I'm addicted to atheists/agnostics blogs, I'll admit it. Something about testing wits against people who are self-proclaimed rationals gets me going. While reading though I have to admit though I began to feel heavy. Not because of discouragement but because of the lack of hope. I completely understand where atheists are coming from but what hope does it offer? "Rational" thought that tells me when I die I will just fade away into dust, offer that to a fatherless child and keep a dry eye. Offer your scientific method to refugee camps and tell them that their existence is a mere conincidence and really they have no purpose.
See even through all the discourse and reasoning that atheists suppose to do they still can't offer life. They can offer a prolonged dying experience but life is only given by God. True life. See the thing that so many fail to realize, Christians included, is that Christ gave us hope for a true life in Him. In Him, I come to the realization that everything around me is temporal and what truly is important isn't the value of my current status but pressing toward what is to come. Unfortunately though that is like explaining quantum physics to a 2yr. old.
I asked an atheist once who was debating over humanitarian efforts made and weren't they sufficient and equal to what I offered. My question to that is "what happens after you leave?". That house you built will fall, that water that you gave can dry up, and with every cure you come up with there is someone that can't afford it so tell me where is science's all-mighty reasoning and cure? When did science console people on 9/11?
How do you believe in something that is ever evolving but still consider God to be illogical? Isn't it possible to believe that I have just come to a conclusion that you have yet to discover? Instead atheist presume to have truth, although that truth is continuously modified, claim to be logical, even though that logic is again based on the truth that's evolving, and then desire to remove anything deified from existence because it's illogical. What's going to happen when your logic leads to God? That's assuming that you haven't already predetermined He doesn't exist and therefore will revaulate your conclusion because it contradicts your hypothesis.
Name one bad thing that the Bible offers? Not religion and religious history or people that have done things under the title of religion but specifically quote to me one thing that the Bible states that would be harmful to any individual? Name one thing that Christ asked us to do as believers that you would consider immoral or distasteful? If you can't then why do Atheists despise it so much? Is it not the people that are flawed rather than the belief itself? Yet so commonly we as human beings can't differentiate between the two and end up destroying the very thing that could save us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Awesome post. I too enjoy debating with atheists, althought it can get quite tiresome at times. You have a great perspective and and fluid writing style. I look forward to checking out more posts.
More fire!
Hope is nice. Getting let down sucks though.
I'm not sure I enjoy debating with Christians, I understand what it was like to worship and fellowship and battleship, and it was nice. I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone really.
I had a bizarre thing happen to me once. I have to be cryptic and not reveal what it was, but I'm fairly certain it's something Satan couldn't do, should he exist, and I would be really surprised if God 'would' do it should he exist.
I want to believe. It'd be a huge relief.
Hi Deacon,
I read your comment the Atheist Ethicist, and I appreciated your humility and straightforwardness. I thought to myself "Wow, this guy sounds like he'd be really interesting to speak with". A couple of clicked links later and I found your blog. Well, I was probably wrong, but I'll still address the issues brought up in your comment, as well as the bonus of getting a atheists perspective, and answers to all your extremely common rhetorical questions! Of course this is all strictly my opinion, and I am not to be taken as a figurehead for atheists as a whole.
If you intend to become an average apologist, you're well on your way. The majority of apologists use pseudoscience, rhetoric, and emotional arguments to sway the masses. If I make any impact here I hope that at the very least you become an apologist who avoids such deceitful tactics at all costs (plus using them'll make you look like a fool to anybody with half a brain.)
Let's start off with the idea that if you eat something you believe you'll be satiated. This is not a belief, it has nothing to do with faith. It is what I like to call a "fact". Apologists will often use this type argument in which they ignore that things can and are scientifically proven. I have heard it used here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
In a question asked to Richard Dawkins regarding 'faith in gravity'. The whole 70 minute video is worth watching, especially for an apologist, but if you're lazy skip to 39 minutes.
You say "A Christian is more than just one that acknowledges that Christ is Lord but someone that acts like it through their lifestyle.", and then go on to say that it's unchristian to commit an atrocity. Well, I would disagree with you there. I won't go into depth here, but this website does.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
I'm sure this will also answer your questions in your blog where you ask
"Name one bad thing that the Bible offers?"
("specifically quote to me one thing that the Bible states that would be harmful to any individual?") and
"Name one thing that Christ asked us to do as believers that you would consider immoral or distasteful?" (presuming you believe in the triune God, anything God asks is the same as Jesus asking it)
And since we were on the topic of abortion, let's see what the biblical stance on killing babies is.
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
I'll try and systematically answer the questions in your blog from beginning to end, although if you read and watch some of the resources I've already given you, this may be unnecessary. You ask in the beginning of your blog "what hope does [atheism] offer?" Have you ever heard the saying "see the forest through the trees."? Perhaps all you can see is heaven lying in wait for you, but as an atheist I try to take into account all of my actions for the betterment of the world. I try to make sure that when I leave this place it's better off than when I got here. Christians of course can and do the same; however there are large groups of them who do not care about the future do to a belief that on judgment day the world will be cleansed. There are Christians who commit atrocities in the name of their religion. As an atheist I may be offering hope where religion is taking it away. Some say the only way to become immortal is to make an impact on the world, although we may all just fade into dust, our actions will be remembered, and in that sense we live on. So, is there hope for an eternal afterlife? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it, and I'm not putting my money on it. On the other hand there is Always hope that we can make a paradise on earth.
You go on to ask... well, it's more like a statement you've labeled atheists with - "existence is a mere conincidence and really they have no purpose." I don't know if I have a purpose or not. I certainly don't believe I've been given one, so at the very least I can make my own. On your side of the coin we have God who's given us all purpose, because... well... umm... he works in mysterious ways? Have you ever asked yourself the question "If we have purpose because God is here, what is God's purpose?" and if he has none, doesn't that negate our purpose? If God is beyond having purpose, doesn't that also negate him giving us purpose? In the end I have no real answer, but when analyzed, neither do you except to say those arbitrary words "I have faith."
I almost feel proud by the next statement you make "even through all the discourse and reasoning that atheists suppose to do they still can't offer life." As an atheist I have absolutely no obligation to go through any reasoning or discourse, but I do as a human being, and, no I can't offer life, but I can offer scientific advancement without having my religion breathing down my neck in the form of say... Stem cell research. That's closer to a proven offering of life on earth than Christians or any religion has ever offered.
I think I've covered the whole "what happens after you leave?" question, but you asked it again, so I'll put this forward - Have you ever heard of the "butterfly effect", generally to do with weather patterns, but who's to say this isn't applicable to positive action? Or how's about this - give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish he eats for life. Sounds pretty scientific to me.
You're next question is pure rhetoric, and I don't intend to be nice about it. "When did science console people on 9/11?" Whether you believe in God or not, we all have families, and we can all have compassion for those who suffer. You suggest that scientists are an uncaring lot scuttling under rocks selfishly. The truth of the matter is religion is the true whore here. Who caused the attack? Religion. Who attempted to benefit by recruiting those in emotional distress? Religions. Now here's a question for you.. Who was it that tried to find out the truth? Scientists. Who tried to find out how it happened, and how to fix it? Scientists. Who was it that mended the injured peoples wounds? Scientists. Your having taken science for granted is a travesty. Go back to school.
Serenity now... Anywho, next question: "How do you believe in something that is ever evolving but still consider God to be illogical?" Well, we don't "believe" in it. We prove it scientifically, and state it as fact, but I think I've been over that already. Of course sometimes we are wrong, and when scientists are wrong we correct ourselves. Here's a flow chart of our reasoning vs yours.
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png
"Isn't it possible to believe that I have just come to a conclusion that you have yet to discover?" Yes, it's possible. Highly unlikely, but possible. That question is a bit of a lead in to this one - "What's going to happen when your logic leads to God?" Well, as far as I can tell, we've been looking into this area for some time, and I think it's best summed up by a guy by the name of Epicurus
"
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
"
"why do Atheists despise [religion] so much?" - War, ignorance, injustice, the list goes on and on. I think the material I've already mentioned will suffice.
"Is it not the people that are flawed rather than the belief itself? - Well, both are flawed really. The Bible is so full of contradiction I'm surprised it doesn't implode, and anybody who buys into that is clearly flawed, but who am I to judge, I've got enough flaws to clean my teeth... (Bad pun intended)
In closing I would like to say that I hope this has helped you, and that this hasn't been like explaining quantum physics to a 2 year old. We're all stuck here for the time being, so let's play nice :D
"Skip ya tradition and superstition about how touching provides demonic transition or speaking things into existence"
PEACE!
~ Mike
okay Mike I'll try to answer every question in order so please bare with me. I appreciate your rebuke for emotional answers and I will in the future attempt to stay away from them. Understand though that this blog isn't necessarily meant for debate but rather for me to vent a little ;-)
--"This is not a belief, it has nothing to do with faith. It is what I like to call a "fact".
--Let's take another example then. How about walking in front of a speeding car. Its a fact that you'll probably get hit. Now because you believe that to be a fact you hopefully won't willingly do it. Now it's not a fact you will get hit because it hasn't occured yet but you may. I believe true Christians respond in the same way. I believe that God is a fact therefore I will act or not act accordingly although what science would consider fact has yet to occur. This is an example of how a true Christian would respond to God, not just with an acknowledging belief but with an action to that belief. (Roms. 1:21)
--http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan
--in the future please post sites with accurate exegetical dissertations of scripture. Each of the atrocities listed on this site are easily explained. If you would like I could offer to do that for you. I'll let you pick which ones ;-)
--http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
--once again the Bible doesn't use the term fetus, scientists do. Once again please don't exegete scripture unless you're going to do it correctly. Ref. Jer. 1:5 the term "knew" there is a term also used in Gen. 4:1 which means an intimacy. Therefore God actually states He was extremely close to Jeremiah even before His conception and he was ordained a purpose already in his mother's womb. Therefore this would give the fact that not only does God consider a "fetus" a living being already but also He calls him a close friend.
--however there are large groups of them who do not care about the future do to a belief that on judgment day the world will be cleansed. There are Christians who commit atrocities in the name of their religion.
