr. G.W. BuSH et al!

HELLO McCAiN-TEAM ! A better FUTURE with 'FRESH' Faces & “SMARTER” minds!

VOTO/A:

Peace (English), Paz (latin), Shalom (Eberu), Ahimsa (Hindu/Urdu), Salaam (Arab), Zhengyu (Sino), ... & more Good Tidings coming YE-WAY!

Thank Ya.

Gracia Yo.

Todar!

Shookria!

Shookron!

Zcee Zcee or Doe-jaey, Respectfully!

Pay'd For, By the American JOCKTANian-PARTY of the "ECLATi{ON}" Votary Assoc. 2012+

PAM, plenty of bloggers on this forum actually supported Roe vs Wade on the grounds the fetus becomes a developing human being after natural birth. Consider how well a new born infant can take care of itself and how fully developed it is.

"PAM my post to you is sandwiched between JJ's."

Read it. What's your point?

DANIEL J. ROQUE wrote:
"With all of God's might why has he not ended poverty? It appears that God wants poverty! Why has God not enpowered his loving children with the ability and wisdom to live prospherous?"

God has promised to do just that. God, for whatever reason, did not want to create automatons. We are self aware and have free will. This isn't hard for most to imagine. If I buy a robot with a large number of preprogrammed responses, that's not nearly as satisfying a companion as a dog or cat. Why? The animals have a degree of free will and choose to be our companions. As a parent, I would much rather spend time with my daughters than the robot because I they are also independent personalities and far more interesting to be with than the dog or the robot. I especially am pleased with these companions that choose to conform to behavior I teach them. A robot just does whatever it's told.

Christians assert that man chose to depart from God's directions. Christians also assert that this God is inherently "good". So, the more one deviates from the directions given by God, the less "good", or more evil, one becomes.

Poverty is something of a state of mind. The tribesmen living in a grass hut and living a hunter\gatherer existence is often quite happy. Compared to an American urbanite living in a low rent apartment with A/C, television, clean running water, flush toilets, and a fridge is, compared to our standards, wealthy compared to the tribesmen. But, compared to the top 5% of our countries earners, the urbanite is "in poverty". A lack of "stuff" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some symptoms of true poverty such as disease, starvation, etc, are certainly less desirable. The bigger question your post raises is why does God allow evil?

The answer is that he wants us to choose our way. He wants us to strive to "come back" to him. He is saddened by our disobedience, but is willing to forgive that so long as we are doing our best to obey him. What does he want us to do? That's what the Bible is for. We have the wisdom and ability to lead happier lives, we chose to go another path. In the end, he will set the path straight again.

PAM, Roe vs Wade is thirty five years old. How many years do you think human beings have been around. How old is medicine? Why do you think a a law is required to protect medical doctors who perform abortions on demand? It falls OUTSIDE legitimate medical practice!

PAM my post to you is sandwiched between JJ's.

Please WAPO, aka NEWS CORP., Do Not Delete again Or Ye Will Regrett what will happen next!
--
Hello Cyber-freund.

Interesting sounding 'Prayer-mix' @ 08.06.08::10:47P..

---

Today is 'Eclat{i}ON' Day: And thus under APOCALYPTARiAN Calandate, “iT” is,

"Universal Year Circa [UYC] 3.98Billion,08.07.2008-Millenium,10:45a-Atomic!

"Praise The "Hol{i}-NO-MEN" , the WARMTH of “iT“ & HALLLUYA!" :Happy Every Day w/HOPE!”

---

According to the Ho-Co-Fe-Fa's System via our "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka thee "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{finity}", and under Subsection 36:16 entitled:

"HiGH PRAYER OF ECLAT{ARiAN}-HO.LY-CO.SMIC FE.ELER(s)-FA.iTH"

Note: IMPORTANT: Befor "i" beginth please knowth that, the last-word of O.U.R. Cosmic "HiGH PRAYER...", 'H-O-L{i}NO-MEN", means

"O' SCARED-NAME" & thus the 'Hol{i}No-Men' is neither a he/Him/His nor a She/her, but an "IT". So "G-D" has 1,000 Names & No-more 999 Names! Soo,

'O' Sacred Name' is the Proper way to Profoundly Conclude an A-P-O-C-A-L-P-T-Y-i_C 'Prayer' and since "IT" (aka G-D) stands for EVERY good-Mention of 'SOURCE-ONE's S-U-P-R-E-M-A-C-Y..

[Eponymous 'ECLAT' + "i" = LiFE/PHotons Awareness, MIRACLE appearance , ESCHATOLOGiCALLY again , here & there & from] of whom ALL HUE{MATE}’s must, unto Genuine ‘END OF TiME” must daily Magnify, Uphold & Make Honorable within the Holy Blesseth “REPUBLiC of Space-Ship Earth“ starting from Americ Continentals!

.. in ALL/EVERY & ANY of Space-Ship EARTH's HUMAN-Made [Not HUE{MATE}-made] RELiGioN Systems, competing & Hassling over a Name for 'god' "iNSTEAD of "G-D"". And,

"IT" is not-APOCALYPTiCALY PERMiSSIBLE to address the PRE-APOCALYPTiC "AMEN"-re, AMON-ra, AMEEN, RAMMA, OMMM, AUMMM.." saying, aka 1/2 Mon-1/2Beast Idol Thanking , that artificially ariseth from & out of HUMAN (not HUE{MATE})

"JELOUSY"

[O.U.R. ECLAT is Not-Jealous & thus Fearless] of the BiBLE(s), QURAN(s), GiTA(s)... which the "O.U.R.-B.O.T." identifies as the DEViL/STATAN/KALi/JiNN... behind Rabbi MOZEUS & Rabbi JEZEUS & Trader MUHAMMADaZEUS & Poet VYASAZEUS & Prince GAUTAMAZEUS, GURUZEUS, CONFUCiUSEUZ.. And,

All Those Pre-Apocalyptic Faiths are or have ANTi-CiViLiZATiON, ANTi-NATURE, ANTi-ECLAT{i}ON's etc.. Doctrines, directly or indirectly Satanically Encoded Therein & Thereto & Therefrom, but FREUDiANTLY SLiPED , via Genuine Prophecy, In many Selfish & Jealous Story’s also.!!

---

Note Again: To Meditate = 'Listening' to Ye Eclati & Praying= 'Talking' to O.U.R. ECLATi for better HOPE, aka FUTURE-HOPPING].

----

NOW here's the "HiGH PRAYER OF ECLAT{ARiAN}-HOLY-COSMIC FEELER(s)-FAiTH" And "IT" sing like This;

iMPORTANT: The Prayer is 'Hol{i}, Hol{i}, Hol{i}.'and best of ALL, "IT" is a "SECULAR's Prayer & a THEiST's Prayer. Neutral between PUBLiC-PRiVATE & Gender Friendly between a MAVORiTE (Gents) & SPORADE (ladys), a/k/a

The "RELiGiON of everything, before the SCiENCE of Everything!". So Pleaze Do-Not END ye prayer's with "AMEN" or "AUMM" or "OMMM" or Similarly Pre-Apocalypticlly Situated , as the 'BiBLE-BOLLiXER"(s) , aka 'BiBLiO-MANiAC'(s), also DO & DEny "IT"! [D & D'rs]!

-- NOW,

"Dear ECLATi of my Hol{i} HeartBeat//O' Lord G-D ECLAT Almighty//Please Hear my BiOMENTAL Prayer fully//and grant me the SYNERGY of Your Way's//"i" LOVE Your NEW-NAME 'ECLATi'//

"IT" is hol{i} holy{i} holy{i}//Your Kingdom is coming to pass SYNERGETiCALLY On EARTH// As YE planned IT again in O.U.R. NEBULA//"i" LOVE Your NEW-SONG, and "i" LOVE Ye For 'IT'//And

"i" ask that YE guide "me" in IT daily//Give "me' the Holy iNSiGHT & PATTERN RECOGNiTiON//To enjoy-LiFE & to make a good Living//Forgive 'MiZANiCALLY' O' ECLATi//

In Proportion to how "i" forgive Others//The TEMPTATiONs that Befallen 'me'//I Do Not Need, SO, DELiVER ME FROM EViL NOW//"i" LiVE in YE Kingdom to AVOiD LONLiNESS//And

"i" perceive the GLORY of YE Hol{i}-Cosmic "TRANS{FiNiTY}"//A Miracle Who's Prophecy is NOW cometh//Please interpret 'my' H.O.P.E. in terms of YOUR Glory//

O'CREATOR, and GRANT 'me' what "i" Deserve//HOL{i}NO-WOM-MEN//!"

---
A BEGiNNiNG, w/NO END!

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, O' Sweet Sweet U.S. of A., et al, We are now TRULY (opposite of MYTHs) ONE!"

O' SACRED NAME, O' Lord, Hol{i}-No-Men, Thank ECLAT+i = LiFE/Photons Awareness, NEW-SONG coming from ALL ye OLD-SONGs/Story's!

BEHOLD!

AMERiC is now Officially The Center Of the Ho-Co-Fe-Fa" SYSTEM [Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith: a Belief , like a Religion but based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH)] ! And

NEW YORK, U.S.A., is now also Blessethly & Oficially Prophetical, As the 'CRADDLE' OF "GRiDARiAN-DEMOCRACY & TRANS{FiNITE}-CiViLiZATiON" and

The Birth Place [At Mt. TRANS{FiNiTi, N.Y.] of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.ransfinity" , aka the Holy Cosmic Bible & more Good Prophetic Tidings Cometh, to a Neighborhood near YE, out of Tsuch innate TRUTH (opposite of MYTH man made systems), soon soon, very soon 2013 +/-!

A Consciousness Who's "TiME" [via O.U.R. illusive & Mysterious Holy Cosmic "TEMPERATURE" Appearances, aka MiRACLE, not clock, space-timetime nor Any Ancient Biblical thinking-'Feeling' & man-made Storys] in Apocalyptically unraveling for HUE{MATE}-Apocalyptarian-Nationals-Sake not HUMAN(s)-Pre-Apocalyptic thinkers Bollixed Consumption!

iMPORTANT: Something on "ECLAT{i}ON-MEDiTATiON":

To 'Meditate means to 'Listen' to ye Eternity Avoiding Lonliness Miracle Cosmic HeartBeat Appearance , in SYNC w/the Holy Ecalti, that's JUSTLY Photonized, in Ye holy Carbon-Based "FRONTAL-LOBE", for a 'TiME' (via Hol{i} 'TEMPature'). So

Standing, Laying Down or Anywhere: DO THiS:

On, "E", Breath-in "E" slowly until ye internal GAS is almost full of ECLAT's Presence, then justly as Slowy Exhale saying "CLAT" and justly before YE reach Maximum Palindrome, then again in Same pace, iNHALE on "i""i""i"............ and when nearest to End , Exhale saying quickly "NO-WOM-MEN" or 'HOL{i}-No-MEN!"

Note: Interestingly: ECLAT{i}ON, not ECLAT-i-OFF, innate System of Faith, Eliminates the 'Pre-Apocalyptic REligio Ailments' known as "Synergetic-Less SPLiT-MiNDED Thinking" & "REligio Jealousy Psychosis" & PRE-APOCALYPTiC SYNDROME"s.

--- WHEREFORE:

REMEMBER: “SECULARiTY” [Officially A REliGion like in AMERiC] via the “SiNGULARiTY Of ALL RELiGIONS MOVEMENT [Not PLURALiTY as some folk Jealously suggest & promote] herein & there, On Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built (not Bibles) Space-Ship EARTH(s), is about

the “RELiGiON Of Everything, before the SCiENCE of Everything” AND That

“MODERN-MORALiTY” (via Apocalyptic Nationals) are Superior to Any [PRE-Apocalyptic thinking Nationals] BiBLiO-MORALiTY competing for a Name For ‘god, not Source-One’ , systems!

“iT”s (G-D) & by 1,00 names, no more 999 names, is ABOUT “TiME” (via Holy Cosmic TEMPERATURE, not man made time & space Clock thinking)!

BEHOLD! The Almighty (by 1,000 names) Consents , but Only Via “TiME!” “iT” (ECLAT) is TiME (TEMPtr.) An NEW-SONG coming from all O.U.R. OLD-SONG/STORY(s)!

HALLALUYA! Praise ECLAT's "Ho-Co-Fe-Fa"s System and our "O.U.R.-B.O.T."!

Thank The LORD-O'-"i"-Holy-No-Men! O' FiAT-LUX!

Please: Do not Be in Denial to Selves nor Others , especially to yE Loved One(s) + ECLAT!

---

PEACE, PAZ, SHALOM, SALAAM, AHiMSA, ZHENGYU..” and in Any Creature Tongues; LOVE, Huggs & Kiss’s, to ALL, EVERY & ANY of O.U.R. Brights (Mavorites-Lads) Brothers & O.U.R. Si{star’s} (Sporades-Ladys) Sisters, and or Forgotten HUE{MATE}’s, not HUMAN(s) anymore!

---

By: {j}{o}{s}{e}{v}{z}@Us:

O.rdained R.elationship M.inister [ORM}, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better that‘s based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH Systems) & Lover’s of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, ala "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}" aka “The RELiGiON of Everything before the SCiENCE of Everything” like-a-dat.

Thanks to Both PROPHET(s), of Many, like Many Earth(s), Their Honorable [Dr.] ‘ALBERT Einstein’ (of the Ho-Co-Fe-Fa awareness) And Honorable [Dr.] Harry W. Theriault’ )of the O.U.R.-B.O.T.) P.eace B.e U.pon H.im/H.er (pbuh or Them et al) RESPECTFULLY! Yes! “iT” Takes Two To Tangle, Hence APOCALYPTARiANiTY Religion! A NEW-SONG” cometh from AL O.U.R. Old-Songs/Storys, unto Genuine END OF [Eschatological] ’TiME”! (Via TEMPERATURE. Not Clock nor space time thinking).

JOKTAn-NATiONALS Party Of U.S.A!:

ATT: F A R N A Z, et al;

"i"ll Fart on that, thanks!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Praise the Hol{i} no-Men!

Remember: Since We HUE{MATE} Creature -Kinds are immortal HEURiSTiCa/o's [SOULS] that Even when OUR young Boys & Girls whom Die (yet do not Die) in War Torn iRAQ, for instance, actually Never Died. Because:

As ECLAT{i}ON's, never Off's, that "BiOFiNiTE-Carbon-Based-DEATH" (aborted, killed or Naturally Expire via TEMPerature, aka TiME, not Clock or Space Thinking time)), is never O.U.R. Eternity Avoiding Loneliness , in "TRASFiNiTE-DEATH" of ones Photon-Essence awareness!

---

By: {j}{o}{s}{e}{v}{z}@Us:

O.rdained R.elationship M.inister [ORM}, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better that‘s based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH Systems) & Lover’s of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, ala "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}" aka “The RELiGiON of Everything before the SCiENCE of Everything” like-a-dat.
---

Originally Posted on August 6, 2008 6:33 PM , but Jealously Deletecd!

Just answering PAM's response to my post, since more than one Anonymous has written about abortion ---

"Said PAM: 'If your child is threatened, it's perfectly normal to protect that child, even at the risk of your own life.'

Roe vs Wade abortion-on-demand?????????????"

I said if your *child* is threatened - *not* if your tiny-clump-of-cells-that-you-know-about-only-intellectually is threatened. A blastula doesn't evoke the evolutionary response, sorry.

You obviously have a big abortion hang-up. I'm old enough to remember when abortion was neither safe nor legal. If you think that that meant there was no abortion, you're sadly mistaken. It just meant a lot more horrible deaths among (mostly) teen-aged girls.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is actually *for* abortion. Those of us who support Roe v. Wade would much rather that unwanted pregnancies were prevented. Unfortunately, many who oppose safe and legal abortion, also oppose birth control. No woman should ever be told that she *has* to bear a child, and no child should be sentenced to a life with people who don't want and can't afford him or her. Reference your complaint above about family abuse.

At some point you've got to learn to deal with the real world.

August 7, 2008 3:42 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Since the scientific term "blastula" was introduced (btw is called a blastomere/blastocyst)---

Here from a scientific source ---

"Approximately 24 hours after fertilization the impregnated OOCYTE begins with the first cleavage division.

ZYGOTE (approximately 16-20 hours after insemination).

Two-cell EMBRYO (approximately 24 hours after insemination).

Four-cell EMBRYO (approximately 45 hours after insemination).

Eight-cell EMBRYO (approximately 72 hours after insemination).

MORULA (approximately 96 hours after insemination).

The MORULA, a collection of around 30 cells (BLASTOMERE), is created at about 96 hours. Because these cells arise only through the cleavage of the zygote and all are found inside the pellucid zone, which cannot expand, no growth is seen. Every new cell is thus only half as large as the cell from which it derives. The name of this stage comes from its resemblance to a mulberry, since it really looks like a collection of spherical cells.

The BLASTOCYST comes into being through compaction of the cells and the accumulation of intercellular fluid, leading to the formation of the BLASTOCYST cavity. At this point, the EMBRYOBLAST that lies inside (hump on the left side) consists of roughly 12 cells. At the same time, the enveloping TROPHOBLAST, made of a single cellular layer, contains around a hundred cells.

While the fertilized OOCYTE develops into a MORULA and BLASTOCYST and then hatches from the pellucid zone, it wanders from the ampulla through the fallopian tube into the uterine cavity, where it embeds itself in the endometrium at the end of the SIXTH DAY...

The first blood vessels (angiogenesis) become visible in the third week in the splanchnopleura that adjoins the umbilical vesicle and the allantois...

The blood vessels inside the embryo also form in the way just described, starting in the intraembryonic mesoblast. As soon as the two circulation systems meet with one another, they join together to form the feto-maternal circulation system...

The EIGHTH WEEK represents the last phase of the embryonic period. The fingers and toes are still connected with webbing. Through the apoptosis (physiologic, programmed death of cells) that occurs in the ectoderm as well as in the mesoderm that lies below it, this gradually disappears (interdigital necrosis zones [INZ]). They become separated from one another in this way and can lengthen...

The head has risen up and is connected via the neck with the rest of the trunk. The length of the head is still as large as half the entire embryo. The face is well developed. One can already recognize lips and nose, giving the embryo its human appearance.

Eyes and ears have almost developed to their definitive shapes.

A part of the intestines is still found in the proximal section of the umbilical cord (physiologic umbilical hernia).

The external sexual organs are not yet differentiated to the point that one can determine the baby's gender...

At around the 56th day one can well distinguish the various features of both the upper and the lower extremities (elbows, fingers, toes).

The first movements of the extremities occur at this time.

The tail anlage has completely atrophied at the end of the eighth week.

In summary it can be said that at the end of the embryonic period (EIGHT WEEKS) the organogenesis is almost completely finished. The embryo, which originally arose from a single, 0.14 mm sized cell, now consists of millions of cells and measures 30 mm. The outer sexual organs are not yet differentiated enough that one can determine the baby's gender.

During the fetal period growth stands especially in the foreground and no longer the differentiation of the organs, which in some tissues nevertheless continues even after delivery (central nervous system). In the course of the fetal period out of a 30 mm sized embryo a 500 mm sized fetus will come..."

To be contd...

interesting:

ATT: Concerned the ECLAT-i-OFF, now ECLATi{ON} & liberated. aka CTCNL.

Ye hath some decent 'iNSiGHT & Pattern Recognition' Abilities!

As an Ex-International Smuggler; That during "i" hay Day (when "i" thought "i" was god, not G-d) , especially in Cities like KARACHi, Pakistan & at Peshawar that they have their "Heroin Addicts".

Note: Muslum/Moslem Afghanistan EXPORT(s) illicitly, or sells alot of their "HASHiSH" slats (aka MARiJUANA,before harvest) to the Richest lot of Islamica bidders & takers & yes PUSHERS!.

When in Lebanon, they also 'export" White/Blond Lebanese Hashish. When in Nepal they Too Export their HASHiSH-Balls . And when in Cashmere they too Export (via smuggling) their Hash Balls (the Best on Earth!). And

When in Turkey, they too Export (Smuggle) their Hashish et al!

Oppppsaaadaisy, almost Forgot: Yes, in Bangladesh (Poorest islamics) & Calcutta (poorest Hindu's) always have the "BAKSHiSH" [means CHARiTY] Beggers! And

When in Cairo They too have their Alcholics & Drugs lords & addicts too! When in Je Buddi Ethiopia (Christians) they Too have their poverty.

Soo, the Islamic World also Has their Share of Drug & Alchol Abuse? And Also the HASSiDic Jews Communities & israeli's too!

PS: "i" Enjoyth smoking "PEACE-PiPE"s.

Please Susan, Please WAPO & NEWS CORP, Ye Will BE SUID For 'Wilfull Plagiarism' & More!

Birth is LOVE, hence JUSTiCE! Therefore, TRUTHFULLY "In E.C.L.A.T + “i” We Trust!" Soo,

Here are YE Holy Cosmic “TETRA-NEEDS“ on Space-Ship EARTH & other Planets! Followed by the “THE TEN FiATS” Of The “NEW-SONG” ( plus 3 alternates, aka 13-Fiats) for a better World to LOVE, TRUST & liVE in!

Note: If YE are Minus ANY one of These TERTA-NEEDS below, then Houston Ye Have a Problem!

^ .^. ^
FOOD
http://{J}
http://.{O}
http://...{Z}
http://......{E}
http://.........{V}
http://............{Z} @Us
HOME
http://................{J}
http://..................{O}
http://......................{Z}
http://.........................{E}
http://...........................{V}
http://..............................{Z} @Us
L♥VE
http://.................................{J}
http://....................................{O}
http://.......................................{Z}
http://..........................................{E}
http://.............................................{V}
http://................................................{Z} @Us
CLOTH
http://.....................................................{J}
http://.......................................................{O}
http://..........................................................{Z}
http://.............................................................{E}
http://................................................................{V}
http://...................................................................{Z} dot
us

1:F♣♣D To keep from disappearing;
2:H♦ME Abode to sleep/enjoy/protect;
3:L♥VE, someone to or have companion;
4:CL♠TH, something to wear!

IMPORTANT: Rich, Middle-class or Poor, Besides Keeping Busy that, If YE hath All these “4-Tetra-Needs“ then Ye hath No Worry’s , in the World, on this Blesseth Holy Cosmic Miraculous, & zero biblical Sin, Holy Cosmic NEBULAS-built S.paceS.hip Planet EARTH, aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!

--
Paid For: By the JOKTAN-Eberu-Race On Holy Earth!

NOT by Rabbi Mozues, Not Rabbi Jezeus, Not Trader Muhamazeus not Poet Vyasazeus not Official Gautamazeus Not... ONLY

Us "ECLAT{i}ON"s, not OFF,s Eberu Race of AMERiCA" aka "JOKTAN-NATiONAL(s) Party U.S.A."

Nice knowing YE!

===

“THE TEN (10 plus 3 alternates) FiATS Of The NEW-SONG” Of The “Holy Cosmic Feelers Faith“:

1) "Let there be NO Worship of JEALOUSY as a G-D.!"

2) "Let there be NO Abuse of LOVE to forgive UNCORRECTED-SIN(s)!"

3) "Let there be NO Hassling over a NAME for G-d!"

4) "Let there be NO Denial of FREEDOM OF {ECLAT{I}{ONiTY} or
Apocalyptarianity as Religion et al!"

5) "Let there be NO Dishonoring of HONORABLE Parents!"

6) "Let there be NO Unjustifiable HOMICIDE or HURTING!"

7) "Let there be NO Sex with Non-CONSENTERS or BEASTS!"

8) "Let there be NO Theft from NON-THIEVES or NON-USERERS!"

