Just got back from synagogue. So let’s see what’s going on.
9:45 Good fast defense of John Edwards and he’s talking about health care. Seems to be doing a good job.
9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
9:49 So Bush is blaming the recession on Clinton? Gee. There’s a surprise.
9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I’m not sure if he answered the question though.
9:52 Kerry’s doing a good presentation. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s answering the question either. For that matter, I’ve forgotten what it was.
9:53 Okay, the moderator just said, “How?” Bush is not answering it. Let’s see if Kerry presents how.
9:54 Nope. He didn’t either.
9:55 Well, if Kerry gets elected and winds up raising taxes, this answer’ll come back to bite him on the ášš.
9:57 Wait…”Either he’s going to break all these promises he made, or he’s going to raise taxes.” Bush just said the same thing twice. He should be writing Daily Bugle headlines. “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace.”
9:59 “Look at the record.” Mr. President, you really, REALLY don’t want your record looked at too closely.
10:00 I’ll be interested to see the fact checkers on Bush’s response about environmental initiatives.
10:02 Well, Kerry just lost Boston.
10:03 Good riposte on Kyoto by Kerry.
10:06 Good answer from Kerry about being competitive.
10:08 Bush continues to hammer the “didn’t show up” thing. I really think someone whose military history is criticized for his not showing up shouldn’t be going down that path.
10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that’s going to be all over the papers tomorrow.
10:11 “I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.” Oooooh, that may not have been the smartest thing to say.
10:12 “Whole bunch of folks.” Kerry’s starting to talk like Bush.
10:14 Kerry seems reaaaally uncomfortable in handling the stem cell question. Which is odd, because he’s been extremely firm on his opinion about it. He probably doesn’t want to risk offending the extreme religious folks any more than Bush does. Silly. They’re gonna vote for Bush either way. Might as well just go for it.
10:16 Never seen Kerry so tongue-tied.
10:17 Bush is doing better on this question than Kerry, which is interesting since so many people support stem cell research.
10:21 Kerry is absolutely knocking the judge question out of the park while Bush was muddy over it.
10:23 Kerry is doing only so-so with the question about tax dollars. I get the whole “respecting” thing, but it’s really all over the place.
10:27 “It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.” And Bush is not getting it.
10:28 Ohhhhh,Bush is going right down the chute on ths question, I have a feeling.
10:28 Wow. Bush’s rebuttal was really quite awful.
10:29 Those last two should have been switched. Bush’s rebuttal on partial birth was awful. The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
10:30 “Gut check time?”” I like that. “IT’S GUT CHECK TIME!”
10:31 “Saddam would be in power and the world would be a lot better off.”
10:33 You know waht would be interesting? If Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and answer more of your questions, unprepared. Just toss ’em out.”
10:35 Kerry’s closing was basic stump speech.
10:36 Same with Bush. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “9/11.” Typical buzz scare talk.
• 
“Bush completely dodged the “3 mistake” question — and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question.”
Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.
Nope. It was an unfair question in another debate 16 years ago. What does that have to do with anything?
I’m not actually sure that the question this year was unfair, but your response puzzles me.
Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.
No, but that assumes that the activity in question actually is someone’s right. That’s the whole debate: pro-life people deny that it is.
Luigi Novi: It is not only an
Any question pertaining to office, policy or decision-making and how this process is done is fair game in my mind.
One clarification. When I said the “tell me 3 mistakes you made” was an unfair question, I specifically said it was unfair because it was one sided. It was only asked of Bush. If it had been asked of both candidates, then it at least would not be the equivalent of saying,
“Hey, President Bush, can you hand 3 live grenades for your opponent to throw back at you 2 minutes from now?”
The Dukakis question was not unfair in the same way in that his opponent (the father Bush, if memory serves me right), would have been glad to have answered the same question.
Jim in Iowa
Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.
