Fred Champion

 

It is known as well as any other scientific theory. It is the only model so far that is consistent with all the evidence.

 

 

While it is true that in the period immediately before and after the time we see them, those stars might have danced a jig or turned into chocolate that sort of random speculation is not really helpful. We can only extrapolate from the evidence we have.

 

When that evidence is consistent with the predictions of theory, I'm not sure what the point is of inventing non-existent "what if" scenarios that have no basis in theory or evidence.

The evidence we have is that the distance between us and those stars which we believe to have been the farthest away from us (13 billion years ago) was increasing and that the distance between us and those stars we believe to be closest to us (millions, not billions, ago) was decreasing.

So, which is the most recent evidence, light emitted by stars 13 billion years ago or light emitted from stars in the galaxies closest to us?

Are we to believe that the most current state of expansion or contraction of the universe is shown best by the most recent evidence or the oldest?

 

Physics.

The moderator tells me that saying time doesn't exist isn't fair in this thread, that I should stick to the physics of it.

I find it impossible, actually absurd, to attempt a physics of something that has no physical manifestation.

I encourage everyone who would contemplate "doing" physics on, about, of for any topic to first determine whether or not that topic has any physical manifestation. Time certainly does not. Time "travel" is fiction, not physics.

 

Correct.

 

 

No, it was much closer because the universe is expanding. It would have been (I think) about 4 billion light years away. The light we see from those stars has taken 13 billion years to reach us because while it was travelling towards us, the universe was expanding so the light had an ever increasing distance to go. (A bit like walking the wrong way on one of those moving walkways - you will get to the ned but it will take you more time than if it were not moving.)

 

And that star is now about 45 billion light years away.

" ... the universe is expanding ..." Not possible to know that.

Is it not true that the only thing we can determine from the light from those distant stars we see today is what was happening when the light was emitted? We won't know how those stars were moving a million years earlier because their light has gone past us and we won't know how they were moving a million years later until a million years from now when the light reaches us.

We can not see what is, only what was. If those stars 13 billion years away stopped moving away from us 12 billion years ago we won't know about it for a billion years.

You have two topics here.

1) How do you define "something" and "nothing"?

Would you consider a "thing" that exists (interacts with its surroundings) is something as opposed to a "thing" which does not interact with its surroundings (has only a state of being and not a state of existence) is nothing?

2) Mathematics was invented, not discovered. Check the definitions of "virtual" (not real) and "function" (process, not object).

Just what is it that makes anyone believe that time is a real thing?

I suggest that time is an artifact of memory. We have some record of events, or states of objects relative to one another, and by comparing the events or states we deduce time.

I suggest that no inspection of the current state (the only state which may be inspected) will produce any result that could be interpreted as time. In other words, time will not be seen to be a component of any state.

"That is a certain amount of the time it takes the Sun to orbit the center of the Milky Way."

No.

That is a certain amout of interaction with other objects in the universe for the Sun to orbit the center of the Milky Way.

It's the science guys that tell us everything was/is in motion; before, during and after the Big Bang. Each object in the universe had/has a position relative to every other object in the universe. When one object moves, the relationship of every other object to that object changes. In other words, nothing is in the same place (relative to everything else) twice. Thus nothing is truly cyclical.

Otherwise admit there are religions that work magic, telepathy, fortune telling, without need for a deity to be involved.

 

 

Note the "usually" part, and also the "we" part.

..

Are they representative of the typical religious person?

..

how prevalent is that, and does it include the other examples from the OP

...

whether those phenomena get the religious stamp of approval.

 

Barfbag, we are trying to have a discussion involving religion with people who equate religion with theism. It isn't going to be productive. I think they will never accept that religion does not require belief in God. It seems that when they say "religion" they actually mean Christianity and they just dismiss all the other belief systems as not real religions. They seem committed to putting down every idea from every religious source. They seem to feel such a need quite strongly. My experience is when people try to eradicate any idea they have some agenda beyond just hating that one idea. They must be very unhappy people. I wish I could present something that would give them some way to escape their unhappiness.

Unless I missed something the "explanation" offered by religion was always "Goddidit".

But, unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

 

It's not so much that it's a rubbish explanation (which would be easily forgiven, since they simply didn't know better)- the problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

Since no one else seems willing, I will take the other side for a bit. I wouldn't want Nicholas to think there is only one side.

"unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question."

unless you explain where and how the singularity came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

Indeed, you have pointed out another way in which religion fails.

Also, the question is not "does God exist" but "Why does God exist".

You know perfectly well that the "why" question is out of bounds. We can not know why things are the way they are; we can only hope to discover how things came to be as they are.

Why things are this way is because they would be either this way or some other way or not at all.

You do realize your question "Why does God exist" includes the premise that God does exist, don't you?

Did you miss the bit about what Moontanman said?

He said "I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women."

You do realise that the other women would be outside of his marriage don't you?

 

And, of course, what he said was sufficient to demonstrate the falsehood of your assertion that

"Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest."

because in at least one case (Moontanman's) that's not what man does.

I'm fairly sure that it's also true for at least some other men too.

Did you miss the part that we were discussing an unmarried woman getting pregnant? Unmarried. Not married. We have had no discussion of married women except what Moontanman has tried to interject.

Moontanman:

You said:

 

Quote

If you are Jewish, you should be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text.

That quote thing is a bitch isn't it? Since there are billions of people not covered by the Abrahamic religion I suggest you check for your own feathers..

 

 

And where in the quote of my post did I say anything about people other than Jews, Christians and Muslims?

Did you miss the part where I said "If you are ..."?

Didn't you get that what we were discussing was the religious law?

My only point there was that if you are in one of those religious groups you should consider yourself to be subject to the religious law of that group. Do I ignore the billions who are not in one of those religious groups because I do not say that they need not consider themselves subject to the religious law of those groups?

I think our discussion would be much better if you would put just a bit of effort into trying to understand what I post and what I mean rather than putting so much effort into looking for fault and adding words and meaning which I never intended. I expect I'm not the only one here having a hard time relating your responses to what I actually posted.

Fred,

 

Point being that if a clock runs correctly it must be keeping time. If it is keeping something, there must be something there for it to keep.

 

...

"Must" be? Nope.

Define what you mean by "correctly".

The only correct answer will be in the form of you observing changes in the clock (ex, the position of the hands) matching changes in some other object or objects (ex, rotation of the Earth).

Thus you will see that the clock does not "keep" anything. There is nothing there for it to keep.

The clock will use some form of energy you put into it to accomplish its changes just as every other object in the universe uses the energy gained during its formation and interactions with other objects to accomplish its changes.

If the rotation of the Earth were to change, would you say it was due to time? Nope. You would look for some interaction with another object or objects.

We "see" patterns in clouds and relate them to other things. Same sort of thing for "time". We see and remember or record the changing states of things and notice that for many of those things the changes can be related to a fraction or a multiple of changes in other things.

If our science guys are right, nothing is ever in the same place more than once. This means that nothing is truly cyclical. It is only the positions of some objects relative to other objects that seems to be cyclical. We notice these patterns and impute "time".

A miracle is best defined, I think, as something unexpected. If that something did actually happen, then it was not impossible. Thus a miracle is not something impossible that happened anyway.

I think it best to define "supernatural" as something outside our normal shared experience. If we can accept that everything that is is "natural" and is a part of the natural world then supernatural defined his way does not mean existence or a phenomenon somehow "outside the natural world" where there is nothing and where we could have no experience of it even if it were "there".

Given the above, I think we may expect that unexpected things (miracles) do happen and people have experiences which are not shared (supernatural). Attempting to explain or explain away an experience which is not shared is futile. What an unshared experience means is most likely to be elusive to others and perhaps even to the one who had the experience. I think it best to not dismiss an individual's experience or any meaning he/she takes from it.

Science has only recently theorized that 95 percent or more of the posited universe is not visible. It seems to me that there is a lot left to discover. Perhaps some of it will relate to unshared experiences. Best to keep an open mind.

Horse feathers, I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women.

 

No,in the real world a man takes care of his family.

 

Did you miss the part that we're talking about sex outside of marriage? Outside of marriage, remember? Outside of marriage.

Are you saying in your version of the real world men never cheat on their wives? Maybe your horse does have feathers. Do these "real" men never divorce and fail to pay even child support? Maybe your dog has feathers too.

Last statistic I heard was that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. And that's just for those who actually chose to marry. I'm not sure anyone keeps statistics on those who choose to live together without the bother of marriage.