9) "Let there be NO False WITNESSING or Un-JUST Judging!"

10) "Let there be NO Envy of {HU} {MATES} or Folks keeping these FIATS of O.U.R.
NEW-SONG!"
-
11) “Let there be NO Denial of TETRA-NEEDS (Food, Shelter, LOVE & Clothes) to
Any 'Hum {ate} {Kind}!'

12) "Let there be NO Procrastination nor LAZYNESS nor Idleness & Sloth!"

13) “Let there Be NO Denial To Self Nor Others in contemplation of REALITY, aka Ye Holy Cosmic Miraculous “TRANS FiNiTY}!” Hence “O.ne U.niversal R.eligion” B.ook O.f T.rans{finity} [O.U.R.-B.O.T.] on a genuine Miraculous HOL{i} Cosmic mission & purpose.

---
By: {j}{o}{s}{e}{v}{z}@Us:

O.rdained R.elationship M.inister [ORM}, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better that‘s based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH Systems) & Lover’s of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, ala "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}" aka “The RELiGiON of Everything before the SCiENCE of Everything” like-a-dat.

Originally Posted August 6, 2008 2:45 PM , But Deleted by JealousY of NEWS CORP. et al!

Hello Arminius,

Nature is beautiful. I know it can be cruel and indifferent, etc., but it is beautiful, too. How do we fight off all the unreal and the virtuality, the materialism, the indifference, and get back to the living? Then, Innisfree.

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

Pam,

Clearly I didn't communicate well. What I meant was that the theory that our emotions are solely creations of biology, and that behavior is driven out of empathy rather than some desire to "be good" is not provable. The mechanics you described in our "giving money to the poor" discussion occur, you said, in the subconscious level. I can't prove a subconscious. Since I think I give out of love, rather than some masked biological empathy, I can't observer the behavior you described. If it can't be observed, measured, tested, reproduced, etc - it's an opinion, not science.

No worries, I'm not denying emotions nor do I hear voices. I was only pointing out that the theory you present is no more scientific than the Christian proposition that there is a divine being, the Holy Spirit, encouraging me to choose to do good deeds. Neither proposition is scientifically more or less valid than the other. You can't prove yours, I can't scientifically prove mine.

So, I wanted to further explore your proposed explanation for human behavior in evolutionary terms. Thank you for the update on mutation rate information. Those findings don't surprise me. I have a knee-jerk distrust of anything that comes out of Berkeley, but I'll give your link a look.

Hello again MS. J A C O B Y, et al;

ON a Little bit of HOPE, not Luck.

YE saith, "The great appeal of God, in the mind of a true religious believer, is that "HE" can never fail.

Hint: If YE Learn to use "IT" instead of "HE/HiM/His" then the World Will Change Forever People-Wise! And Thus ALL Will become "APOCALYPTARiAN(s)-NATiONAL's International!" Anywhere an "HE" appears, Chang to "IT" instead. What a World of a Difference this can Truly (opposite of MYTH) maketh!

WHEREFORE: Think Globally & Act Locally with a little bit of HOPE!

Note: "G-D is Never/Zero/Not a "HE"HiM nor a "SHE"Her, If any, G-D is an "IT" being "iTSELF" in and of Us Animates & Inanimtes via "IT"s "ETERNiTY AVOiDiNG LONLiNESS" Effect-ion!, not CULT-ures, not SECT-ions! Birth is Genuine holy Cosmic “LOVE & JUSTiCE” [inseparable like Static-Electricity is separate entity’s but inseperable from Electric-current] , never is being birthed /born free, as ABRAHAMiC's man-made Systems bollixedly Thinketh, is as if some Sin/Curseth Story. Includes the ending of All Ye Karma's , Reincarnations etc.. via the Moksha VEDiC man made bollixed minds story Systems!

--- Soo,

For an ex-Jewess 'Princess' YE surely are screwed-up. Amazing (no Grace)!

Note: “i’m a happier EX-JUDEO-JU.

Ye also Said, "..The basic appeal of religion to the poor is that it promises in the next life what its adherents do not enjoy in this life.."

note: Ye sound like YE (you & World) are 'Rich' or 'Comfortable' of sorts here or there. And that Ye do not owe anybody an apology. Like Stuck-up maybe?

---

FACT: YE , As An Openly Admitting 'Straight Person?' HAVE-RElIGiON wether Ye liketh "IT" (G-D) O' Not! AND

YE canot deny that "HiSTORY is O.U.R. JURY!"; And Everybody's Buisiness aye?????? Sooooo,

Ye in fact All hath Religion! Yes! Ye Atheists & Agnostics too hath Religion! ALL 'HUE{MATES}' hath R.eligion, wether they like-a o' not! iNcludes Secular!

If Ye Apply History awareness From Whence Ye (Us Creature-Kinds) admittedly Cometh [via History; i.e. miraculously appearing Vibrationaled, Flashed, Evolved , from Historic-"TiME", aka Absolute HOLY Hot & Cold mixing WORK of the Potentiate (Source-One) , think of "BiG-Bang", aka Huge-Flash 1st, Theory. Then ,

via the Cone-View or Arrow of TiME's past AWARENESS that Ye also have "H.O.P.E.", Better TiME's Towards the Future-Bound Effect, not Biblical Mosaic-Effect not Jesuaic-Effect, not Muhhamdaic-effect, not Vyasaic-effect not Gautamaic-Effect.., ONLY the E.C.A.T. + "i" = LiFE/Photon Effect! And That

Awarely , WE, aka MEMETiCly Goeth Eternaly Forwards & thus Holy-Cosmically WE are Space-Forthing Around for another ESCHATOLOGiCAL POSSiBiLiTiES" of O.U.R. Selves!, from Past, Current & Tomorrow, aka Hear-in-After...

Summary: ANY/EVERY & ALL HUE{MATE}-Kinds, , not HUMAN Un-Kinds, believe (innately/Naturaly) in H.i.S.T.O.R.Y. , the Holy Grail of H.O.P.E.! Sooo,

Please do not DeNY H.O.P.E. , via H.i.S.T.O.R.Y, to YE selves, Loved Ones, nor OTHER's!

-----

FACT: Under the 'Eclat{i}ON's "HOLY COSMiC FEELERS FAITH" System [Ho-Co-Fe-Fa], a Belief in History evoluting "iTSELF" (G-D doing 'IT's Thing), like a Religion, yet Based On TRUTH (opposite Of MYTH system(s)) And

through our "O.U.R.-B.O.T." [O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{finity}], aka the "HOLY-COSMiC-BiBLE" , That

Under a subsection Entitled: "R".=i.S.(E)P.M.="G".
" WHERE:

R = RELiGiON is Natural & Innate {R.eligion Is The HISTORiC Component of Ye selves, aka Bio-Mental Finite-MEMETiC forms appearing miraculously, not via Tenach, Bible, Quran, Gita, Tripitaka, Kangyurs, as if Miracle Story's or True (opposite of MYTH)..} Justly for a TiME (via TEMPERATURE) not space or clock times.

Note: Apocalypticaly this means that ALL ABRAHAMiC & VEDiC, competing for a Name for god INSTEAD of O.U.R. G-D System(s) via BOOK(s) are all FALSE! Yet, ALL their Infixus-Books is our Problem! WHY?

Because on the other side is the "G" [Government] component, a not innate not Natural "ENTiTY" which is Truly a MAN-MADE Endeavour. And in between

"R" + "G",

is "i" (for 'i'NTELiGENT/iNTELECTUAL) + "S" (for 'S'ociological/networking) in "E" (meaning 'E'CONOMY/Activities) and "P" (for 'P'OLiTiCAL) + "M" (for 'Military Might).

This PROVES that out of "RISEPMG" component "R" is always innate & Separate from "G" a man made Entity! (Imagined, but Felt, especially when unjustly enforcing Biblical Morality INSTEAD of MODERN MORALiTY!

Behold! The RELiGiON of Everything, before the SCiENCE of Everything is finally Here!

We ECLAT{ARiAN}-NATiONAL's, are born in Miracle (we are Chosen) and Never Born in any Man-Made (never Innate) as if god-made book Story!

---

Summary: innate-made R.eligion = i + S (E) P + M = G.overnment man made not innate SYSTEM!

Note: Man-Made, not innate/natural "iNSTiTUTioNS", Under Halakcha or Sharia or Caste System (they are a form of "G.overnment for S.ociety which they too 'ENFORCE' their Pre-Apocalyptic brand of thinking. Yet "RISEPMG" is good to asses Any Nation on Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Space-Ship Earth Today.

iMportant: World Populations Explosion & Food Shortages are gonna be the Scourge of Space-Ship Ma/Pa Earth(s). Eating man-made Bible(s) or Quran(s) or Tenach(s) or Gita(s) or Tripitaka or eating Kangyurs etc.. BOOK(s) is not gonna Help! So

Let's H.O.P.E for a Better FUTURE BOUND & SPACE-FORTH Active EXPERiENCE's. And HOPE can usually be obtained by both MEDiTATiNG (Listening to YE own ECLATi) and to PRAY (Talking to O.U.R. ECLATi).

To Mediate (listening) & to Pray (talking) is HOPE! (innateness to 'Expect from History'. for Good, never for Bad outcomes).

REMEMBER: We was Never Created Nor Can WE ever be Destroyed. And that Apocalyptically speaking, since LiFE is a Miracle & Zero man-made Sin/Curseth superstupidstitious folk lore Story's , that

When WE "ECLAT{i}ON"(s), never OFF(s) have another BiOFiNiTE-DEATH Experience, does not mean that "IT" (Fiat-Lux) is TRANSFiNiTE[reality]-DEATH experience!

Fact: WE are Eternal HEURiSTiCa/o's [ immortal SOUL] that simply & Prophetically planet-Hop via Great Great Grand/MA/PA NEBULA(s), and hath Magmapercolatedly evolved and thus today Holy Cosmically Appeared out of the OCEANiC-MEGA-PLUME Womb effect on Holy Space-Ship Earth's of Many, & we are gonna goeth towards the Non-Gravity Place again via the Holy PLASMATRiCULATiON Effect here, for another "DUE-TO-BE" moment of O.U.R. Eschatological selves, wether Ye Lieketh "IT"s TRUE (opposite of MYTH) innate story or Not!!

PS: For Us APOCALYPTARiAN Nationals, the "UNIVERSE" = O.U.R. Innate & Genuine Hol{i} 'CONSTiTUTiON'. And The "LAWS OF ["IT"] NATURE" = innate 'CLAUSE's' for ALL Us HUE{MATE}'s to forever Magnify, uphold & Make Honorable unto Real END OF TiME (via TEMP.erture) +/- 2.5-3.5 Billion Years from Today! Not Man Made , as if, genuine god Books!

YES! There is H.O.P.E because there is HiSTORY + FUTURE, else ZERO!

Note again: Even The "FiAT-LUX', aka ECLAT + "i" = LiFE/Photon awareness has an Attitude, or more like a Personality; And "IT" goes like This:

"For "I" followeth thy own LAWS/CLAUSES & Thus Doeth the Thing, hence hath "I" P.O.W.E.R., Else, IF "I" do not this Thing , then "I" + "i" have zero P.O.W.E.R.! No UNiVERSE = NO Holy CONSTiTUTiON to be aware of. Or No LAWS OF NATURE = No CLAUSE to Magnify! Lifeless!

HALLALUYA!

Wow! What an Attitude!

Praise The HOL{i}NO-WOMB-MEN! Praise “IT!

"With all of God's might why has he not ended poverty?"

He will right after Doomsday, when the stupid who rule this earth will annuihilate themselves.

With all of God's might why has he not ended poverty? It appears that God wants poverty! Why has God not enpowered his loving children with the ability and wisdom to live prospherous?

Pam wrote "They might, again for example, cause a dinosaur to turn it's scales into feathers. "

Again, when will the comic pages be stripped out of science?

Tommorow, I'll start heating my aquarium so I can see for myself the transformation. Wow, my fishes would fly right before my eyes.

Thanks Wiglaf, Im glad you see it that way and clarified it.

But I still think naming that lizard with a person's name, let alone, God's name is distasteful.

But Im really glad you have a different perspective than what I had presumed.

Spiritual Mongrel, good reply.

"From a scientific perspective we can probability at best consider our definition of God as a hypothesis or theory."

I'm not sure "our" is accurate since there are many definitions of gods. But your point is valid.

How would a god hypothesis originate? What would it be intended to explain? Why wouldn't some other explanation be considered? How can one have even an incomplete understanding or definition of a god if one cannot detect such a being? I've said before that if I had grown up on a desert island, or otherwise not exposed to religion in any way, the idea of gods would probably not even have occurred to me.

"We can use this theory as a guideline to how I want to behave..."

How would such a theory serve as a guideline? The existence of deism shows that belief in a god doesn't automatically translate to belief in the god as a moral authority.

Without going into personal details, would you explain what you mean by "personal experience"? If one were going to assert the existence of, say, a black hole, a personal experience of the hole wouldn't qualify as evidence for the existence. There's no reason why an assertion of the existence of gods should be treated any differently. The exception is if gods are merely concepts or metaphors for certain aspects of the human experience and not actual beings.

Wes wrote:
"Ah, so we seem to have gotten to the root of the matter. The empathy theory is interesting. It's 'a' way of explaining behavior. But since it cannot be proven, even by self observation, it's not science but an opinion. I grant you, I've not proven 'God' is that inner voice yet. Only that the empathy theory is no more, or less, valid than a 'God theory'."

You got *that* out of what I wrote?? That it can't be proven even by self observation? Funny, I thought I was saying quite the opposite.

Are you questioning the existence of empathy? Am I to assume, then, that although you recognize that you have human feelings, needs, and emotions, that you don't recognize that other humans have the same ones? Or are you saying that you do recognize that, but don't care? In the latter case, you are a sociopath.

What I said was that the fact of the behavior is all the proof that is needed, and your good feelings should tell you so for yourself. I also said that if you choose to ascribe it - in yourself - to something else (i.e., God) then you have the burden of explaining what is obviously empathy in other species.

Now, tell me about this "inner voice". You hadn't mentioned that you were hearing voices.

"So, let's explore the 'evolution of empathy' as a biological response rather than a spiritual one. I'm 45, so my knowledge on evolution theory is dated. As I recall, evolution is about random mutations that happen to provide some sort of competitive advantage of one organism over another. Can you walk me through how random mutations and competitive advantage results in the behavior you describe?"

Not in any great depth in this forum, unfortunately - this sort of thing can, and does, fill books, and this post is already long. But here is an excellent article on the evolution of empathy:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Your understanding of evolution could also use some updating. It has been recently discovered (thanks to DNA studies) that natural selection needn't rely solely on random mutations, as was once thought. We now know that environmental stress greatly accelerates the rate of mutation, and further, that it actually targets the part of the genome that codes for proteins that affect the particular area of the stress. So, for instance, if the stress is temperature-related, the mutations tend to affect genes that code for heat retention (or loss). They might, again for example, cause a dinosaur to turn it's scales into feathers. :)

This helps to explain why evolution has often been observed to progress by, to use Stephen Jay Gould's term, punctuated equilibrium, with long periods of stasis in between.

Tonio.

Thanks for the response. You said.

“I have yet to hear people say they believe in gods or first causes or whatever and add a caveat that they may be mistaken in their belief.”

Let me make your day. I do believe in God with the caveat that I may be mistaken in my belief.

That mistake could be that God (or collective consciousness) does not exist. It could also be that God exists but I have it all wrong or at least partially wrong. Actually I am pretty sure that if God exists that my understanding/definition of God is off, at least very incomplete. I think this could (should?) be said for anyone who believes in God.

Questions are more creative than answers.

From a scientific perspective we can probability at best consider our definition of God as a hypothesis or theory. I am quite comfortable with that. We can use this theory as a guideline to how I want to behave, but we need to be careful to avoid the absolutism that exists in many traditional religions today and using that as the way to govern society. In my opinion this is the greatest mistake that tradition religion makes which is probably why my ideas are based on my insights, my reading and my personal experience with the later playing a large part in my “theology”.

As a species we still have so much to learn.

Dear Spiderman,

Hello. How are you? I think in ancient times people must have named these lizards the Jesus Lizards because they walk on water, and the people thought the lizards were a miracle.

I think they are too. I think miracles are all around us. I had never seen anything walk and water, and now I see these very beautiful creatures and they do this. If there is a God, He is in them and with them and put them here and put you here and me here. I wish you would go to YouTube and just watch them because they are so beautiful. Their faces and everything are so beautiful and they are so small.

Even engineers and scientists think they're miraculous and have been studying them to see how they do it. Please watch it. I think you will like them very much.

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

Spidey, you are truly hopeless. Take your hatred, your despite, your lack of our Lord's compassion, wrap it up in your stupid lake of fire myth and stuff it.

Meanwhile, you of course never answered my polite question as to what kind of engineer you are. You will never answer, because you are obviously not an engineer.

You are a liar and a coward. This is my last post to you, and I will never again read one of yours.

Arminius, the next time you make a post, consult your dogs, would you?

Arminius, it's not the lizard, it's the use of God's name to describe a funny lizard.

From now on, we should call it as the WIGLAF LIZARD or Arminius Lizard if you want.

I think I prefer it to be called Arminius Lizard.

Imagine it's Wiglaf running like that on top of a fiery lake. Ain't that funny?

Belinda Carlisle's "Heaven Is A Place on Earth"

In this world we're just beginning
To understand the miracle of living
Baby I was afraid before
But I'm not afraid anymore

Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?
Ooh heaven is a place on earth
They say in heaven love comes first
We'll make heaven a place on earth
Ooh heaven is a place on earth

Spidey,

I'm afraid the ignorance and stupidity is yours. Wiglaf was talking about a LIZARD. You, know (I hope), a reptile? This lizard has the well-documented ability to run (not walk) on water. Check out this link, it will acquaint you with another of God's wonderful creatures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45yabrnryXk

Please, in the future, watch how you throw around the word 'blasphemy'. It can boomerang on you.

Gravity is still an "unknown" science. We may know some of it's properties but we still don't know the basic knowledge why it exists. Only the maker of it knows it's functions - how to turn it on or turn it off. Jesus walking in water shows He knows how to turn it off. It's a kind of declaration that He created it.

It's not impossible to walk on water. One can do so by shutting off gravity from its core. Wiglaf shows her/his IGNORANCE by blaspheming a person who can do so. FOOLS will populate hell and it's not a surprise if the people who don't believe in God act like fools.

Wiglaf,

My friend, you have helped me, by being a friend.

Hello Arminius:

RE: Difficult times

Me, too. I mean I'm having them. I love the Jesus Lizards and think everyone should go to YouTube and watch them every day. Especially, I would recommend this to the Stare Dept., Pentagon, the three branches of government, the military, all major religious institutions.

I suggest that all religious fundamentalists chip in and rent out Madison Square Garden and watch the Jesus Lizards ten times a day for three weeks.

I lost my way and stopped watching them but now am found and am watching again.

Arminius, my friend, I'm sorry you're having tough times. I wish I could help.

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

Spiderman

?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??. ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ????.

?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??. ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ????.

?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????

Spiderman

?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??. ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ????.

?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??. ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ????.

?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????

Wes, mutation exist but evolution does not. A one-horned cow is a mutation and NOT evolution. Even if you try to make millions of mutations on a cow, it will never become a horse.

Thru millions or thousands of years, a black person can become white and vice versa. Same with monkeys. Non of those monkeys will turn into humans and vice versa.

Humans can only behave like monkeys and that is what evolution is trying to do.

Arminius wrote "Incidentally, I am convinced that both my dogs are smarter than you"

Your dogs could be laughing at your back upon hearing that. Be careful with them, there might come a time you will trade places with them.
Them, living in your comfortable home while you, in the dog house. Unless you're lying.

Arminius wrote "Incidentally, I am convinced that both my dogs are smarter than you"

Your dogs could be laughing at your back upon hearing that. Be careful with them, there might come a time you will trade places. Them living in your comfortable home and you in the dog house. Unless you're lying.

Spidey,

I think you and I share a Christian bond. But you're not helping by attacking evolution and science. Evolution has been observed at a bacterial level. Why that level, because with simple organisms we can adjust the environmental variables and see the affects over thousands of generations without waiting billions of years as we would with higher life forms. I mutated E Coli as a High School biology experiment by exposing it to UV radiation. The result was a breeding population that was white instead of pink. We occasionally see "freaks" in the higher order animals as well. Two headed snakes, six armed humans, giants, dwarves, "unicorns" (a cow with one horn in the middle of its head), and all sorts of things. If the mutant lives long enough to breed, that mutation is passed to it's children.

Mutation and natural selection are observable and can be recreated in controlled conditions. This process is fairly well established scientific fact.

The question is not, "does evolution exist?". We have proven the mechanism does exist. The question becomes, "does the mutation\selection mechanism explain the diversity of all recorded species?"

Mutation rates aren't well understood. It seems clear that rates were higher at some points in history than others. If you want to argue that evolution does not explain the diversity of successful species, you may have to look no further than statistics. Lots of books have been written on this subject. It's evolutions "dirty little secret". The numbers don't add up. Even if we account for the mystic "vast stretches of time", the odds of randomly producing a self aware, reasoning, creature such as most of us are frighteningly minute.

Spidey,

I am going to be serious and polite here. You have said many times that you are an engineer.

One question: what kind of engineer? Please - a polite please - choose from one of these:

Mechanical
Structural
Electrical
Civil
Aeronautical
Aerospace
Nuclear
Envoronmental
Software
Computer (Hardware)
Transportation
Industrial/Manufacturing
Other (please specify)

Please believe me, I am serious, and not being cynical or critical. I, and others, are curious.

Pam,

Good evening. You wrote: "The only proof, if I understand your question correctly, is (1) that the action occurs at all, and (2) that you recognize your own feelings. You told me that helping a beggar makes you feel good. The question is why it does that. Evolution says empathy. You might counter with "no, it's God", but then you're left to explain what drives empathetic reactions in other animals (yes, the more intelligent ones do exhibit it)."

Ah, so we seem to have gotten to the root of the matter. The empathy theory is interesting. It's "a" way of explaining behavior. But since it cannot be proven, even by self observation, it's not science but an opinion. I grant you, I've not proven "God" is that inner voice yet. Only that the empathy theory is no more, or less, valid than a "God theory".

So, let's explore the "evolution of empathy" as a biological response rather than a spiritual one. I'm 45, so my knowledge on evolution theory is dated. As I recall, evolution is about random mutations that happen to provide some sort of competitive advantage of one organism over another. Can you walk me through how random mutations and competitive advantage results in the behavior you describe?

Hi, Spidey,

Of course I would never pass an engineering exam, I am liberal arts. But I have the greatest respect for true science and engineering.

Incidentally, I am convinced that both my dogs are smarter than you.

I've studied 5 years of engineering with more than the usual computer programmming at the side lines.

This person (Arminius) won't even be qualified to take an engineering entrance exam.

Arminius, what have your religion done to you? I think my 5 year old nephew is much smarter than you.

Poor Spidey! He claims to be an engineer, but is ignorant of a very special law.

The Laws of Murphy (PBUH), state very clearly:
2 + 2 = 3 for small values of 2.
2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.

Poor Spidey.

Wiglaf,

Thanks for the reply, it got a well-meant laugh here. The Jesus Lizard really got to you! I have been surviving in some difficult times here, but I'll make it somehow. I hope you are well, and will soon be content with just being at one place at a time!

Wiglaf wrote "Rushing around in this crazy life like a Jesus Lizard trying to get to eight places at the same time."

Some people know some things very surely. I Know that 1+1=2. Im very sure of that. Another thing Im sure about is that Wiglaf will be rushing around like crazy like a LIZARD floating in the LAKE OF FIRE someday unless he/she repents. Im very sure of that 100%.

