PeterDavid.net

Kerry's sounding good...Bush is too, though sometimes has a petulent child tone going...I gotta say that Kerry's glossing over a question to move back to a topic he wants to go on about...I expect Bush to do that, but I expect Kerry to actually answer a question.

Who said "No new taxes!" Who's brother was at the heart of the S&L scandal?

If Bush thinks all of these things will grow the economy, where were they in the past 4 years?

By the way, C-Span is where to watch this...nice split screen.

Olbermann has Kerry far up on Bush in the debate. Kerry is presenting well, while Bush stutters and forgets at times that he isn't speaking to his supporters. On a few occassions, he's thrown the same barbs out towards Kerry or used the "I wanna scowl" line that he used in northeastern PA earlier this week. Very limited response and it doesn't seem to be sticking.

Kerry is solid and sounds great.... I only wish he'd stick to answering the questions simply, without taking a good deal of time to bash Bush. It takes away from his strengths and his proposals.

Fred

Bush doesn't address the enormous deficit he created in his response because there is no defense of it. The Republicans try to claim the financial superiority, but they've reigned over enourmous deficits,in the 80's and now, in while President Clinton's term left us with a surplus of _trillions_? Kerry should hit this more.

Peter David: 9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
Luigi Novi: Yes.

Peter David: 9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I'm not sure if he answered the question though.
Luigi Novi: Charles Gibson said at the top of the program that they were not given them in advance.

And I’ve noticed both candidates not answering questions directly.

Peter, you missed Bush saying "Missoura" and "internets". ;)

And while I'm here..some links I found today...

Kerry's position on Guns:
http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/31524155317.html

Threats against the Texas-Iconoclast for daring to support Kerry:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm

Oh geeze...he actually brought up the hydrogen car thing! And he went on a he doesn't care about being popular in Europe thing--Kerry is really good at refereing to a previous questioner by name!

Fred Chamberlain: I missed the "Missoura" comment but I found "internets" hilarious. I wondered if I was the only one who picked up on it but it seems we have a new "Bushism."

It's as bad as when a Miss USA contestant, when asked about the space program, said that we need to discover other "universes." Huh?

Kerry clearly seems more at ease. Bush has gone back to his stool several times, picking up his pen before sitting and putting it down immediately without use. Either very uncomfortable in this forum or OCD.

you missed Bush saying "Missoura"
Colonel Potter called it that too.

Yes! Finally talk about the environment. The Bush Administration has chosen big business over the welfare of this planet over and over again. The details I've read disgusted me and, without being accused of being treehugging nuts, the Democrats do need to bring more attention to the war this administration has declared on the environment.

(Hopefully less typos in this post)

Ya know, the more I hear Bush saying that "*** won't work.", the more I think Kerry could difuse this and strengthen his support base by showing the difference between him and Bush.... "I strongly belive in ****, but I would always encourage those with concerns to share their thoughts and sights. Working together, we can only be stronger."

I don't have timestamps, but I was commenting on my DeadJournal during the first forty-five minutes:
---------
"You have to be consistent to be President."
-George W. Bush

"Consistency is the defense of a small mind."
-David Eddings

I find it funny that Bush is beginning to paraphrase Cheney's words from the Vice-Presidential debate last Tuesday. Goes to show you who's really running the country.

Found out it was 104 degrees today in Baghdad. I'm debating spending a lot of unnecessary money to get Ben one of those portable misting fans or neck cooling gel pack...things.

As I'm watching Bush lose his temper - and Jesus Christ, laughing at Kerry's rebuttals!? - it almost looks like he wants to go kick Kerry's ass. Or make his Daddy do it.

I can't wait to vote.

The lighting at this debate is horrible. It's making Kerry look like he's carrying designer bags under his eyes.

If Bush laughs or snickers at Kerry one more time, I hope the moderator calls him on it. I mean, come on. Unprofessional, boorish, juvenile and bottom line, he's being a d*ck.