I suppose in your version of the real world we're not approaching the point where the majority of households are headed by a "single mom". Check your cat; it may be scratching its feathers.

Why do you have this dystopian view of sexuality?

 

Wow, great word. Had to look it up.

Sexuality is not an accurate term for sex outside of marriage. Look it up.

I don't care if people get married or not. I don't care if they have sex all day and all night. I don't care who they have sex with. I don't care if they make a commitment to take care of their children or not, as long as they do take care of their children. I do care when they don't take care of their children. People who don't, and there are many who don't, seem to believe that they have some "right" to breed and think it is OK to saddle the rest of us with the job of taking care of their children. I think they are wrong.

You go from what the bible says to what the law says, if the law said men could marry little girls you would be ok with that?

 

We were talking about a definition of marriage. Does the law define marriage such that men can marry little girls?

If they pay taxes do you not think they deserve the benefits of those tax dollars?

 

Sure, I would be happy if they received benefits equal to the the tax they paid, and very happy if I received benifits equal to the tax I pay. Is that how it works in your version of the real world? It certainly isn't in mine. In my real world the government takes from me and gives to them, after taking a big cut for the government. I suppose in your real world it's OK that I pay a lot and get nothing while they pay nothing and get a lot. If you can't see that there's something wrong with that picture maybe you should pull the feathers away from you eyes.

So you are ok with men marrying little girls and owning females as slaves?

 

So god is irrelevant and how ever you want to live your life be it a serial killer or having a harem of little boys is ok?

 

So you ignore the 4 or 5 billion people who do not follow the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah?

Where in what I said was there anything about little girls and boys, serial killers, God being "irrelevant" or ignoring 4 or 5 billion people? Maybe it's all the feathers around you that prevents you from following what I actually wrote.

You are mistaken, the books that would be included in the New testament were approved by popular vote of church officials. I doubt whether any of them were under threat of death to do what Constantine wanted..

 

http://en.wikipedia....uncil_of_Nicaea

 

Political naivete.

So slavery is ok?

I expect you know a slave then was more like an indentured servant of later times, not owned. The law provided ways for a slave to be freed didn't it?

So what ever you feel is good to you is what you should follow?

What else will you follow, something you think is bad for you?

Ok, so this [abstaining from sex outside of marriage] applies to men as well as women?

 

Yes.

Fred This makes no sense to me, could be more specific? You don't think birth control is a game changer? Safe sex prohibits both pregnancy and STD's

 

There is no such thing as 100 percent safe sex. If sex outside of marriage is not dangerous why do we encourage people to be "safe" when doing it? If there is no danger, don't worry, be happy.

So a woman has far more responsibilities when it comes to sex? This is just sexist twaddle...

 

Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest.

Why can you not grasp that men and women are not the same creatures? They are not the same in their bodies, their minds, their drives, their wants, their needs and the way they look at sex. It is a utopian fantasy to try and put a woman's values on a man or a man's values on a woman.

So group marriage is ok? One woman several men or one man and several women? How about Male male marriage or woman woman marriage? Let's be clear on what you call marriage and why...

 

Do I really need to define marriage? Check the law. Whatever it say is OK by me.

I would prefer that marriage would be defined by the government as a religious procedure. That would take any consideration of what the parties involved decided to do or not do out of the realm of government control and consideration. In other words, the government would not recognize the procedure in any way; no benefits, no hindrances, no laws regarding it, totally a non-issue, and completely ignore it.

Personally I don't give a rip if five men, four women, three dolphins, two condors and a snail all marry. I hope the family is happy. Just don't ask me to support them with my tax dollars.

...

 

and so there's no actual way of telling what bits of the Bible are the work of God and which bits are made up by people (for whatever reason)

Since you don't know what bits are actually "real" i.e. the Word of God, you don't know which bits to obey.

You have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong.

Well if you are making up your mind about right and wrong, that's fine by me.

But remember- you are making the decision so it's not the work of God.

You are not basing your laws on the Bible- you are deciding which bits of the Bible fit your laws.

If you are Jewish, you sould be subject to the law as it is practiced today. If you are Christian or Muslim you should be subject to the law as modified by the appropriate text. If you are not one of these three, why would you think you should be subject to their laws? Is a citizen of Uganda subject to the laws of Canada?