--I completely agree, Christians aren't doing a good enough job at taking care of eachother but that doesn't invalidate the Bible's text. Ref. Mark 9:35. Servanthood is actually to be desired.
--On the other hand there is Always hope that we can make a paradise on earth.
--please don't hold your breath. We can make the world better yes, paradise though? And I'm the illogical one ;-). I would agree if it weren't for "free will" and "selfishness".
--If we have purpose because God is here, what is God's purpose?" and if he has none, doesn't that negate our purpose?
--God's purpose is to love righteousness, the same as our purpose is. And yes if God didn't have a purpose we wouldn't have a purpose either seeing how as we're made in His image(character).
--I can offer scientific advancement without having my religion breathing down my neck in the form of say... Stem cell research. That's closer to a proven offering of life on earth than Christians or any religion has ever offered.
--Biblical life. Sorry but science is always running behind on some things. Oh yeah my wife is a microbiologist and trust me the same things that are offered through stem cells are offered through amniotic fluid and other means.
--You suggest that scientists are an uncaring lot scuttling under rocks selfishly.
--please reread the statement, I said science not scientist(s). I am a scientist as well as my wife as well as many others. Before we are scientists though we are human beings, both Christian and non-Christian alike. It's ironic though that science may have been used to find the culprits but wasn't it an understanding of religion that taught you how to deal with them? You see how well "science" is working in Iraq without having a religious understanding.
--I think it's best summed up by a guy by the name of Epicurus
--aww yes, I knew I would come across it eventually. Answer
--why do Atheists despise [religion] so much?" - War, ignorance, injustice, the list goes on and on. I think the material I've already mentioned will suffice.
--once again please understand the context of Biblical religion. It's a word that has been diluted so much, I meant it in it's intended use. Ref. James 1:27
--Well, both are flawed really. The Bible is so full of contradiction I'm surprised it doesn't implode,
--Once again I don't expect you to understand it all but I doubt you are a Biblical scholar. You've had opportunities already to exegete scripture properly and have failed horribly so that really hurts your credibility on scripture interpretation. Anyway what contradictions are you speaking of? I'd be more than happy to assist with understanding them, not saying you'll agree but I will explain them to you.
--"Skip ya tradition and superstition about how touching provides demonic transition or speaking things into existence"
--for those of you that don't know, this is a lyric from one of my gospel raps. I see we have a fan, who says Christian rap isn't appealing to the unbelievers lol.
I hope these answer your questions somewhat. Hope to see you again soon.
God bless
"Some treat their longing for God as proof of His existence."
I think that's a very appropriate quote for this blog. Hope is very nice, it's true, but I'd rather know a bitter truth than be deceived into trusting a falsehood because it felt good.
I also found your page through your comment on Mr. Fyfe's page :) and I don't want to have to follow Mike's thorough response... so I'll be a little more brief.
First of all, I believe that if we live for even a moment, our lives are worthwhile. Whatever help we provide may be only temporary, but so is all experience. For whatever it's worth, we've helped somebody and it makes both the helper and the help-ee feel better.
Second, I do hold to my beliefs tentatively... but that's why science is trustworthy. Truth doesn't change; our understanding of it becomes more complete. Religion seeks to provide ultimate, immutable truths. I don't trust it. Anyway, your difficulty with such a basic understanding of science (and your anthropomorphism of it) demonstrates that you're unqualified to speak about it.
I'd suggest that, in your road to apologetics, you deviate from the path enough to learn more about science :)
In response to your comment-
I disagree semantically with Mike on how to approach the word 'belief.' A belief, to me, is a propositional attitude about a statement (For instance, I believe that 'drinking this water will quench my thirst,'). And yes, our beliefs do shape how we act. More on this later. 'Faith' I'd define as 'a belief in the absence of, or contrary to, any evidence.'
Thus, you have faith in God's existence, and faith that Jesus rose from the dead.
"This is an example of how a true Christian would respond to God, not just with an acknowledging belief but with an action to that belief."
_Back to the topic of why people act. I hold that while beliefs shape HOW people act, it is their desires that drive them. So, a 'true Christian' would act on his/her desire to fulfill God's will, right? The problem is that Christians differ over what God's will really is.
"Once again please don't exegete scripture unless you're going to do it correctly."
_Alright, this is the only time I should have to say this. If you dislike people misrepresenting scripture, then don't misrepresent science. You don't understand it, so until you accept what atheists say about the Bible as truth, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk about science.
Still, you call yourself a scientist... I'm interested in what your credentials are.
Walking out in the street and being hit has to do with probability, less than hard facts. That's like saying "When I let go of this ball there is a chance it will fall down." Although it’s factual that there’s a chance (100%), it would be better to say in the case of jay walking “There is a 74.32% chance of being hit by a car from walking into oncoming traffic on 123 Ave. with 23 cars based upon the results we’ve calculated from sending 10000 people into said intersection over a period of.. etc.”. Of course if a real study were made there would be far more information necessary, but if you're a scientist you should understand the importance of specifics, and how the scientific process works. Facts are about knowledge based in reality and proof. Belief is certainty based in faith.
Generally, I just use the dictionary to define words rather than how I feel they should be defined. Mind you, it’s not a purely necessary; you can just believe that words mean what you want them to.
Man, I've just gotta look at this again.
"Its a fact that you'll probably get hit. Now because you believe that to be a fact you hopefully won't willingly do it. Now it's not a fact you will get hit because it hasn't occured yet but you may."
Yowzerz.
"Accurate exegetical dissertations"... you do know what exegetical means, right? You sure did use it a lot. It means ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’. What you just said is like saying "Analyze it like I would" or "Your opinion is different than mine, therefore, you are wrong". Anyway, I have picked a few scriptures for you to 'easily explain'. I left in extra text so people can see the context.
*Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)*
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
*1 Samuel 15:1-4 (King James Version)*
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
*Psalm 137 (King James Version)*
7Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
*Numbers 31:31-40 (King James Version)*
31And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
33And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
34And threescore and one thousand asses,
35And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
36And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:
37And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.
38And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.
39And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.
40And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.
*Isaiah 13:14-17 (King James Version)*
14And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.
15Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
Wow, that was a lot a text. Feel free to choose any of the others off that list of atrocities that you feel are especially misinformed, and need a better explanation (exegesis).
"the Bible doesn't use the term fetus, scientists do." Umm.. last I checked pretty much anybody can use the term fetus, not just scientists. Oh, and you used 'exegete' improperly... it's kinda like saying "don't carpenter wood unless you're...". Anywho, onto the meat.
*Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)*
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
All this attempts to show is that God knows people before they are even conceived, i.e. before a couple even has sex. I don't deny the context of "knew"; however, this does not in any way show that a fetus is considered a living being. This is backed up by...
*Exodus 21:22-25 (King James Version)*
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
For, if a fetus were considered human, the individual that caused it's death would thereby be put to death. This is a point you merrily skipped past in the abortion site I noted, and if we're both right.. Then this is an example of contradiction you wanted.
"...but that doesn't invalidate the Bible's text. Ref. Mark 9:35. Servanthood is actually to be desired." I'm well aware of religion's necessity to have servants, and I'll get back to invalidating the bible soon.
Regarding a paradise earth - Didn't your blog emphasize something about Christian hope and Atheist hope? It's not illogical to hope for paradise and attempt to create a better world, optimistic perhaps, but not illogical. It just makes you out to be a pessimist.
"God's purpose is love and righteousness." That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. I could see somebody making that comparison of a Care Bear(tm), but not some sort of divine being. I.e. Moses' purpose was to build an ark. Gandhi’s purpose was to free his land. It's like saying my purpose in life is to be nice. That's laughable, but then again, you can speak on behalf of an almighty deity far better than I...
Science is running behind on… science? I don't get it. If you claim that the bible supports modern day discoveries, that’s fine. I don't agree that it's necessarily as stated though… the scriptures which are supposedly supportive of science are all very vague and ambiguous. Especially those dinosaur ones…
http://www.boingboing.net/
200706181605.jpg
lol.
I’ve never known science to be vague and ambiguous… more like exacting and concise, but who am I to argue? The proof is in the pudding.
As for stem cell research, it's become a rather broad spectrum, but even the amniotic fluid you mentioned is.. STEM CELL RESEARCH - "amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells". Scientists have also been able to procure stem cells from the placenta. :)
By the way, what are the other means you mentioned?
Science isn't working in Iraq.. last I checked their strategy stunk (not science), it's about greed (not science), and the guy that's making the orders thinks God speaks to him to do this kinda stuff. Or were you referring to the Shiites and Sunnis? Science has a pretty good idea of what's going on with those guys as well. Guess what, even religion is a topic studied by science!
Your answer for Epicurus is.. "We don't know." I'm not joking, did you actually read the entire page? Summarized the page says – “God can't stop the suffering caused by men because then he'd have to take away free will, but we really don't know why he does the rest (plagues, calamities, etc, etc).. We think it's ‘cause we sinned. : ( “
Essentially the site says that God is malevolent, but they're not sure.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.. my credibility has been hurt because my exegesis (you used exegete improperly again) wasn't what you wanted to hear. Here's a long list of contradictions, and just ‘cause you asked nicely I won't use infidels.org.
http://www.submission.org/christians/
bible-contradictions.html
For something that has ‘divine inspiration’ it sure does have a lot of slip ups...
I'll only ask for you to reconcile half of these. heh.. just kidding that'd take forever - choose a couple you think are particularly glaring and we can talk about em'. I've got another long list of contradictions, but that's at infidels.org, which you don’t appear to have a proper response for : (
Like I said last time, I sincerely hope that you become an honest apologist, and thus far, I don’t think you’ve done so well. If you truly want to be a good apologist I'd recommend going through that entire infidels.org site and debunking it yourself. I bet there’s nothing you wouldn't be prepared for and your beliefs would be solidified through your efforts like no one before you. Practice makes perfect : )
“With hammer in one hand sword in another pursuing righteousness while exhorting my brother”
Exhort on my friend, but leave the hammer and sword at home ; )
~ Mike
P.S.