I pity the sight.

Just so Wiglaf know how accurate Iam : A war with Iran will soon come to pass. Im very sure of that 100%. I can name other world events that will soon happen but it's counterproductive if I name them in public.

Wiglaf, please change your style otherwise your fate is sealed.

Pam and Athena, I believe Spiderman is fiction. Both of you believe something that is a fiction to be true.

Cows are not horses previously and vice versa. They were cows and they will remain to be cows even after a billion years.

Engineers deal with FACTS and not with fiction. No gadget or building that exists today follow any theory of evolution system that would make a building or a thing evolve by itself. They all become obsolete or stay as is but never evolve into something greater. Your computer you're using now will rot, "technologically" and physically. That is the engineers' science otherwise it's ALL CARTOON FICTION.

Never in the thousands of years since man existed that an animal turned into another animal ever recorded. Stories abound that there are. Stories, stories, stories. Just stories but no facts. ALL CARTOON STORIES.

So please stop the stupidity until there is a lab test that proves me wrong.

As an engineer Im not used to discussing cartoonish topics. Leave it to the movies.

Hello Arminius,

Rushing around in this crazy life like a Jesus Lizard trying to get to eight places at the same time.

How are you?

Hello, Wiglaf,

Where have you been?

I think this is a very good post. Many true Christians have this kind of conversion - a personal experience with God. The Bible becomes attractive like a milk (like a baby's desire for milk) to them after their conversion.

Sherwood MacRae:
I spent nearly 45 years going to church, believing that I was a good man as a result and always striving to get "sin" out of my life.

Then, one day, my "goodness" failed me and when I turned to God in prayer, I discovered - to my great amazement, He was there - listening and caring and - above all, offering help by providing a perspective of my life that caused me to change my ways.

My heart was suddenly opened to an understanding of the Bible I had never been able to read and - as a result, my life, for the past 33+ years has been the "victorious" life that had always been promised, but never revealed to me.

So, I come to the question of the "poor" with a different perspective than most. Poor has two separate interpretations. Most want to believe that it relates to that condition we call - poverty, meaning lack of what most of want to believe are the essentials of life. But Jesus talks of "poor" as being poor - in spirit, and offers to these, the kingdom of heaven.

At 45, I was both - poor in spirit and lacking the essentials. But with the realiztion that God was real, that he did send His Son to die for my sins - all of my sins, and a belief that His grace is actually sufficient, I had a 180 degree turn in my life. Joy replaced despair and rather than poverty, opportunities came upon me with a flood. That is why, today, I proclaim that my life life is - in fact, "joy unspeakable and is, full of glory".

And none of this revelation came through preachers, teachers, etc., but through meeting other believers who were living the life, as I continued - studying my Bible rather than just reading a verse here or there or attempting to make the stories I might read, have application to my life. It was the "all" of the Bible that taught me to realize, "..it is in Him that we live and move and have our being" and that - where "evil increases (in fact), God's grace does all the more - abound!"

I have come to the realization that if we really do care for the "poor" in our midst and elsewhere, we would stop to help one, then another, until there are no more. It is sad for me to watch us - organize ourselves to help the masses, but fail to realize the need may very well live next door. That is the reality of the story of the "good" Samaritan, not that others missed an opportunity, but that one recognized it.

Yes, it feels good to do good, but BEING good is the answer. It is how we become His witnesses in those places we find ourselves from day to day.

hello Arminius,

Sincerely,
Wiglaf

Jesse Jackson is not one of my favorite people and typically a poor example of a religious leader but he got it correct when he said:

"Too many of our schools are infested with a steady diet of violence, vandalism, drugs, INTERCOURSE WITHOUT DISCOURSE, alcohol and television addiction," says he. "The result has been to breed a passive and superficial generation."

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

And now you are OT exegete commenting on the meaning of Job? Did Islam up and steal Job too?

Hi Wes,

You wrote:
"Last night you wrote "No, empathy isn't, at least not necessarily, a conscious choice. You can choose to put yourself in another's shoes mentally, but usually, it's done without thought. You just see another human and recognize what he's feeling. It's an instinctive emotional response. And it doesn't have anything to do with emulation. Pity is such a response. You don't want to *be* like those you pity, and that's not what empathy means."

Hmm, interesting. But if it's not a conscious choice, how can I prove that such dynamics are, in fact, occurring? Aren't we in danger here of leaving science and moving to just another unprovable theory?"

The only proof, if I understand your question correctly, is (1) that the action occurs at all, and (2) that you recognize your own feelings.

You told me that helping a beggar makes you feel good. The question is why it does that. Evolution says empathy. You might counter with "no, it's God", but then you're left to explain what drives empathetic reactions in other animals (yes, the more intelligent ones do exhibit it).

Athena writes of Spidey:
"Says the man who names himself after a comic-book superhero."

He's no engineer, either. ;)

A collection of quotes from Anonymous, who, since he/she/it can't be bothered to choose a name, I am assuming to be just one person - one profoundly ignorant person:

"Atheists 'blame' religions for instituting marriage - for enforcing pair bonding for life. The moral laws trying to curb sexual promiscuity is one the biggest issues atheists have had against religions."

A case in point. Atheists don't believe in a God or gods. That is all that they have in common.
I know many atheist married couples. If they're so against marriage, or "pair-bonding" as you put it, although that is a biological term, not a legal or moral one, why do they marry? Why not just go through life having one promiscuous fling after another?

I get this sort of thing from religious people a lot - you seem to have some idea that atheists are only "denying" God because we want to live lives of total debauchery without consequences. You should get to know a few of us - we live lives much like your own (except we have our Sundays free). The thing is, we just don't see any need to believe in anything supernatural.

"If a "stillborn" fetus is not considered a birth, what is the procedure of removal of the fetus from the uterus?"

Stillbirth. Duh.

A dead fetus is expelled by the uterus. That is spontaneous (as opposed to "induced" abortion). If an early one isn't for some reason, it might necessitate a D&C - that's not an "abortion", it's an incomplete miscarriage. If a late-term one was, say, too large to be stillborn, it might need an emergency C-section for removal. Still not an induced abortion.

"You think we are simply 'gene machines' controlled by the laws of natural selection."

Only because we are. :) Although natural selection doesn't actually have any laws.

"You then go on to contradict your self by declaring the 'global human family' as the greatest good."

The "greatest good"? Hmmm...hadn't actually thought of it that way, and I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. In terms of the Earth and it's life forms, the greatest good would probably be the extinction of humans, but it's pretty hard to get behind that personally.

What I did say was that if humans could find a way to expand their tribal allegiances to the entire human community, it might obviate the need for war. Religion gets in the way of this big time. Given our nature, I'm not sure we're capable of it anyway - we can always find some issue to use to make some people the "Other".

"If people were really concerned about the safety of children they would desperately search for statistics from all organization including reported cases of abuse in families."

Most people *are* concerned about the safety of children. "Most" will never be "all", nor will it ever supplant stupid negligence, or instances of misdirected ill temper, drunkeness, etc..

"Pam, if pair bonding in human beings was the norm, there would be no adultery or divorce. Animals that show bonding, bond for life."

Not so. Perhaps you missed my statement in one post about the cheating birds...? Evolution doesn't lay down immutable laws - it creates tendencies. In order for evolution to work, there has to be variation - otherwise, there's nothing to "select" from. Pair bonding in humans is *absolutely* the norm. Look around you! However, when it was evolved, life spans were short, and raising a child took only about 13 years, after which children formed their own pair bonds. Nowadays, we try to make the attraction last 60-80 years - not something it was ever meant to do.

"Said PAM: 'If your child is threatened, it's perfectly normal to protect that child, even at the risk of your own life.'

Roe vs Wade abortion-on-demand?????????????"

I said if your *child* is threatened - *not* if your tiny-clump-of-cells-that-you-know-about-only-intellectually is threatened. A blastula doesn't evoke the evolutionary response, sorry.

You obviously have a big abortion hang-up. I'm old enough to remember when abortion was neither safe nor legal. If you think that that meant there was no abortion, you're sadly mistaken. It just meant a lot more horrible deaths among (mostly) teen-aged girls.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is actually *for* abortion. Those of us who support Roe v. Wade would much rather that unwanted pregnancies were prevented. Unfortunately, many who oppose safe and legal abortion, also oppose birth control. No woman should ever be told that she *has* to bear a child, and no child should be sentenced to a life with people who don't want and can't afford him or her. Reference your complaint above about family abuse.

At some point you've got to learn to deal with the real world.

"Im interested what was your former state, Pam. As an engineer, im not used to discussing comic books"

Says the man who names himself after a comic-book superhero.

I've always preferred DC Comics to Marvel anyway.

Spiritual Mongrel,

"Whether God exists or not the concept of God and teachings of religions can power us to be above our circumstances."

There are really two questions in this situation - one, how can we be above our circumstances, and two, what is the exact nature of the physical universe. We must keep these questions separate. Certainly, gods as allegories or metaphors may assist us with the former. But when we assume that gods have actual existence, we are making assumptions about the latter regardless of contrary or even supporting evidence. That's like believing that one's Toyota is a Honda for some personally rewarding reason - it doesn't change the nature of the car. I would rephrase the first question to say, "How can we rise above our circumstances while leaving the physical universe to science?"

"To assume that because we can’t prove something exists means it is not there is too simplistic."

While you have a valid point, skepticism rejects assumptions in either direction and attempts to address the issue in terms of possibilities and probabilities. That's the role that evidence plays here, since proof in either direction is almost certainly impossible. Since evidence for gods is lacking, any assertion of their existence carries the burden of providing a basis for the assertion. Skepticism doesn't assert their nonexistence, and doesn't rule out the possibility of their existence, but demands more of a basis than personal conviction. If conviction was the sole criterion for establishing the existence of anything, there would be no such thing as science.

"To me absolutes are almost an oxymoron, particularly when we don’t have all the facts."

Absolutely. The problem with most assertions about gods is that they are presented as absolutes. Some aren't, but those usually come from outside organized religions. The concept of belief itself is absolutist because it simply rationalizes contrary evidence, adapting it the worldview. I have yet to hear peolpe say they believe in gods or first causes or whatever and add a caveat that they may be mistaken in their belief.

Mr Mark, you said,

"BTW - this is my last response to all of you Anonymous posters on this blog. If you can't take the trouble of coming up with a unique moniker for yourself so the rest of us know who we're chatting with, then screw you."

Me - I am in perfect agreement with this. I am sick and tired of trying to tell these lazy people apart.

Some Anonymous writes:

"If a "stillborn" fetus is not considered a birth, what is the procedure of removal of the fetus from the uterus?"

Er...a baby may be delivered naturally through labor and be stillborn. That is the point of discussion in many states. As I pointed out, CA - where I live - issues a fetal death certificate even for a stillborn baby born through labor and vaginal delivery. 20 other states now give parents the option of having a birth certificate issued for these and other cases of stillbirth.

"If I were you I would stick to whatever your daily occupation is and leave the medical knowledge to those that are trained in that field."

From your previous question asking how one "removes" a stillborn if not by abortion, it would appear that you know even less than I about such things. A lot less.

Best heed your own advice on confirming your own ignorance through your own utterances.

BTW - this is my last response to all of you Anonymous posters on this blog. If you can't take the trouble of coming up with a unique moniker for yourself so the rest of us know who we're chatting with, then screw you.

Nice article Susan.

Whether it is faith or philosophy that drives your reaction to any situation, many people have overcome difficult situations with their mind.

Faith in God, Buddhist insight, power of positive thinking what ever you use to fuel your mind can get you through the tough times. Whether God exists or not the concept of God and teachings of religions can power us to be above our circumstances.

It is very “human” to go beyond when things are tough and sit with the status quo when things are well.

As for the existence of God do we really need to talk about proof again? We can neither prove nor disprove God at this point. We couldn’t prove molecules existed, but sure enough they exist. To assume that because we can’t prove something exists means it is not there is too simplistic.

Conversely if we assume that God exists to think we understand God to be quoting absolute domain over the truth about God and his laws (if there are any beyond the laws of the universe). Of all recorded information man has put together over our history the religious books are a grain of sand on the beach. All recorded information is 11.7 billion times more than the recorded information in the writings of all religions.

Someone tell me why we think we know everything about God?

We don’t even know everything about the physical universe he/she/it created let alone any other dimensions that may or may not exist.

That being said I do believe in God, different than the one painted in traditional religion, but I believe in some universal intelligence or collective consciousness larger than our own.

Perhaps God is merely a philosophy one can use to guide them in this world. Even if we reduce God to that I find it a constructive tool as long as we don’t tie absolutes to it. To me absolutes are almost an oxymoron, particularly when we don’t have all the facts.

"...unless you are finally driven, like Job, to question the benevolence of a deity who has dealt you poverty, disease, and death--"

"Those who are struggling to keep their heads above water never ask why God allowed the water to rise in the first place. Until, like Job, they do."

The only reason I'm commenting is because Ms. Jacoby began and ended her piece with this example.

The enitre focus and point of the book of Job is that he DID NOT question god, nor stop praising him, even when his wife and friends mocked and left him for not doing so!

That is the singular message of JOB.

It is an msinformed example to use.

Tday said:

"My question is, why is it so hard for an atheist to understand that God, although in control of the whole univers, allows such decisions from Eden-on and lets us learn lessons..."

First of all, an atheist is someone who does not believe in God, not someone whose religous belief differs from your own.

And secondly, your asssetion about God's intentions and motivations flies in the face of everyday experience, knowledge, and common sense.

Does that answer your question?

TDay,

"10 commandments, for example, that, when observed in their intended, true context, would bring nothing but greater happiness for the family of man."

What exactly is the "intended, true context"? The second half of the commandments are about human interaction, but the first half seem to be about pleasing the god to which the commandments are attributed. I have no idea what constitutes a "graven image" in context, and this seems to be a matter of individual interpretation. Allegedly, the Amish interpret the commandment to mean no mirrors, no faces on dolls, and dull finishes on buggies. Why would they be wrong and other Christians be right, or why would they be right and other Christians wrong?

"why is it so hard for an atheist to understand that God, although in control of the whole univers, allows such decisions from Eden-on and lets us learn lessons..."

That principle itself is difficult to understand, but the principle is not the issue. The issue is the factual basis for that particular assertion about gods. If gods do exist, perhaps their powers or intentions are different from what you assert. There is no evidence for any assertion about any particular natures or properties about gods. The burden of proof is on any assertion that gods exist or that they have certain properties or natures. Similarly, the burden of proof is on any assertion that scripture has a divine source.

I liked this article because it covered a topic that is not often discussed, and that I have not thought much about. The negative responses were pretty predictable.

Along the lines of Susan's thinking, there is, additionally, a cultural divide between rural and urban people. There was an old song from WWI, I believe, called "How Are You Going to Keep Them Down on the Farm, After They've Seen Gay Paree?"

This has to do with acquiring knowledge and becoming aware of things for the first time. If such acquisition of knowledge should contradict the heritage of relious belief, then so be it; how can one back track on what one knows, and then stop "knowing?"

"Sin" as it turns out, is a shadow over our lives, without substance or meaning, of any kind. Sexuality, as it turns out, is not evil. Evil, as it turns out, it not a physical force, but a collection of subjectively abstract concepts.

Organized religions call on a complex of humanly derived theologies to "prove" all kinds of things about man and his place in the universe. But people who let go of their relgious heritage do not usually have any such complex system of thinking to justify themselves, but only the gradual collection of chunks of knowledge that they store away in their minds.

They do not promote any such ism a materialism, or any such ism as relativism, or any such ism as rationalism, but only fall naturally into these points of view, easily and casually, by way of "common sense."

Since these are not organized ways of thinking, but simply a more focussed visualization of the world, there is no attack against this kind of thinking that can ever be effective, and no way for organized religions to mount a successful offensive.

One of the most amusing phrases that I ever hear in this "culture war" is the term "cafeteria Catholic." What is wrong with a cafeteria? and what is wrong with making the selection that you like best, and want? This is a modern concept, accepted universally. The concept that you should take what you get, like it or not, is pre-Modern, and archaic, and it is not ever coming back.

In fact, the idiom of all Christianity, is of kingdoms and empires, kings and emperors, but we live in a world of democracies and Presidents; they are disconnected, for anyone who ever gets that far along in their thinking. (Many do not).

And so as I said earlier, how do you stop "knowing" the things that you know to be true, on command? A religous authority can only command the inner faith of a person who basically does not care what he believes, and so can easily believe whatever he may be instructed to believe.

Many atheists admire Jesus because of his courage to speak up for the poor. He sees an honesty in the poor which the rest of society lacks. Archbishop Oscar Romero pointed that the poor, the meek, face reality because they have been so reduced by society as to have no choice. They actually understand that they are not in control - of anything.

The rest of us still pretend to be in control by accumulating wealth or power OR by kissing the ass of society. In our self-delusion, we have lost that clarity of vision that the poor have.

Jesus' anger is directed, not at what the poor resort to in their plight, but at the hypocrites who pray in public and on street corners. And the reason he is angry is that he sees the rich who pretend to prAy while they actually prEy on the poor. Perhaps this point is well made by Seneca [also from Jesus' era], who said: "Religion is seen by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful."

And so I am angry too. Not at the poor who still have some honesty, but at those who prey on them. Politicians waving flags and bibles to send the children of the poor off to war and put more money in their pockets and TV preachers with megachurches [known as "Six Flags over Jesus"], thumping their bibles and twisting the words to take little old ladies' social security checks - All of them prey on the poor in goods and the poor in heart.

-
These are notes from an atheist follower of Jesus. After all, anyone who will not swear allegiance to Jupiter and the Emperor is an atheist - right?

>>What makes the Bible compelling is not the so-called truth of its divine lessons but its complex and contradictory insights into human character.

Ms. Jacoby,

Any serious student of scripture knows that the bible is both.

According to the decisions made in Eden, mankinds free-moral agent decisions from there forward are sometimes chronicled in scripture. In many respects, they are no more complex and contradictory than the free-moral agent decisions we make today. Mingled within are guidelines... 10 commandments, for example, that, when observed in their intended, true context, would bring nothing but greater happiness for the family of man.

My question is, why is it so hard for an atheist to understand that God, although in control of the whole univers, allows such decisions from Eden-on and lets us learn lessons...not too much unlike how we do the same for our own children. Do you (speaking to all parents) intervene in every aspect of your children's life?

Hey DCP

Now you can put your big boy pants on and think for yourself. Baby steps.

Sherwood, "Yes, it feels good to do good, but BEING good is the answer. It is how we become His witnesses in those places we find ourselves from day to day."

Since you give all the credit to other believers for your astounding conversion, my question is........God had nothing to do with your eyes being opened to you being "poor in spirit?"

What a pity, I always thought as a Christian that God was the author and finisher of a believer’s faith conversion and walk. Guess I was wrong.

A word of warning, if you falter the unbelievers and skeptics will be right there to criticize you, put you down, and tells you that you don’t belong because you are nothing but a wannabe.

The unbelievers are hateful individuals and want you as a beleiver to be perfect. But the last time I checked, no humman being is perfect and never will be.

I have no desire to want to live a certain way before "any" unbeliever with the outcome goal that they will see Christ in me as a Christian because of their fault-finding hateful ways. They can all go to hell!

We all have a tendency to filter information to support our beliefs or positions, and your piece is proof of that.

While some of the correlations you have identified are true (many of the poor gravitate to religion, many highly educated people trust in their own intellect first and foremost), they do not fairly characterize the religious bodies you refer to.

Your conclusions in the final paragraphs are not accurate, but are filled with presumption and not substantiated by the body of your text. They reveal a filtered bias on your part.

There is no cooreleation between religion and poverty in terms of accumulated money. Why not describe your own moral poverty. Poverty as a word is, it seems, your own personal presumption coached up to make yoursel feel superior.

This article was incredibly offensive. Miss Jacoby blames religion as the oppressor and those who "pimp" religion (which is how she is describing religious leaders) as intentionally holding people down for the purpose of remaining in power. Has Miss Jacoby ever considered the role of the secular portion of society in this? Has she considered that the secular elitists who own economic control intentionally oppress the lower classes so that the wealth remains in the hands of a small portion of the population? No, secularists could never do anything so evil. News flash: yes they do. Perhaps Miss Jacoby should consider that the reason those who have found themselves unable to seek any justice or parity by their own strength hold on to faith because they are comforted by the knowledge that their distress is caused by the free will and desire of those who refuse to do that which is just and right and not by their own Creator.

I spent nearly 45 years going to church, believing that I was a good man as a result and always striving to get "sin" out of my life.

Then, one day, my "goodness" failed me and when I turned to God in prayer, I discovered - to my great amazement, He was there - listening and caring and - above all, offering help by providing a perspective of my life that caused me to change my ways.

My heart was suddenly opened to an understanding of the Bible I had never been able to read and - as a result, my life, for the past 33+ years has been the "victorious" life that had always been promised, but never revealed to me.

So, I come to the question of the "poor" with a different perspective than most. Poor has two separate interpretations. Most want to believe that it relates to that condition we call - poverty, meaning lack of what most of want to believe are the essentials of life. But Jesus talks of "poor" as being poor - in spirit, and offers to these, the kingdom of heaven.

At 45, I was both - poor in spirit and lacking the essentials. But with the realiztion that God was real, that he did send His Son to die for my sins - all of my sins, and a belief that His grace is actually sufficient, I had a 180 degree turn in my life. Joy replaced despair and rather than poverty, opportunities came upon me with a flood. That is why, today, I proclaim that my life life is - in fact, "joy unspeakable and is, full of glory".

And none of this revelation came through preachers, teachers, etc., but through meeting other believers who were living the life, as I continued - studying my Bible rather than just reading a verse here or there or attempting to make the stories I might read, have application to my life. It was the "all" of the Bible that taught me to realize, "..it is in Him that we live and move and have our being" and that - where "evil increases (in fact), God's grace does all the more - abound!"

I have come to the realization that if we really do care for the "poor" in our midst and elsewhere, we would stop to help one, then another, until there are no more. It is sad for me to watch us - organize ourselves to help the masses, but fail to realize the need may very well live next door. That is the reality of the story of the "good" Samaritan, not that others missed an opportunity, but that one recognized it.

Yes, it feels good to do good, but BEING good is the answer. It is how we become His witnesses in those places we find ourselves from day to day.

Farnaz,

"Judaism is not literal. It is heavily mediated, interpreted through the Talmud, by later commentators, etc. Jews do not simply read Job, take him on his face, and move on!"

Thanks for the information. I suspect most Gentiles in America are not aware of that aspect of Judaism. If one comes to scripture cold, with little knowledge of the authors' culture and little background in theology, one is likely to read the information literally. Also, as the Media Matters for American report showed, Christian discourse in the popular media is often dominated by fundamentalists and other conservatives who lean toward literalist readings of scripture.

But even the nonliteralist Christian doctrines seem to assume that scripture represents absolute truth. How would one read the Job story if there was no such assumption? What if God and Satan were instead Odin and Loki, or Zeus and Eris?

mr mark, "a fetus dying in utero is considered a stillbirth if that death occurs after the 20th week and up to full term. Prior to that, such a death is termed a miscarriage. A stillbirth isn't considered a birth. The state issues a "fetal death certificate." Currently, 20 states offer the option of issuing a birth certificate for a stillborn baby."

An abortion is a medical procedure of the removal of a fetus from the uterus, this statement you made answered your own question "A stillbirth isn't considered a birth."

If a "stillborn" fetus is not considered a birth, what is the procedure of removal of the fetus from the uterus?