Indeed you do "have to make up your own mind about which bits are right and which bits are wrong". Yes, you are making the decisions about how you will live your life; no one else can make it for you, not even God.

Unless you have established you philosophy for living with no contact with, or knowledge of, the Bible your "laws" are at least in part based on it as they are on all of your experiences. Everything, including the Bible, that has been part of your culture has influenced you in some way.

Just so we are on the same page - literally - which are the parts that are directly attributable to God?

I'm not about to go through the Bible and make a list for you. You probably know more about it than I could point out. Everything that is included in the Bible was written down by men. If you read carefully, you will find places where the writer actually says that God spoke or revealed what the writer recorded. If you trust the writer then you may take what he recorded as attributable to God. The ten commandments and the book of Revelation are probably the most obvious examples.

There are many parts which no claim of God speaking or of a revelation is made. The song book, most of the histories and Paul's letters to the churches are obvious examples. I have seen much complaining about the law. I think most of the law given by Moses was his response to the society and not attributable to God.

My point was (and is) that men are not infallible and the works of men are rarely perfect. I expect an old oral tradition written down long after the original storyteller was gone, copied multiple times from copies, translated into other languages and interpreted in others to not be 100 percent true to the original and difficult to understand especially without the context of the original storyteller.

 

 

If you are just going to brush aside the bits you don't like, don't agree with, or think aren't true or possible with why bother with it at all? I'll bet my morals and your's as well are better than the morality of the bible. The bible is stuck in time, later bronze age, in one chapter it actually says gods army was defeated because the enemy had chariots of iron... so god is vulnerable to iron chariots? It's gets pretty silly arguing for a god that can't trump iron chariots. I would suggest you sit down and take a day to read exactly what you are referring to instead of taking bits and pieces of it out of context...

First off let's get clear on what the Bible really is. It is a collection - emphasis on collection - of many different sacred texts, not - I repeat not - one book. That collection was gathered at the command of the emperor of Rome. One man was put in charge of selecting what would be included. I expect that man understood quite well that his head - literally, his head - was on the line to do the job the emperor wanted. What are the odds that he would have allowed anything in that collection which would have offended the emperor or caused the emperor any grief? If the leading clerics of that time just absolutely had to have some things included which would have been offensive to the emperor, I expect they would have tried to hide them in the language of the texts. I expect that is why at least some of what is there is difficult to understand. The collection that came out of that selection process was probably the first truly politically correct work. It was certainly produced by a political emperor for political purposes. I expect a similar process occurred when the king of England commanded a translation. I can guess that the individual put in charge of the translation had concerns for his head too.

There is very little in the collection that is directly attributable to God. The majority of it is the work of men.

To me, the important parts for everyone are those which instruct us in how best to live our lives. They provide us with a philosophy for living. For those who have experienced the "something beyond normal experience", the most important part is what one needs to do to care for his/her soul.

You ask if one is not going to accept the entire Bible why accept any of it. I ask if there are parts that you feel are good for you and aid in developing your philosophy for living why dismiss the entire thing.

 

Oh, I get that part. I just don't understand why you don't hold men to the same standards.

 

This supports my point that religion led to science. Patriarchal superstition and ignorance that allows men to abrogate their responsibility in reproduction, gives way to studies of anatomy and physiology that show very clearly the mechanisms and responsibilities of creating new life. It will take some time to convince the hidebound, mostly because they're apparently too busy poking anything that breathes to ever pick up a book and learn something.

What standards are we talking about, the so called "traditional family values"? Sure, no problem, both men and women "should", for a variety of reasons, not engage in sex before marriage.

Now, what standards are we discussing when men and women do not hold to that traditional family values standard? Once the threshold of sex outside of marriage is crossed what we're really looking at is damage control. I am the only person with authority and responsibility for my body, and you are the only person with authority and responsibility for your body. You can't do damage control for me and I can't do it for you.

Sex is an external experience for men, an internal experience for women. It is a different experience for each and damage control for each must be different. The man's potential problems are limited to STDs and the possibility of paying child support; the woman's problems include STDs and one more biggie. We are not talking about couples who have committed to each other "until death do us part"; we are talking about individuals who are not responsible legally or morally for each other.