Sorry, in my last post a number of my links were cut off, as I generally don't like linking to text so that people can tell where they are going. So, here are the links redone.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg University taking questions.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
donald_morgan/atrocity.html
A site listing a large number of atrocities committed in the bible.
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
Alternative interpretation on the bible's stance on abortion.
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/
archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs
%20faith.html
Comical flow chart of the scientific method vs religious method
Wow, dude, you’re only 22 years old and you have a microbiologist wife?
Thanks for posting g-man. Here's my response.
--"Truth doesn't change; our understanding of it becomes more complete. Religion seeks to provide ultimate, immutable truths. I don't trust it."
--name evidence that contradicts the Bible, not theories but proven facts. No archeaological, historical, or scientific data has been found nor has any event occured that disproves the Bible's authenticity. Prove me wrong. If you can provide me evidence that the Bible's historical accuracy is flawed then I'll quit believing.
-"'Faith' I'd define as 'a belief in the absence of, or contrary to, any evidence.'"
--Webster's has it as such: faith- belief that is not based on proof: ex. He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. I'm assuming this is the definition you were alluding to. Very interestingly though you slipped "contrary to fact" in your definition. Once again refer to my initial question.
--"Still, you call yourself a scientist... I'm interested in what your credentials are."
--Majored in Chemistry 2 years of college as well as computer science. Married to a wife with a Bachelors in Clinical Laboratory Science working as a microbiologist for Kansas University. Also have a diploma from International Baccalaureate for "Superior" scores in Chemistry and Physics while attending a magnet school. Sorry no degree yet though...I got burned out.
--"Anyway, your difficulty with such a basic understanding of science (and your anthropomorphism of it) demonstrates that you're unqualified to speak about it."
--sorry I'm a poet I have a tendency to do that. I doubt it deems me unqualified though. As I see you are graduating with a degree in Communications. I doubt that makes you qualified in the field of science even remotely either though.
--"so until you accept what atheists say about the Bible as truth, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk about science."
--well that's ignorant don't you think? I have to agree with your position before you'll listen? Humm...and you're a communications major. Here I thought I was pretentious.
look forward to hearing back from you.
alright round 4 I believe...
okay I apologize sometimes I don't realize that I think a lot faster than I type so some of those statements are confusing, please forgive me...anyhow
I agree with your interpretation of "fact" vs "probability". In short all I am trying to convey in regards to Christians is that "believers" are spoken of in the Bible as those who hold to, and exemplify the essential doctrine of Christianity. For example "faith without works is dead". I can't accurately say I'm a Christian if I don't show any of the characteristics of Christ in my life. It would be the same theologically speaking as saying that I'm a police officer yet I don't have a badge, uniform, car, etc. I hope we put that dead horse away....
--"Accurate exegetical dissertations"... you do know what exegetical means, right? You sure did use it a lot. It means ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’.
--sorry I have a tendency to do that. I'm working as well as typing so a lot of times I'll forget what I just said. Actually it means a lot more than 'explanation' or 'interpretation' otherwise I would've just said that. Here's the definition for you though.
--Exodus 21:22-25
--not really that difficult, I think you're reading into the scripture. It nevers defines who suffers from the "mischief follows". Actually in Hebrew the mother and child are considered the same, it doesn't differentiate b/w the two. So if see gives birth prematurely but her and the child are okay than the man has to pay for any special needs required, any handicaps or maternal issues that cost etc. If either the mother or the child dies than eye for eye, yadda yadda. So me where the scripture separates the two or states that the baby dies when born prematurely.
--Psalm 137
--aww yes once again reading into scripture. understand the context of Pslams. The good thing about the Bible is it doesn't hide anything. The Psalmist was wrong. No where in the Psalm do you see God condoning such an act. Instead it's spoken of in first person from the Psalmist. It was written during Babylonian captivity and he was probably seeing how the Babylonians treated their children and wanted revenge. Is that right? No, but it's how he honestly felt. Scripture doesn't support that action though it merely documents it.
--By the way, what are the other means you mentioned?
--was thinking of placenta actually but the word escaped me, doing too many things at once lol
I will respond to the rest but I've honestly got to leave work now. See ya monday...aww another hard earned paycheck lol.
Thanks for responding, deacon.
You're right, I (like you) am not qualified to speak with authority about either science or the Bible. However, my limited knowledge of the first caused my mind to snag on your misrepresentations of science.
You clearly have had more formal science education than I - but why would you ask something like '...where is science's almighty reasoning and cure?' or 'When did science console people on 9/11?'
Clearly, those quotes misrepresent science. Science is a method used to investigate the natural world. I'd venture to guess that nobody who is both honest and understanding of science would pose the kind of questions you posed. If you can explain why you said those things (besides the motive of dishonesty or a lack of understanding), then I'll take back what I said.
"name evidence that contradicts the Bible"
_First of all, this has little to do with what I said. I said that religion seeks to provide ultimate, immutable truths, and is unwilling to adapt that understanding - you see this from Galileo to the present. The scientific method provides theories that are tentative. I feel that makes them more trustworthy.
But since you ask... look at this statement:
"No archeaological, historical, or scientific data has been found nor has any event occured that disproves the Bible's authenticity."
_If you heard a Muslim make the same claim with regards to the Quran, how would you respond? Would you get frustrated when, time and again, he found a way to justify all the Quranic passages? Finally, I'd like to know how you exegete Noah's Flood and a young earth.
"Very interestingly though you slipped "contrary to fact" in your definition."
_Contrary to *evidence* actually. Take the Mormons for example - they have faith, apparently, that there was once a great population of Jewish people here in America in ancient history. There is no evidence for that belief... I'd argue, actually, that there is evidence *against* that belief, which is why I would label it 'faith.' If you disagree to share these meanings of 'belief' and 'faith,' then perhaps we can find a different way to make meaning of the phenomena we're trying to describe.
PS, I love how 'marriage to a scientist' was included in your credentials :) You two must have a good relationship.
Anyway, I think I should end by pointing out that I have no illusions about my scientific understanding. I often remind people in this sort of discussion that you and I both stand on the shoulders of others - it's a little silly to condemn someone else for whose shoulders they choose to stand on from our own precarious position. So, what I noticed was that you mischaracterized 'science,' and then were upset when somebody interpreted scripture differently from you, and you rejected that interpretation out of hand.
In our conversations, perhaps we should cite our sources when we're talking about subject matter over our heads. That way we can see how the respected authorities in various fields clash, rather than clashing ourselves.
I hope we can both listen without having to adopt the others' position, too.
Sorry for butting into your conversation with g-man.. I feel like we're ganging up on you deacon, and I don't want this to be a negative experience, although I do use a lot of 'sarcasm', it's just for fun - kinda like smack talk when playing a game or something. I don't mean any harm, and apologize if I've caused you any anguish, please feel free to respond in your own good time, but we don't pay overtime ;)
That said, wanna tag out g-man? hehehe just kidding.
Anywho, regarding proving the Bible wrong - burden of proof is on the one making the claims. If you can't prove what you believe that's your shortcoming not ours. That's why it's called faith, because it is unproven, otherwise it would be fact. Hmm.. I feel very repetitions, sorry. :(
Ok, I said exegesis means "explanation or interpretation" then you tell me I'm wrong and send me to a link that says this:
"[Definitions of exegesis]
1 - critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.
2 - 1619, from Gk. exegeisthai "explain, interpret," from ex- "out" + hegeisthai "to lead, guide."
3 - Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.
4 - an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)
"
lol.
It looks like you're not checking your own links again, or is it because I missed the word critical? It mentions that this mostly applies to text or the bible, but not necessarily. But you're right.. I am the one who's always carrying on about how we have to be precise. I deeply apologize for not emphasizing that it was 'critical'. ;)
Exodus 21:22-25
You're using a different perspective that is contradictory to your previous views on this topic. Saying that the mother and child are the same negates the child being a human being in it's own right. Thus Jeremiah couldn't be considered separate from his mother during pregnancy - making him.. well.. not Jeremiah. Unfortunately, not even your contradictory explanation is feasible. For in many translations it defines the case as the woman having a miscarriage. This is a very specific term whereby it is defined that the child is incapable of surviving on it's own, and will die. On the other hand it has been translated as a premature birth. With the current technology level we have today, and depending upon how prematurely the child is born (negating any other complicating factors which are probably present...)
22 weeks ~ 1% chance of survival
23 weeks ~ 16% chance of survival
24 weeks ~ 44% chance of survival
25 weeks ~ 63% chance of survival
Take into account that they don't have any sort of life support or other advanced medical care, and chances are that most prematurely birthed children will die. So, it's fairly safe to say that the scripture is under the assumption that the child will die. That said, the ‘eye for an eye’ stuff can only apply to the mother's well being, and makes the child not human. :(
Psalms 137
I absolutely agree that this is the perspective of one man. The point is this - he was vindictive, and his writings were unbecoming for a book which is supposedly of divine origins or inspiration. By the virtue that it made it into the bible shows this attitude was condoned. Whether God condones this particular act, I dunno, but I do know he condones similar ones...
Deuteronomy 2:33-34 (King James Version)
33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
Deuteronomy 3:3-6 (King James Version)
3So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
4And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
5All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many.
6And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
Hmm.. on second thought dashing children against rocks versus utterly destroying them really is different. I take it back. God does not condone dashing children against rocks.
Since this appears it will take a while (I hope you’re learning, I know I am.) if you would like to move it off your blog and into another (neutral) public forum that’s fine by me. In any case I hope we can all gain from this, and I hope you can always laugh at the end of these :D (preferably at my poor punchlines…)
” Now the physician's depicting this graphic image, all his visions and dictions outline incurable decisions”
Word.
~ Mike
P.S.
You’re gonna have to make some more lyrics soon…
Hey, even your poor punchlines sound more concise and put-together than what I've written :) I'd be glad to 'tag out' of this one; I think I've said my piece.
--Definitions of exegesis
--it was more of the analysis part that I was referring to. In order to analysis something you must bounce it off of other similar scriptures. Otherwise it would be easy to misinterpret a text, comment, etc.