If I were you I would stick to whatever your daily occupation is and leave the medical knowledge to those that are trained in that field.

Otherwise as you have said so many times before on these threads, better to say nothing, then to say something and show have void you are about the subject matter and look stupid.

Good Morning all,

Pam,

Last night you wrote "No, empathy isn't, at least not necessarily, a conscious choice. You can choose to put yourself in another's shoes mentally, but usually, it's done without thought. You just see another human and recognize what he's feeling. It's an instinctive emotional response. And it doesn't have anything to do with emulation. Pity is such a response. You don't want to *be* like those you pity, and that's not what empathy means."

Hmm, interesting. But if it's not a conscious choice, how can I prove that such dynamics are, in fact, occurring? Aren't we in danger here of leaving science and moving to just another unprovable theory?

"Atheists 'blame' religions for instituting marriage - for enforcing pair bonding for life. The moral laws trying to curb sexual promiscuity is one the biggest issues atheists have had against religions."

Ridiculous. The chief argument against religious marriage is that one should remain faithful to one's spouse because one loves the spouse, not because fidelity is required by the religion. A spouse who remains faithful simply because he/she believes it's a rule does not really love. I know of no one who would want a spouse like that. The other argument against religious marriage is that some religions wrongly have one spouse (almost always the man) ruling over the other - fundamentalist strains of Christianity and Islam come to mind.

Pam, if pair bonding in human beings was the norm, there would be no adultery or divorce. Animals that show bonding, bond for life.

"The Poor Ye Shall Always Have With You" is a capitalist-style Christianity, distortion of the teachings of Jesus taken completely out of context to justify indifference towards the suffering of the poor. It is the response of Jesus to the incident of a woman anointing the feet of Jesus with expensive perfume, when Judas, the traitor, claimed the perfume could have been sold and the money used for the poor.

The parable of the Good Samaritan, the description of Judgment Day, Jesus' instruction to Peter after Resurrection, letter of James etc, all point to the real teaching of Jesus in dealing with the poor.

armen sounds like armenia
vermin sounds like verminia

Atheists "blame" religions for instituting marriage - for enforcing pair bonding for life. The moral laws trying to curb sexual promiscuity is one the biggest issues atheists have had against religions.

"some of the folk in Belgium are Turkish in ancestry, like Hungary."

turkish folk are a joke
they're ugly to me
they're ugly to you
pigs don't belong in the EU

Said PAM: "If your child is threatened, it's perfectly normal to protect that child, even at the risk of your own life."

Roe vs Wade abortion-on-demand?????????????

is it St Nicholas? on the way to France?

Have you got ants in your krapped in pants?

Too many turks turn out to be jerks.

Just one more quick one:

"Now, if we go back to those ancient times. How would one know who the father of the child was? The further one goes back in time, the more prevalent polygamy becomes."

Whatever gave you that idea? Not so. Pair bonding has been around for as long as we've been anything close to human. There are many elements of our sexuality that couldn't be explained any other way.

Males have never been able to be absolutely *certain* that they were the fathers of any given child (at least until DNA testing), but they normally assume it to be so (instinctively) if they're having sex with the mother.

A male lion who kills a rival lion and takes over his pride will kill all the cubs, first order of business. They weren't his, and killing them brings their mothers into heat immediately. Once he's mated with them, he will no longer kill their cubs, but will protect them.

"And, the more useless bravery is using your model. Why would I care about maximizing the chances of someone else's survival? I can always make more family. In your model, it seems to me that Cowardice should be the genetic norm that is rewarded by society. To paraphrase Han Solo, 'what good is a reward if you aren't around to spend it'?"

It's not about *you*, it's about your children. Or at least, about your nieces and nephews. It's in your best interest to protect them, as they carry your immortality. Again, this isn't conscious, necessarily - you just feel it. If your child is threatened, it's perfectly normal to protect that child, even at the risk of your own life. And this behavior maximizes your contribution to succeeding generations, thus perpetuating the behavior.

You say you could "always make more family", but could you? Having live children wasn't always so easy. Up until very recently, infant mortality rates were appallingly high, and women frequently died in childbirth. If you had actual live children, and allowed them to be killed in order to save yourself, you might never get another chance. Life was uncertain at best in those days. The next mammoth hunt might be your last.

In short, we do what we do because at the time the behavior originated, it served us well. No more, no less.

Fish Called Wanda?
in Rwanda?

apples and potatoes.
old german women and jewish ones.

"A thousand people cannot do the harm that a person can do to himself".

some of the folk in Belgium are Turkish in ancestry, like Hungary.

who were those soldiers from Belgium is Africa after the second world war, replaced after Germans?

"i had expected four, why three?"
i have missed the groom : )

Dome-nick. is he Nikomedes?
of Bithynia? Bursa? Karamursel of Echelon?

Yalova? Degirmendere of Israel and Los Angeles?
Mudanya? Gemlik? Izmit? Uludag?

every evening i take a breath and mineral water in on the ruins of Bithynia, in Bursa in front of a hospital, where the whole land was under sea water, later land of chestnuts and peaches.

is it St Nicholas? on the way to France?

Farnaz,

Thanks for both your posts. I wouldn't have known to ask those questions. You've been a big help.

there are houses, Williams Bush, where diseased people are exhibited in the best conditions. but no healing, neither surgery nor medicine, just exhibition. is it hospital?

Hi Wes,
OK, one more, and then I have to quit for the night - work day tomorrow. :)

You wrote:
"Empathy: is a conscious choice. I may intellectually understand why the Joker (Heath Ledger was excellent in the role, BTW) does what he does. I choose not to emulate his behavior. Of course, he's a comic book character, but one could apply the same analogy to the alcoholic, the addict, or the Lounge Lizard. If empathy was a driving factor for a behavior, why do I choose to emulate some behavior and not others?"

No, empathy isn't, at least not necessarily, a conscious choice. You can choose to put yourself in another's shoes mentally, but usually, it's done without thought. You just see another human and recognize what he's feeling. It's an instinctive emotional response. And it doesn't have anything to do with emulation. Pity is such a response. You don't want to *be* like those you pity, and that's not what empathy means.

"In your response to my example of giving money to the beggar, you mention I do so because I put myself in his position and would hope for similar treatment. I have to admit, such thoughts have never occurred to me as I reach into my wallet. I do feel pity and have a desire to help alleviate his situation in whatever little way I can. If, what you propose, is true it must occur at some subconscious level (if such exists). Perhaps you'd like to expand on this example to illustrate your theory."

Yes, it is subconscious. That's what an instinct *is*. We can choose to think about it (as we're doing now), but the impulse you feel and the pleasure it gives you are not part of a rational thought process. That's just how it feels to be empathetic. It's pretty well hardwired in most of us.

"So, to continue with just the monogamy example (I'm open to others you may suggest) I choose to be monogamous. Its a behavior (thank you for the statistics) that is not favored in the natural world."

It's favored where it serves a useful purpose in getting the next generation up and running. Many mammals have short gestations and rear their young rapidly. An involved partner may not be necessary or even useful. In the case of herd animals, the herd sire protects the entire harem of females, but they don't require him to help feed the young, or to bring food to them.

Predator species are more likely to need some help, and, indeed, monogamy is found among them - foxes, wolves, pumas, and lynxes, to name a few.

"You seem to attribute my choice to 'empathy'. Upon examination, its' far more complex than just "do unto others what you would have them do unto you". It clearly isn't instinct - such and instinct should have been bred out early in hominid history as it provides a competitive disadvantage. So, why is it valued (granted, increasingly less with each generation it seems)?"

I attributed it *partly* to empathy. The main thing is the child-rearing pair bond. It's not at all a competitive disadvantage - quite the reverse! If you were to stick to one-night stands and spread your seed far and wide (assuming no one is using birth control), you might sire many children, but without your support, they aren't likely to do as well as if you are there, providing food and protection and all the other fatherly advantages.

In the times in which we evolved these instincts, they probably wouldn't have survived at all - no children living to reproductive age = no genes propagated. It's in the father's best interests to invest in his children, and the pair bond is a large part of that.

"When you say nature rewards 'good behavior' or 'socially beneficial' behavior. Now, that's a fascinating mechanism. Why would nature select one set of behavior over another? In fact, that sounds dangerously anthropomorphic. I'm sure you don't want to go there and don't mean that. Could you describe how this selection criteria for reward occurs?"

Sure. Talking about nature "selecting" doesn't mean that there's any conscious choice going on - that's just shorthand for the process. Whatever gets more genes into the next generation tends to continue. If a female bird of paradise is impressed with a male that has a bigger, brighter tail than any of the others in the forest and allows him to mate with her, while rejecting the others, there will be more males with big, bright tails in future generations.

Behavior is also heritable. If the behavior in question causes more of the individual's genes to make it into the next generation, there will be more that will behave as he does. This is true whether the genes get there directly from him, or from his brothers and sisters (as with some of the social behaviors that we've been discussing).

That's evolution in a nutshell - any trait or behavior that gives a reproductive advantage, *no matter how slight*, will increase in the population.

Tim2,

If your friend's program is primarily aural/oral
(listening/speaking), it could work, I think. My Arabic is primarily reading, at which I would, overall, place at the mid-advanced level of language learning, if that means anything to you.
The Q'ran is ancient Arabic, so it was not a problem. I can write a little, but mainly at a very formal level. Personal notes, basic interpersonal skills are weak.

My spoken accent isn't too bad, because I learned it before puberty, but it's far from good, and I can't hold up a fairly sophisticated conversation.

I guess what I'm asking is if your friend's program is mainly intended for communicative competence, rather than, say literacy.

i am so poor, Mrs JAcoby, so poor that i cannot miss a kiss, i cannot miss a smile, i cannot miss a scent.

i am so rich, mrs JAcoby, so rich that i cannot save a kiss, i cannot save a smile, i cannot save a scent.

to be who you are, we shall be a circle, then we may be "we are". this is how it began and how it worked. any one who wanted to be who he was, undisturbed and raw, left the circle, then came back to the circle.

Hi Tim2,

Re: Studying Arabic and Farsi together

I didn't know such programs existed. Your question is hard for me to answer since Farsi is my native language. However, I can see where it could be quite confusing, not as confusing as studying Italian and Spanish simultaneously, but still.

Trying to envision it, I think it would be difficult to keep some things separate. Farsi and Arabic differ in pronunciation and grammar, but too many lexical (as opposed to function) words are the same. I can also see potential problems with the alphabets since they share letters, but one has more than the other. In the beginning stages, learners might get quite lost. Sorry, I can't be definitive on this; I can only say that, to me, it sounds like taking them both on at the same time might be quite a challenge.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

On another topic, you posted about connections between Arabic and Farsi. A friend of mine (on Earth) is in a linguistic immersion program learning both languages at the same time. He did this in high school and college with French and German, so he figured he wouldn't have a problem.
The school said since Arabic and Farsi are similar in some ways, but very different in others, the idea of learning both together is a no brainer. It seems there are several programs like this one around.

Anyway, it turns out it might be a brainer because the whole time he and a bunch of other students have been getting the languages confused, and he's great at learning languages. I was thinking of trying it, though.

Is this a bad idea?

Evolution and "former state" and a god named "Mo". They all sound like comic books to me. Are these the things Jacoby calls "intelligent" and "rich". Is writing comic books part of her definition of intelligence?

There is an increasing tendency for some smart atheists to borrow ideas from religions and paraphrase it as scientific jargon, even though it runs completely contrary to the current scientific theories. Talk of intellectual dishonesty.

Hi Tim2,

Thanks for your reply. Mo sounds very wise. It's important that a deity stay on top of things, IMO!

Farnaz

"The sensation of "feeling good" is the way nature rewards socially useful behavior - this is how evolution works."

Right, Pam, you sound like you have it all worked out...

You think we are simply "gene machines" controlled by the laws of natural selection.

You then go on to contradict your self by declaring the "global human family" as the greatest good.

How do you make this leap of faith, Pam?

Are we, alone, allowed to break the laws of nature? Are we unique?

Are you sure you are not stealing from Christian ideas when you assert such things?

So much illogic for a "rationalist"

"you clearly don't understand the first flippin' thing about evolution."

Im interested what was your former state, Pam. As an engineer, im not used to discussing comic books.

Pam,

Last one for me tonight, I have to work in the AM. Thank you for continuing the discussion.

"Yes. When we evolved to our present state, we didn't have standing armies as we do now. The trait of bravery would have been in defense of one's own family, or at least one's tribe (extended family). Therefore, as with the baboon, bravery might amount to self-sacrifice, but it maximizes the chances of related individuals (and actual children) living to pass on the brave one's genes. So not just useful in the other guy."

Now, if we go back to those ancient times. How would one know who the father of the child was? The further one goes back in time, the more prevalent polygamy becomes. And, the more useless bravery is using your model. Why would I care about maximizing the chances of someone else's survival? I can always make more family. In your model, it seems to me that Cowardice should be the genetic norm that is rewarded by society. To paraphrase Han Solo, "what good is a reward if you aren't around to spend it"?

What strange evolutionary force do you imagine is at work that creates in me urges that run contrary to my immediate gain?

Farnaz,

"Hello Tim2,

May I ask a question? How come the people on Shmo are called Shmoians instead of Shmos?"

In the Shmictures, our holy manuscript, the Book of the Singular explains that in the beginning, Mo called all Shmoians Shmos. This created galactic chaos since residents of other planets thought that there was more than one Shmo planet.

It was also hard for Shmendrake, the first gay and Shmooze the first lesbian, since they didn't know where to stop naming things. Anyway, according to the Shmictures, Mo saw that this was not good and sent the messenger, Moodle (a bisexual--all of the angels are bisexual), with the good news of the name we have had ever since.

All the lesbian and gay planets gave thanks.
As Shmendino the prophet, said, "Mo is always open to changing with the times."

"Nature rewards the dominant and violent - not the poor and feeble.

PS - violence is much more socially 'useful' than generosity.

Social order through violence and domination -- if you feel otherwise you should become a Christian."

Anonymous, you clearly don't understand the first flippin' thing about evolution.

Susan Jacoby: "That is why people dying of AIDS in Africa are flocking to Roman Catholicism, a religion that opposes the use of condoms to prevent the spread of the HIV virus."

Funny how infection rates in Catholic dominant countries in Africa are the LOWEST on the continent.

Also, the conversions mentioned may have something to do with the nuns, priests, and charities that spend a good deal of time and money taking care of the dying.

Perhaps Jacoby would like to leave her luxurious lifestyle and care for the sick in Africa?? I think not.

Finally, not only is Jacoby wrong, she is the true anti-intellectual - i.e. she avoids facts that destroy her simplistic (dare I say, ignorant) thesis.

Go figure...

"Yes. When we evolved to our present state,"

From what state please? It's time we should have clear and fixed answers here so the stupidity will stop. So what was the former state of the cow? Im very interested so I can start raising them and observe how they turned into cow. I would check their DNAs everyday to see how their DNAs make that evolution.

If people were really concerned about the safety of children they would desperately search for statistics from all organization including reported cases of abuse in families.

But that would be like pulling the plug on a favorite pass time, namely Catholic bashing.

If people were really concerned about the safety of children they would desperately search for statistics from all organization including reported cases of abuse in families.

Pam,

Another quality response. Thank you. I read your response and thought I understood it. As a reread it, I became confused.

Empathy: is a conscious choice. I may intellectually understand why the Joker (Heath Ledger was excellent in the role, BTW) does what he does. I choose not to emulate his behavior. Of course, he's a comic book character, but one could apply the same analogy to the alcoholic, the addict, or the Lounge Lizard. If empathy was a driving factor for a behavior, why do I choose to emulate some behavior and not others?

In your response to my example of giving money to the beggar, you mention I do so because I put myself in his position and would hope for similar treatment. I have to admit, such thoughts have never occurred to me as I reach into my wallet. I do feel pity and have a desire to help alleviate his situation in whatever little way I can. If, what you propose, is true it must occur at some subconscious level (if such exists). Perhaps you'd like to expand on this example to illustrate your theory.

So, to continue with just the monogamy example (I'm open to others you may suggest) I choose to be monogamous. Its a behavior (thank you for the statistics) that is not favored in the natural world. You seem to attribute my choice to "empathy". Upon examination, its' far more complex than just "do unto others what you would have them do unto you". It clearly isn't instinct - such and instinct should have been bred out early in hominid history as it provides a competitive disadvantage. So, why is it valued (granted, increasingly less with each generation it seems)?

When you say nature rewards "good behavior" or "socially beneficial" behavior. Now, that's a fascinating mechanism. Why would nature select one set of behavior over another? In fact, that sounds dangerously anthropomorphic. I'm sure you don't want to go there and don't mean that. Could you describe how this selection criteria for reward occurs?

Wes wrote:
"Those aren't very satisfying though. Most people would define bravery (since we are using military examples) as 'good'. From a strictly biological perspective, it's just the opposite. Bravery puts me at risk and may get me killed. Biologically, bravery is only useful if THE OTHER GUY has it. It's a trait that should have died out eons ago. Yet, here it is. Still with us, still valued."

Yes. When we evolved to our present state, we didn't have standing armies as we do now. The trait of bravery would have been in defense of one's own family, or at least one's tribe (extended family). Therefore, as with the baboon, bravery might amount to self-sacrifice, but it maximizes the chances of related individuals (and actual children) living to pass on the brave one's genes. So not just useful in the other guy.

"My point is, that when examined scientifically, many of the behaviors we define as 'good' run contrary to some sort of selfish, or darwinistic, or altruistic theory."

Selfish, yes. Not Darwinistic (is there such a word?) or altruistic. If we were tigers, living on our own, you might have a point, but we're thoroughly social - always have been. It's the reason that solitary confinement is such a cruel punishment. Drives one nuts if it goes on long enough.

"There must be some other standard for comparison that is mutually understood by which some behaviors are defined as 'good' and others 'evil'. The next step would be to explore the nature of that standard and where it comes from."

I disagree. The social good (again, beginning when society was familial) is all it takes to evolve such concepts and behaviors. You will see the same in many social animals, from ants to chimps, and everything in between.

When was the last time any leader of any religious or non-religious organization apologize for sexual abuse of minors in their institutions? The Pope's public apologies and paying out of two BILLION dollars as compensation, all the measures put in place to prevent it happening again, is still not enough atonement for the lynch mob out to get the Catholic church. And not a peep tone about sexual abuse in other organizations or in families!

Yes, Jacoby, simplistic stereotyping and counter-factual arguments are only used by the morally obtuse.

Was that your point? Or were you simply providing an example for the rest of us?

Wow!

Hello Tim2,

May I ask a question? How come the people on Shmo are called Shmoians instead of Shmos?

Farnaz

Atheist propaganda, anon....

Tough time making connections?

For those who are out with the usual "all Catholic clergy are pedophiles" bashing - accurately sexually abuse minors, not pedophiles - at most only four percent are guilty. Ninety six percent of Catholic clergy are innocent. No statistics is available from other religious and non-religious organizations. The percentage would be about the same.

The greatest sexual abuse of children happen in families. The reported cases represents only the tip of the iceberg.

Pam writes, "The sensation of "feeling good" is the way nature rewards socially useful behavior - this is how evolution works."

Come on, lady - you are preaching watered down universality of Christianity and are too stubborn to admit it.

Nature rewards the dominant and violent - not the poor and feeble.

PS - violence is much more socially "useful" than generosity.

Social order through violence and domination -- if you feel otherwise you should become a Christian.

Speed123:

Trotsky? Have I missed a connection? Is there a connection? To anything?

JJ:

Gay's not so bad. I'm gay and kind of like it. Shakespeare was bi-, it is said. Anyway, sure had a thing for that fair young man. (Liked a dark lady, too.) Then you've got your Michaelangelo, etc.

Anyway, I worship Moe, who comes from the planet,
Shmo, and he's gay. All the Shmoians are gay, and when Shmoians die, gays and lesbians from the outlying planets come to settle. It works out very well. Everything is done in the best possible taste, and Shmo is the fashion leader galaxy. So, we have no poverty and everybody gets the best possible health care. We have no wars because we all worship Mo.

anon scribles: "Oh yeah. Great religion. Crusading away for all time."

Looks like there are a good deal of seculars with low IQs and high propensity for bigotry on this blog...

PS - there is abuse in all groups - religious, secular - the highest being public schools - so enough with the propaganda, Trotsky...

Wes asks:
"You toss some terms around that we probably don't have a common definition for. How does the behavioral model you seem to advocate differ from social darwinism?"

I don't "advocate" it - it's what IS. :)

Social Dawinism is a bankrupt school of thought that came from people who misunderstood Darwin's work (deliberately?) and assumed that it gave them free rein to exercise every greedy inclination they had and to thumb their noses at those less fortunate. After all, "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest" was good for the human race, right? Let them die, it'll make us all stronger. This was the operative philosophy of the Gilded Age. It was also applied to races and countries. They conveniently forgot about the social part.

We are, however, social animals - and societies look out for one another.

"Next, there are some problems with your examples. I travel as a consultant a fair bit. I could 'spread my genes' freely and my wife would never know. My desire to remain faithful arises out of my respect for her, and my desire to adhere to a higher behavioral standard out of love/respect for my creator. I would be quite disappointed if my wife were unfaithful to me. But a desire for reciprocity is not the motive for my behavior. I do not give money to the homeless man then hold out my hand to the rich fellow passing by expecting similar treatment. I do so because it's the 'right' thing to do. So, some theory of reciprocal altruism seems quite contrary to my observations."

I don't recall saying anything about reciprocal altruism. I wrote about *empathy*. It's quite different. You give to the beggar because you can imagine yourself being in his place, and know that you would appreciate the help, if you were. With any luck, you will never need such a handout, but you can still *empathize*. The sensation of "feeling good" is the way nature rewards socially useful behavior - this is how evolution works.

Yes, you could cheat on your wife. Many men do. So do many wives (although not quite *so* many) cheat on their husbands. This happens even among monogamous birds, BTW. Still, there are strong instincts to remain bonded, and empathy is only a part of this. Because women are pregnant for a long time, and because human infants are helpless for an extended period, it worked better for two parents to be involved in raising children; therefore, we evolved the instinct to bond - at least for as long as it takes to raise children.

"When the primate screams a warning to it's members, does it do so out of instinct, or some conscious choice to sacrifice itself to save others? Do you see any difference in these behaviors?"

Instinct. And more of our own own behaviors than I imagine you are prepared to admit are also instinctive - we're back to that "feels good" thing. :)

You see, doing good things feels good to me, too, and I don't have any belief in a creator or a heavenly reward.

Oh, and you asked Jed about monogamous primates. There are two species, as far as I know - marmosets and gibbons. Monogamy is relatively rare among mammals in general - only about 7% pair that way, as opposed to 90% of birds (some birds are truly monogamous and some serially so - one partner during any given breeding season). It all depends on what works best in a given habitat and progeny-raising situation.

To: CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

How does the author you quote KNOW what Jesus did or did not say in Gethsemane? It's an amusing theory. One could just as easily speculate that Jesus was, in fact, Yoda. It's just as provable as your author's speculation. After all, we have no description of Jesus and being an alien force master would explain miracles and his profound knowledge and wisdom.

Exegesis, well quality exegesis, is rooted in scientific enquiry. At the end of the day, no real scientist will claim God doesn't exist. Nor will they say God does exist. That's not what science does. Science is about explaining the observed world. If we cannot observe it, measure it, test it, reproduce it, and/or somehow quantify it - we've left the realm of science.

That's what your author has done. He's presented an unprovable theory to replace the status quo. His only defense would be something absurd like "prove me wrong".

"As for solidarity, try to explain selfless love of the victim/outcast/convicted one (the original blameless victim being Christ) via evolutionary theory.