If we humans were built such that, as a result of sex, either the man or the woman or both might get pregnant, who would we think should be responsible for which pregnancy? The only reasonable answer is that each must take responsibility for his/her own body. We do not have authority over another's body and we cannot assume responsibility for another's body.

...

I do not argue the fact that we have to sense, and store and remember and compare, to notice a change. But that does not mean the change did not occur independently of our noticing.

...

Of course the change did occur independently of our noticing. No thing reacts to a stimulus which has not impacted the thing. Reaction follows action.

I does not matter how many steps you back up in a sequence or how much magnification you use to examine a given step, the conclusion will always be that the thing observed reacts to a stimulus by producing a stimulus for something else to react to. The relationship is always action and reaction, nothing else, no indication of anything we could call time.

History has only one course. Things (events) have happened in one and only one sequence. Nothing which we could call time has had any influence on that sequence. The only influence on something happening has been that a threshold for a response has been met and an object reacted.

Surely you understand that we "measure" time in terms of changes in things relative to changes of other things. For example, we remember the states of what we consider to be variable (motion of objects) in relation to the states of what we consider to be regularly cyclical (the swinging of a pendulum). One memory compared to another.

Consider two clocks. One runs correctly, the other doesn't. Determine if one runs slow or one runs fast. If time is a real thing, you should be able to determine which one is not running correctly.

It might seem like that, but here's what really happened: The observable contradictions with reality made the literal interpretation of the Bible unsound, so questions arose, alternative methodologies were tested, and explanations that more readily matched the real world became accepted over "God did it". Over time, the evidence against the stories in the Bible being accurate piles up to form a preponderance.

 

It's not commitment to an idea, it's looking at that mountain of evidence, things I can observe and test, and comparing that to what people tell me I should have the utmost faith in, even though I can't really know anything about that. Solid foundations on the one hand, or pretending to know what I don't on the other hand isn't a choice I feel I have to "commit" to. Show me a bigger mountain of evidence and I'll consider a better explanation.

 

 

OK, different laws for different times. Great point. Perhaps (m)any don't apply anymore? I like wearing blended cloth and not owning slaves. And even if God says it's OK, I'm not raping the wives of those I kill in battle. Not happening.

 

 

Those are vivid suppositions there, and some nice big fat red herrings too. IRS audit, very stressful. Identity theft, wow, good one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the stress of facing the responsibility of raising a child alone when you don't feel ready?

I don't hold with a literal translation of the Bible. To me, a literal translation makes much of the Bible just too difficult for the average "layman" like me to understand. I understand why some do not want interpretation to replace literal translation. They want to preserve the original language as much as possible.

Many differences in word meaning and usage over time make translation and interpretation a good thing if, but only if, those doing that work know the original language. I have seen a couple of "new" translations but I'm not comfortable with them. The interpretation doesn't seem complete; too much literal translation left in them.

I think it's pretty much necessary to have ready access to at least the major published notes and commentaries if one wants to extract meaning from a literal translation of the Bible. I think it's just too much effort for most people and that's why preachers who teach are so popular. The thing there is figuring out if the preacher really knows the subject; unfortunately that's often a problem.

It seems to me that the objections most often cited are about the creation story. I don't take it to be literal. The objection to the law, just discussed, was interesting to me because I had not seen it before. I wouldn't be surprised if the story about the sons of God taking the daughters of man as wives and having children by them turns out to be the true story of human development. Ancient aliens? One named Noah bringing breeding stock?

"What about the stress of facing the responsibility of raising a child alone when you don't feel ready?"

What about the authority to engage in activity that may result in a child without a father in the home?

Authority and responsibility. Two sides of a single coin.

When does life begin if not at conception?

Killing is sometimes justifiable.

You won't find the answer to "when" in a book or in a law; you will find it in your heart, in your soul.

Grace is a wonderful thing; it cannot be commanded, only offered. To receive it one must accept it.

I think the Bible is a good thing in so far as it puts people off religion.

And the second bit is worryingly similar to this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/19/todd-akin-gop-senate-candidate-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy/

 

re the law.

Do you realise that it changes because people stop following what the old laws were and that's usually becaus they stop following what the religion said?

Different times: different laws.But the church usually opposes those changes.