--"name evidence that contradicts the Bible"
--the reason I stated this is you clumping religion as a whole and the Christian text into the same fold. I still have yet to receive any answer for that question. Give me evidence that refutes the Bible being a 100% accurate historical book at the very least. Even well-schooled atheist scholars won't deny the accuracy of Biblical scriptures in regards to it's validity but rather to it's probability. The scriptures do flow amazingly well together given that it had almost 40 authors I believe. Once you properly understand the history of a book, it's author, and time frame the contradictions that you suppose are done away with.
--If you heard a Muslim make the same claim with regards to the Quran, how would you respond? Would you get frustrated when, time and again, he found a way to justify all the Quranic passages?
--aww but I didn't say contradictions, I asked for historical evidence that invalidates the Bible. Can you give me some? In comparison to other historical books of similar age the Bible is very accurate thus far and has to be considered as a reliable text, if for nothing else then it's historical use.
--where is science's almighty reasoning and cure?' or 'When did science console people on 9/11?'
--I asked because the very thing that I see atheists attack most often is the very thing that keeps so many tears from being meaningless. I don't despise science, I love it actually. I love systematically breaking down a problem and analysizing its parts. I just have seen its usefulness and where it lacks. For me to base my entire belief on what it tells me and how it teaches me to think is stupid. It serves a role and even in my belief in God I believe he has given us science to help humanity to a point. I don't believe it can even come close to replacing Him though and what He offers. Give me a cure for cancer through science and I'll be happy. I just don't want you all to completely base what you regard as useful and legitimate on what science tells you. Please forgive me if I spoke emotionally rather than being concise. The abstract qualities that God provides are useful. Some people just misuse His name.
--Exodus 21:22
--The hebrew word for "depart" is -yatsa' meaning simply to leave from. Can you give me a something that would specifically state that the "mischief to follow" was referring directly to the mother only? Read Ex.21:22 and honestly tell me whether or not you reading into it what you desire it to mean. I'll admit it may not be clear at best but we certainly cannot state that it refers miscarriage in the initial statement. This is where exegeting comes into play.
--Jeremiah
--this is completely different scripture and book and author but anyway, "all scripture does flow". Exodus was speaking in regards to a judgement for an act. Jeremiah's text was speaking as far as a relationship with Jeremiah. The passages are different in context. Exodus considers both child/fetus and mother to be a life. Jeremiah's passage is God addressing one of those lives (Jeremiah). C'mon you've got to realize that at least.
--So, it's fairly safe to say that the scripture is under the assumption that the child will die.
--once again you're reading into a text. It doesn't state what the age of the premature birth. Premature babies do live, even back then. If may be a lesser chance of survival but that's why its covered in the second part of that passage. "if death does occur" then "eye for eye". You're trying to make it state what you want. Assumption is a dangerous why to evaluate something when the evidence you are presenting doesn't direct you to that conclusion. Can you at least state that it isn't clear at best on which way the scripture is leading and therefore is open to personal interpretation if we are just viewing it alone? Therefore we must evaluate certain passages against others and when held up to other scripture a "fetus" is considered a life, equal to an adult or child.
--Og also, the king of Bashan,
--do you know anything about how Og the King of Bashan was? Also have you seen the movie Blackhawk Down? Or how about Hotel Rwanda? Or seen any news of how women and children act in Iraq? A kid will walk up to a convoy of troops with a bomb strapped to his chest and a woman will shoot you quicker than a trained militant would. Would you say we were wrong in killing them? Women and children of these pagan nations were similar. Study the nation and you'll see. Otherwise all we can see is "oh my God, how can we condone killing women and children" and miss the whole Og of Bashan. If you read about some of these places and pagan idol worship, whether you believe in God or not some of those people deserved to die. But I guess little Iraqi and Iranian kids burning American flags and shooting guns isn't that threatening.
--There is no evidence for that belief... I'd argue, actually, that there is evidence *against*
--In regards to the Mormon belief I would agree and will also state that some facets of Christianity are inverifiable by legitimate proof so faith is needed. Other things are more believable but unable to be validated. For example NASA did issue a report stating that the earth was once covered in water and the date that gave was within a relative time frame the Bible states Noah existed. That's still far fetched though but when you tie in that ancient civilizations in India, Africa, South America, and China all record a world wide flood and eight survivors from that flood with similar names of Noah and his family then that is interesting at least. Can we certainly state what the Bible said is fact, no, none of us were there but at the very least something happened during that time that NASA agrees with and eight people survived. I'll let you come to your own conclusion.
I'm still looking for that evidence the disproves the Bible's historical accuracy. And yes this is helping me to learn ;-)
Seems like you've combined answers to both Mike's and my statements... I should probably respond to the topics I started.
I'm no Bible scholar, and I have no pretensions in that regard. So, the obvious examples where evidence contradicts the Bible include Noah's flood, the Genesis creation story, the claim that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and that Jesus rose from the dead.
"I asked because the very thing that I see atheists attack most often is the very thing that keeps so many tears from being meaningless."
_Still, atheists don't represent science, and science doesn't represent atheists. Science doesn't have answers to the questions you asked, and science doesn't pretend to. Science has nothing to do with consoling people, and you should know that. I still find your original questions to be unfair and misleading.
Tears, though, are never meaningless, and I've never heard of an atheist who tried to make them so. Nor have I ever heard any reason for why Christianity alone is "the very thing" that makes tears meaningful. The reasons some atheists attack religion is because they believe it's a lie and a delusion. Don't you attack what you find to be a lie and a delusion? Most atheists would prefer the truth to a lie that comforts. I hope you feel the same.
So, we're concerned with matters of fact. There is an objective truth to every matter, and the scientific method offers the best way to approach that truth in an objective sense.
"For me to base my entire belief on what it tells me and how it teaches me to think is stupid."
_Really? Science teaches you to base your beliefs on reality, and to be willing to test your conclusions against the observable world. It teaches you to be willing to adjust your beliefs if evidence proves them wrong. How is that sort of approach 'stupid?'
"I don't believe it can even come close to replacing Him though and what He offers."
_It isn't supposed to. Nobody wants it to. Why do you keep misrepresenting science?
"Give me a cure for cancer through science and I'll be happy."
_Better yet, get your cure for cancer through God and I'll be a believer.
"I just don't want you all to completely base what you regard as useful and legitimate on what science tells you."
_Actually, science itself would not lead me to atheism. Philosophy is what leads me to reject the idea of the Christian God.
"For example NASA did issue a report stating that the earth was once covered in water"
_Could you give me a link to support this? Until I read what they found, I'll have trouble trusting the aeronautics and space administration about geologic matters :)
"When you tie in that ancient civilizations... all record a world wide flood and eight survivors from that flood with similar names of Noah and his family then that is interesting at least."
_I'd like to know your source for this information as well. There is a great article on the Talk.Origins page describing flood myths from around the world, most of which disagree vastly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Anyway, since a global flood is impossible and never happened, I don't see much point in bringing up the facts that (1) Eight people wouldn't have enough alleles to account for the variety we see in humans today, and that (2) those 8 people were supposedly from a race of people who very carefully preserved their oral traditions.
The reason ancient Bible history is so trusted is the exact same reason why it doesn't make any sense for worldwide flood stories to differ from one another. Those descendants would all have taken the same care preserving their stories and traditions.
Finally, I need to respond to the part about Og the King of Bashan, even though Mike brought it up. That story is one of God committing needless genocide. Would an all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing God do that?
"Would you say we were wrong in killing them?"
_Would you? I believe that killing is sometimes necessary, but the desire to kill is never a good one. What does God say about killing and times of war?
Now, in regards to that story:
-God's people were taking Og's land, which didn't belong to them.
-God didn't punish other equally nasty tribes/peoples (like the Aztecs, even), so He must have only been punishing corrupt civilizations in the way of the Israelites.
-God could have sent a famine to drive Og's people out of that land. That way, He wouldn't have had genocide on His hands, and the Israelites wouldn't have to die for their land.
-Do you really think Jesus, knowing all this, would still make His chosen people enter a terrible set of battles to commit genocide on a civilization, including men women and children, when there was a simple peaceful alternative? Oh yeah, Jesus came to bring a sword, not peace.
I guess I'll just respond to the areas I feel haven't been covered well enough.
"In order to analysis something you must bounce it off of other similar scriptures."
Glaring grammatical error aside, this is poor reasoning. It seems you're saying you have to compare one murder in the bible to another murder or something that references murder in order for the first murder to be reconciled (with morality, philosophy, etc)... Say WHAT? When you analyze something, anything, do you have to 'bounce it off of scripture' in order to determine whether it is correct? Exegesis is about analysis and interpretation, and context is important, but it is not necessary to compare it to other scripture if is a bold faced lie or something reprehensible in the face of common sense or morality, especially when there is no other way to interpret it other than literally. It's like you perceive the entire bible in the same light one might read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" - It's intellectual dishonesty, and it's something I've been warning you about.
I think g-man did well in mentioning a few of the bibles most blatant historical falsehoods. Mind you, there are more,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_Bible_and_history
but I'll move on, and leave it for the time being. Let's look at this - "The scriptures do flow amazingly well together given that it had almost 40 authors". OK, let's test a hypothetical - 'The bible is 90% accurate in every way' - This goes back to what I was saying earlier: If it was inspired by an almighty deity then even 90% is not enough, or is 90% good enough for your god? It's an 'A', but, heck, even I've gotten 100% on a 40 question test.
Then there are the 40 authors. If you use the "Four Falls of Man"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah
to project the general ages of the authors, 40 authors would not be necessary for the 4000 some odd supposed years. If there was only one author at a time, i.e. Adam lived 930 years, Methuselah lived 969 years, and in the age of kings where ages are recorded again people are only documented as living between 40 - 70 years. People would have lived long enough during the 4000 year time span for there to be less than 40 authors if only one author was used during a particular period. This brings rise to another question - 'why is it necessary to use multiple authors to describe fairly mundane events in the new testament, when there is only one author describing something very important such as the creation of the world?'. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess we're beating god's system these days where the average lifespan is higher than late biblical times in 111 countries.