Darwin = the ordering of chaos through violence / survival of the fit.

Also, try to explain altruism to those OUTSIDE the group or society without the breakthroughs of Christianity"

Yeah. Like love for the pedophile priests. Send them for treatment and pay off their kids. Problem with your religion, Speed123, is that it loves and forgives the persecutors and blames the victims. Like your pope sending out two directives requiring that kid raping priests be kept secret.

Oh yeah. Great religion. Crusading away for all time.

For all ---

Robyn has defended Roe vs Wade on Stevens-Arroyo's blog.

ATT: Arminius:

@ August 6, 2008 6:16 PM.

---
Arminius:

Hi, Farnaz,

As for JJ, please ignore him. He has already polluted at least 5 blogs in the last two days. He is a bigot, makes no sense, and makes continual ad hominem attacks on me and others.

----- WHEREFORE:

Please ARMiNiUS the F.A.G. & QUEER-ADVOCATE & Similarly Situated:

Please Openly Admitting Pun.k-a.s.s. QUEER HOMOSEXUAL 1/2 human folks;

For the Nth-time, Please , was not ye Told To Go to a 'Nono-Straight" Blogg & or a Queer (non-Straight, aka 1/2 Humans place) Bars!??? Or Queer-PLACE?

Please go to a Heathen-Pagan Queer PLACE, nopt on this straight & Respectful Blogg.

Suggestion; Please, since Ye F.A.G.s have Lots of Dollars, then Go Organize and open "QUEER-CHURCH of AMERiCA!"

This way, ye can stay altogether 'seperate' from All, the STRAiGHT Churches" not only in America, but Abroad, since Ye are Now International Non-Straights international Sobatage/Terrorists of OUR Straight [NORMAL] Systems!

So, Get the F.U.C.K off Here.

VOTE: Marriage between a SPORADE (a Real-Lady) & a MAVORiTE (Real-Man), NEVER between not 1/2 Man man or 1/2 Woman woman.

PS: Ye People Are Vile, Testy & Hath No Conscious, only Penis, Ass's & Vaginas & Diledoos idols or tools!

WE should Enslave all Openly Admitting Non-Straights! Or Put Ye on Ye Own Islands so that the "AID's" Epidemic in America will Stop!

It is Ye 1/2 Humans whom Spreaded the AiDS ViRUS via Consenting SEX WiTH CHiPANZEES & BEASTS, contrary to both Pre-Apocalyptic Ten Commandments & the ECLAT{i}ON '13-FiATS Of the NEW SONG'.

So for the Nth Time, Stay off This Straight Blogg & goeth to a non-Straight Blog or Wicaan, Witch Pagan Heathen Asutra places. And Besides, Ye hath ye Own Language that is Alien to Us Straights!

Please, Stay out of Public Bathrooms, Especially Airports.

Low Lifes, Beyond Poor!

Pam and Farnaz,

Fascinating dialog. I have no problem with terms like "evil". But they are a challenge to communicate. Evil is usually defined not as a something, but the absence of something. Often, Evil is defined as the absence of Good. Of course, it's not a binary kind of definition. There are degrees of evil. Just like there is no such thing as "cold" only varying degrees of heat\energy.

I acknowledge that any definition of evil as the absence of good begs the question, then what is good? I suppose to some sort of socialbiologist, "good" is defined as whatever allows me, or my genes, to replicate. To a behaviorist, "good" is whatever rewards me or, at least, does me no harm.

Those aren't very satisfying though. Most people would define bravery (since we are using military examples) as "good". From a strictly biological perspective, it's just the opposite. Bravery puts me at risk and may get me killed. Biologically, bravery is only useful if THE OTHER GUY has it. It's a trait that should have died out eons ago. Yet, here it is. Still with us, still valued. I'm using a simple example. We could easily devolve into a more detailed discussion on the nature of bravery. That's not my point.

My point is, that when examined scientifically, many of the behaviors we define as "good" run contrary to some sort of selfish, or darwinistic, or altruistic theory. There must be some other standard for comparison that is mutually understood by which some behaviors are defined as "good" and others "evil". The next step would be to explore the nature of that standard and where it comes from.

Even the "Lord's Prayer" has come under the scrutiny of contemporary historical Jesus exegetes.

The passage (Matt 6: 9-13, Luke 11:2-4)as per some experts was a collection of prayers said by the simple preacher man. And said simple preacher man got these small prayers from the ancients especially the Jewish ancients who thought their god(s) provided their nourishment and well being not knowing the laws of nature, biology and biochemistry.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/120_The_Lords_Prayer

"Situating this sentence prayer within its social context makes clear that it arose from certain specific situations in which Jesus found himself. It did not, within the lifetime of Jesus, belong to the Lord's Prayer, which was the product of the generations after Jesus. ... after Jesus was gone his followers in Galilee formulated a general prayer in his name, combining fragments from Jesus' own prayers with other material to create an institutionalized prayer in Jesus' name. As the various versions of this Lord's Prayer from the second half of the first century were passed on, the meanings of the individual prayer sentences were generalized and taken out of context. The sentence prayer about forgiveness made a gradual transition from forgiving one another's debts to forgiveness of sins."

Evolution, evolution, evolution. When will people become SANE AGAIN and stop using the word and stop comparing monkeys with humans. If you guys think you were former monkeys, go ahead but please don't include us who are real humans with your doctrine.

Lock up the cows in a grazing land and take pictures of them everyday. Tell your grandchildren to do the same everyday and their greatgrandchildren too. Observe if some of them will turn to a horse. OBSERVE DILIGENTLY. Stare until they start turning into pigs.Wait for a billion years if needed. Wait , wait and wait. Im sure they will turn into RATS.

Doomsday is just around the corner and STUPIDITY will make it happen. The stupidity is so great that Im puzzled WHY IT HAS NOT STARTED YET.

What a joke, Pam.

You are aping (pun intended) Christianity when you call for the "family of man" and the evocation of universal human dignity.

Social Darwinism would have a war of all against all for survival of the fittest genes and advancement of evolution process.

As for solidarity, try to explain selfless love of the victim/outcast/convicted one (the original blameless victim being Christ) via evolutionary theory.

Darwin = the ordering of chaos through violence / survival of the fit.

Also, try to explain altruism to those OUTSIDE the group or society without the breakthroughs of Christianity.

Hi Pam,

Thanks for your reply. But, you see, this is my problem with the empathy, nature, and cohesion argument. We exist only in history, in culture, in society. Hence, we can't, I don't think, speak of empathy or knowing right from wrong as a human universal. The human is historical.

I think there's more to it than this:

"We know right from wrong through empathy (the knowledge that just as I feel pain"

As for "evil," I understand what you mean. It's a difficult word for me, too, although, partly, I think, because we're so used to mediating atrocious behavior through one or another disciplinary lens: psychology, biology, sociology, etc.

I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with these terms. They assume that goodness is "natural," and, intellectually, I don't think it is. (Emotionally, it's hard for me to believe it isn't. )

I don't like "evil," but don't know what other word to use.

Hi Farnaz,
The cohesion among military units can be very strong, from what I've read and heard - sometimes even stronger than the bonds of actual family. I think the stress of the situation magnifies the bonding response. All the same, the baboon I mentioned only *risks* death, whereas the one falling on the grenade is certain of it. I suspect that if there were more than the briefest of moments to consider the act, it might not happen. Still, the suicide rate in war zones is much higher than it is among those who haven't gone to war, so there may also be an element of that.

As you said, complex.

The atrocities you mention are possible because somewhere along the line, one group has come to view the other as different to the point of being less than human. If you don't consider the other to be the same as you, you can do incredibly horrible things. History is full of it.

When there are wars, this attitude is carefully cultivated. Usually a contemptuous name is chosen for the enemy - something like "japs", "krauts", "chinks", "gooks", "slopes"...I could go on and on. Then rumors are spread - "they" don't value life like "we" do, "they" bayonet babies...etc., etc.

This is using the tribal social cohesion to foster an "us" against "them" attitude. And until we get past magnifying differences, and begin thinking of ourselves as the family of man - in it together on this little blue planet - we will continue to murder one another.

But all of the above is, sadly, natural. Chimpanzee males of one troop mount raids on the males of other troops, slaughtering them.

I don't like the word "evil" - it's too Biblical for me. Nature isn't always pretty.

What an elitist and vulgar sentiment.

Showing your true Communist colors, Jacobin...

PS - update your pic, Jacobin, your whithered and vapid appearance matches your ugly stereotypes and propaganda...

To Maria Janna

Oh my. "Any questions? Why do we even debate this topic? It's at the core of religion. Originally God, the master of the universe, was there to feed the poor and improve their (financial) situation. That's what it says right there in the Lord's Prayer: hunger and debts, meals and money. So why do we even wonder that people with limited resources and access turn to religion? It's the blueprint of everything religious."

The "Debts" referred to in the Lord's prayer (in that translation) refers to our transgressions to God. Are you suggesting that a skilled Jewish orator and scholar would pray to the divine with an implication that we borrowed money from God? The Bible makes it quite clear God cares absolutely nothing about money, or worldly wealth.

Atheists, apparently, spend time pondering why the poor turn to religion. Christians have known since the foundation of the religion and it has nothing to do with money. Religious thinkers from all traditions since they have been written and passed own share the same thought as Christians in this regard. The rich are easily distracted by their wealth and focus their efforts on attaining more wealth and keeping what they have. But, I suppose it's easier just to write off the vast portion of humans through out history as "stupid" or "uneducated" compared to "us" superior educated modern emancipated humans.

A fellow named Luther wrote a Small Catechism that explained the meaning of the Lord's Prayer, line by line. His definitions hold true today. You might want to check it out. It's a quick read, only a few pages at most well stocked book stores.

MJ:

But first the inter-denominational God or some aspect of same, did create the universe, no?

"Repeated public opinion polls have found that there is a strong correlation between faith (especially fundamentalist faith) and low educational attainment."

What pathetic hyperbole; it is obvious that the "new" atheists will really say and do anything to get noticed.

Catholics, Jews and Hindus etc are some of the most well educated and wealthy members of this nation.

Well, of course I meant the Christian god, not "God". ;)

Maria Janna,

Whoops!

Freudian slip: "Ethos" should have been "ether," but both apply.

Farnaz

Ah, Maria Janna,

You are back on this atheist thread.

"Any questions? Why do we even debate this topic? It's at the core of religion. Originally God, the master of the universe, was there to feed the poor and improve their (financial) situation. That's what it says right there in the Lord's Prayer: hunger and debts, meals and money. So why do we even wonder that people with limited resources and access turn to religion? It's the blueprint of everything religious."
--------------------
No doubt the discourse is going to rise much, much higher in the very near future, indeed, into the very ethos of Catholicism. A request from an atheist Jewish reader of your posts, who struggles to comprehend. When possible, footnote, translate, etc.

I should point out that "originally," God was there for other purposes, as you know.

Regards,

Farnaz

(Our Father which art in heaven,)
(hallowed be thy name.)
(Thy kingdom come.)
(Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.)

Give us this day our DAILY BREAD,
and forgive us our DEBTS,
as we forgive our DEBTORS,

[NB: translation from the original Greek reading]

(and lead us not into temptation,)
(but deliver us from evil.)

+ + + + + + + +

Any questions? Why do we even debate this topic? It's at the core of religion. Originally God, the master of the universe, was there to feed the poor and improve their (financial) situation. That's what it says right there in the Lord's Prayer: hunger and debts, meals and money. So why do we even wonder that people with limited resources and access turn to religion? It's the blueprint of everything religious.

Pam,

Thanks for your 10:02 post. Well written. I don't agree, but I appreciate the quality of the discussion.

I can't speak to the "latest in evolutionary thinking", as that's not a field of study I'm deep in. So, let me ask some question for the sake of better understanding.

You toss some terms around that we probably don't have a common definition for. How does the behavioral model you seem to advocate differ from social darwinism?

Next, there are some problems with your examples. I travel as a consultant a fair bit. I could "spread my genes" freely and my wife would never know. My desire to remain faithful arises out of my respect for her, and my desire to adhere to a higher behavioral standard out of love/respect for my creator. I would be quite disappointed if my wife were unfaithful to me. But a desire for reciprocity is not the motive for my behavior. I do not give money to the homeless man then hold out my hand to the rich fellow passing by expecting similar treatment. I do so because it's the "right" thing to do. So, some theory of reciprocal altruism seems quite contrary to my observations.

When the primate screams a warning to it's members, does it do so out of instinct, or some conscious choice to sacrifice itself to save others? Do you see any difference in these behaviors?

"To Farnaz, I have this to say:

1. Some women consider assent to abortion on demand through the 9'th month of pregnancy to be the price of admission to enlightened liberal conversation.

2. Many of those same women find fault with traditional theology for accepting a cruel god.

And I hope that the next time you quote me, you quote me in full. I'm not that verbose."

------------------

Officer Mancuso,

Done! (You are quoted, in full.) Now, who are these women, those you refer to in items 1 & 2 above, and what did you think of Robyn's post?

Pam,

Always a pleasure to read your posts. They're inevitably thought-provoking, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts with you.

"Throwing yourself on the grenade is a rather extreme example, and hardly a universal reaction, but when it happens, it happens for the same reasons - empathy, and the social bond forged by going into extreme danger while depending utterly on your buddies. Most soldiers will tell you that the reason they are able to face some of the things they do, is that they can't let their buddies down. This feeling is deliberately fostered by military training, but it is also thoroughly natural social cohesion."

I don't know if empathy, military training, or social cohesion can explain what you admit is not a common phenomenon. As well, when we look at the serial genocides of this last century, I'm hard put to place as much confidence in altruism as you seem to do.

Of these genocides, the Shoah, involved ordinary human beings, neither German nor nazi, living in France, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, etc., ordinary church-going people, who all by their lonesomes left their homes and slaughtered Jews, as part of their nativist activities, some even before the Germans arrived. There are endless disgusting photographs of these slaughters and I've posted a bibliography. The Germans, in many cases, had to stop them because their methods were too efficient. (Then, too, we have things that ordinary German soldiers did, and not only to Jews, things like lock five thousand Italians, mainly children, women, and the elderly, in a building and set fire to it, this after Italy surrendered.)

Again, in many cases, we're talking about people like our nextdoor neighbors. They were not indoctrinated like the Rwandans, and, even in Rwanda, one didn't see ordinary people doing things like this. To try to explain isolated heroic figures in the Shoah, Samuel Oliner did a fascinating study called The Altruistic Personality. (He was, of course, responding to Adorno's much earlier study, The Authoritarian Personality.)

It is difficult to believe, and I mean this in all sincerity, but there is evil in the world. Human beings do not exist in nature as you know, so we can't know the degree to which altruism or cruelty are "natural." Social cohesion is defined by how a society imagines itself in any historical period. Social cohesion can mean it's okay to slaughter Biafrans, for example. Social cohesion and empathy can be at opposite poles.

The question you are discussing is very complex.

Rayan Haber

After you described you educational status, it helps me to understand you a little better.

I wish in your studies, that you could somehow, break through, into thinking, truely for yourself, instead of endlessly refining a Medeival European paradigm.

You often come off sounding "anti-science." I think that to be a more credible and well-rounded person, you should seek to understand science better and know what science is. One thing that is irrelevant to science is what religeous beliefs scientists are said to hold.

A scientist may hold any religeous belief. But as long as he engages in science, then that belief, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to his status as a scientist, and likewise, his status as a scientist cannot give or withdraw any kind of credibilty to the religion he believes.

For religious belief is speculative in nature, but science is measurement and study of the physical world, with an effort towards consensus of observations and findings.

Religious belief is more of a mystery than you are willing to acknnowledge. And its practice by men here on earth is more of a human invention and a political tool than you are willing to admit.

I hope you will gain some insights from your studies.

I believe that "a certain kind of exclusionary, unquestioning, biblically literal faith is all that is left to people who have been bypassed by the global economy and the digital revolution." But I'm not an elitist or anything, you know.

Why don't these commentators ever see the logical ridiculousness of their statements that people "turn to" fundamentalism/traditional religious beliefs. The people who have traditional/ fundamental religious beliefs didn't "turn to" them, they "remained" in them. That's sort of the reason the beliefs are called "traditional" or "fundamental." Duh. The ones who are "turning to" something are liberals like Jacoby who "turn to" beliefs that ask for less and less faith and allow adherents to define whatever sort of God they wish to believe in, rather than the God who actually is.

Jed continued to rant:
"That's not great knowledge. Altruistic behavior in animals is high school level biology. It is the sort of thing that every educated modern person should know. You do not know it because you are blinded by superstitious religion and hostility toward biology. Darwin and the other biologists have given the human race so much, so unstintingly in medicine and self-awareness and understanding. It is a shame that people like you reject their their gift of enlightenment with hate and ignorance, confusion and fear. It does prove my point though: you have demonstrated that the worst primate instincts are as strong in us as any other primate. We have not and cannot transcend our nature."

I make two posts in a thread, and you know all about me? Amazing! I'm a computer scientist. My wife is a physicist and engineer. I have no hostility towards science or biology in specific. I believe in critical thinking, scientific enquiry, and evolution. These beliefs do not mutually exclude a belief in the divine. Maybe I'm just a dolt like that other God spouting moron, Einstein. Oh, and that other illogical god worshipping goof, Socrates. Perhaps the chipmunks mentioned them to you?

Jeb further embarrassed himself by saying: "Which animals perform behavior that does not benefit themselves in some way?"

Nearly all of them. Granted, such altruistic behavior usually benefits their line of DNA, if not themselves. Or it raises their status."

Jeb, you just contradicted yourself. First, you assert nearly all animals perform behavior that does not benefit themselves in some way, then you state that the behavior does benefit them. Which is it?

Thanks for the reference. I may give it a look after I finish "The Elegant Universe". Oh, wait. Since you know me so well and have pronounced I have a fear of science, perhaps I should use the book as a coaster instead?

I will warn you, I'm not a huge Dawkins fan. His rabid anti-theist positions can get quite annoying. CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) and Chesterton (Orthodoxy) did a fairly good job of disarming his ilk decades ago. Ravi Zacharias is doing it in this generation. None of these addressed atheism with violent mindless Bible-thumping. But with reason. You may disagree with their conclusions and perhaps some of their premises. But the logic is fairly sound.

I reject nothing, and fear only ignorance. I have demonstrated nothing - I merely asked you to clarify.

To Farnaz, I have this to say:

1. Some women consider assent to abortion on demand through the 9'th month of pregnancy to be the price of admission to enlightened liberal conversation.

2. Many of those same women find fault with traditional theology for accepting a cruel god.

And I hope that the next time you quote me, you quote me in full. I'm not that verbose.

I apologize for thread drift here, but in reply to Ryan Haber I would like to say this:

Mr. Haber suggests that rationalism is a hubris thing. I have known a man who lived into his 80's as a thoroughgoing rationalist, and I must say that he was as humble a person as I've ever met. First of all, he felt that there were huge limits on his ability to know. Second, he felt that any person who knew how to reason was fully qualified to criticize anything he had argued.

I don't doubt that there are pseudo-rationalists out there, people who worship pseudo-science (especially in the human sciences). But I can't agree that rationalism is a human pride thing. It's rather a matter of humility.

Hop over to Professor Stevens-Arroyo's blog to read the takes on abortion. Roe vs Wade is about abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

It is sickening how many of those who support abortion on demand fight for animal rights with undying passion.

"Officer Mancuso,

I understand what you mean. Those feminists are a danger to society"

Farnaz, you naughty girl.

What is new?
Religion has always been associated with ignorance and ignorance unfortunately always associated with poverty and the lack of education.

Officer Mancuso,

I understand what you mean. Those feminists are a danger to society.

Wes wrote:
" When I hold a door for someone it 'feels good'. Even when my animal instinct tells me I should keep moving to my destination instead. When I remain faithful to my wife, it feels good. Even though this is clearly outside nature where monogamy is rare and my animal nature encourages me to spread my genes as far as I am able. If, as you seem to assert, the Golden Rule evolved from pain/pleasure reflexes, then why do I feel the desire to do 'good' when it does not benefit me at all? Why does the soldier fall on the grenade to save his friends when nature would tell him 'run and save yourself'?"

Ah, Wes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You make the same mistake as the "social Darwinists" of a century ago.

I don't recall saying anything about "pain/pleasure reflexes", for a start. I wrote about empathy and social cohesion, and both apply to your examples. You hold the door for someone because you appreciate it when someone does it for you. Empathy. And because society works best when we work together. Social cohesion.

You're faithful to your wife because you wish her to be faithful to you. You know it would hurt you if she weren't, and you *empathize*. Also, *society* works best when there is a pair bond for the raising of children. Even if you don't raise children, the instinct is there.

Throwing yourself on the grenade is a rather extreme example, and hardly a universal reaction, but when it happens, it happens for the same reasons - empathy, and the social bond forged by going into extreme danger while depending utterly on your buddies. Most soldiers will tell you that the reason they are able to face some of the things they do, is that they can't let their buddies down. This feeling is deliberately fostered by military training, but it is also thoroughly natural social cohesion.

Altruism (of which the above is a prime example) is not limited to humans, BTW. It is found in many animal societies, as well. Think of the baboon that screams a warning to the troop when it sees a leopard, even though it calls attention to itself by so doing, and risks being the leopard's victim.

Even though altruism doesn't advance the spread of the individual's genes directly, it is selected for, because in the groups that most social animals live in (and humans used to live in), your tribe-mates are usually closely related to you and share most of your same genes; so when you sacrifice yourself for the good of the group, more of your genes are passed along to the next generation than would be the case if you saved yourself and allowed your tribe to be decimated.

Nothing tired about this argument, Wes, it's the very latest evolutionary thinking.

Just for the record, I'm with Daniel on "Rationalism". I reckon that term refers to the belief that what *can* be known by human beings can *only* be known by reason, there is no other way for humans to know things. Emotions don't work, ESP doesn't work, when it comes to learning about the world. (Political ideology doesn't work, either). That's a far cry from believing that human reason can know everything.

Ryan Haber said:

"Rationalism, as an ideology, is the belief that all things real are comprehensible to the human mind, at least in principle, and that if a thing cannot be understood by the human mind, then it is not real. Rationalism as an ideology is the very height of hubris. There is nothing, neither first principles nor observations, that can lead one to think that human beings have such total comprehension of reality - only a sort of collective willfulness can lead to that conclusion, and that is not rational."

I think Ryan Haber must be totally daft. As a Scientist, I do not believe in what he calls rationslism, and I do not know any educated person who does.

Ryan Haber, you are attributing beliefs to people who do not hold those beliefs, and then arguing with them about how wrong they are. That is the "Catholic Church" in you that is talking. They tell what the enemy thinks, then you must challenge it.

Yet as I said, no scientist believes all things are comprehensible to the human mind. I, in fact, do not even believe in the existence of so-called laws of nature or laws of physics. Who believes that all things are comprehensible to the human mind? Catholic priests, and the relgious, in general. Who is guilty of hubris? Religeous people, and their fanatic brethren.

Farnaz, Ms. Jacoby does mention abortion in her remarks atop this thread. It's one of those things dumb uneducated rednecks oppose, while well heeled highly educated types just naturally support it, she argues. In her later comment, she says something about Job, and I replied to that comment wondering what Job would have felt had he been aborted at 8 months and 29 days.

I'm sorry, but this woman's ravings strike me as nonsensical feminist cant. I'm reminded of Stalinists in the USA in the early 1970's - yes, there were some, their vehicle was the Communist Party USA. Black was white, according to them, when it was necessary for that to be the case in order to uphold their ideology.

Wes wrote:

"So, oh great font of wisdom, which higher mammals form life bonds besides humans? No other primate that I'm aware of forms monogamous bonds."