You know where both of them are going wrong? They think they can solve the situation in Iraq during their administrations. The problem is that peace in the Middle East is not going to happen during the next administration. Or the next one. I will be shocked if it happens in my lifetime. I think Kerry can make better choices towards making it less chaotic in Iraq, which is part of why I'm voting for him.

Bush has to quit looking indignant. He looks like a petulant, whining child who's two seconds from a kicking, screaming temper tantrum. How can anyone want to vote for a guy who can't deal with criticism? Cracks under pressure like *snap* that!

"I've made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular." -GWB
It's called proper grammar, jackass.

Kerry is nailing Bush's ass to the wall on how he said he'd handle going to war (i.e. "with a viable exit strategy").

Bush is now responding and yelling without even waiting for a prompt from the moderator. Impatient, jumps the gun, rude...hm. Sounds like how he went to war.

Ooh. Someone's bringing up Iran. Go, girl. Let's hear what Kerry has to say.

Looks like he's attacking Bush for being distracted in Iraq, which has no WMD's. He's now bringing up North Korea. Kerry oughtn't blame that fully on Bush, though, as almost the last 100 years of presidents have stalemated against North Korea, since they've got Seoul and the rest of South Korea as a nice, country-sized hostage.

Kerry is saying he's going to crack down on nuclear proliferation, specifying North Korea and Iran.

"That answer almost made me want to scowl." -GWB

Pause. Wait for laugh.

Ha. Not even crickets, f*cktard, not even crickets.

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." -GWB

"Internets"? There's more than one?

I hate this guy.

He says we're not going to reinstate a draft. Well, duh. NOBODY'S going to reinstate the draft. There'd be rioting in the streets, not to mention en masse relocations to Canada. I think Jay got it right. :)

Ooooooooh......Bush is TOTALLY cutting in to the moderator. He's interrupting, being rude, yelling and getting red-faced...it's pissing me off and I'm not even there.

Basically he's insisting that we have a "grand coalition" of allies with us in the Iraqi War. (Does it even have an official name yet? Gulf War II?) But Kerry says that if Missouri was a country, and it joined us in the war, it would only be the third larget army in Iraq, behind Great Britain and the U.S.

Read an interesting viewpoint in the Sun-Times today. It was opined that pulling out of Iraq is really the best option we have. They didn't want to pull out of Vietnam either, but eventually we had to. And we lost face, true. But not for long. We are still a huge superpower in the world. America wasn't weakened by a withdrawal from Vietnam. We survived. We don't have to "win" this war. It's a Bush war anyway. We're in the wrong f*cking country. How about Iran? How about moving more of our forces to Afghanistan and getting bin Laden - you know, the guy who attacked us?

"If a drug comes from Canada, we gotta make sure it doesn't come from a Third World." -GWB
Alien drugs? Cool. :)
Also, nice secondary implication. Canadians are probably more advanced than we are, except for the whole hockey and syrup thing. :)

Kerry nailed Bush again for the problem of the debt. He says Clinton not only balanced the budget, he paid down the debt of the nation. In less than four years, Bush has gotten us into a debt that is greater than it ever was, from Washington to Clinton combined.

Awww, Bush is upset because Kerry's going to give the middle-class a tax cut and tax the rich. Poor baby. If you want to piss off a Republican, threaten his wallet. Works every time. :)

How come Bush always begins an answer in which he becomes most defensive, telling the questioner that they are wrong or he hopes they don't think that with "I appreciate that", when clearly he doesn't?

Good closing line - and absolutely right - from Kerry on not letting the terrorists reduce our constitutional rights.

Kerry is friends with SUPERMAN!!!! He gets my vote!!!

and Teen Wolf!

Fuck. I'm really pissed that that guy in the audience asked Bush why his rights are being watered down by the Patriot Act, because it allowed Bush to say that they're not being watered down, and talk about parts of the Act that make it easier for differnet agencies to share information, which is obviously not what that guy was talking about. What that guy should've asked was about SPECIFIC parts of the Act he was thinking about, like the ability to survey and jail people without evidence.