"the contradictions that you suppose are done away with." ... OK... Have you noticed how I've been citing my sources, offering reasoning, and attempting to be fairly precise? When you make a claim it is necessary to back it up with a resource, and no, faith is not a viable resource :( You shouldn't just mildly say that 'once I understand the book, authors, and time frame I'll find out I'm wrong' - prove me wrong, otherwise it's just an armchair theory. Did you ever notice how in school they're always asking you to "Show your work."? Yeah, I know, it's stupid, and far easier just to say I'm wrong, but I do have a red pen for such occasions.
http://www.tnschoolcounselor.org/
findX.jpg
See me after class Deacon.
Now I mentioned I'd get back to the history of the bible, so here goes. The bible offers a source of material that gives us a good idea of some of the goings on in the past. It gives tells us of the conflicts, movements of people, kings, and other important historical accounts which can be backed up by modern findings, but there are many instances whereby the account isn't evidenced, and really just doesn't make any sense. E.g. Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt. That's gotta be one of the most arbitrary things I've ever heard. I guess it's pretty creative, but it's like saying 'And so, god did punish the Babylonians by turning them into ice cream sundaes for working on a Sunday. And the LORD spoke - thou art what thou workesteth, and the LORD saw that it was good, especially with chocolate Egyptian sprinkles'. But, I digress (tastily), I said it once I'll say it again - The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and some aspects of the Bible have been proven true, others scientifically impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Get out yer readin' glasses :)
Quick note because I find it funny - "analysizing" - Dude, you must hate this word for murdering it so many times ; ) reminds me of goatse.. Don’t Google that for the sake of your sanity.
"For me to base my entire belief on what it tells me and how it teaches me to think is stupid." - Again, science is not about belief, it's about finding facts. Science is about using our intelligence to create hypotheses, and prove them to be true or false to further our understanding of the world. I hope I'm not repeating g-man, but I disagree with his use of belief. In any case this is something worth reiterating and discussing.
Back onto... Exodus 21 (dun, dun, dunnnnn)
(NKJV) Exodus 21:22 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine.]
(NASB) Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
(KJV) Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
(CEV) Exodus 21:22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.
(TEV) Exodus 21:22 "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.
(RSV) Exodus 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
(JPS1917 OT) Exodus 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
(Rotherham) Exodus 21:22 And when men strive together and push against a woman with child, and she miscarry, hut there is no other mischief, he shall, surely be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, but he shall give it through judges.
(BBE) Exodus 21:22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
(GodsWord) Exodus 21:22 "This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand."
(ASV) Exodus 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
(Darby) Exodus 21:22 And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.
(Young) Exodus 21:22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
(MKJV (Green)) Exodus 21:22 If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say
(LITV (Green)) Exodus 21:22 And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, being fined he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges.
(Douay-Rheims) Exodus 21:22 If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
These are the translations for all the english bibles found at
http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/
EnglishBible.htm
6 of these translations specifically state that it is the woman's well being in question. The others are vague and could refer to the well being of one of the men, but not the child, as I have previously shown.
6 of these translations use the term 'miscarry', 'miscarriage', or 'loss of child' meaning the death of the child specifically. The others use 'premature birth' or 'depart', which basically means premature birth, but as I have previously stated this will most likely be the death of the child. Especially considering that it was violence which caused the birth - e.g. A pregnant woman is punched in the stomach and gives birth as a result. Do you think the child will live?
Now, I will honestly tell you what I would desire this particular passage to mean. I desire it to mean that the person who causes a death of a child will be punished (imprisoned or pay a fine - no violent punishment), will seek forgiveness, and attempt to correct their ways and become a better individual. I don't have any desire for it to mean that the child will die, or that it only speaks of the health of the mother; however evidence is stacked far in favor of that conclusion. Of course in research it doesn't matter what we desire, I just take what I'm given, and create hypotheses based on the evidence. If anything, in this case, I've been playing the devil's advocate.
I have a hunch that you're trying to get at my view on abortion, and whether I consider a gestating fetus a human being - no problem, and if there are any other questions you have regarding my point of view feel free to ask. According to my morality and philosophy I would like justice to be sought with great vigor; however justice is not universal, and nobody can claim their justice to be absolute. Thus all I can say is that if I were pregnant I would not have an abortion unless there were special circumstances such as 'giving birth, or carrying the child endangered my life', 'the child was already dead', 'the child would certainly die once it left the womb', and other special extreme circumstances that I may be unaware of. Whether a fetus is a human being or not, I don't know. I know it's a living thing and as such has a right to life according to my societal values. I find it hard to move from such a serious topic to some sort of weird humor, so I'll just say it - "exegeting" is not a word.
I said it once, I'll say it again - The proof is in the pudding.
"Exodus considers both child/fetus and mother to be a life. Jeremiah's passage is God addressing one of those lives" - I have shown that Exodus considers the child to be a separate entity from the mother not worthy to be considered a life of it's own. The Jeremiah passage seems to contradict this, unless the bible believes that prophets to be should receive special treatment.
Now, with all I've shown, can I say that the scripture isn't clear? Of course I can say that. I've said it already - scripture is vague and ambiguous. This particular scripture is far leaning towards the conclusion that the baby will die. It leaves very little subjectivity regarding the matter, and you are the one who is trying to muddy the situation. You have not even given an analysis of the situation just to say that the scripture isn't clear. I consider that to be an exhibit of dishonest behavior. I'll say it again prove that you're right.
"Therefore we must evaluate certain passages against others and when held up to other scripture a "fetus" is considered a life, equal to an adult or child." Umm.. Ok. You can start any time now. Even if you do produce a passage which considers a fetus a human being, it would only go to show that it contradicts Exodus 21:22.
Regarding Og of Bashan, g-man seems to have answered you rather eloquently. In summary: Since when did two wrongs make a right?
Pertaining to Mormons and the flood - Again, g-man has covered this well. I would simply suggest that you "Show your work" and cite your resources instead of vaguely saying that NASA says that a world wide flood occurred and 8 people survived.
"You better check yo self before you wreck yo self" ~ Ice Cube on the scientific process.
Tediously,
~ Mike
P.S.
Did anybody else find it ironic that Deacon goes from preaching "eye for an eye" to 'genocide is A-OK!'? Deacon, at this rate you're gonna start the Crusades over again. :(
What am I debating again?
--'The bible is 90% accurate in every way' - This goes back to what I was saying earlier: If it was inspired by an almighty deity then even 90% is not enough, or is 90% good enough for your god?
--translation, the English translation is evaluated to be 95 to 99% accurate due to translations. Translating from Hebrew/Greek to English, as with any language isn't exact. That's why there's a need to do further research. Please do some and let me know when you get qualified. Also study Jewish tradition and history. Details on certain stories aren't as important as the essence of the story itself. i.e. Jesus' last words on the cross. Who cares the essence is that He died on a cross. Listen to someone lecture for 5 minutes and go grab 4 other audience members after and see if all of your recounts of the lecture are exactly the same. This isn't an excuse but a reality. The Bible being divinely inspired and inerrant is in it's doctrine and essentials to the faith along with it's historical accuracy. Christ is Lord, Christ died for our sins, etc. If I translated the Bible and misspelled a word does that topple the entire Christian faith? C'mon let's us some sense when evaluating.
--Say WHAT? When you analyze something, anything, do you have to 'bounce it off of scripture' in order to determine whether it is correct?
--Yes, when you have chemical data you do multiple trial runs and get comparative analysis from similar experiments. You present variables into the equation. The 'science' of scripture is the same. I can take any scripture and stand it alone and make something out of it. That's dishonest. You have to compare one scripture to another, similar scripture, referencing context as well as background etc.
--Have you noticed how I've been citing my sources, offering reasoning, and attempting to be fairly precise?
--okay let's take this one thing at a time. Give me a contradiction that you want me to address and I'll address it. If it's solely Ex. 21:22 than that's fine. I have trouble understanding the logic though. Someone with little education on the bible is telling someone with formal education on the bible that they're wrong. Then what's the point in asking? I wouldn't go up to a mathematician and say "hey you're wrong x doesn't equal that it equals this" if I didn't know the first thing about the area of his knowledge.
--some aspects of the Bible have been proven true, others scientifically impossible.
--it was scientifically impossible to sail around the world too at one time, I'm sorry but it's difficult for me to limit my realm of possibility to science. What's impossible today is possible tomorrow or what you didn't realize the computer you're sitting in front of wasn't there 100 years ago ;-)?
--People would have lived long enough during the 4000 year time span for there to be less than 40 authors if only one author was used during a particular period.
--lol you've got to be kidding me. Do research on the Bible and reference the amount of authors used. Once again your Biblical knowledge fails you along with your logic. And you attempt to interpret scripture with the same mind as that reasoning you just said. Please save the space on my page if that's the best you have and leave the Bible to those of us who are more knowledgable ;-(
Authors of the Bible
--Again, science is not about belief, it's about finding facts.
--did you actually read this after you wrote it. I didn't say I thought belief in science was dumb. I stated for me to base my belief on it is. You believe there is no god. Part of the reason you believe that is due to science.
--6 of these translations use the term 'miscarry', 'miscarriage', or 'loss of child' meaning the death of the child specifically. The others use 'premature birth' or 'depart', which basically means premature birth, but as I have previously stated this will most likely be the death of the child.
--okay you've proven nothing than what I already said. You offered 16 translations so 6 vs. 10, I win j/k listen though, I could put together a Bible translation and call it true i.e. Jehovah Witness' bible. That's why you must research, maybe you don't do much of that though. Go get a Hebrew Lexicon and go look at it yourself. I honestly don't even know what some of those translation are. If the scripture is unclear then you search for the same situation in the rest of scripture and compare if it and see if there is a common theme. Although you may actually have to read the rest of scripture to find out and I doubt you'll be able to digest all that. This is called 'candy store' doctrine. Find what you like and pick it out without considering the whole of something.
--I have shown that Exodus considers the child to be a separate entity from the mother not worthy to be considered a life of it's own.