I think it's not the Bible, but the people who misunderstand it who put people off religion. Way too many people and groups latch on to some idea and extrapolate it to a weirdness never intended. They can't share what the don't have and they don't know they don't have the truth. Sad.

Yep, that old boy put both feet in his mouth and the media ran with it.

The establishment always fights to maintain the status quo.

You have ignored the obvious options.

There is no abortion and the "guilty" woman is "proven innocent", in which case the Bible lies.

Or there is an abortion (whether she is "guilty" or not), but it's nothing to do with God.

Of course, I'm allowed to say that, because I'm an atheist.

 

But I was wondering what your explanation was.

 

Is the Bible lying, or is God an abortionist?

 

OK, so I accept that the terminology is different.

I should have said

"BTW, is there a reason why there's no such test for men committing adultery fornication?"

Now, rather than getting tangled up in the linguistics, why not answer the question?

 

And I'm pretty sure that women would talk- as long as the men didn't hear, it wouldn't matter much.

I think you are so committed to the idea that the Bible is a bad thing that there is no argument, interpretation or explanation that will dissuade you but, fool that I am, I will continue for a bit.

What you are talking about here was (is) the law. I suggest you look into the issue of the law as a whole and get some perspective on what it was, why it was set down, where it came from and what it was supposed to accomplish. Then look at each law in the context of that period. The law was basically the rules people in that society were supposed to live by. Not much different from the purpose of the law we have today. Different society, different beliefs, different laws.

A direct answer to your question "Is the Bible lying, or is God an abortionist?" is: no.

Science confirms that our mind (thoughts, attitude) can make us sick and cause pain of all sorts. If an abortion were the result of the trial, it would be the guilty womans body responding to her mind. I expect there are few medical doctors who would deny that fright and stress, even today, can cause a woman to abort. It would not be reasonable to compare what a modern woman's response to the trial would be to the response of a woman of that society. Those people, the true believers, were quite serious about their religion. The idea that God would punish sin may have been more frightening and stressful for a guilty woman than the fright and stress you would feel from having an IRS audit, identity theft, a car accident and two visits a day by religious groups which would not leave your hospital room all rolled up into one week.

So, is the Bible lying? No. It seems quite possible that an abortion could have happened.

Is God an abortionist? No. There is nothing in this law indicating any direct, or indirect, action by God.

I must ask one question, since as I have said I am not a Bible scholar. Is there a mention in the Bible of an abortion actually occuring as the result of the application of this law?

The difference between adultery and fornication is not liguistics. We are discussing the language of a certain period. Those two terms had specific meanings in that period.

As I have already pointed out women get pregnant, men don't. As I have also already pointed out the focus of the prohibition on a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband was the possibility of having a child that was not ner husband's. It was a patriarchal society and inheritance (succession) was very important to them. Shall we ask the British about succession to the throne or Warren Buffet about who gets the chairmanship when he's gone?

Do you think there was some other reason for the law against adultery?

If you think that a direct quote from the Bible "seems way out on the fringe" then you seem to have missed the point of the Bible.

It's The Book.

There's no way it's "fringe".

 

Re."no indication that any sort of chemical was used to induce an abortion."

Nobody said there was (and no priest, or even herbalist, of the time could have done so.)

 

In saying all that stuff about a scare tactic you are saying one of two things.

Either, God causes abortions, or

The Bible lies.

Depending on whether the priest's "magic spell" works or not.

 

Which one do you want to pick?

 

There's also the fact that women talk to one another.

The message "It doesn't work you know" would get round faster than anything.

 

BTW, is there a reason why there's no such test for men committing adultery?

Is it because God is "one of the boys"?

 

Finally, this

"Again, I hope Nicholas recognizes that attempting to silence inquiry or dissenting views is always a good indication of a wrong idea."

does not make any sense.

Neither Nicholas, nor anyone else here, has tried to silence anyone.

I expect you know perfectly well when I said the work you referenced semed way out on the fringe I was refering to comentary, not the passages from the Bible.

Did you forget what started this digression? Refer to Post #121: "Fred, what religious code are we talking about here? Are talking about the one that allows a man to take his wife to the priests if he thinks she has been unfaithful so the priest can force an abortion on her?"

In one statement you say no one said there was an abortion and no one of that time could have caused one, and then in your next statement you say that either God does cause abortions (as in the quote) or the Bible lies (God doesn't cause abortions). So, in the quoted verses, was there an abortion induced or not? To quote you: "Which one do you want to pick?"