I don't know about primates. I have not studied them. Geese and pigeons are highly monogamous. As I mentioned, I studied chipmunks. In Japan, actually. (I think they were Korean Chipmunks, Tamias sibiricus barberi. Anyway they did things as surprising and counterintuitive as you opening doors. Plus they are a lot cuter than you.)

"Which animals perform behavior that does not benefit themselves in some way?"

Nearly all of them. Granted, such altruistic behavior usually benefits their line of DNA, if not themselves. Or it raises their status. See the book "The Selfish Gene" for a readable introduction to this topic. You can also fool them or "colonize" them into benefiting some other species rather than themselves, as parasites often do.

"Please enlighten us poor mindless readers with your great knowledge."

That's not great knowledge. Altruistic behavior in animals is high school level biology. It is the sort of thing that every educated modern person should know. You do not know it because you are blinded by superstitious religion and hostility toward biology. Darwin and the other biologists have given the human race so much, so unstintingly in medicine and self-awareness and understanding. It is a shame that people like you reject their their gift of enlightenment with hate and ignorance, confusion and fear. It does prove my point though: you have demonstrated that the worst primate instincts are as strong in us as any other primate. We have not and cannot transcend our nature.

- Jed

Officer Mancuso,

1. Some women consider assent to abortion on demand through the 9'th month of pregnancy to be the price of admission to enlightened liberal conversation.

I have no knowledge of such women or men, but late-term abortions were not the subject of Robyn's post. I wonder what you thought of her reply.

Arminius,

I don't know how interested you are in this Farsi/Arabic business, but here is a decent link.

http://www.languages.umd.edu/persian/persianlanguage3.php

I don't know how objective one can be about this sort of thing, and, of course, I'm a native speaker of Farsi, but I think Arabic is more difficult, more grammatically complex, and it is more gendered. It also has more letters. A lot of people will tell you that the loan words come only from the Q'ran, but this is not the case. Many do come from the Q'ran but certainly not all. It's also important to consider when reading about the connections between the two languages that Arabic has more prestige than Farsi, which biases some of what is said and even perceived. For example, you will often read that speakers of ARabic have a great advantage if they wish to learn Farsi, but you will not hear the converse. (Sometimes, Iranians like to bring up Rumi in these discussions.)

But to say, as some do, that Farsi speakers cannot read Arabic is simply not true. They can and do read the Q'ran in Arabicm other sacred texts, and even some contemporary albeit usually with difficulty. Could they read a newspaper article? No.

Now take Hebrew and Arabic, which are both Semitic languages. Speaking one gives you no advantage in speaking the other. Ditto reading and writing.

As for the connections between ancient and contemporary Hebrew, contemporary Hebrew developed, in the main, in the twentieth century, relying on ancient and medieval Hebrew, the Hebrew of the scriptures and a bit later. Well, the world had changed in 2,000 years, so you can see why knowing ancient Hebrew, whose script differs somewhat from modern, whose grammar differs, who vocabulary (!) differs radically wouldn't help one much. The pronunciation is different, as well.

MOdern Hebrew is, as far as I know, the only case of the "resurrection" of a "dead" language. And they said it can't be done. Latin is always used as locus classicus in that argument.

Farnaz

1. Some women consider assent to abortion on demand through the 9'th month of pregnancy to be the price of admission to enlightened liberal conversation.

2. Many of those same women find fault with traditional theology for accepting a cruel god.

Jed rambled,
"Monogamy is not rare, and your behavior is not a bit outside nature. It is part and parcel of it. You are acting as much according to your instincts as any other animal. Believe me, I have seen chipmunks, crows and many other animals engage in more complex social behavior than holding open doors.

You need to learn something about evolution and behaviorialism before commenting on them. Your assertions are wrong. An introductory textbook would set you straight."

Ah, the classic ad hominem attack. Rather than write to the logic, just attack the writer. Us dumb Christian conservatives just need to get edjumacated like you. So we can all think like you and agree. Right?

I've read quite a bit on both, Jed. So, oh great font of wisdom, which higher mammals form life bonds besides humans? No other primate that I'm aware of forms monogamous bonds. Which animals perform behavior that does not benefit themselves in some way? Please enlighten us poor mindless readers with your great knowledge.

Pam,

Re: My last post to you

Should have written, "Let us recall," in penultimate paragraph.

Farnaz

ARminius,

Cont'd from previous post:

This is not to say that Farsi and Arabic share the degree of mutual comprehensibility that, say, Italian and Spanish do.

Farnaz

Arminius,

why do you equate Farsi with Arabic?

Farsi has thousands of Arabic loan words, some structural similarities with Arabic, and is also written in Arabic script. Anyone who can read Farsi can read Arabic, albeit with some difficulty, although she/he may not be able to comprehend well; it depends on the text. However, most Iranian Muslims we knew and know read the Q'ran in Arabic. So did I. There were and are as you know great writers who wrote in Arabic.

In my case, because of the similarity between the two languages, my mother doused my with much more Arabic. Hence, I was able to struggle, and I do mean struggle, through Mafouz.

"Semitic" or no, modern Hebrew, whose history is a lengthy post in itself, has less in common with ancient Hebrew than Farsi does with Arabic, ancient and modern.

I think Odysseus was cool too, but it's the thinking, the adventures, etc., that get me. I don't know if philosophy much interests you, but a Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote a magnificent book called "The Dialectics of the Enlightenment," which includes a near-genius essay on the Odyssey. The central argument is that myth already concerned enlightenment and the Enlightenment contained and contains myth.

Wes wrote:

"When I hold a door for someone it "feels good". Even when my animal instinct tells me I should keep moving to my destination instead. When I remain faithful to my wife, it feels good. Even though this is clearly outside nature where monogamy is rare and my animal nature encourages me to spread my genes as far as I am able."

Monogamy is not rare, and your behavior is not a bit outside nature. It is part and parcel of it. You are acting as much according to your instincts as any other animal. Believe me, I have seen chipmunks, crows and many other animals engage in more complex social behavior than holding open doors.

You need to learn something about evolution and behaviorialism before commenting on them. Your assertions are wrong. An introductory textbook would set you straight.

- Jed

Hi Pam,

"She isn't saying that the public opinion polls asked random people whether they thought that low eductional achievement and fundamentalism were correlated, but that polls of people who responded that they had little education also found that they professed fundamentalist faith.

See the difference?"
------------------------------
Yes, I do see the difference. Actually, my problem stems more from her assertions about Judaism and Catholicism, sans back up or definitions. (See my earlier post on this.)

That's not all. There are also the near-tortured defense of Obama's inexcusable comment about the bitterness of blue-collar workers, the comment of the life expectancy of women in Mississippi from one who has consistently ignored the major differences on health care between Clinton and Obama, and, who, in her last column indirectly accused those who do care about it of using it as a blind for racism!

Then let us not recall last week's essay with its report of the overheard pit bull remark, interpreted as an "ugly racist comment," from which Jacoby, with logic, undetectable to man, concluded, "No doubt this man believes in God."

Obama is McCain's opponent and I will vote for the senator from Illinois. I also understand myself to be an atheist. However, logic is logic and evidence is evidence.

Farnaz

Thank you, Susan Jacoby. I always love what I think about after reading your work.

Pam, wrote

"This is an old and tired argument. We know right from wrong through empathy (the knowledge that just as I feel pain and pleasure, I can surmise that you do, too), and through our evolution as social animals. From this derive such as the Golden Rule, and laws that prevent anarchy and make society function smoothly. They are thoroughly natural and require no instruction from a superhuman authority."

Now that's a tired old argument, Pam. Let's explore it. When I hold a door for someone it "feels good". Even when my animal instinct tells me I should keep moving to my destination instead. When I remain faithful to my wife, it feels good. Even though this is clearly outside nature where monogamy is rare and my animal nature encourages me to spread my genes as far as I am able. If, as you seem to assert, the Golden Rule evolved from pain/pleasure reflexes, then why do I feel the desire to do "good" when it does not benefit me at all? Why does the soldier fall on the grenade to save his friends when nature would tell him "run and save yourself"?

Farnaz,

Don't envy me, my friend. My Greek has mostly gone, through a long and twisting journey through the Army, other jobs, marriage and kids, and being a computer programmer for 25 years. I did at one time read a great part of the Iliad. I can still struggle thru the New Testament, since it is pretty simplistic Greek. As a matter of fact, it was a course in Literature, the Iliad in translation, that drove me into Greek. So, thus, my wasted life.

I prefer the Odyssey because Odysseus is one cool dude!

Question: why do you equate Farsi with Arabic? Farsi is Indo-European, Arabic is Semitic. Big difference.

If I boil down the point it appears Ms. Jacoby is trying to make, and ignore the poor theology, it seems she is trying to say

Christian Conservative = Dumb
Christian Secular Humanist = Smart

I have no idea what Ms. Jacoby's religious views are. But as a well educated Christian, and a conservative, I find Ms. Jacoby's post offensive and reflecting either an amazing degree of arrogance or a poor understanding of the Bible and Christianity.

The poor don't flock to Christianity because they are "uneducated". They flock to Christianity because their treasure is elsewhere. Their hope is not in money, or in Congress, or liberal activists, or in "stuff". Materialism is just foolish to those without.

The poor, and anyone who cares to actually study the Bible, also tend to understand it's an evil world, not a heartless God, that is the cause of all misery. Humanity's exercise of free will can be a great wonder, or a horrible evil.

I also take offense to Ms. Jacoby's insinuation that poor = uneducated = dumb. The poor farmers of my youth were not only devout Christians, but also quite wise. Liberal PhDs do not hold an exclusive claim to wisdom.

Finally, the religious right does not oppose education. If anything, most that I know would like more education for the people. For starters, it would help people identify poor theology and specious positions much faster.

""Repeated public opinion polls have found that there is a strong correlation between faith (especially fundamentalist faith) and low educational attainment." Public opinion polls, Gracie? The public thinks something so that makes it empircally true?"

Christopher Johnson, you and Farnaz have misunderstood.

She isn't saying that the public opinion polls asked random people whether they thought that low eductional achievement and fundamentalism were correlated, but that polls of people who responded that they had little education also found that they professed fundamentalist faith.

See the difference?

Arminius,

Last digression:

Actually, I confess I love the Odyssey more than I do the Illiad. You're the classicist, so I don't know if there's something wrong with my taste in this.

I envy you beyond all measure your ability to read Greek. I lost that chance with all the insanity of the politics of my region. My mother, when she saw I was bookish, took over my education with a vengeance. Greek was the next language on her list, to be followed by Latin, the Romance languages, and German. Oh, well. I can read ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, Arabic because I speak Farsi, a fair amount of German, a little French, and I can comprehend a bit of Italian.

But I will never be able to read the Odyssey in Greek.

I envy you, my friend.

Farnaz

Free Thinker, who is anything but, wrote:
"So do we have a balance of right and wrong and if we do who decides what is right and wrong.

My final point is this I think even an atheist would be caught saying "That atrocite that happened to that little girl....(fill in the situation here, all evil acts apply)so if they don't believe in a "higher power" or "God" then where do they measure that it is evil.
"

This is an old and tired argument. We know right from wrong through empathy (the knowledge that just as I feel pain and pleasure, I can surmise that you do, too), and through our evolution as social animals. From this derive such as the Golden Rule, and laws that prevent anarchy and make society function smoothly. They are thoroughly natural and require no instruction from a superhuman authority.

Ryan Haber,

Here are the results of a study on scientists and belief:

"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%."

Also - you constantly refer to rationalism, as though that were the guiding philosophy of non-believers. It isn't - athough we tend to be quite rational. :)

I'm not a great fan of the study of philosophy, as I think it involves way too much navel-gazing, but if I were to relate my own (atheistic) thinking to an accepted philosophy, it would be naturalism. Both rationalism (the idea that truth can only be known by thinking) and empiricism (the idea that truth can only be known by observation) are too narrow for me. Naturalism encompasses both.

Arminius,

I also love the Odyssey too much. I mean I'd stop doing anything, lose track of time, etc. Beckett's the best bet. Underneath or within the absurdism, there is the voice of one crying in the wilderness, one who has heard an answer. Can't explain it.

Farnaz

Christopher Johnson:
"And you wrote a book about American unreason?"

I confess all too often I've had the same thought.
This essay is somewhat better than the last, which wasn't the worst. The one before that was truly excellent: cogently argued, beautifully written. Not only did I appreciate it for its quality, but for the evidence it gave of Ms. Jacoby's ability to think. frankly, I was beginning to have doubts.

False statements, overheard remarks presented as facts, assertions made without evidence, etc., appear all too often here.

On the believer hand, the last two essays of Susan Smith almost made me weep for the level of discourse to which this site has sunk. Clearly, something is wrong with this Quinn blog. Many of those who post here understand the nature of evidence, write well, and do so consistently. It may be that Quinn doesn't ask lucid enough questions, that she, herself, isn't up to the task, that sometimes, the panelists don't have the time to put together a solid essay, that they, or, at least, some of them can't.

Some appear to be bigoted. Some appear to be unaccostomed to writing for ecumenical audiences. Just don't know. Too bad, though, because this blog has a lot of potential.

Susan, marry me. ;-)

Love your columns. Keep up the great analysis.

Farnaz,

For the sake of your sanity, ignore JJ entirely. He uses periods and asterisks to separate four-letter words to get them by the censor. He spews continual hatred and utter nonsense. You might have noticed that he sometimes uses 'Eclat' as something of a religious thing. This represents a white-supremacist pseudo-religion created in prison. Forget him.

Oh, yes, the Odyssey works much better than the Iliad or the Aeneid.

"Repeated public opinion polls have found that there is a strong correlation between faith (especially fundamentalist faith) and low educational attainment." Public opinion polls, Gracie? The public thinks something so that makes it empircally true? And you wrote a book about American unreason?

Ah, Arminius,

Now, I, too, have offended JJ. (Sorry, JJ, and you might want to piss on my apology.) But, now, again, I don't understand him. Maybe, he doesn't want to be understood. Too bad, but then, again, many of us want others to understand us, do our best, and they don't, anyway.

Oh, well. What this means to me non sequiturially, is that I should reread something of Beckett. I used to try the Aneid in moments of existential weirdness, but it stopped working. The Illiad, I love too much, so it never works. Beckett is desperately seeking meaning. A fellow traveller.

Secularists first landed in Jamestown, Virginia. After 16 years they almost called it quits and contemplated of going back to England.

The RELIGIOUS Puritans landed on the northern portion in Plymouth , Massachusetts. After 16 years they had established HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

It was during the growth of true Christianity that the industrial revolution took place and riches abound.

Susan Jacoby, when can you learn? Why do you remain ignorant?

Secularists first landed in Jamestown, Virginia. After 16 years they almost called it quits and contemplating of going back to England.

The RELIGIOUS Puritans landed on the northern portion in Plymouth , Massachusetts. After 16 years they have established HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

It was during the growth of true Christianity that the industrial revolution took place and riches abound.

Susan Jacoby, when can you learn? Why do you remain ignorant?

Hi Arminius,

Don't want to say too much more about Robyn for fear he/she will abandon us. I think sometimes Thomas Baum must withdraw for awhile after some of us can't help but express admiration for him.

As for JJ, I didn't know he'd said unkind things about you. Truthfully, I find it very difficult to decipher what he's writing most of the time. For example, it seems that F.U.C.K. is, actually, an acronym, although it may be intended to carry its usual meaning, sans periods, as well--don't know. I think JJ writes in code, or in accordance with the religion he's developed. (He's in Wikepidia.)

This post, though, made complete sense. Officer Mancuso's example was not only insane but irrelevant, since Robyn was not even addressing late-term abortions, let alone "murder," which, as JJ wrote, is what the officer's example went to.

Honestly, though, I didn't know he'd said anything unkind about you.

Sorry!

Farnaz

Dear Anonymous (whichever anonymous you are) -

Do your own research on abortion statistics. You may be surprised.

After that, why not cite a few state laws regarding abortion to back up your claims?

BTW - Where I live (CA), a fetus dying in utero is considered a stillbirth if that death occurs after the 20th week and up to full term. Prior to that, such a death is termed a miscarriage. A stillbirth isn't considered a birth. The state issues a "fetal death certificate." Currently, 20 states offer the option of issuing a birth certificate for a stillborn baby.

I'm puzzled as to why you would consider the removal of an already dead-in-utero fetus as an "abortion?"

Hi, Farnaz,

I agree with you about Robyn.

As for JJ, please ignore him. He has already polluted at least 5 blogs in the last two days. He is a bigot, makes no sense, and makes continual ad hominem attacks on me and others.

Mr mark, "Most abortions are performed prior to the 16-week stage of gestation. Legally, abortions past the 24-week mark may be performed only in cases of extreme health risk to the mother. There are no "abortion procedures" available to "abort" a fetus at 39 weeks plus 6 days, as you so ludicrously imagine."

You are not current with the state laws of abortion, additionally; you speak of things that you do not have full knowledge of. Where is the statistical proof of you abortion rates per gestational growth?

What the hell is an "abortion procedure?" And yes a fetus can be aborted at a gestational age of 39 weeks, when the fetus dies in utero.

You are a know it all and are the one you that "ludicrously imagines." So STFU!!!

Somali, Somali, Somali,

You honestly believe that the poor Muslims of Somalia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania et al do not practice all the tenets of Islam? If that is the case, there is hope for a complete deletion of Islam in the near future considering that there must be over half of the world's Muslim population in these poor countries

Just in case, you decide to escape from your Muslim Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainawashed in the tenets Islam, we again present our free Five Step Recovery Program:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. 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/Mahound, 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.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Robyn,

Good for you! Well said, and you are an amazing person!

-------------------------------------------------

JJ,

Do you think it would be possible, every once in a while, for you to maybe post like you just did? I try very hard to understand your posts, but sometimes, it's kind of hard since I'm not entirely clear on the meanings of some of the terms you use.

Regards,
Farnaz

OfficerMancuso writes:

"I wonder how Job would have felt if he were an 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus?"

Congrats! That must qualify as one of the stupidest comments ever made on this blog.

According to Better Health Channel:

"A baby born prior to week 37 is considered premature, while a baby that still hasn’t been born by week 42 is said to be overdue. In many cases, labour will be induced in the case of an overdue baby.

"The average length of human gestation is 280 days, or 40 weeks, from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period. The medical term for the due date is estimated date of confinement (EDC). However, only about four per cent of women actually give birth on their EDC."

By any estimation, a fetus that has been in the womb for 38 weeks - or roughly 8.8 months - is considered full term. Any baby born any number of days before reaching "8 months and 29 days" in utero would be considered full term. The term "abortion" hardly applies in such a situation.

Most abortions are performed prior to the 16-week stage of gestation. Legally, abortions past the 24-week mark may be performed only in cases of extreme health risk to the mother. There are no "abortion procedures" available to "abort" a fetus at 39 weeks plus 6 days, as you so ludicrously imagine.

What goes through a mind like yours? To what level of horror and fear mongering do you stoop to equate ALL cases of abortion to murder? Apparently, it includes proposing that some parent would have their child "aborted" up to and including their gestating baby being 279 days along rather than 280 days.

You're sick.

Susan Jacoby:

"I wonder how Job would have felt had the author made the capricious deity take away his fortune a second time?"

You are, as you know, dealing with a very different historical period, a different culture, a different relgion, from which Judaism devloped and is continuing to develop.

Take another look at the Bible and read the psalms if you want an answer from the culture that produced it and for whose coming generations it was intended. Use the Steinsaltz edition, the most accurately translated. Look, also, at good Jewish theologians' take on them, their comments on David's contradictory moods, pleadings, doubts, and questions. Then you will be better prepared to formulate a hypothetical answer to your questions about Job. Those who "accused" Job were in very bad company. Whose?

As for Job, himself, Steinsaltz and other great scholars also discuss him, in depth, of course. Please, remember, Judaism is not literal. It is heavily mediated, interpreted through the Talmud, by later commentators, etc. Jews do not simply read Job, take him on his face, and move on!
----------------------------

In your essay, you write, "Historically (and this has been true since the 1780s), better off and better educated Americans have gravitated toward forms of religion hospitable to secular knowledge--beginning with liberal Protestantism--while poorer Americans have been drawn to fundamentalist Protestantism and, later, toward the most traditional, rigid forms of Catholicism and Judaism.

Question: What do you mean by later? From a professional perspective, I'd be interested in knowing when poorer American Jews started moving "toward the most traditional, rigid forms of Judaism." Also, which forms of Judaism?

On Jews, Judaism, changes within the various Jewish communities in the US and abroad, I have some knowledge. Estimates vary as to the number of Jews at or below the federal poverty guidelines, the most recent I've seen cited being between 25% and 28%. As to the movement to more "rigid forms," again, I'd like definitions. (Statistics would also be helpful here.)

If possible, please also supply definitions, specifics, percentages, etc., for Catholics, Muslims, etc.

Thanks!

I wrote:

“’. . . Love, for instance, or sorrow - I can definitely assert that such things exist even though they are completely immeasurable.’

They are metaphenomena. They are also electrochemical states in the brain. They cannot be detected at present but there is no reason to think they will not be detected in the future, or that they cannot be detected in principle.”

And please, DON”T anyone start in accusing me of reductionism, or reducing emotions to “mere” biology. That’s an anemic argument. Biology and brain chemistry are profound, not “mere” anything. Every thought and emotion is also an electrochemical state of the brain. These are two sides to the same coin. It is like saying that great painting is canvas and pigment; or a fabulous meal is mostly water and carbohydrates; or a computer program that saves your life is a series of bytes stored on a disk. The most profound or evil thoughts, along with every banal thought or perception or hunger pang in history was a chemical state in someone’s brain. Ideas that changed the world: speeches, books . . . all were one level, brain chemistry. Looked at another way, they are social meta-phenomena, or memes.

A good meal is a great pleasure and also “mere” digestion. Love and procreation are the most profound and wonderful experiences most of us have, but they are also “merely” sex. There is no contradiction. There is also no metaphysical or supernatural aspect to it: things are as they are. People who call this reductionism are unsophisticated and incapable of subtle understanding, in my opinion. Plus they lack a sense of humor. And a sense of wonder! When you imagine that love or sex have some invisible supernatural or ghostly essence, that merely cheapens the experience, and robs it of here-and-now verisimilitude, raw presence, and glorious animal essence.

You religious folks have been saying for centuries that love should be “elevated” as if sex is something we should be ashamed of. We should “transcend our animal nature”? As if there is anything wrong with being an animal! You have peculiar and unfounded notions about the double nature of many things, with an unseen component, such as a spirit that lives after the body dies; a mind outside the physical brain; duality here, hidden and double meaning there. Things are not as they seem . . . Yuch! The craziest duality of all is the distinction between people and other primates and animals, and this notion that it "degrades" us to "admit" we are primates and we evolved, or that such knowledge will harm our morality. Why would anyone want to believe that humans are any different or better or specially created compared? That is grotesque, mind-boggling nonsense. It is sick, sick, SICK to fear or deny reality. How can knowing the true facts about your origin be a bad thing?!? You should be happy. You should be pleased to be related to chimpanzees. They are marvelous creatures, and we should be proud to know they are our distant cousins.

Duality is creepy, not elevating. Along with so many other religious notions, such as living forever, or heaven, or the efficacy of prayer, or original sin, I wouldn’t want it to be true, and I am glad it isn't.

- Jed

Att: O F i C E R M A N C U S O, et al:

Maybe that ".. 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus." was another YOLONDA waiting to happen in the Suicide Que? Yes, Suicide Que!