This is an empty argument. The government already “takes away some rights.” Have you ever heard of a law that requires you to wear a seatbelt? Have you ever heard of a law that makes it illegal to smoke a joint? Have you ever heard of a law that makes it illegal to sell your body for sex? All of these are things done to your own body and some would argue does not hurt anyone else. Since there is a second, innocent life at stake, it is actually the governements responsibility to protect it.
Jim in Iowa
Alright Jim, prove to me that life begins at conception. Don’t quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.
Usually I agree with Jim in Iowa on most things, but I didn’t actually endorse his characterization of pregnancy as an “inconvenience.”
Ok, I agree I was being a little sarcastic in using the term. But if abortion really is murder, then other than to save the life of the mother or a similar extreme condition (such as incest or rape), what would justify an abortion? Many of the same arguments used for justifying an abortion (the burden of raising a kid, the need for a loving home, etc.) could also be used 1 day after a child is born. The difference is, at least currently, everyone agrees that a 1 day old child has a right to life.
If a 1 day old child has a right to live, why doesn’t a kid at 7 months that will clearly survive outside of the womb? (My neice was born at 7 months and is a very healthy 10 year old today. She was “viable” at 7 months.)
There are frequent cases of kids born at 5 months who survive. Can we at least limit abortion to before 5 months?
A child at 4 months is very well developed. The 3-D ultrasounds now available from England are astounding. If you saw them, it would be hard to at least mentally believe this was not an actual child. In fact, the unborn child responds to touch, light, etc., much as a newborn does. It seems at least possible, if not likely, many 4 month old unborn babies are alive? Can we at lest limit abortion to the first 3 months?
Then what if medical science were to show that a baby is alive at 2 months? 1 month?
At this point, I can hear the howls of anger at my “legislating morality” again. But keep in mind, I just specificed that we have shown that the baby shows every sign of being alive. There are brainwaves, it responds to stimulus, it acts on its own at 5 months. Why is it that some who are “pro-choice” refuse to set any limits at all to abortion? Could it be because there is no willingness to consider the possibility the baby is alive and that abortion, at least at that stage, is murder?
This argument that I am legislating morality is absurd as soon as you consider whether the unborn child is alive. A very strong case can be made that a baby is alive at least 5 months old in the womb. Are you who are pro-choice willing to limit abortion to the first 4 months of pregnancy?
Let me add one thing: This is just a “religious” issue. I come to these conclusions based on logic and science, not just my religious beliefs. The fact is, we don’t know for sure what human life is to begin with. Why are we different than other animals (at least to some degree)?
If Christopher Reeve had slipped into a coma, at one point do you pull the plug? Most would agree that when the brain waves cease and he is brain dead, that you would not be killing him by pulling the plug. (All things being equal, and I am not getting into the right to die issues which are related but different.) By those same standards, an infant is without doubt alive while still in the womb. Life begins in the womb. I have yet to hear a single person explain why it is right to abort a baby without knowing when that life begins and whether the life of an infant is being tragically cut short.
Jim in Iowa
Karen wrote: Alright Jim, prove to me that life begins at conception. Don’t quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.
Good question, Karen. See my previous post. I cannot do so, nor have I claimed to be able to do so scientifically. What I have argued is that by sceintific standards, life begins in the womb. It begins far earlier than was believed in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was reached.
I know others disagree with my logic, but it is valid nonetheless. The burden is on you to prove you are *not* killing an innocent child rather than ending a growth of tissue. If you can prove to me that at 3 months the fetus gains life, then I would agree that abortion before that point is not murder and is permissable.
The reason some do not accept the challenge is because once it is admitted that life begins at say 5 months in the womb, we will then need to limit abortion to, say 2.5 months, just to make sure we don’t accidentally do the math wrong and kill an innocent child. And limiting abortion to almost any time frame will be unacceptable to many who are pro-choice. The pro-choice advocates understand this is a losing proposition for them, so at least some oppose a woman being truly educated, including being shown the new, 3-D pictures of a growing fetus, because they know doing so will cause many women to decide it is a child and not go through with an abortion.