Even more bizarre is that Kerry himself brought up these points, and followed through by explaining that he voted for the Act himself, repeating the mention about interagency communication, and defending himself against charges of being wishy washy and a flip flopper. What the fuck? Someone wanna explain this to me?

Luke K. Walsh: Good closing line - and absolutely right - from Kerry on not letting the terrorists reduce our constitutional rights.
Luigi Novi: So why did he vote for the Patriot Act?

Bush gets points in sounding incredibly sincere and empathetic when he begins to respond to the stem cell question...... he quickly loses points when he stumbles over and repeats words in his follow-up line about "stem cell reach being done and allowing stem cells to be researched".... or sumpin.

On Kerry as most liberal senator:

Even National Journal stated that use of their rating is, “Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."
The National Journal, 8/30/04

Bush is criticizing a judge on "Personal opinion interfering in the decision-making process".... is he truly this blind about his own actions?

Okay, at first I wasn't sure I liked this format, but it does seem to be addressing a lot of the issues I'm concerned about. My mom has progressive Multiple Sclerosis; she hasn't had any use of her legs in twnety years, so stem cell research is important to my family. Stem cells are taken from excess fetuses from fertility clinics, which would otherwise be disgarded. Either be used to save lives, or thrown out. It's not about "destroying more life".

Bush won't put someone on the Court that would declare black people property? Well, guess he is a compassionate!

BTW, from Factcheck.org:

“President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise."

$84 is awfully petty, but there you go.

Oooh..Abortion question..we can compare Kerry's answer to Bartletts!

Kerry answers the abortion/murder question very well. Either one agrees or not, but his response was straightforward, clear and respectful.

BWAHAHAHAH!! Right after I typed the previous post, Bush states, "I'm trying to decipher that."

Sad, inexplicable but true -- a substantial percent of people in residing in that state say "Missouruh". Every voiceover of every political ad aired in that state says "Missouruh". I believe you can imagine who they're pandering to.

Re West Wing's President Bartlett: "He doesn’t believe that it’s the government’s place to legislate this issue. But
that has not stopped him from playing his role as a moral leader. Something which
cost him dearly in the campaign and you know that."

Oh! Harsh last question!

"You can run, but you can't hide."? Is he talking about Kerry's stance on abortion and his own confusion or the taliban? His soundbytes are stuck on repeat in his head, having gotten old long ago.

Okay. Why is NBC a couple seconds behind ABC? Are they using a time-delay, in case one of the candidates says something obscene?:)

(BTW, feel a little weird with all these post when I haven't posted in months; was off the internet for a bit, later had to re-find this site after it was re-formated. Been reading, though, finally jumped back on tonight)

Oo! Will Bush admit a mistake??? (_Three_, she wants?)

Man, Bush is really being a prick over Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion. I'm against partial-birth abortion myself, and even I think Bush's description of Kerry's proposition of it is distorted.

Whoa, he actually admitted making a mistake. It was in "appointing" people, and won't name names, but whaddaya know?

In speaking of Saddam :"We Know he has invaded other countrIES"??? Ugh.

No! He still, pathologically, can't admit to being wrong about anything! He did not answer her question AT ALL. Wow.

Luigi:

>Man, Bush is really being a prick over Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion. I'm against partial-birth abortion myself, and even I think Bush's description of Kerry's proposition of it is distorted.

...and that isn't the only thing being distorted. Look closer. ;)

Bush just uttered a new Bushism: He said that if Kerry were President, "Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be a lot better off."

So now he's saying the world'd be better off if Hussein WERE still in power?

"Thank you,.... it's been enjoyable". Does anyone actually believe this statement to be true for him?

C'mon Lugi...it was obvious what he meant...there's legitimate stuff to slam him for:-)

"Don't increase the scope of the federal government..." except when it comes to legislating marriage and morality, I guess.