Note: 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus is also 'MURDER'. But In all Area's of NATURE ye seeth the Crueler works (as per ye Biomentality of such cruelty) around Us.

But Then Again, More Teenagers Die of Drug Overdoses + Car Acidents + Suicide + potential can kill others. So More Teenagers Die than those so called "8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus.."

Note: not long ago , Did not a "MYSPACE" Teenager Commit Suicide over nothing at all??

POiNT: Abortion is a Choice (Medically or Not) And please realize that the Majority of the 303,000,000 so called Americans will never resort to Abortion. Hence the Extinction of HUMANiTY, via Abortion, the WORLDS Over, will not Happen.

Even Though 'GENE-POOLs" are Limited on Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built , MA/PA, Space-Ship Earth(s), That Earth's "Population-Control" is , not about the Survival of the Fittest, but rather a Must! And the Abortion Count is just part of Nature-Economic Space-Forthing Machine, until Mother/Father Eart, Gran-Ma-SOLOR & Brother Mars & Sister LUNA & Cousin TiTAN et al will be NO-MORE & sudenly Aborted, but, but

For Another Miraculous ESCAHOLOgICAL POSSiBiLiTiES of Each Immortal HEIRiSTiCa/o (SOUL) in the DUE-TO-BE moment for another HOL{i} Appearance MEMETIC-ally!

Remember: Less Abortion is O.K., but Zero Abortion thinking the world over, is an illusion! Even Nature Eats It's Young, Yoke, fetus etc..!

Hi Arminius,

Thanks and nice to meet you!

Robyn

Robyn:

Wow! Good for you. May the rest of us try to do more than we now do. Keep it up, and keep contributing here.

"Blessed are the poor in Spirit" says the Lord. "Cast all your cares upon me" says the Lord. "The poor will be with us always" says the Lord. God knows our heart and He will never leave or forsake up. When we go thru both hard times and good times, we should always give thanks to Almighty God and care for nothing but instead cast all our cares upon Him for He cares for us. When we draw near to God, He will draw near to us. We should stay in fellowship with God at all times and trust in Him, acknowledge Him in all we do and He will direct our path.

OfficerMancuso,

"I wonder how Job would have felt if he were an 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus?"

Job was a Jew. Judaism permits abortion under different kinds of circumstances.

But you wonder, Officer, and I wonder too. I wonder how dead Catholic Yolanda feels, having committed suicide when she was seventeen after she found out the Catholic boy to whom she gave her virginity had gotten her pregnant, and the Catholic boy wanted to hear no more about it. She didn't feel she could live with the disgrace.
She left a note, but we don't know how she feels now, so, maybe, you could speculate.

I also wonder how Vangie felt carrying the fetus of her sick b*stard Catholic father, while her mother, a Catholic, didn't want her to have an abortion.

This one we resolved through the courts by removing Catholic Vangie from her sick Catholic mother. The Catholic father is in jail, but won't be in for long enough, of IMO. We're trying to find more to charge the b*stard with, but, meanwhile, have learned that, somehow, word got out to his fellow prisoners that the mofo incested his 12 year old. Seems the pr*ck asked for protective custody, which, for some reason, was denied.

Vangie is living with a non-sick atheist cousin and her family. She's had an abortion and is in therapy twice a week. She's being monitored very closely because she's a sweetheart, whose neighbors, including yours truly noticed that something was wrong, saved her life, and are committed to getting her well.

So, Officer Mancuso? How does dead, seventeen-year-old Yolanda feel? How does she feel, Officer? And Vangie?

Do you think we should have let her do what she'd planned on? "Pull it out with a hanger or a hook, maybe. I don't know."

Officer, those were her exact words, from my notes.

I dare not judge Job. Someday he will judge us, though. We who routinely sell out at the slightest provocation.

As for the poor and their affinity for "primitive" faith (so-called), the Scriptures themselves pointed out this fact two thousand years ago. No news here. They are blessed. We would do well not to judge them either but instead analyze our own "erudite" beliefs (so-called).

I wonder how Job would have felt if he were an 8 month and 29 day old aborted human fetus?

Arminius:

Thanks for the alert. The man/woman has nothing of import to say. LYING constantly tends to be detected after a while. He/she runs around with a very broad brush.

I propose a new version of the Job story where the suffering in his life is not designed at all, but is simply the product of natural events. Job learns this and must confront the fact that he has no target for his anger - he would be going through the five stages of grief. Ultimately Job would create his own comfort and hope, either himself or with the assistance of other people.

Ryan Haber,

From the last Arroy thread, and I'm done. You're right when you say that abortion concerns a third party. That would be the mother/woman/girl, including the one who may have been raped or incested.

You haven't answered my questions, but I will not trouble you again with them.

Ryan Haber wrote:

"'I meant that scientists everywhere tend to be atheists.'

Not only is this false, but in my experience, scientists tend much more toward agnosticism than toward atheism . . ."

That is incorrect. There have been several comprehensive opinion surveys of scientists. The percent of atheists are far above the general population, and in some groups, such as physicists and biologists, a large majority are atheists.

"Of course, and there are things we can understand, but cannot observe."

I do not think so. I think this is your imagination working overtime.

"'But there is nothing in heaven and earth which is invisible, undetectable, and yet which we can be sure exists.'

Sure there is. Love, for instance, or sorrow - I can definitely assert that such things exist even though they are completely immeasurable."

They are metaphenomena. They are also electrochemical states in the brain. They cannot be detected at present but there is no reason to think they will not be detected in the future, or that they cannot be detected in principle.

"Imagine what someone who thinks like this would have thought about microwaves or greenhouses gases, and what his peers would have thought of him if he insisted on their existence, even living just in the 17th or 16th century."

The only reason we know these things exist is because we can detect them! That’s my point. It would be crazy to believe in them without physical evidence.

"'Why would God do X?' or 'How could God Y?' Proper scientists know that such things aren't even scientific questions . . ."

I assert they are not questions at all. They have no semantic content. They have not referent in the real world. It is like asking "what would a unicorn do?" or "how could the people now living on the moon vote Republican?" Before you discuss what or X or Y would do, you must establish that X or Y exist.

". . . If I told you that my mother's hair was auburn, now faded to gray, you'd probably believe me, though entirely without physical evidence that either she or I actually exist."

That is because other people exist, and there is nothing unexpected or extraordinary about you or your mother existing.

"Why would you believe that without coming to know if for yourself? Because a trusted source revealed it to you. That isn't irrational, or antirational in the slightest. It's common sense."

No trusted source can reveal to you the existence of God, because according to all accounts -- including all religious accounts -- there is no objective method of detecting God. One has to rely upon the mind and its perceptions of things, and the mind is notoriously unreliable.

"I haven't made any particular claims about God other than assuming His mere existence . . ."

That is a very large claim! As I said, you have not objective evidence for it. I have read enough theology to confirm that. Every time the subject comes up the text assert that there can be no such evidence which is tantamount to admitting they have nothing and they are wrong by definition.

". . . - the fact that 99% of people who ever lived, give or take, have accepted the fact speaks strongly for giving it at least a hearing, doesn't it?"

Not at all. This is another logical fallacy: appeal to belief, and appeal to popularity. Most of the beliefs that people have held throughout history turned out to be wrong. For example, people thought the world was flat, and they thought that disease is caused by demons or sinfulness. Progress and science have revealed again and again that everyone -- even the most educated – were utterly wrong and misguided about countless things, large and small. I am surprised that a person living in modern times does not realize this.

"And I haven't claimed to know anything about Him on my own extraordinary mental powers, either."

The fact that you ascribe any powers to Him indicates that you think you know something about Him. This is hubris. You can prove nothing. You know nothing. This is mere human egoism on your part. You are talking about yourself -- not God.

"I haven't any. In fact, to the contrary, Christianity's first suppositional claim is that humans could know very little about God except that He revealed Himself to us."

They can know nothing, because the stories about Him revealing Himself are folktales. They are impossible and preposterous. No modern, rational, educated person can seriously believe that someone brought Lazarus back to life, for example, or that a virgin gave birth, or that the Creator of the Universe took human form and had himself killed. If you believe such things then you are not living in modern times; you are stuck in a time-warp, 400 years in the past.

"On the other hand, I am not going to look down on the great majority, almost the uniformity of the human race, and say, 'All those people are so dumb, because they believe that something might exist that is beyond their limited powers of observation or even understanding, that might nonetheless be real and affect them. . . .'"

They are not dumb, or stupid. They are premodern. Such beliefs were once universal, along with the belief that disease is caused by sin, as I mentioned. We "look down" on them only in the sense that we were lucky enough to be born later, at a time when the human race has learned a little more about physical reality and nature, so we know more than they do. That is also why we have computers, satellite navigation, antibiotics and so on. Not because we are morally superior, but only because we got here after they did.

Actually, from my point of view, you are looking down at people and you are betraying the faith and good works of your predecessors. You -- not me. People everywhere, and especially in America, have struggled mightily for the last 400 years to develop science and technology and to learn the true nature of things. They overthrew ancient ignorance, and overcame the fear of change. They stopped praying cure illness or grow food, and took it upon themselves to control their own destiny instead, and find out how things really work. They have given us computers and evolution and countless other blessings of the human imagination. You turn your back on them and embrace dark, ancient superstition instead. Science has done more to liberate us and empower us in 400 years than religion did in 400,000 years. You should appreciate what people have done for you, and stop imagining that supernatural beings deserve any credit for it.

"To clarify, the fact that most people in history have believed in the existence of God is not in itself evidence of His existence. But it should give cause for pause . . ."

The fact that people in the past were completely wrong about nearly everything should give YOU cause for pause. History has not taught you much, it seems.

- Jed

D. Rodriguez:
"CAN anyone PLEASE tell me why atheists continue to post comments in the religion section??? If you don't believe, don't comment. If you don't believe, why would you even care what is said in the religion section?

It is the same on every board and discussion site on the internet. Always inserting comments. JUST let it be, already. If you don't believe, fine, just keep quiet already and let those of us who do in peace.

Washington Post- free speech should not include rude, insulting and nasty comments towards others. Please remove them"

I completely agree with you on the last point. Unfortunately, it's a continual problem, in no small part due to intolerance, bigotry and reacism.

As for the rest of your post, please look at the thread you're on. Susan Jacoby identifies herself as an atheist, yet many who post here are believers. In my view, there's no problem with believers blogging on atheist sites, nor is there a problem with the reverse, so long as there is respectful discourse.

Regarding the Book of Job, I am quite well aware that in the end, Job squelches his anger and despair and is then rewarded by the Lord. I am, quite naturally, more interested in the rebellious Job in the early part of the story--the one who asks God, "Seeeth thou as man seeeth?"

Yes, Job finally accepts that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." I would say, "Sometimes he taketh away too much." The human author of the Book of Job had other ideas in mind. What makes the Bible compelling is not the so-called truth of its divine lessons but its complex and contradictory insights into human character. I wonder how Job would have felt had the author made the capricious deity take away his fortune a second time?

Susan Jacoby is surely a "frog in well of ignorance" income and faith are no way related.

Faith is only a SET of thoughts/rules/ethics/practices/ideals for a organized society.

Income high or low depends on the individual will and capability.

It's certainly possible that events in the universe are controlled by gods. But why make that assumption? What is gained by that hypothesis? We have no evidence for such beings. Why not simply deal with life's travails as they happen, without assuming any purpose behind them?

SJ wrote; "Those who are struggling to keep their heads above water never ask why God allowed the water to rise in the first place."

We intellectuals very often fail to understand the less intellectual
so called "regular folks", many of whom do lean heavily on God for their comfort and for giving them a reason to do the right thing in any circumstance. We intellectuals want God to do everything according to our "rational" analysis of any given situation, and when God does not seem to make everyone rich and secure (and of course in America you have to be rich to be really secure), we are very angry. It always seemed to me that one should be able to be poor and still be safe and secure.

The regular folks understand where the problem lies -in the laps of people themselves. They see the difference between
what people say, what they do and what happens to the folks who are at the mercy of others.

And so they look to God for comfort, justice, and hope knowing that as they begin to feel better, they can endure until things get better.

Ms. Jacoby,

Your lack of understanding of things religious is showing.

You wrote: "If you are a believer--unless you are finally driven, like Job, to question the benevolence of a deity who has dealt you poverty, disease, and death--then you are naturally going to turn to your faith to help you through any kind of struggle, economic or otherwise."

The Bible's story of Job is not about losing faith in God; it's just the opposite. The story teaches that the truly faithful remain faithful, even in hard times.

It was Job who said " . . . the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21).

"Those who are struggling to keep their heads above water never ask why God allowed the water to rise in the first place."

<<< I dont condone fundamentalism about anything, free thinkers are by definition against it, but I am always amused how the faith bashers, like this author, always use the shallow arguments like these. They love to point the figure at a wrathful deity who must be evil since it "allows" these bad things to happen in the first place. One should seriously contemplate free will before jumping to such adolescent conclusions. What is more tyranical? A god that allows everthying so as not to impede freedom of choice, or a tyrant that forces arbitrary moral choice on its creations?

Good Post. This is indeed shallow thinking. We are living in a world of choice and free will. I wonder if anyone has ever thought about the prospect of doing away with God and all of his attributes. That would include right from wrong, evil vs good. This is what happens when we accept realism. My definition of these two examples do not always match others. So do we have a balance of right and wrong and if we do who decides what is right and wrong.

My final point is this I think even an atheist would be caught saying "That atrocite that happened to that little girl....(fill in the situation here, all evil acts apply)so if they don't believe in a "higher power" or "God" then where do they measure that it is evil.

"But God's love will always remain faithful. "

To those who belong to Jesus Christ there is the faithfulness of God's love and his promise of eternal life through his Son. It is simplistic but why would God make it difficult if he loved us all? He made it easy enough for everyone to have a shot at eternal life, not just the educated, wealthy or the elite.

The less educated are humble enough to accept God largess. Those who think themselves better than the rest of us want to do it on their own or they want some hoops to jump through. To them it is just too easy. It is just to simplistic. Yet, this is exactly the way God wanted it to be.

Some people just outsmart themselves and others have the common sense to see an opportunity and jump on it.

In "The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Greatest Plague in History" by John M. Barry, he relates that in the 1800s in America most higher education was for religious studies. Physicians in most states were not even required to have a college education.

It was only because Americans heard about studies in Europe regarding germs and microbes that students and teachers began to apply a more rigorous, rational approach to medicine. This led to the founding of Johns Hopkins University, among other institutions of higher learning that adopted more formal medical studies.

If not for rationalism, we would still be practicing 19th century medicine, which was much more likely to kill you than save you.

Additionally, in "In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made" by Norman F. Cantor, the author describes how, in the 14th century, the faculty of the University of London adopted the scientific method to deal with the plague while the leaders at the University of Paris continued to rely on the myths of religious belief -- the victim caught the plague and died because it was god's will (the dirty low-down scum deserved it because s/he was a sinner!). In this time of AIDS, does this religious approach sound familiar? Not to mention the traditional fallback "blame it on the jews" approach that also found favor among christians on the continent at that time.

Just thought some of you might want to read some interesting books on the adoption of the scientific method (rational thought) in the West and the development of the study of medicine that resulted.

"They love to point the figure at a wrathful deity who must be evil since it 'allows' these bad things to happen in the first place."

Good point. My criticism is limited to claims that gods are behind natural events that cause needless suffering, and directed at the claims and claimants rather than at the alleged gods. With human-caused needless suffering, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If a human caused a hurricane or volcano eruption that took the lives of thousands, I can't imagine anyone claiming that the human was justified in doing so for some reason, or claiming that the victims had it coming. Yet that is what some believers assert about natural disasters. The question is not why all-benevolent gods would deliberately cause needless suffering, but why some believers and their doctrines appear to excuse or even defend needless suffering. None of this disproves the existence of gods, of course, because if such beings exist, it's possible that they have no power over such calamities or are simply disinterested in human events.

One cannot deny the value of faithful adherence to the principles of Christianity. Like other religions, it is a support system that has to be experienced to be believed. That is the reason that it is the belief system that has been (and is being) used for widespread ripoffs of money and other community resources, including our children. Just look at our leaders, who recognize their need to demonstrate some kind of religious addiction long before the need to show common sense. As the writer suggests, it's a problem.

Somali:

You need to be aware that CCNL is virulently anti-Muslim. I am Christian, but I have called him out on this on more than one occasion.

Thomas, the issue is not necessarily fundamentalists being on the wrong side of issues. The issue is that their narrative of oppression fuels their attempts to oppress others, such as hijacking public schools and military institutions to push their religion. That's what happens when any group, religious or secular, views all issues through the lens of absolutism.

awake, "What is more tyranical? A god that allows everthying so as not to impede freedom of choice, or a tyrant that forces arbitrary moral choice on its creations?"

Neither, God is not a tyrant; trials birth patient, endurance, and wisdom, although trials are often very burdensome the benefits yielded from going through them are invaluable.

No one can achieve the level of experience and personal growth an individual gains from their personal trials in life, it cannot be given, bought, or sold, it can only be obtained by going through it.

Over coming your personal trials in life are defined as a "personal" achievement.

Thank you for a very succinct description. Unfortunately if the poor read the gospel for themselves, they would be much better off. Unfortunately, low education opens them up to empower unethical preacher who exploit them.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You should dub yourself M for moron. If you read my post carefully, you might have found out that I said "Muslims who FOLLOW the tenets of their religion" To the T. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they are PIOUS or that they FOLLOW the tenets of their religion. I did say those who FOLLOW, and follow is the key word here, do tend to do well and NEVER get poor because, I said, following the tenets of their religion obliges them to be free from vices which are expensive habits and tend to keep those who love them poor.

It was a simple statement.

CCNL,

We'll see. I know who the faculty at Catholic are, and they don't seem to be on that path themselves. But perhaps.

I am not too into seeking help from Santa or the Easter Bunny, but I will continue, if He give me grace, to study our Lord on my knees.

More later maybe - now I've gotta finish some tests at work.

To D. Rodriguez

You say
"Washington Post- free speech should not include rude, insulting and nasty comments towards others. Please remove them."

The only reason the WaPo has this forum is because they realize believers vote and influence elections. This forum gives the secular smart asses the opportunity to bash Christians while appearing intellectual.

Somali says;
"I know that most Muslims who follow the tenets of religion NEVER remain or even become poor.!! They do well EVEN in this life."

Such claim should be hilarious if it were not the farthest from the truth. Somalia, the failed entity from which this character escaped, if not the poorest country in the world, it is a front contender. It is destitute even by African standards. If this guy implies that his countrymen are not faithfully practicing the cult of Islam, then I shall refer him to the other fundamentalist Mohammedan societies and see which among them he thinks is prosperous.

Jed,

The oldest European universities grew out of the cathedral and monastery schools that started, before there was much trade either with the middle East or the far East, back in the benighted "dark ages" of the 9th and 10th centuries.

"Anyway, I attended a Japanese university and I know many Japanese scholars, and in my opinion their system is different."

I am sure it is different. I didn't say it was just the same - I wouldn't have a clue. I only said that a rationalist, antireligious atmosphere surrounds much of academia in the West - you are the one who said that it wasn't just in the West, but in Japan too.

"All scientists are rationalists, at least with regard to their work. Some are irrational after hours. When I said “universal” I did not mean that 100% of scientists are purely rational."

Lol. No, they are not. Scientists are hopefully rational, but substituting a philosophical dogma (rationalism) for a religious one (say, the Trinity) is hardly an improvement.

Rationality and rationalism are not the same thing.

"I meant that scientists everywhere tend to be atheists."

Not only is this false, but in my experience, scientists tend much more toward agnosticism than toward atheism - and it's all the difference in the world. It's the difference between rationality and rationalism, frankly.

"This does not follow. Observing is not synonymous with understanding."

Of course they are not. I wasn't proposing the particular line of thinking - I was attributing it to rationalism, an ideology that I reject in favor of rational thought.

"We can observe countless things that we cannot understand."

Of course, and there are things we can understand, but cannot observe.

"But there is nothing in heaven and earth which is invisible, undetectable, and yet which we can be sure exists."

Sure there is. Love, for instance, or sorrow - I can definitely assert that such things exist even though they are completely immeasurable. But now we are talking about empiricism, a particularly silly little subset of rationalism - the ideology that only the empirically measurable/demonstrable is real, or at least, really important.

"Everything in that category is imaginary, by definition. It might exist, just as the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster might exist, but that would a coincidence -- or a lucky guess."

Imagine what someone who thinks like this would have thought about microwaves or greenhouses gases, and what his peers would have thought of him if he insisted on their existence, even living just in the 17th or 16th century.

"I never asserted that everything real can be understood by the human mind, and I have never heard a scientist say anything like that. That is preposterous, and it is a "straw man" logical fallacy."

Fair enough. As I noted above, it is a good thing that most scientists are rational, rather than rationalists, and tend toward agnosticism rather than atheism. But what you quoted above is what rationalism asserts, and what atheists by and large assert. Instead of disproving the hypothesis, which is what the scientific method is supposed to be for, they simply ask a lot of questions like, "Why would God do X?" or "How could God Y?" Proper scientists know that such things aren't even scientific questions, and that there are many things not susceptible to scientific measurement.

"If you are aware of the human limitations, as you say, why do you assert that we can know that X or Y exists without physical evidence for the claim? It seems to me that you are exalting the human imagination beyond its proven abilities."

Not at all. If I told you that my mother's hair was auburn, now faded to gray, you'd probably believe me, though entirely without physical evidence that either she or I actually exist. Is that over-exalting the human imagination? Having met me, and coming to see with your own eyes my reality, you'd probably have no doubts that my mother has brown hair, unless you discovered me to be a pathological liar. Why would you believe that without coming to know if for yourself? Because a trusted source revealed it to you. That isn't irrational, or antirational in the slightest. It's common sense.

"You are the one who claims extraordinary powers of the mind: that we can sure God exists even without proof and despite the outward evidence to the contrary."

What outward evidence? I haven't made any particular claims about God other than assuming His mere existence - the fact that 99% of people who ever lived, give or take, have accepted the fact speaks strongly for giving it at least a hearing, doesn't it? And I haven't claimed to know anything about Him on my own extraordinary mental powers, either. I haven't any. In fact, to the contrary, Christianity's first suppositional claim is that humans could know very little about God except that He revealed Himself to us.

For that matter, I never claimed to be humble. I do try, but really I am arrogant, even an ass.

On the other hand, I am not going to look down on the great majority, almost the uniformity of the human race, and say, "All those people are so dumb, because they believe that something might exist that is beyond their limited powers of observation or even understanding, that might nonetheless be real and affect them. They're all just weak - including the soldiers, the construction workers, the ones who support five kids, the ones who grow my food - ninnies, all. If they had as many degrees, and spent as much time cooped up in their own minds behind a desk as I have, then they'd know better."

To clarify, the fact that most people in history have believed in the existence of God is not in itself evidence of His existence. But it should give cause for pause, rather than derision or stereotyping, as Ms. Jacoby has glibly done.

D.Rodriguez:

Apparently you are on some kind of crusade. Here is my reply to you, copied from another blog where you made the same lame plea:

The title of this place is On Faith. This means, as you apparently have not noticed, About Faith, Concerning Faith. It never says anywhere that is is for believers only. Many non-believers come here because they are curious about us believers (I am Christian). I welcome them - at least the ones who are polite. Most are, even if they are blunt sometimes. And I have been the target of more slime and acrimony here from other 'believers' than from any atheist.

CAN anyone PLEASE tell me why atheists continue to post comments in the religion section??? If you don't believe, don't comment. If you don't believe, why would you even care what is said in the religion section?

It is the same on every board and discussion site on the internet. Always inserting comments. JUST let it be, already. If you don't believe, fine, just keep quiet already and let those of us who do in peace.