--nope try again. all you've shown me is a need for the reader to research the topic themselves. Sorry all translations aren't 100%accurate. If you want details into scripture, instead of concepts, go get the original langauge. When referencing the original language of that scripture it doesn't imply that the child is separate from the mother in regards to punishment it's considers them one when judging. Try again :-(
--The Jeremiah passage seems to contradict this,
--'Seems' is an interesting word. One might think that you don't know for sure. This would imply that you are assuming. Aww yes but how do you assume when you have no knowledge of scripture. Of course it seems to contradict it because everything you know about scripture can be contained in a shoe box. Reference the authors citiation above. Also reference Gen.25:22 now the word for 'children' here is the hebrew word 'ben'. the word 'ben' is also used to reference born children, sons, daughters etc. Now seeing how as the author of Genesis and Exodus are the same person why would he change his stance? I might see a contradiction if the authors were different but they are the same. At least I would remain consistent with myself if not with anyone else. So given that scripture and the lack of clarity from Ex. 21 you would be left with the conclusion that I came to. That's what you call researching and how you properly exegete scripture. Next.
-- In summary: Since when did two wrongs make a right?
--I guess that throws capital punishment out for homocidal maniacs. Or killing someone that breaks into your house to defend your family. 'Even though he broke in and is trying to kill you it still doesn't mean you should kill him'....let me know how this logic works out for ya. But no, two wrongs don't make a right but be careful how you interpret being wrong. Og of Bashan actually attacked first and got routed. Years later they actually lived in peace together, the Amorites and Israelites therefore it wasn't due to anyone other than Og himself who was prideful and arrogant."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og">Og of Bashan
--Pertaining to Mormons and the flood
--my apologies I won't patronize you with the flood information. It's a third party source so I'll humbly bow out of the whole Noah flood debate until I come across something better.
Mormons-I don't even remember the original question.
can we condense this discussion in any way? my scroll bar is getting pretty thin lol. let's limit the questions to two a piece or something because this post is getting a little long. I'll still answer your questions but here are two of my own:
--can you find any other scripture that refers to a 'fetus' as something other than a child, other than Ex. 21? After all if God is going to condone something, He'll do it consistently
--According to my morality and philosophy I would like justice to be sought with great vigor; however justice is not universal, and nobody can claim their justice to be absolute.
--based on this statement do you consider genocide to be just?
In addition, I did some more research on Og of Bashan. The people of Bashan were considered Amorites. Amorites ritually sacrificed to a god called Baal. Human sacrifices were a form of trying to receive divine favor from Baal. It isn't any big leap of faith to assume that Bashan and the other Amorites were guilty of such sacrifice. But hey let them kill eachother, whom am I to ask you to quit burning and slaughtering your babies....
Anyway if you tie this scripture in with Psalms 137 which is showing the Psalmist's anger toward their captors. Research the Babylonians and you'll see they did "dash children against rocks", especially if they captured you many times in worship of this same god Baal. This would have been the same fate if Og would've captured Israel the first time. The Amorite's ideology was upheld by the women and children too, human sacrifice was part of their upbringing. I have trouble seeing you doing anything less if you were agressively attacked by someone wanting to burn your child alive. But hey I could be wrong maybe your the Great Atheist Pacifist ;-)
I'm tired of this and once I tear apart your last installment I'm leaving. You’ve shown far too little... well.. anything to be honest, but in particular honesty, intellectual integrity, research and proof.
On the bible being 90% accurate. It was hypothetical; you seem to have overlooked that important part of the statement. I would guess that the bible is far less accurate than that.
My credibility has been brought into question many times; you have no right to question it. You may of course question the statements I make, or the evidence I present. You have no idea what my background is. Your repeated attempts to discredit me only go to show your inability to defend your beliefs.
"Details on certain stories aren't as important as the essence of the story itself. I.e. Jesus' last words on the cross." No time to beat around the bush here. You are wrong. Let's take a look at Jesus' last words shall we?
Matthew 27:46 (King James Version)
46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:34 (King James Version)
34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Luke 23:46 (King James Version)
46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
John 19:30 (King James Version)
30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
1. 3 Different accounts of the same event, 2 of which agree. Were they actually all there?
2. The 2 accounts in agreement suggest that belief in the triune god is false, as well as show a very wavering faith of the figurehead of Christianity.
3. Would you forget the last words of your father? Would you forget the last words of your god incarnate?
4. You suggest that I cherry pick, but when you suggest that these details are unimportant it exemplifies your inability to reconcile your own beliefs, and thus your need to cherry pick your own scriptures.
"see if all of your recounts of the lecture are exactly the same." Again, divinely inspired remember? Even that link you sent me says:
"Question: "Who were the authors of the books of the Bible?"
Answer: Ultimately, above the human authors, the Bible was written by God."
http://www.gotquestions.org/
Bible-authors.html
Again, why the discrepancies?
As for misspelled words - I don't care about typos (although I still laugh at ‘analysizing’), but misused words I do care about.
On analysis - In Exodus 21 a list of rules were being made. They are in context. You say - "You have to compare one scripture to another, similar scripture, referencing context as well as background etc." However, you are yet to offer any sort of research of your own. Don't be hypocritical.
Let's try your method on for size in a similar list of rules.
"I can take any scripture and stand it alone and make something out of it. That’s dishonest."
Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
13Thou shalt not kill.
According to your method it is dishonest to suggest that this means exactly what it says, well, ok.. Let’s continue. (Oddly enough, you're probably right in this case)
Oh, and this is a double whammy, see Deuteronomy 5:17, so, let's 'bounce' this off other scripture shall we?
Something in Exodus.. (3 pointer! Condones slavery as well)
Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Never mind arguing if a fetus is human, this shows that humans aren't.. well.. human. Or did they have robot slaves back in the day?
Late Old Testament
Ezekiel 9:6 (King James Version)
6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
New testament / Jesus proclamation
Matthew 10:21 (King James Version)
21And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
I could go on, and on... the bible virtually absolutely condones killing which is morally disgusting, and it also contradicts itself.
"Give me a contradiction that you want me to address and I'll address it." I did. An entire page of contradictions you either didn't check the URL or you couldn't address any of them. Even the contradictions I've mentioned previously within my post (not in another URL) you haven't adequately addressed.
Here's the URL again; however I decline my previous offer of discussing them with you.
http://www.submission.org/christians/
bible-contradictions.html
"If it's solely Ex. 21:22 than that's fine." I've been talking about it for the past four (4) days and you've yet to come up with a valid argument. I've cited numerous sources, and reasons describing why the child in this verse is going to die, and you've still offered virtually nothing.
"Then what's the point in asking?" Attempting to discredit me (futile) again aside, there is always a point in asking a question- it's called honestly seeking truth and knowledge. When a person goes up to a mathematician and suggests they have the wrong answer the mathematician will either prove it beyond a doubt that they are correct, or they will concede the point and change their answer. A mathematician will not use rhetoric and attempt to discredit their opponent to prove themselves right. That is what is illogical and dishonest.
On the scientifically impossible - It has never been scientifically impossible to sail around the world (as long as the world has existed, and something was there to sail around it). It has never been scientifically impossible to build a computer (as long as a builder and the components of a computer have existed). It appears you have no grasp of what scientific possibility is, and were you not so arrogant I might have been glad to explain it to you. I guess you’ll just have to actually do some research of your on, but I doubt that’ll happen.
Perhaps I was not clear on what I was trying to say regarding the 40 authors and the 4000 year time span. Here is what I was attempting to say.
1. Why did the bible take ~2600 years to begin writing?
2. People were supposedly living unnaturally long lives, why then would it take 40 authors?
3. Even if the bible had started to be written at 4000 B.C. according to their projected life spans it would still be possible to have less than 40 authors .
I'm just pointing out the preposterous here.
4. The number of authors and who they were are questionable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Authors_of_the_Bible
On beliefs... again... "For me to base my entire belief on what it tells me and how it teaches me to think is stupid." Basing belief on something that teaches based on the scientific method is oxymoronic. If you understand science you'll understand that it is impossible to base belief on science.
On the 16 translations - "6 vs. 10, I win"... lol. I suggest you read each of those translations carefully. A number of them specifically say that as long as the woman is unhurt there is no problem. None of them suggest that it is the childs well being specifically in question. Now, why would those translators do that? It is because "so that her fruit depart" is a Hebrew colloquialism, that when translated into common English is different. These translators understand ancient Hebrew, their background, and the context of the passages. You seem to doubt them... feel free to take on the entire translation community, I'm sure you'll do well. Here are the 16 approximations for the Hebrew word for ~depart~ from the 16 translations I gave before (reordered for organizational purposes).
Certain Death translations
miscarriage
miscarriage
miscarry
miscarry
Loss of child
Loses child
High likelihood of death translations
Premature
Premature
Premature
depart
depart
depart
Medium-high likelihood of death translations
Children have come out
Child comes out
Child goes forth
delivered
Let's look at the definition for "depart"
http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/depart
–verb (used without object)
1. to go away; leave: She departed from Paris today. The train departs at 10:52.
2. to diverge or deviate (usually fol. by from): The new method departs from the
old in several respects.
3. to pass away, as from life or existence; die.
–verb (used with object)
4. to go away from; leave: to depart this life.
–noun
5. Archaic. departure; death.
Three of the five uses for depart mean death. Huh.. go figure. Especially that archaic one... Hmm… Can you think of anything else that we're talking about that's archaic? Perhaps I should have added depart in the top column.
Probably the most direct and literal translation is as follows -
Exodus 21:22
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Found here alongside the Hebrew text.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/
pt/pt0221.htm
"This is called 'candy store' doctrine." So... where are you fantastic scriptures that rebut these findings? Again this is just a pathetic attack on my credibility; you have given no viable reason to reject these translations. I should also note that I own a copy of the New World Translation, and even it's diluted and manipulative view on the scriptures is far better than yours... Ok.. maybe you're not that bad.
On whether Exodus 21:22 considers mother and child together or separate - First of all, I would like to heartily agree with you that the reader should be researching this for themselves. Now, onto the issue…
In the original order I listed the 16 translations: (Sorry, I didn't put in the version, and rest of text, it's just easier to see this way as above. Just check my previous post if you want the full meal deal)
________________________
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘pregnant woman... If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay her
husband’
‘pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way...
woman's husband’
‘woman with child... the one who hurt her shall be fined, woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her... her
husband’
‘pregnant woman... woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘woman with child... woman's husband’
‘pregnant woman, and her children have come out... husband of the woman‘
‘pregnant woman, so that her child comes out... woman's husband‘
‘pregnant woman, and her child goes forth... husband of the woman shall‘
‘woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself... woman's husband’
________________________
10 times is it translated as "woman with child" - that seems pretty separate to me. 6 times it says "pregnant woman" 4 of those times it separates the child afterwards. There is never any mention of damage to the child, and it never mentions the 'child's father' only "woman's husband". It's almost like the child is inconsequential to this entire situation.