Yes women do talk among themselves. Can you really imagine a woman of that time admitting to her friends that she had had sex with a man who was not her husband and had gone through the trial and passed. I would expect no woman of that period to brag about getting away with it. As you say, women talk. No woman who was a "true believer" would want to be found associating with an adulterer; the adulterer would be shunned.

A test for men? Do you not know the Old Testament definition of adultery? Perhaps you are not the Bible scholar I supposed. Adultery was defined as a woman having sex with a man who was not her husband. A man could not commit adultery, fornication yes, but not adultery. You might want to learn that the prohibition was mostly about rights of inheritance; not wanting the "blood line" adulterated. Just who it is that inherits is still quite important in our society today and we still follow much the same "barbaric" ideas about it.

No need for anyone to take offense from what I say to Nicholas. Another quote taken completely out of context and misinterpreted. If I have something to say to anyone, I will say it directly.

 

What do you mean?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

 

Quote

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

 

...

Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I"m not a Bible scholar as you seem to be.

I hope your study of the Bible goes beyond the reference in the link. It seems way out on the fringe to me.

It seems to me that the purpose of this law beginning at Numbers 5:18, is to discourage women from having sex outside marriage and to give a suspicious husband a way to find out for sure while not allowing him on his own to try to get his wife to confess, most likely in that day by violence. Both husband and wife would know the law. If the wife is a believer, she knows if she arouses her husband's suspicions and she is guilty she will be found out during the trial. The husband has a way to get at the truth but he is not allowed to devise his own means of determining guilt.

Basically the trial was designed to scare the woman into confessing if she was guilty and also to give her a means of clearly proving to her husband that his suspicions were unwarranted if she was innocent. If the husband was a believer he would have to accept the result of trial and let that be an end to it. There is nothing in what is presented in the law to suggest that the trial was anything other than a scare tactic and certainly no indication that any sort of chemical was used to induce an abortion.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/5-18.htm

This law would make the women of Israel watch against giving cause for suspicion. On the other hand, it would hinder the cruel treatment such suspicions might occasion. It would also hinder the guilty from escaping, and the innocent from coming under just suspicion. When no proof could be brought, the wife was called on to make this solemn appeal to a heart-searching God.

No woman, if she were guilty, could say Amen to the adjuration, and drink the water after it, unless she disbelieved the truth of God, or defied his justice.

The problem I refer to isn’t the bias you’re referencing but the simple fact that news isn’t just news it’s only the bad stuff, the problems of society and the extremes of human nature, which is why you should do as iNow suggests.

 

Misogyny is far more subtle than simple hate, male sexual needs ensures that.

 

 

 

 

How many men have you known?

 

The point is the vast majority of men aren't rapists and if you were to ask disinterested parties a very high percentage of them won’t know one either.

Of course the news media reports deviation from what we traditionally consider the norm. A bright clear day isn't news, a tornado is. What is reported is what adversely affects people's lives.

So, you think I look only for what I want to believe? Not so. I would like to see society moving in a different direction. What I see is not good. And that's my personal experience, not what's on the news.

What I see are many who either stick their head in the sand and refuse to see what's actually happening or are promoting some agenda. I know I tend to harp on socialism but I think most people don't see the extent of the problem. No form of commune-ism, communism, or communism lite, aka socialism, has ever worked. It goes against human nature. Political correctness is one very powerful tool for those in the socialist camp. It is used to quiet every objection to the socialist agenda.

Again, I hope Nicholas recognizes that attempting to silence inquiry or dissenting views is always a good indication of a wrong idea.

 

 

 

How about you argue the points that have actually been raised?

The focus of this thread was (is) reconciling science and religion. The points - relative to the thread - that you think I am missing are what?

I’m feeling a little left out of this conversation, Fred are you ignoring me or don’t you understand my posts?

 

You don’t seem to understand iNow or John’s posts either but that doesn’t seem to slow your roll.

I don't use the same rose colored glasses as some others seem to. And I don't entertain a utopian view of people or society. Encouraging personal responsibility from others, as I do, is not politically correct. I do not expect agreement.