Let me state one thing: I do not see all people who do abortion as “evil.” I think they are confused and wrong, but they are not getting a kick out of killing a baby. But make no mistake, their very financial livelihood is being threatened if I were to successfully convince women that even at 3 months it would be murder to have an abortion.
Jim in Iowa
Let me add one thing: This is just a “religious” issue.
I hate it when my brain is faster than my hands can type and I leave out a crucial word. The sentence should read as follows:
Let me add one thing: This is NOT just a “religious” issue.
To avoid any confusion, let me reword one sentence:
I do not see all people who PERFORM an abortion as “evil.”
I don’t see people how have an abortion as “evil” either, but my sentence dealt with abortion providers, and I wanted to make sure that was clear.
Jim in Iowa
Jonathan: Luigi, I believe the problem here may stem from phraseology. You describe the Christian Bible as “a work of mythology and fiction”, a phrase which can plausibly be applied only to works completely devoid of any historical accuracy (as, for instance, Bullfinch’s Mythology, which describes the ancient Greek myths as if they had happened – but was never meant to be taken seriously).
Luigi Novi: I believe myths, at least as far as I was taught in grade school, were stories that could be based in part on some general truth, but were embellished and created for the purpose of moral commentary or some other truth. Thus, myths can have some basis or inspiration in truth. There really is a place called Jerusalem, for example. There really were Egyptian rulers called Pharoahs. But when we read about talking apples with snakes, and two of every single animal being brought onto a ship and maintained during a global flood, that most certainly is myth, Jonathan.
David Bjorlin: Are you suggesting that being born is more of a burden on the fetus/infant than being terminated?
Luigi Novi: I
If you aren’t willing to die for your beliefs, obviously you don’t believe in them very much.
Except that with the stupid example that you give, those people killed for their beliefs.
Standing up for your convictions does not equal being an extremist that kills for their beliefs.
Jim in Iowa: Once again you are guilty of using a false analogy. Yes, if you are accused of a crime, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not how things work in real life. If you are driving down the road and see what might be the body of a child in the road, what should you do? Just run over it in hopes that it is not a child? If you saw it in time and could have stopped but did not, you would be guilty of manslaughter if you killed the child.
Firsty, I’m not using false anaolgies. You are, but I suspect you’ll disagree with me on that 🙂
Secondly, yeah, innocent until proven guilty isn’t how things work in real life, especially if you’re black.
And thridly, running over it would be one method. Driving around it would be another. (and why the body of a child would be lying in the middle of the road is another stupid question all together) But your point is off base.
You seem to keep saying “check to see if it’s a child”. Ok, when does a fetus become a child, Jim? Conception? 3 days after that? Two weeks after that? A month? nine months? I don’t know. No one knows. It’s all speculation. And given that it’s all speculation, then someone has every single right to decide that it is not yet a child, and therefore has no inherent right to live, and thus terminating it’s life is not murder.
If someone accidently runs over an actual human being, no matter the age, it’s manslaughter. If someone runs over, say, a deer, it’s just roadkill. It’s up to the judgement of the driver, and the driver alone. And if you’re not the driver, what right do you have to decide their cource of action? None.
Until a fetus is proven to be a child, then it is not endowed with the same inalienable right as every human being, including the right to life.
Luigi Novi: If the authorities search you or your property, and you or your lawyer feel they have no probable cause, or no warrant, you can take legal action against them. You can
Oops. I misspelled “suppressed.”
Until a fetus is proven to be a child, then it is not endowed with the same inalienable right as every human being, including the right to life.
Actually, you just made my point. Based on the same standards we use to determine if a person who is in a coma is alive or “brain dead,” we can show that life does begin in the womb. You are correct that it is impossible to pin point the exact moment when that transition occurs, whether at conception, 2 weeks, or 2 months. The fact, though, that it cannot be pin pointed does not mean it does not happen.
A fetus is a baby, at least at some point. Since you are taking the action to end its existence, you do indeed shoulder at least the moral responsibility to be sure it is not a life.