On the Jeremiah passage again - First you undermine my use of the word 'seems', then you proceed to use it yourself "Of course it seems to contradict it..." That is called a flip flop, politicians use it all the time to manipulate masses of people... wait a second.. I think I've just stumble on something big... Alert the media!.. anywho, you were wondering how just one author managed to contradict himself? Of course you'd never do anything like that. Naturally, I realize that your use of 'seems' is only rhetoric, and you don't actually mean it the way I did, but you attempt to create the appearance of understanding of what the scripture is actually saying (and I seriously doubt you do). As usual you have not proven anything or shown any evidence, nothing unusual here. You then proceed to attack my knowledge of the scriptures... just another shallow attempt to discredit me. :(
Onto...
Genesis 25:22 (King James Version)
22And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
May I ask how the children which are struggling within her are born i.e. outside of her? They can't be in two places at once... unless your understanding of Hebrew is fallible.. Imagine that. So, to answer your question - the author didn't change his stance in this case it appears - The children are unborn.
"That's what you call researching and how you properly exegete scripture. Next." I don't usually do this, but that's just blatantly false and egotistical. Allow me to suggest a link that might instill some humility in you. (And you used exegete improperly again)
http://geekgrrl.ca/geekgrrl.html
:)
Og of Bashan and how to justify killing people - Ok, you fully admit that all the problems were essentially caused by Og, but at the same time you justify the Israelites slaughtering every man, woman, and child... I don't get it. As for killing intruders... do you believe that if you kill a man you'll go to hell? If you have a gun and an intruder has a gun, having a shoot-out may endanger your family even more. Chances are that if somebody breaks into your house they're not there to kill you, and if they are I would ask myself what I did to piss that guy off. Luckily I don't have to worry about that kind of stuff, so happy trails with all those murderers after you.
What do I define as wrong? Well, if it's morally corrupt, then it's wrong. Killing is morally corrupt, therefore wrong. That is without getting into special situations such as "Would you kill Hitler?" or one of the other 'good of the many outweighs the good of the few' situations. I can't really say what I'd do unless I was in that kind of situation. I think the path of non violence is the most righteous, and I'll stick to that for the time being.
Mormons - Press 'Ctrl + F' > it'll open up a search window for you. Or go into the
'Edit' menu and choose 'Find'.
Thin Scroll Bar - I suggested from the very beginning we move this to a public forum.
Ahh well, too late now.
Finding Scriptures regarding a fetus as something other than a child - Wait... You've brought my credibility into question many times, accused me of cherry picking, said that my knowledge could fit in a shoe box (Of course.. you could probably fit 4-6 standard sized bibles into a shoebox.. unless you have really tiny feet). Furthermore, it's your religion; shouldn't you be the one finding this stuff out? Remember burden of proof is on the one making the claim. All that in mind and you expect me to look for scripture for you?
Genocide - There is no justice in genocide. You are the only one who has condoned that type of behavior, but that's natural because it's part of your religion.
Regarding the sacrifice of people - The bible has a number of instances where human sacrifice is condoned.
Leviticus 27:29 (Follow up Judges 11:30-39)
Numbers 31:31-40
Ezekiel 20:26
And a narrow miss... but he would've followed through if he wasn't stopped.
Ezekiel 20:26
Sorry I didn't post the entire passages. I see no point as I'm taking off.
"Amorites ritually sacrificed to a god called Baal." - I couldn't find any resource backing up that claim. However I did find this interesting tid bit:
"At first the name Ba`al was used by the Jews for their God without discrimination, but as the struggle between the two religions developed, the name Ba`al was given up in Judaism as a thing of shame, and even names like Jerubba`al were changed to Jerubbosheth: Hebrew bosheth means "shame". Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary (1976) ISBN 0-310-23560-X"
Perhaps Baal has you confused...
Another interesting tidbit - Baal translates to "lord". So, any culture could have Baal as a god.
"But hey let them kill eachother, whom am I to ask you to quit burning and slaughtering your babies...." I feel as though you are trying to project that on me or g-man. This seems to be some sort of weak attempt at villanize us. Unless you were just talking to people who lived thousands of years ago?
Regarding Babylonians killing children, perhaps you could also back that up with some evidence? I can only find this -
http://www2.ida.net/graphics/
shirtail/sacrific.htm
in which human sacrifice is either rejected as having happened or they are not sure.
Anywho, I'm outta here. Later Deacon and g-man.
~ Mike
Yeah, it's getting to be a long series of posts :)
Still, I'd love it if you (deacon) would respond to at least some of what I wrote in my more recent comment.
What I said about Og, King of Bashan still stands, I believe. I think you're sort of missing the point there - but maybe a proper response to what I wrote, directed at me, will clarify what you mean.
In response to your second question:
"Justice is not universal, and nobody can claim their justice to be absolute."
"Based on this statement do you consider genocide to be just?"
This needs clarification. 'Is' can mean several things. This is the principle of justice - Two similar cases are to be dealt with similarly. If you disagree, let me know. Now, please explain what you mean by 'Justice is not universal' and 'nobody can claim their justice to be absolute.'
aww don't leave yet Mike. I didn't mean to get under your skin ;-). I understand though if you feel the need to leave. Whenever in a debate though credibility is always in question.
--No time to beat around the bush here. You are wrong. Let's take a look at Jesus' last words shall we?
--Judaism has an oral tradition. As with almost any oral tradition details were allowed to fluctuate as long as the essence of the story wasn't lost. I've been taught by a Jewish Rabbi as well as a Messianic Jew. Certain things were needed in specifics such as laws of Moses which we to be followed explicitly but other things such as Pharoahs exact words to Moses weren't all that important. Moses said "let my people go", Pharoah said "no". That's the essence of it.
--You suggest that I cherry pick, but when you suggest that these details are unimportant it exemplifies your inability to reconcile your own beliefs, and thus your need to cherry pick your own scriptures.
--you do, sorry if I just pointed it out. But on the triune God, reference your scripture with:
John 10:30
or on the last words, you have to understand who's writing. Only Luke wrote in chronological order b/c he was a physician, much more methodical. Matt. and Mark wrote in topical and John in more of a poetic style. Anywho..here you go
Last Words of Jesus reconstructed for you.
--As for misspelled words - I don't care about typos (although I still laugh at ‘analysizing’), but misused words I do care about.
--sorry lol, once again trying to work and debate.
--However, you are yet to offer any sort of research of your own. Don't be hypocritical.
--I did that's why I reference another scripture were a child/fetus was in the womb. i.e. Genesis with Jacob and Esau. It's written by the same author. What other research do you expect? It's reasonable to believe that Moses' view on unborn children would remain the same. Since Ex 21:22 is unclear (i.e. different translations, some saying miscarriage others premature) I attempted to reference another scripture that was more clear. The 'ben' references the children in the womb thereby addressing them as equal to born children. Can you offer me any scripture that addresses clearly fetus' as less then children?
--I've cited numerous sources, and reasons describing why the child in this verse is going to die, and you've still offered virtually nothing.
--the question was whether a fetus is considered a child.
Scriptures regarding abortion and life in the womb As previously stated that scripture is AT BEST unclear. You have no other scripture to go on. 'Candy Store' doctrine once again. Can you give me a scripture that CLEARLY states that a fetus is not a valued life? You'd make a great prosperity preacher ;-)
--10 times is it translated as "woman with child" - that seems pretty separate to me. 6 times it says "pregnant woman" 4 of those times it separates the child afterwards.
--okay can I get a point please? I understand it's translated as woman with child what I'm saying is in regards to punishment the punishment was a punishment if something happened to either. Yes some translations contradict that, okay. Once again if I read 10 translations and five say one thing and five say another I'll look for other scripture to see if a common theme is held. In this case "can I find other places in scripture that support that a fetus' is or isn't a child". Can you? I've offered my scriptures where are yours? Or is this all you have :-(
--Exodus 21:20-21
--Please read all of this link it's actually pretty good in regards to slavery. Hollywood and early American culture has screwed America up when depicting slavery. I don't agree with everything he says but anyway..
Slavery in the Bible
--Ezekiel 9:6
--lol, what are you talking about? Do you read the stuff around what you paste? Once again a failed presentation of scripture. Ezekiel is having a vision about how God is going to 'cut off' Israel for their rebellion. Study Israel and you'll see many times that fell into idolatry worship including a god called Molech in which they burned babies alive in it's belly. God said I won't have any part of that, which is what you should expect from a holy God. If you desire to have sex gods and human sacrifice I'll leave you and other nations will come and destroy you. Read the rest of Ezekiel and you'll see God leaving the presence of His people. When His protection leaves that is what happens. Read Ezekiel 10 and you'll see that. Everyone from the children on up was polluted and God was going to destroy them utterly BUT He didn't...mercy was shown and they still lived. Was God angry, yes. Did He want to destroy them, yes. Did He, no. Study it!!
--Matthew 10:21
--lol lol lol ya killing me Mikey...ok let me compose myself. Jesus is simply describing what will happen if you follow Him. Your brother will despise you and family will turn on you because they don't accept who you believe in. Jesus' isn't condoning it, it's describing it as a consequence. READ MATTHEW 10:22 it will become much more clear.
--May I ask how the children which are struggling within her are born i.e. outside of her?