"I promised Americans that we would not rest or tire until these terrorists are brought to justice".... thinking, *...but I will be distracted by shiny objects*

Kerry closed well, but went into pander speech a bit too much.

One of Kerry's best points I gotta say, was refereing to preivious questioners by name...that was a slick touch.

For Team Kerry's Fact corrections on Bush's comments, go to:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/

I'm sure someone will be along with Team Bush's site.

"On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time..."

Say what?

http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/Debate.aspx?stamp=10/8/2004%2010:47:34%20PM

Meghan:

>Sad, inexplicable but true -- a substantial percent of people in residing in that state say "Missouruh". Every voiceover of every political ad aired in that state says "Missouruh". I believe you can imagine who they're pandering to.

If this was calculated, I'd be even more concerned at his short-sightedness, as he would be catering to 1 state, leaving the other 49 thinking that he is an idiot.

Fred

" He probably doesn't want to risk offending the extreme religious folks..."

Just shows how out of touch you are PAD. Funny how the sanctity of human life is considerd a belief only held by the religious extreme. I work with a democrat who hasn't been in church since he was baptized and is against embryonic stem cell research. Get out of NY and talk to people for once.

James Tichy: How incredibly rude! If you can't be polite, perhaps you should go elsewhere.

"10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that's going to be all over the papers tomorrow."

During post-debate wrap-up, NBC's Brian Roberts says that per factcheck.org, Bush did own a small share of a wood company and did report $84 income in 2002 so he would qualify as a small business owner

Meghan:

>Sad, inexplicable but true -- a substantial percent of people in residing in that state say "Missouruh". Every voiceover of every political ad aired in that state says "Missouruh". I believe you can imagine who they're pandering to.

If this was calculated, I'd be even more concerned at his short-sightedness, as he would be catering to 1 state, leaving the other 49 thinking that he is an idiot.

Fred

You should never assume intelligence based on pronunciation. It's true that people do, though it is usually done to reaffirm an already existing bigotry--denigrating blacks for the way many pronounce certain words, for example, or denigrating Southerners by quoting Deliverance (ok, that's mostly just me).

Anyway, it's a foolish way to judge someone, one that probably says more about the judger than the judged.

As for the debate...neither of these guys is a silver tongued fox. I expected kerry to walk away with these things, given the assessment of his college professor. Narrow win for Bush on this one, I think (Kerry's total lack of humor just throws me. I've heard he's a funny guy in person but I haven't seen any sign of it. Maybe his specialty is naughty limericks or making obscene balloon animals or some other thing he can't safely demonstrate.)

Go to www.isbushwired.com to hear a startling revelation about the first debate.

Y'know, I once attended a debate between Betty Friedan and Phyllis Schafly (sp?). I was lucky enough to know the person in charge of the audience question mike, so after I asked my question of Phyllis and she completely evaded it, I was able to hold on to the mike and say "You didn't answer my question. I wish you'd answer *someone's* question." (this being around question 3 she'd dodged).

I would've found this "debate" a lot more interesting if the questioners had the option of saying that to the candidates, with the moderator having final say on "Yes he did/no he didn't" in terms of giving one final chance to actually answer the question.

I'd give it to Kerry, but not by as wide a margin as the first one. Serious points for the "Read my lips, no new taxes" bit though.

Boy, I'd give this one to Bush. Kerry had a plan for everything - in fact he constantly talked about his plans. But he never did anything in 20 years in the Senate toward the goals of his plans. I have a lot of plans too, but I'm not foolish enough to think anyone would believe them.

Dennis

"Kerry's total lack of humor just throws me. I've heard he's a funny guy in person but I haven't seen any sign of it."

I'll watch Jon Stewart for humor...I want a President who thinks that 1060+ soldiers dead is serious....that crippeling deficit is serious. Running the country is a serious job for serious people, not the class clown.

During the foreign policy part, it was obvious both candidates were relying on terrifying the American people into voting for them (or rather, voting AGAINST thier opponent). I half expected Bush to say, "there's a bear in the woods" or play a video of a little girl being blown up by a nuke.