Jim in Iowa
Karen:
“…prove to me that life begins at conception. Don’t quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.”
From Encylopedia Britannica Online,
“Pregnancy: Process and series of changes that take place in a woman’s organs and tissues as a result of a developing fetus. The entire process from fertilization to birth takes an average of 266
I’m generally pro-choice, primarily due to the Thomson argument. (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cheathwo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) I think abortion sucks, but I have to conclude that it has to be allowed in at least some circumstances. I have to admit, though, that I don’t understand why so many pro-choice people have such difficulty accepting that pro-life advocates have a legitimate concern. The core argument that we should be risk averse– that, given a behavior that may or may not constitute the killing of a human being, we should err on the side of not killing a human being– seems to be a very powerful one. I’d be interested in seeing an intelligent counter-argument to that.
If someone accidently runs over an actual human being, no matter the age, it’s manslaughter. If someone runs over, say, a deer, it’s just roadkill. It’s up to the judgement of the driver, and the driver alone. And if you’re not the driver, what right do you have to decide their cource of action? None.
If someone truly accidentally runs over an actual human being, it’s not necessarily even a crime. If someone negligently or recklessly runs over a human being, then it’s manslaughter, and if it’s done maliciously or intentionally, it’s murder. If someone accidentally runs over a deer it’s roadkill. If someone intentionally runs over a deer, then it’s cruelty to animals and it’s a crime (particularly if it’s not even hunting season). Society has both the right and the power to judge the driver’s course of action in both hypotheticals, and we do so constantly.
Luigi wrote: Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not Christians. Read a history book, Jim.
I have. Which one did you read? 🙂
George Washington, to name just one, was clearly a Chrisitan, as was Patrick Henry and may others. Some were not Christians (Ben Franklin is a prime example), yet even Franklin acknowledged the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions. Thomas Jefferson stated that our inalienable rights come from a Creator, not from logic or anything inherent in ourselves. While you could argue Jefferson was not a Christian, it is clear Christianity provided the very foundational principles for this country.
Jim in Iowa: “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel does an excellent job of showing how the Gospels are a very reliable historical record.
Luigi Novi: The Gospels were third-person narratives anonymously written after the alleged time of Christ.
Nothing you just said shows they are not a reliable historical record. That is shown by comparing them to other records of the day. There is strong evidence that they were written within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the time Christ was alive. One example: There is a fragment containing verses from the book of John that was found in Egypt at a very early date. At the latest, it dates to 150 AD, and some scholars suggest it could be as early as 90 AD. Either way, in a day without printing presses, to find a copy of a book in a distant land demonstrates it was around for a while. And there are plenty of other proofs that they were written within 30 years of Jesus’ death.
Obviously, that does not prove the story of Jesus’ walking on the water, raising the dead, etc., actually happened. I completely agree that this comes down to a matter of faith. But it ignorant to dismiss the gospels as a legend some no name authors created years after Jesus was around. The evidence for their authenticity, at least in terms of being written within Christ’s life time, is enormous. (Not to mention there are at least 2 references to Jesus Christ in literature of that day in addition to the Bible. A pretty remarkable accomplishment for an unknown carpenter in a small, unimportant country, at the far end of the Roman empire.)
Jim in Iowa
Luigi Novi: The Bible states many things are falsifiable.
Cute list. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your examples are easily explained. Without going blow by blow, you confuse a lot of metaphors or poetic ways of saying things for mistakes. Do you ever say the sun will rise? Then by your own logic, you just made a mistake, since it is actually the earth rotating. Even today, we talk about loving someone with all our heart. There are difficult passages, but you have chosen the ones that are easily dealt with. Want to try again?
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?
Here’s some info for Planned Parenthood(bolding is me):
Since the legalization of abortion throughout the U.S. in 1973, abortion services have become more widely accessible and knowledge of them has grown. As a result, the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. For a number of reasons, however, abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women.
The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small
Between 1996 and 2000, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.31 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003). The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003).
Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold, 2003).