Washington Post- free speech should not include rude, insulting and nasty comments towards others. Please remove them.

The late Molly Ivins also observed a connection between poverty and fundamentalism. She described rank-and-file fundamentalists as straight out of "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men," condemning progressives who sneered at such people. However, both Jacoby and Ivins miss the larger picture, which is not necessarily about income...

"I prefer to think that the poor and less educated are more likely to realize that they cannot control life and hence need to rely on others, including God."

Certainly we must acknowledge that we have no control over the universe. But we must also acknowledge that we have no evidence for anyone or anything else being in control, either. Fundamentalism denies that by postulating an all-powerful force controlling everything, almost like a religious version of a conspiracy theory. Poverty can be one reason that people long for that sense of outside control, but it's far from the only one.

I can't wait to see your critical analysis of the highly educated who do not see the upside of embracing secularism.

Also - is it possible that the poor, by their experience, have learned to trust in God more than in highly educated rich folks? Case in point: rich white democrats supressing black people in America for over 100 years even after freedom was won in a bloody civil war?

public education and especially the college environment tends to rob many of faith they'd otherwise still have....but in many cases, when they 'grow up' and start having kids...often return to the faith of their youth. so, don't throw a party just yet.

Ryan, renewed student of theology,

Catholic U. should put you on the path to the historical Jesus starting with "there was no physical resurrection of the simple preacher man".

And I am assume, you will also use the Santa Clause and Easter Bunny myths to explain the workings of the Lord??

Somali, Somali, Somali,

Apparently you have not read Hirsi Ali's Infidel where she goes into great detail about all the dirt poor Muslims in Somalia and Kenya. Then there is Bengadish, a Muslim country and one of the poorest on the globe. And Egypt. And Pakistan. And Bosnia. And Kosovo. And Afghanistan. And most of the Muslim immigrants in Western Europe.

And it appears the only "rich" Muslims in these countries are the drug lords.

Yes indeed Ms. Jacoby. There is a correlation between the poor and the most restrictive religions. Education (ignorance) is always a good reason behind this occurrence but there are also psychological reasons why people when facing insurmountable circumstances cling to their faith. There has been through millennia a connection between bad times and penance. The psychology behind this is appeasement of the deity. It is a feeling that we must have been disobedient to god for him to have allowed maladies such as poverty, catastrophe and disease to have come upon us. Therefore, the higher the form of distress that is affecting that particular individual and / or that portion of society -the poor in this case- the most restrictive and penance oriented their religious believes become. The feeling or rationale that "we brought this ruin upon ourselves by engaging on unacceptable behaviors" always dismisses any guilt on the part of the deity in question. That self projected blame is an inherent characteristic of human psyche. Hence, I would argue that appeasement is perhaps one of the highest motives why we still have religion among us today and it will remain that way for many generations to come. As Arthur C. Clarke once mentioned our religious society is an example of humanity on its state of infancy.

Where's the cake?

I don't understand why someone who is dedicated to religion should stay poor. Religion, Islam in particular, encourages its adherents to WORK. They GET money for their work.

Islam, further, DISCOURAGES the use of drugs, alcohol and most other vices. So since most Muslims who FOLLOW the tenets of their religion have NO vices, they save most of thir money. I know that most Muslims who follow the tenets of religion NEVER remain or even become poor.!! They do well EVEN in this life.

Why do pious christians REMAIN poor?

Susan,
I found your observations and correlations very banal. Perhaps its because your assumption is embodied in trivial statements such as these:
"The basic appeal of religion to the poor is that it promises in the next life what its adherents do not enjoy in this life. That is why impoverished workers in South America and the American Southwest are flocking to Pentecostal religions. That is why people dying of AIDS in Africa are flocking to Roman Catholicism, a religion that opposes the use of condoms to prevent the spread of the HIV virus."

I prefer to think that the poor and less educated are more likely to realize that they cannot control life and hence need to rely on others, including God. It seems to me that education and wealth tends to lead to an individualism which assumes one can control ones destiny and hence believes they are a god.

Yonkers, New York
06 August 2008

On several occasions in the past, I have disagreed with some of the religious or secular views of Susan Jacoby.

Here, however, in this essay of hers, "The Poor Ye Shall Always Have With You," I have to agree with many if not most of her statements regarding the "strong correlation between faith--especially fundamentalist faith) and low educational attainment."

As a general proposition, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, thrives on the poverty, the ignorance, the gullibility, the docility, and the insecurity of believers.

It is these people whom religion finds quite easy to exploit and oppress. Religion easily and blithely promises the exploited and the oppressed in this physical life, a much-better life, a paradise, in the life hereafter, in a place invariably called "heaven."

Those who violate the stern commands of Christianity are warned that Jesus Christ will deny them entry into heaven, but will instead certainly consign them ad eternum to a place called "hell."

In America of the now, it is estimated that some 30 million--10% of the present total population of 300 million Americans--are wallowing in dire poverty.

In a nation which is supposed to be the wealthiest and the most egalitarian on our planet, this is a shame.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Ms. Jacoby,
You are so often dead on in your analysis and you do not disappoint here. I have nothing to add except one bit of crude statistical information.

Earlier in the presidential campaign, I did a very crude analysis of the educational achievements by state and compared those numbers to the states that Mike Huckabee carried in the Republican primary race. Theocrat wannabe Huckabee quite clearly carried the states with the lowest educational achievement.

Herb wrote:

"However, you leave out an important motivation for people to join churches, especially poor people. Churches provide a community, a broad and often rich social milieu in which people can associate, raise children, find spouses, and get needed support, material, emotional, and spiritual, that is not readily available elsewhere in society."

This is an important point which has been overlooked or downplayed by some advocates of atheism. This is why I approve of churches even though I do not believe in God. I like the Unitarians, because they don't seem to care whether anyone believes in God or not. You might call that denatured religion, or alcohol-free beer, but it serves the social purposes Herb describes. For that matter, alcohol-free beer may seem pointless, but we accidentally bought some the other day, and I found that on a hot summer afternoon it is delicious!

"Faith provides the framework for such groups."

Right. That's a shame. That's the part I don't approve of.

The period meetings and conferences held by atheists, Democrats, electrochemists and other groups also provide a framework for support and good fellowship. And beer!

- Jed

Like most atheists, you've abandoned reason in favor of consensus or numbers. Your article certainly doesn't disprove the existence of God. Try not to place so much emphasis on statistics and start concerning yourself with proving religion true or false. You don't like reason because you're ruled by emotion, not intellect. Or at least it's fair to say your arguments are based on emotion, not intellect.

What a fine article. It is true in everything it said. But I am reluctantly obligated to render the following question, so what? Christianity without a doubt started in the Middle East and spread to Europe and North Africa among the slave class and later among the civil servants and soldiers of Rome. It truly was a religion of the dispossessed, the desperate, the enslaved, the marginalized. It is at its purest form when it still lives among these people. Somehow, Christianity seems to lose its juice when its adherents are well fed, well educated and well endowed with the needs of life. It is a religion of the desperate.

I am not a Christian Fundamentalist, and if I am a Christian at all, I am a very poor excuse for one. But I take a certain pride when I hear about a poor, marginalized Christian opposing this or that authority, refusing to budge in the face of power, obstinately refusing to accept the conveniences of modern life as a God given right. Are Christians wrong? Often. Are they always on the right side of a social issue? No. But a true Christian lives with his heart. That cannot be wrong.

Here is a textbook case of a statement which conveys absolutely no information: "Those who are struggling to keep their heads above water never ask why God allowed the water to rise in the first place. Until, like Job, they do." I have no doubt that its author has one or more college degrees. I am less certain that she is educated in any worthwhile sense of that term.

Ryan Haber wrote:

"Fair enough, but at this point it must be said that Japan is not an entirely independent case. Since the Meiji Revolution in 1867, Japan has very self-consciously, deliberately, modeled its universities, scientific pursuits, and military establishments upon Western models."

Well for that matter, universities everywhere are modeled on European universities, and they, in turn were modeled Ancient Greek and Islamic universities, and I think there is evidence that Chinese scholastic influence reached the Middle East, so it has gone full circle and the whole of the Eurasian continent participated. Anyway, I attended a Japanese university and I know many Japanese scholars, and in my opinion their system is different.

"'It is universal among scientists in all nations and cultures."

No, it is not. There are PLENTY of scientists who, while fully believing in the power of the human mind to solve many questions and problems, are not rationalists . . .”

All scientists are rationalists, at least with regard to their work. Some are irrational after hours. When I said “universal” I did not mean that 100% of scientists are purely rational. I meant that scientists everywhere tend to be atheists. Of course there are well-known exceptions. For that matter, there are probably doctors who do not believe in the germ theory, and I have heard of clergymen who do not believe in God.

"'The premise is that if a thing is real, it should be observable. That is, detectable by some means, with some instrument, at least in principle.'

Which is to say, effectively, what I said - Rationalism is the ideology that if the thing is real, then it can be observed, analyzed, understood - at least in principle."

This does not follow. Observing is not synonymous with understanding. We can observe countless things that we cannot understand. There is never a guarantee that something will eventually be understood, and many times it turns out our understanding is faulty or incomplete.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

But there is nothing in heaven and earth which is invisible, undetectable, and yet which we can be sure exists. Everything in that category is imaginary, by definition. It might exist, just as the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster might exist, but that would a coincidence -- or a lucky guess.

"The contrary view is that not everything real can be understood by the human mind, not even in principle, and that is the view I hold precisely because I am aware of (some of) my own limitations, and those of the human species as such."

I never asserted that everything real can be understood by the human mind, and I have never heard a scientist say anything like that. That is preposterous, and it is a "straw man" logical fallacy.

If you are aware of the human limitations, as you say, why do you assert that we can know that X or Y exists without physical evidence for the claim? It seems to me that you are exalting the human imagination beyond its proven abilities. You are the one who claims extraordinary powers of the mind: that we can sure God exists even without proof and despite the outward evidence to the contrary. I say we can only know what nature has revealed. As Francis Bacon put it: "For man, as the minister and interpreter of nature does, and understands, as much as he has observed of the order, operation, and mind of nature; and neither knows nor is able to do more. Neither is it possible for any power to loosen or burst the chain of causes, nor is nature to be overcome except by submission."

I think it is odd that religious people describe themselves as humble before nature. It seems to me you are self-important and even vainglorious, when you make bold assertions without evidence. I have never understood why anyone thinks that "faith" (in that sense of the word) is an admirable trait. I prefer people who preface every assertion with honest doubt, and buttress it with objective evidence.

- Jed

CCNL,

Lol. Ok, let me come off straight. I WAS a grad student in theology, but left school, took a break, and am now starting a new program, this time in Biblical studies, at Catholic University. My classes start Aug 25, and I am a bit nervous because it's a rigorous program - my classes for the first semester are Greek (I've got some background), Hebrew (it's Greek to me!), and Syriac (?).

I was aware, though, that Job is not a factual account, which is why I called it a "story," so as not to delve into whether it has historical basis or not. It wasn't germaine to my point.

Sorry for being so huffy, not to mention arrogant.

Susan,

Thanks for a thoughtful essay. Your correlation is dead on and, as you point out, not open to much discussion in contemporary discourse. However, you leave out an important motivation for people to join churches, especially poor people. Churches provide a community, a broad and often rich social milieu in which people can associate, raise children, find spouses, and get needed support, material, emotional, and spiritual, that is not readily available elsewhere in society. This sense of community and mutual support is what makes it possible for many people, not just poor people, to make it from day to day. Faith provides the framework for such groups.

Herb

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Rationality, that is, thinking reasonably, in accordance with reality rather than personal preferences, desires, tastes, etc., is a perfectly good idea. In fact, it might be the best. It is certainly the best way of thinking.

Rationalism, as an ideology, is the belief that all things real are comprehensible to the human mind, at least in principle, and that if a thing cannot be understood by the human mind, then it is not real. Rationalism as an ideology is the very height of hubris. There is nothing, neither first principles nor observations, that can lead one to think that human beings have such total comprehension of reality - only a sort of collective willfulness can lead to that conclusion, and that is not rational.

It is true the poor the world over are more observant of religious practices than the well to do. Education plays the crucial role in raising the poor out of poverty and on to a higher standard of living where economic uncertainties are less severe.

Yet to state that the well to do are secular (meaning less religious) is untrue. Modern life is stressful for everyone, rich and poor. The well to do face threats of job loss, divorce, children going astray and ill health. To preserve ones sanity in this environment one needs a moral anchor that it more than a code of personal ethics. This anchor is provided by religion or more accurately, spirituality.

Spirituality is the ability to train the mind to calm itself and maintain a state of heightened self awareness that helps one keep ones sanity in the midst of chaos. The greatest result of spirituality is the ability to view life as the opportunity to serve through performance of ones duty to ones family, society and oneself through a detached mind which does not get exuberant with success nor despondent with failure. This in essence is the core of Hindu philosophy and is valid for all people regardless of ones station in life.

"Those who are struggling to keep their heads above water never ask why God allowed the water to rise in the first place."

<<< I dont condone fundamentalism about anything, free thinkers are by definition against it, but I am always amused how the faith bashers, like this author, always use the shallow arguments like these. They love to point the figure at a wrathful deity who must be evil since it "allows" these bad things to happen in the first place. One should seriously contemplate free will before jumping to such adolescent conclusions. What is more tyranical? A god that allows everthying so as not to impede freedom of choice, or a tyrant that forces arbitrary moral choice on its creations?

CCNL,

I am a doctoral student in Biblical studies. Of course I am aware that the Book of Job isn't historically factual. With that text, the moral of the story is the point. Your hobby horse, though, is entirely aside from the point.

Jed Rothwell,

Hello!

"The correlation is not only seen in the west, but also in Japan which has a very different educational and social system."

Fair enough, but at this point it must be said that Japan is not an entirely independent case. Since the Meiji Revolution in 1867, Japan has very self-consciously, deliberately, modeled its universities, scientific pursuits, and military establishments upon Western models.

"It is universal among scientists in all nations and cultures."

No, it is not. There are PLENTY of scientists who, while fully believing in the power of the human mind to solve many questions and problems, are not rationalists, who do not believe that humans are capable of understanding everything, who admit nothing that cannot be explained.

"The premise is that if a thing is real, it should be observable. That is, detectable by some means, with some instrument, at least in principle."

Which is to say, effectively, what I said - Rationalism is the ideology that if the thing is real, then it can be observed, analyzed, understood - at least in principle. It is an ideology because it is not, in itself, provable, but held as a dogmatic first principle intended to explain everything. The contrary view is that
not everything real can be understood by the human mind, not even in principle, and that is the view I hold precisely because I am aware of (some of) my own limitations, and those of the human species as such.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Thank you, Susan, for a thoughtful and honest article about a subject that, as you say, goes mainly unspoken. There is one aspect of faith that you didn't mention, however, the reality of a spiritual presence and peace that actually enables the believer to endure. It's not the faith of the believer, but the actual presence of God in a person's life that makes the difference, and can, of course, transcend class, etc. My only other comment regards the uneducated believer her/himself. I would urge these faithful people to expect and demand more of their churches and their elected officials? Why isn't social justice as important to them and their pastors as it clearly is to God?

Well, there’s a lot wrong in this essay but I’m going to concentrate on the allegations Ms Jacoby makes about the international status of religion.

1) “Proselytizing religions like Christianity have, historically appealed first to the poor.” Well, since Christianity is/was the_ only_ global religion that proselytises (unlike Islam and Judaism) this is hardly a controversial statement. Also, Christianity in its earliest days did_ not_ exclusively appeal to the poor: its earliest converts were Jews of the diaspora, most of them craftsmen and small merchants. Women were also extremely active: two of the earliest Christian martyrs were Perpetua and Felicity, Carthagians, a mistress and slave who died together in the arena. This idea of Christianity as the religion of slaves derives from Voltaire, and through him, from Nietzsche, both of them extremely hostile to traditional religion, the former Catholicism, the latter Lutheranism.

2) “At a certain point, when the upper classes see political or economic profit in a new religion, they too climb on board.” Just plain wrong & not supported by ancient history. In AD 312, the time of the conversion of Constantine and the Edict of Milan (which allowed the Christian religion to enjoy the state protection hitherto denied it), historian Robin Lane Fox has estimated that Christians amounted to about 10% of the population. Certainly the faith was strong in the West, where Constantine had the least support, but even so, we would have to question why so small a religion was particularly attractive. Also during its first three centuries Christianity had been subject to some ferocious persecutions, which must have been traumatic to the faithful. Show me where the profit in the new faith was, for I do not see it, at least until the emperor converted.

There are more errors in terms of contemporary religious movements—for example Latinos are flocking *from * Catholicism to Pentacostalism, hardly a conversion to Christianity, unless, like spiderman2, atheists also believe Catholicism, the most ancient Christian faith is not Christian, but the above will be all from me.

yes the poor shall always have with you,
you cannot consider how poor many are.

thanks for this plate of meal on the table of lunch.

http://www.mammamiamovie.com/main.html

as far as i see, there are
swedish, english, hebrew

i had expected four. why three?

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

Is it the story of Job or the myth of Job?

http://widgets.clearspring.com/c/widget.bs?wid=477e8b1e933e4f9a

better than HellBoy II.

Ryan Haber

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would seek to vilify "rationalism." Good luck with that argument.

Ryan Haber wrote:

"There is a correlation between irreligiosity and education in the West, to be sure, but that doesn't at all imply that education as such - learning to read, write, and think critically, becoming acquainted with mathematics, the natural sciences, logic, history - at all stifles religion."

The correlation is not only seen in the west, but also in Japan which has a very different educational and social system. (It may also be common in other non-western countries but I am not as familiar with them.) It is universal among scientists in all nations and cultures.

“It is quite possible - and this is possibility is exactly what I contend - that the particular manner of education in the West, or more precisely, the attitudes of the educators of the West, is what tends to suppress religion.”

Whatever the cause, it is not limited to the “West.” I think the cause is likely to be what Jacoby described, elsewhere: “That so many manage to accommodate belief systems encompassing both the natural and the supernatural is a testament not to the compatibility of science and religion but to the flexibility, in both the physical and metaphysical senses, of the human brain.” S. Jacoby "Freethinkers" p 132.

“Modern thinkers tend toward rationalism, which starts with the premise that if a thing is real, then I, the thinking person, should be able to understand it. If I cannot understand it, then it cannot be real.”

That is completely wrong. The premise is that if a thing is real, it should be observable. That is, detectable by some means, with some instrument, at least in principle. There is absolutely no standard in traditional science that it should be understandable. For example, prior to 1939 it was obvious that the sun was undergoing some sort of nuclear reaction -- a chemical reaction was ruled out -- but no one understood what reaction it was or how it worked.

There are some modern, younger scientists who assert that a phenomenon must be understood before we can believe it. Also, J. Piel, the late editor the Scientific American (who was not a professional scientist) told me that. He wrote to me that when the “precise physical mechanism of a phenomenon is not fully understood” believing it is “typical of another kind of event in science, one which Irving Langmuir accurately described in the classic paper in the 1950s. You should look up the reference.” In other words, he thought this was a symptom of what Langmuir called “pathological science.” He was factually wrong on two counts:

1. Langmuir did not list this criterion.

2. This was an informal lecture, not a paper.

Piel’s letter is here: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf

- Jed

Religion is embraced most strongly by the very rich, who can well afford to believe in god's blessings...and by the very poor, who can't afford not to.

"What role does God or your faith play in helping you get through tough financial times?"

None. Why ?

Consider the wise words of Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy or grant favors since that would violate the God-given/"Mom Nature" gifts/innate human characteristics of Free Will and Future.

i.e. Asking God, Jehovah, Zeus, Allah et al for financial improvement is a waste of time!!!!

i.e. Get an education in a field that pays well.

i.e. Stay lean, clean and in good physical and mental shape to work good paying jobs requiring physical labor.

Ms. Jacoby,

Religions have traditionally been very much ritual affairs uninterested in learning - I am thinking here in the various ancient Western paganisms, those cults of Africa and Mesoamerica, for instance. On the other hand, philosophers have traditionally been very incredulous toward religion - Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, Confucius all believed in a deity of some sort, but all were skeptical as to the ability of religion to acheive its stated ends - communion with the deity.

Christianity, dating to St. Peter's epistles and to St. Justin the Martyr, has been very interested in the integration of faith and reason, of cult and philosophy. Apologetics is the task of coming to understand and explain religion in a coherent way. Christianity's claim has always been that our faith deals with objectively real things that are susceptible to some extent to human reason. Only to some extent, however, because its ultimate object - God - is infinite and we are not. While we can reason about God, we cannot fully understand God and those things that pertain to Him because He is infinite. If we could understand Him fully, He would not be God, or at least not much of one; He would be rather too like a creature.

I am very happy that you brought the matter of Job into your article. The story of Job doesn't end with him doubting God's benevolence - that is the breaking point, the crisis. A crisis is a moment of decision, and Job's decision, though he doubted God's love, was humbly to submit and wait. The denouemont of his story is a self-manifestation by God and a restoration of his fortune. God reveals to Job that he was right at last to be silent in the face of the unknowable, and to wait humbly. God overwhelms Job with a recollection of Job's finitude and of his own infinitude. And then God restores order to Job's world, in God's own time.

There are some things that to understand at all we must be content not to understand totally. We can see how the thing possibly makes sense, without grasping all of the fine details. This silence in the face of the unknowable requires a great deal of humility, especially from a very intelligent species, and even more so with the most intelligent of its members. Clearly, not all humans are so humble - and those who have the most gifts have the least help in being humble.

There is a correlation between irreligiosity and education in the West, to be sure, but that doesn't at all imply that education as such - learning to read, write, and think critically, becoming acquainted with mathematics, the natural sciences, logic, history - at all stifles religion. It is quite possible - and this is possibility is exactly what I contend - that the particular manner of education in the West, or more precisely, the attitudes of the educators of the West, is what tends to suppress religion.

With an attitude of hostility toward religion embedded in academia (who can doubt it is there?), or toward a religion that insists on addressing the world, and that it's objects of faith are real parts of the real world, we should not be surprised that the "most educated" are the least religious. It hardly means that education in itself causes us to abandon religion.

Something similar can be said about the case of divorce and contraception that you mentioned, Ms. Jacoby. The fact that Catholics began in large numbers to abandon traditional teaching on those matters as they became upwardly mobile does not mean that wealth and education successfully reveal those teachings to be unreasonable. It might only mean that the wealthy and those who style themselves wise decide that they are above such things and so dismiss them.

You yourself noted that when the wealthy smell profit, or the upwardly mobile smell political gain, they will hop onboard new religious movements cynically. That hardly makes the case that a particular religion is bad - but only that the wealthy and the upwardly mobile are bad. In which case, one has to wonder why we should care for their opinion of religion.

People often leave religion for the same reason - essentially, that they didn't get what they wanted from it. They prayed, and their mother died anyway. They went to church every Sunday and they still went bankrupt. Whatever. This problem is not exactly the problem of theodicy, altough those who suffer from it will word it in terms of God's justice or lack thereof. It is fundamentally Job's problem - thinking that they can understand God.

Modern thinkers tend toward rationalism, which starts with the premise that if a thing is real, then I, the thinking person, should be able to understand it. If I cannot understand it, then it cannot be real. So people educated in this modern mindset in modern academic institutions are trained to think of the unknowables of Christianity as evidences against it, when in plain logic they are only unknowables. Nobody would say their television is less real for being personally unable to explain how it works. Rationalism is paradoxically perhaps the most irrational of all ideologies. That is why and how Western "education," laden with rationalism, tends to oppose religion; not because learning debunks Christianity.