Nicholas was asking for a way to reconcile what he saw as conflict. I think any such reconciliation must begin with understanding that each person has not just the sole authority for their own life but also the commensurate responsibility for their life. This concept is anathema for those who want some form of commune-ism for society.

When I expressed the idea that women as well as men should take responsibility for their lives, especially in what I consider the most important part of their lives, bring new life into the world, I expected attack. I am getting it. I hope Nicholas recognizes it for what it is.

 

 

This is the problem you get, when you let the media/news inform your opinion of the world in which we live.

 

I have never met a rapist, as far as I know; unfortunately, I've met far too many misogynists.

Wow. I have never met a man who hates women. With the exception of a few homosexuals, every man I have ever met loved women. I have known at least one man who was convicted of rape. Seems like there was another, but I can't remember.

What "problem" do you refer to? The current state of society? Many in the media have agendas. Best to use multiple sources for one's information. Do you really trust any government spokesperson?

When I was young I would listen to the US news on TV, then the Soviet news on short wave. Both badly biased. Then I would get the real story, again on short wave, from the BBC.

I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "confirmation bias" as soon as possible.

Every experience we have prejudices us for every subsequent experience. Its called learning. Most people have learned that men do not get pregnant. Men like sex. Women like sex. Everyone likes sex. Well, most people - normal people - like sex. Means, motive, opportunity. We carry the means with us, the motive is pleasure. All we need is opportunity. Yes, human nature. This is not bias, it is fact.

Sex is an external experience for men, an internal one for women. Big difference. Oops, not politically correct. Sex is dangereous for a man only to the extent that he may get something on himself that he can't wash off. Bad enough, but local. Affecting one man, if he doesn't spread it. Sex is dangereous for a woman in the same way of course, but there is a very big additional danger. Can anyone guess what it is? Clue: it affects more than one life.

It is the nature of human women that they sometimes get pregnant by having unprotected sex with a man. The majority of women know this and yet many who do know take no action to prevent it. Why? Fact is that the average man doesn't see it as his poblem. And guess what: in the politically correct socialist society no one is allowed to see it as a problem; the "village" welcomes each new arrival and celebrates the new mom, showering her with benefits.

The best part is that all those benefits don't cost anything; they're free, the government just gives them out. How wonderful.

It seems that you are unable to count as far as two, or determined to ignore your own bias, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you.

Two common denominators

1) Sex and

2) men

Sex and men do not equal pregnant. You have left out the one necessary ingredient for baking that bun.

Oh no, did I really make a not very clever reference to an "oven"?

Let's go to Walmart and count only the number of people entering the store who are pregnant. Will we need two tally sheets, one for the men we will count and a second for the women?

True in your universe, perhaps. Fortunately not true in the one I inhabit.

Open your eyes. From Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods to thousands of college kids drunk and half naked on Youtube. Tens of thousands of teen and even pre-teen pregnant girls dropping out of school. Millions of "single moms" on some sort of government dole. One common denominator: sex. One common numerator: stupidity. Perhaps you would prefer to call it a lack of respect for themselves. Yes, it is and I say it is also a lack of respect for the rest of society.

Human nature. Mix one part female pheromones with one part male testosterone. Add a pinch of something to resease inhibition and a dash of sweet talk. Stir well with opportunity. Danger: mix will come to a boil rapidly, wear protection.

I think respect for the other members of one's society comes mostly from maturity. A man's' actions seem to be heavily influenced by his level of testosterone: more testosterone, more aggression. I don't know why we don't drill this into the heads of girls. Maybe its because it would emphasize the difference between men and women. No, can't do that, not politically correct.

Education seems to help raise social awareness, especially if it includes philosophy for living one's life (code for establishing a base for morals). Unfortunately, those promoting a socialist agenda don't seem to be able or willing to connect the breakdown of traditional family values with the increase in the welfare rolls. Of course they don't see increasing dependence on government as a bad thing either. And they have changed meaning of the term "family" to mean any group of people. How politically correct.

Any person or any society that rewards bad behavior is doing the wrong thing. But that's just my politically un-correct view.

... I assume that your "assumption" that I don't have standards is meant as an insult,

...

No, not at all. I would never intentionally attempt to insult anyone. I see no point in insults.

All I meant was that the response was not brought on by a desire inflamed by irresistible and overwhelming attraction. The moth cannot resist the flame.