Me again. I had to consider abortion. I became pregnant at age 39. An older mother has an increased risk for numerous birth defects. I had the amniocentisis and, luckily, my baby was healthy for everything tested. At my age, and my husbands, we had to think about how we would care for a baby with birth defects, and were we physically, emotionally, and mentally able to do so. You seem to have wrapped this issue up neatly into a little black and white world, but it is complex, as are the reasons a woman would contemplate having an abortion. By declaring that women who have them are murderers and anyone who supports choice is an accessory or a hypocrite, you’ve taken something that is one of the most difficult decisions anyone must make and made it about good and evil. Well, there is much more to it than this simplistic viewpoint.
Jeff,
Then I guess we need to start worry about amoeba. Have you started any rallies to make sure we stop killing single celled flora and fauna? For that matter, better stop eating meat or vegey’s. It’s all life.
Luigi,
RE: Creation. For thousands of years, which was before modern science and the ability to judge the age of the earth, Jewish and Christian theologians have argued that Genesis 1 is poetic and not meant to be 6 literal days. That does not mean they rejected it, just that they felt Genesis 1 was a poetic summary of God’s creative act, not a scientific description of every detail.
What is interesting is that when you compare Genesis 1 to current evolutionay theory, most things appear in Genesis 1 in the same order as they do in evolutionary theory. (The one exception is the sun and moon and stars. But that is because it talks about the “unveiling” of them as the atmosphere clears, which again matches evolutionary theory.)
All of that being said, I personally lean towards the interpretation that it was 6 literal days. My point, though, is that it is difficult to prove a poetical account false.
RE: Noah. You mistate an important fact. The Bible says there was 2 of each kind, not species. (For example, you would not have to bring every variation of dog on board.) That is very possible for the size of ark and the number of days. Also, there you again are dealing with language of appearance/perception. It would be completely accurate if the flood killed every human being (the “known” world at the time), but did not cover the entire earth.
The story (or “myth” if you insist) of the flood exists in a huge number of cultures. There is reason to believe a real flood actually occured. I would suggest the Bible is an accurate record of what actually happened. Within the parameters set in the story, it is not impossible for it to have occurred. (Current evolutionary theory suspects an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Who would have suggested this 100 years ago? The fact that it is a one time event does not mean the flood could not have happened.)
Jim in Iowa
Actually, you just made my point. Based on the same standards we use to determine if a person who is in a coma is alive or “brain dead,” we can show that life does begin in the womb. You are correct that it is impossible to pin point the exact moment when that transition occurs, whether at conception, 2 weeks, or 2 months. The fact, though, that it cannot be pin pointed does not mean it does not happen.
No one is arguing that it does not happen at some point, but since the location of that point is up for dispute, you can’t tell if it is or it isn’t. And using standards for human beings in a coma isn’t an adequate, or objective standard. There is no objective standard to go by.
A fetus is a baby, at least at some point. Since you are taking the action to end its existence, you do indeed shoulder at least the moral responsibility to be sure it is not a life.
And as many people have said, there is no real measuring stick for when it evolves into a real life. It’s something woman carrying the fetus has to decide for herself. And I’d venture to guess that anyone who considers an abortion, let alone goes through with having one, does make that judgement for themselves. That’s why it’s called “pro-choice“… and that’s why Kerry can personally disagree with abortion, but not prevent a woman from making that decision for herself.
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Sounds much more like Bush than Kerry.
You have got to be kidding me! Bush actually follows what he says he believes! You may not agree with his positions, but Bush’s religious beliefs match what he does.
Jim in Iowa
Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?
Because every attempt to put a limit on it has been completely rejected by the pro-choice lobby. There may be individuals who don’t agree, but as a lobby, there has been a strong opposition to any restrictions. The ban on partial birth abortions is a good example. Even in states where there has been a clear exception for the life of the mother, it has been opposed. Pro-Choicers have consistently rejected any attempt to set a true limit on when an abortion could be performed.