--yes you may ask. The babies were twins. they were 'fighting' in the womb. They were born how every other baby is born. Ask a lady that's had twins and you'll understand. They are later born as Jacob and Esau, Esau later becoming known as Edom starting the tribe of the Edomites (just in case you were wondering)
--So, to answer your question - the author didn't change his stance in this case it appears - The children are unborn
--I know they're unborn. That's why I referenced the scripture. I was seeing if there was a common view of unborn children as being less valued then born children. The view in Ex. 21 could be interpreted as a fetus' not being considered a life. It also could be interpreted the other way. So I referenced another scripture that describes a life in a womb to look for a clearer view. The children inside the womb were called 'ben' which is the same Hebrew word for a child outside the womb, obviously indicating that the author considered a fetus' a legitimate life.
--Killing is morally corrupt, therefore wrong.
--is killing an animal wrong? what about plants? what about defending your country? what about defending your family? Don't confuse a definition of kill and murder. Murdering something or someone is wrong. Killing out of necessity isn't though i.e. food, self-defense, etc. I think you are the GREAT ATHEIST PACIFIST!!! *applause**applause*
--Lev. 27:29
--No person DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
--Judg.11:30-39
--Here ya go
--Numbers 31:31-40
--tribute, I'm assuming is what you're after in regards to the men. That means they were to be slaves. Tribute to God means they assisted in the temple.
--Ezekiel 20:26
--Eze 20:26 I let them become defiled through THEIR gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn[fn1]—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’
THank you Mike. You just proved my previous point about how the Israelites began to get into idolatry which also involved human sacrifice. Therefore God gave them over to it and wouldn't involve himself with them as a people.
Reference this which is just a few verse down:
Eze 20:31 When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your sons in[fn3]the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will not let you inquire of me.
This is God talking to Israel and stating He won't be with them while they do this.
--Perhaps Baal has you confused...
Another interesting tidbit - Baal translates to "lord". So, any culture could have Baal as a god.
--umm..Ba'al and Baal are the same thing Read and let me know what you think. Ba'al/Baal is considered a possessor god therefore, yes you are correct it could be attributed to almost anything but in scripture it specifies that god as something that required human sacrifice. Jeremiah 19:5
--Regarding Babylonians killing children, perhaps you could also back that up with some evidence? I can only find this -
--Here ya go
--"Amorites ritually sacrificed to a god called Baal." - I couldn't find any resource backing up that claim.
--Here you go The Amorites were a nation-state of the Canaanites which is also stated on the site.
Mike, if you would like we can move this conversation to a forum. I apologize if I came off egotistical, I truly am not. I'm sarcastic but I realize that tone cannot really be seen through text very well. Please forgive me though and continue. Let me know if you would like to move this to a forum. I'm still new to this whole blogging thing so you may have to show me.
G-man
--What I said about Og, King of Bashan still stands, I believe. I think you're sort of missing the point there - but maybe a proper response to what I wrote, directed at me, will clarify what you mean.
--okay I'm sorry what is the exact question and i'll try to answer it?
--This needs clarification. 'Is' can mean several things. This is the principle of justice - Two similar cases are to be dealt with similarly. If you disagree, let me know. Now, please explain what you mean by 'Justice is not universal' and 'nobody can claim their justice to be absolute.'
--'justice is not universal' I'm sorry I got you a Mike mixed up. Please disregard that comment. My question to you g-man is do you believe there is absolute truth?
My original question about Og, King of Bashan was something like "Would a good God commit needless genocide?" That's what the story is about.
Now, you've made the fair claim that the civilization was corrupt, and God didn't like them. That's fine. Well, so were the Israelites. I always hear that the slightest sin is deserving of Hell, so why didn't God destroy the Israelites? Wouldn't a fair God do that? As you said, "Was God angry, yes. Did He want to destroy them, yes. Did He, no."
Similarly, wouldn't a fair God destroy corrupt civilizations all over the world - like the Aztecs? Why just select that particular corrupt group?
Regarding murder: I hold that the desire to kill is always bad. However, in some cases killing is permissible. Where does the Bible explain the difference between killing and murder?
I thought the Bible said 'do not murder,' without excluding 'self defense,' 'defense of country' or 'defense of family.' Why do you suppose that is?
I'm sure that since you seem to derive your morality from the Bible, you'd be sure that there was a clear statement distinguishing killing from murder. Get back to me with what that is, if you'd be so kind.
"My question to you g-man is do you believe there is absolute truth?"
_In a sense, yes. I prefer to call it objective truth. In other words, a reality exists/a truth exists to each statement independent of subjective experience.
Out of curiosity, though, I'd enjoy hearing your response to what I said before:
"Now, please explain what you mean by 'Justice is not universal' and 'nobody can claim their justice to be absolute.'"
--"Would a good God commit needless genocide?"
--like you said hopefully I cleared that up with claiming the corruption of that nation. If not let me know.
--I always hear that the slightest sin is deserving of Hell, so why didn't God destroy the Israelites? Wouldn't a fair God do that?
--Actually there are times that He did. He put them into slavery, destroyed their cities etc. The book of Lamentations is all about the prophet Jeremiah weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem The are also cases where God destroys those that are guilty of sin and unwilling to repent from within. Others are listed here.
--wouldn't a fair God destroy corrupt civilizations all over the world - like the Aztecs?
--He will, just in the time He chooses but that's hard for people to accept. I think we would agree that many times justice delayed isn't always justice denied. People call it karma, reap what you sow, etc. but everything is judged. Sin is here because mankind loves it not because God doesn't despise it. There are instances in the Bible that show God allowing something to continue before He destroys it. Genesis 15:16 in regards to the Amorites.
Acts 17:31 though is explaining that there will come a time when God will judge all according to an equal standard. You can either view the justice delayed as grace given and repent or as time to continue in sin. Titus 2:11-15 is an example of what this is intended for grace.
--Why didn't He just destroy the Aztecs? Incas? Mayans? stop Crusades? Inquistion? etc. honestly I don't know. Then again why didn't He destroy you or I? I don't serve God out of fear for His wrath but rather gratitude for His grace given. Read Gen.45. It is a great account of how God used a sinful act (Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery) to provide for millions of people. Just by the understanding the nature of God we must assume His thoughts would be above our own. Mankind though has an ego and doesn't agree with that. Honestly if I had a God that did what I thought was right all the time without challenging MY morality and being above my own opinions I probably wouldn't serve Him. Let me know if this answers this question or not because there is other examples I could give throughtout history.
--The Bible teaches that all sin is going to be judged. Even more so the harshest judgement will start at the House of God, or believers. Heb. 10:26. In Revelation God judges each person, past and present according to their deeds, opportunities, etc. People ask then "what about people that never heard about Jesus". Read Rom. 2:14-16 and you'll see. This passage speaks of Gentiles (non-Jews) that didn't have an OPPORTUNITY to know the commandments of God/Jesus before they died.
--I thought the Bible said 'do not murder,' without excluding 'self defense,' 'defense of country' or 'defense of family.' Why do you suppose that is?
--Answering both questions about killing/murder. Go here for a difference in killing and murder in the Bible. The issue of war in the common era is a divided issue but here is an instance of Biblical war as well. In regards to war/defending your house etc. go here Take note of the phrase "From this we can easily conclude that going to war is not a sin. THAT IS (emphasis added), if it complies with the biblical instructions of self-defense and protection of the innocent."
This is where something is lost in translation sometimes. The term in Ex. 20:13 for kill is a hebrew word "ratsach" also used in Num. 35:16, Psa 94:6, among others. There is another term "nakah" which is used in Ex. 22:2 in regards to killing a thief in your house. This term is also used in Gen 4:15, Gen 8:21, etc which shows that the Hebrews always had an understanding of the difference between murder unlawfully and justifiable killing.
--In a sense, yes.
--if truth is objective wouldn't that make it absolute, being that it's outside of personal experiences, emotions, etc? How do you define what is objective and not?
--"Now, please explain what you mean by 'Justice is not universal' and 'nobody can claim their justice to be absolute.'"
--I didn't say this, Mike did. I don't agree with the statement.
I'm not quite done with the Og King of Bashan topic :)
The idea is to question why God would have His people destroy that nation at that time - its corruptness is a moot point, because all civilizations at all times have fallen short of the glory of God, and none deserves obliteration any more than the next. The response I seem to hear is 'The Israelites had to re-claim the promised land.' My response: God could have removed that civilization peacefully by sending a famine years before, and thus driving it out without ordering genocide.
See, it usually takes one form of evil to destroy another that way. The Conquistadors' destruction of the Aztecs, for example, was a horrific thing despite the rather gruesome practices of the latter.
Likewise, the systematic destruction of an entire civilization, no matter how corrupt, at the hands of the Israelites would have been an utter atrocity. Yet, they did it at the command of God?
"Let me know if this answers this question or not because there is other examples I could give throughtout history."
_Thanks, that pretty much answers the question.
"Read Rom. 2:14-16 and you'll see."
_This is why it's so difficult for anybody to disprove 'the Christian God;' everybody believes so vastly differently on the most fundamental doctrines. To you specifically, I'd point out that this passage says "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." In other words, even if they haven't heard the law, they are righteous when they abide by it. From what I always hear, that standard excludes everybody.
Interesting link about the 'do not murder' commandment. It's especially interesting to know that hatred and murder are the same thing. Does that mean that, if a Christian finds himself hating somebody, he may as well kill that person and then repent?
In times of war, though, was killing a woman or child acceptable? Hatred does not pre-meditate such an act, so under the Old Covenant was such a thing acceptable?
I'm also curious about the significance of the New Covenant. Does that mean that warfare suddenly became morally wrong... or just wrong for Christians?
The second link is great when dealing with Og King of Bashan! I read this conclusion: "If we were to apply these principles to war, I would conclude that war is justifiable when it is in self defense and/or when it is to protect the innocent."
When the Israelites attacked, they did so, I'm assuming, under the usual code of war: Make the city an offer of peace and forced labor for an unknown length of time, or destroy every person that breathes. Now, if America were attacked by an inferior nation and told that either all Americans would be put to forced labor/slavery, or be destroyed, wouldn't we be able to react in self-defense and protection of the innocent? I guess I still see Og King of Bashan's side as the one oppressed.
"if truth is objective wouldn't that make it absolute?"
_I suppose so. I just prefer the term objective, which I use to mean independent of subjective feeling; based on fact.
architectural consultants in Dubai
architecture firms in Dubai
braking news.com
Weather Forecast USA
Post a Comment