The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small
They may seem small if you talk about 10%, but when you realize that 10% of 1.2 million is 120,000 abortions, that is a lot of them happening. They are not all for the life of the mother.
By declaring that women who have them are murderers and anyone who supports choice is an accessory or a hypocrite, you’ve taken something that is one of the most difficult decisions anyone must make and made it about good and evil. Well, there is much more to it than this simplistic viewpoint.
First, I would call it manslaughter rather than murder, since that seems to be a better definition of what technically is happening. Second, I understand it is a difficult decision. But if the child is alive (as I believe is true) and if abortion really does take the life of the child, then forgive me if I see it as a matter of “good” and “evil.”
Jim in Iowa
The core argument that we should be risk averse– that, given a behavior that may or may not constitute the killing of a human being, we should err on the side of not killing a human being– seems to be a very powerful one. I’d be interested in seeing an intelligent counter-argument to that.
Thank you. That is an honest summary of my position. Wich I could have put it so clearly and concisely.
Jim in Iowa
Funny how belief in the Bible as true should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is not, and is actually considered an
Single celled flora and fauna? Ooooookay. Someone’s been watching a little too Trek recently. : )
Karen, you asked for Jim to “prove to me that life begins at conception. Don’t quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.” You must have missed the point in the definition I found where it says that “a new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” Either that or you deliberty decided to change the discussion about abortion to one about vegetarians, vegans or amoeba.
A dictionary is not a legal or scientific tome.
Secondly, can that egg/sperm combo survive without a host organism? No. Doesn’t qualify as a “person” until it does.
“RE: Noah. You mistate an important fact. The Bible says there was 2 of each kind, not species. (For example, you would not have to bring every variation of dog on board.) That is very possible for the size of ark and the number of days. Also, there you again are dealing with language of appearance/perception. It would be completely accurate if the flood killed every human being (the “known” world at the time), but did not cover the entire earth.”
There is indeed a lot of evidence that a massive flood occured during the alleged time of Noah, but not a flood covering the whole earth. Two of each kind of every animal would not have fit on a craft that size, and when you realize that there are probably millions of “kinds” of animals that don’t and didn’t exist anywhere near that part of the world, you’ve got a lot of reason for scepticism. At least to the point that most stories tend to take on a life of their own and become gross exaggerations of the facts. Maybe there was a huge flood that submerged a large area of that part of the world, after many tellings and many generations, that could easily evolve into the whole earth being flooded. And taking aboard a boat a male and female of all of your livestock and perhaps other local animals could easily become “two of every kind”, especially if you had never seen, say, a kangaroo, you wouldn’t know you had left them behind.
Based on fact (or based on a true story) is not the same as fact.
Monkeys
let us not forget, as well, that two of every kind of animal would lead to what?
massive inbreeding, causing a host of recessive traits to be brought to the surface in the animals, leading to the deaths of a large amount. and the survivors? hy, they’d have to inbreed some more.
of course, then one would have to consider the physics of the earth, gravity, and volume, as well as geology.
to wit: the amount of water on the earth being finite, and the amount needed to flood the earth, the addition to the seas of the world would have been more then is contained in the world, including icebergs. additionally, such an event could not have occurred without leading significant geological sedimentary evidence. remember, according to the bible, the water was so high that land could not be seen, and was also high enough that the ark was left on a mountain when the waters receded.
unfortunately, the geological evidence does not back this up.
finally, to quote michael showalter: “penguins aint natural. noah didn’t take no penguins on the ark. they were created chemically. read your bible”
Well, when global warming melts the polar icecaps, I guess we’ll get to experience massive flooding ourselves.
Jeff,
Actually I was being a little sarcastic. I wasn’t changing the subject because your definition includes single celled critters and the subject is human life. Perhaps I should have phrased the question better. I usually don’t agree with Bladestar, and when I do I usually don’t agree with the way he says what he says, but in this instance I think his definition of viability outside the womb is a good one.
There is indeed a lot of evidence that a massive flood occured during the alleged time of Noah, but not a flood covering the whole earth.
Another thing I wonder about is whether we’re talking about a single massive event, or something that, like the legends of King Arthur and Troy, come from many sources and were combined over the ages.
Places like China and India have massive floods all the time. I lived along the Mississippi during the Flood of ’93. Some believe that Atlantis sank in a flood.
It’s easy take the myths of these stories, when they happened thousands of years ago, and make it into one massive event.
Thanks Karen, I’m glad I was making myself clear, as you know I don’t have a way with words 🙂
Adam, forget the inbreeding in the animals, what about the inbreeding of the Noah Clan? First we’re all supposedly inbred from adam and eve, then the entire race collapses to one family and the inbreeding cycle begins again…
Lots of silly arguments to defend the king of fiction, the bible…
Bladstar:
>Lots of silly arguments to defend the king of fiction, the bible…
Huh, I thought that Roger Zelazny was the king of fiction…. anyways….
Ouch, a big difference between “stating a fact” and intentionally provoking people.
Bladstar, while I essentially stand on the same side of the religion line as you, I suspect that we are a few acres apart. I am not sure how long that you have held the beliefs that you currently do, but I suspect that it either hasn’t been very long or you were burned bigtime by someone of “faith”. If this is the case, it is quite likely that with some additional time or introspection and dialogue around this topic, you’ll find yourself a bit less negative towards religion and those who carry whatever belief that they do.
I don’t want to come across as judgemental, as if I know you, etc, etc. I can tell you that this tends to be a pretty typical response on the road of growth away from organized religion. Again although I don’t know details or past, if you sit back and take a breath, you may see that you are coming across as judgemental, close-minded, and dismissive as those you are pointing at.
Fred,
First of all, I appreciatye your concern, but I don’t care how “people of faith” veiw my opinion of them.
I was born, baptised and raised Catholic through about Grade 4 (Catholic School till then).
Attended many years of Baptist Sunday School during the next several years. Then some time at as a regular at a Lutheran church.
If god does exist, I see him as an idiot and an incompetent. I see his followers as sadly misguided children who don’t want to take any resposnibilty for their own lives and/or the state of the world.
They all seem to preach tolerance but they don’t practice it.
god gave free will they spew, but, for example (just one of many possible), Did Jon Bonet Ramses asked to be raped and killed? Was her “Free Will” choice to be murdered? What about abused and murdered and neglected children worldwide, is it their “Free Will” choice to be that way and have those things happen to them?
Yet when you ask the leaders and followers they all bleat the same responses “god’s will” and/or “free will”. It’s god will that the innocent suffer, pretty šhìŧŧÿ god.
It was the free will of the rapist/murderer/abuser? Why did their free will take precendence? Oh that’s right, they were stronger/cleverer than their victims. Sounds more like “Survival of the fittest” to me…
When a car crash ends a life, or when a sick person hangs on and won’t die even though they want to, it’s always “god’s plan”. Not much of a plan in my eyes. And if all goes according to god’s plan, why bother praying? And if god changes his plan based on prayers: A) Whose prayers and B) why bother with a plan.
My switch from “My parents go to church”, to “I go to church”, to “what’s this silliness”, to “you poor deluded bášŧárdš” was journey of over 20 years, and reasoned steps along the way.
The false hopes and deluded dreams they preach are pretty and sweet and beautiful, but they do nothing to make them come true and the world doesn’t bear out their very distorted world view.
Looking at the world, I find the old greek gods that used earth and it’s people as playthings more believable than any modern religion.
Stop looking to a book written thousands of years ago by men, translated throughout the ages by men, interpreted by power seeking men for the answer.
There is no answer. You live your life, you eventually die. If your spirit finds it’s way to rest, you are gone, otherwise your spirit is reborn and you take another ride through through life. Maybe as a human again, maybe as a bird, maybe as an insect… you just keep going till you escape…
I understand all of your points and had gathered as much from your previous posts. Looking at all of your points, it still doesn’t explain the anger or why you actively insult those who believe in something that you no longer do.
Because I consider those who need religion weak…
“There is no answer. You live your life, you eventually die. If your spirit finds it’s way to rest, you are gone, otherwise your spirit is reborn and you take another ride through through life. Maybe as a human again, maybe as a bird, maybe as an insect… you just keep going till you escape…”
That’s an intereesting scenario, though one I find hard to reconcile with your opinion that those who need religion are weak. Isn’t reincarnation a religious belief? It certanly has no basis in science. ANd who or what decides whether you come back as a rich man or a turtle or a tapeworm? God? Glactus? My high school locker partner Ned?
Bladstar:
>Because I consider those who need religion weak…
Being weak equals being worthy of attack?
Do you go around kicking puppies too? 😉
Fred
That’s point, I don’t “believe” that’s what hjappens, it’s a guess. as far as who decides who comes back as what? No one does, it’s random. Whatever is born as you die is what you come back as if you come back at all. That’s the whole point, there is no “higher power” guiding or controlling any of it…
Funny Fred, when did I advocate attacking religious people? Put them in mental instutions so they can’t hurt anybody. You use the puppies as part of their recovery treatments. Puppies are cute (and a LOT better than people, by the way)…
I guess I just don’t see how you can be so cavalier in your contempt for other people’s unscientific beliefs…or “guesses”, or however you pretty it up. Once you accept even the possibility of reincarnation you have pretty much lost the ability to mock religion and be taken seriously. Ok, maybe scientology, cause, well, geeze, but sneering at Presbyterians while you wait for the day you might come back as a red bellied musk turtle just seems a bit much.
But to each his own.
Me, I’d like to come back as an Orang Pendek or Mokele-mbembe.
Seeing as how when you die, that’s it, there is nothing else, it won’t really matter…
But if reincarnation were real, it’d be fu nto be a dolphin…
David Bjorlin: The best argument you could marshal would be that several of them were in fact Deists, and perhaps a couple of Unitarians (arguably making them heretical Christians).
Luigi Novi: Which is pretty much the only argument I need. That Jefferson and Paine, to name two, were Deists, and that Washington and Franklin were said to have been Deists (later in life for Washington) means that the Fathers were not, as a group, Christians, nor was this country founded as a Christian nation on what were solely Christian principles. They were a product of Christian society, and some of them may have been Christian to one degree or another as individuals, but they embraced many new ideas that they incorporated into this nation, including the ideas of the European Enlightenment, Deism, Christianity, Roman Law, Greek Philosophy, the Iroquois Federation, English Common Law, and even Freemasonry.
Many of the leaders of the American Revolution followed (to one degree or another) Deism, including Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the Bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of authority from divine proclamation. The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “in no sense founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: “Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.” The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought.
David Bjorlin: The Continental Congress ordered copies of the Declaration to be published and sent to churches, so that they could be read from the pulpit.
Luigi Novi: And? This means that the FF were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles? Sounds to me that the CC knew they could educate the people on the Declaration by having it distributed in a public place.
David Bjorlin: Washington was an Episcopalian
Luigi, if I have forgotten Jon Bonet’s last name (it has been a while), I apologize. Otherwise, good joke.
I think they’re weak in the misguided sense. But my family and friends also don’t go around preaching and trying to push their beliefs on others. They practice their faith for the most part quietly and privately, they don’t rely on a particular church and like I said, they don’t go pushing their beliefs on others. That makes them less mentally ill than most.
So yes, many are weak by that description, but the weak need the guidance, help, and healing of the strong. As long as they aren’t religious-whackos, they can remain friends and accepted family.
One of the strongest men I know, my uncle, is a very religious man, but he also knows his beliefs are not everyone else’s and doesn’t try to push them on everyone around him.
See, this is where the proper wording and/or use of qualifiers and modifiers is important. You didn’t say “religious people who don’t know how to practice in private and try to shove their religion down others’ throats” are week. You said “those who need religion,” which is kinda harsh.
Luigi Novi: Which means that it is not an
Luigi Novi: And those would be