This debate was simply too close to call, but I think I have a new lumber supplier.

James Tichy wrote, to PAD: "Get out of NY and talk to people for once."

There aren't people in NY? I've lived here a while and either we have plenty of people, or some incredibly realistic automatons. Fortunately, it sounds like we New Yorkers don't have you.

Sorry, this still goes to Kerry. Not that he didn't have his share of mistakes or didn't do his share of 'dancing around the questions' but I'm amazed at how childish and barely in control Bush comes across as. He still twitches and squirms, he starts yelling while Kerry is still speaking, he interrupts the 'ref', he stalls an huge amount of the time obviously trying to think of what to say. Dear lord this man is the most powerful man in the world right now! It is so scar and frustrating. He sounded a bit desperate at times. Is that the result of new training after the first debate? Is he trying to come across as 'strong'? I was just half expecting him to start stomping his foot like a 5 year old.

He was heavier on the repeating of the soundbites too. Yes Bush....Kerry thinks it was the wrong war at the wrong time, etc. etc. He doesn't deny that does he? Quit repeating that over and over.

One of the worst moments for me was when Kerry said the bit about abortion and how it was not as simple as Bush made it out to be. About safety to the mother and such. And how Bush just completely and utterly ignored those points and just repeated his earlier statement. Not one word on the safety of the mother. Unbelievable.

So it's: Bush said something. Kerry answered it and made new points about it. Then Bush just repeats his first bit, like Kerry never spoke. Why don't you just come out and say "yeah I got no answer for that whatsoever"??

Overall too much repeating on both ends though. And enough about Iraq. We've heard it. Let's get more on the other issues now.

I listened to the debate on my walkman at work. Did anyone else notice that, when Bush was trying to nail Kerry for being the most liberal senator, Bush called him "Kennedy" instead?

Bush has to quit looking indignant. He looks like a petulant, whining child who's two seconds from a kicking, screaming temper tantrum. How can anyone want to vote for a guy who can't deal with criticism? Cracks under pressure like *snap* that!
I was thinking the same thing.

Whoa, he actually admitted making a mistake. It was in "appointing" people, and won't name names, but whaddaya know?
Then why is Tenent the only one who's lost his job?

Fred wrote about Bush:

"In speaking of Saddam :"We Know he has invaded other countrIES"??? Ugh."

Saddam DID invade two countries: Kuwait, and prior to that, Iran. Saddam tried to permanently seize the Iranian oil fields that border Iraq.

As Bill M. points out, Fred's complaint reflects a common thread of intolerance and snobbery towards Bush's not-so-slick oratory skills. I said it before and I'll say it again: Just because a person fumbles during public speaking does NOT mean they are a poor leader or a boob. Richard M. Daley and his father Richard J. (both Democrats) are/were two of the best leaders Chicago has ever seen -- yet both butcher(ed) the English language as well.

I've also known smooth talkers who were some of the most vile liars imagineable.

If oration skills are the only reason someone has for voting against Bush, that's a bit superficial, wouldn't you say?

Man, Bush was really acting like a thug. Hats off to Gibson for not sinking to Bush's level.

Maybe im just a little slow but i dont get the "soft " supporters of a candidate at this point of the game if you dont have an opinion either way something is really wrong.
Why are people still concerned with who is more personable or funny when it comes to the Presidential candidates?
I want the most qualified guy for the job.I have heard "Bush is a average guy".First I dont want an average guy running things i want friggin Superman in office .The smartest ,most talented Mofo on the planet!!!
Besides if he(Bush) is an example of who people wanna hang with ,we are so screwed as a country.

Karen asks:Then why is Tenent the only one who's lost his job?
He didnt lose his job he stepped down to spend more time with his family(sarcasm) :)

Reading through this, I have to say that Queen Anthai is a complete moron!!!

Man, I can't understand how anyone could see this as a win for Bush. Even if you agree with his viewpoint. He was shouting throughout the first third of the debate, he was defensive, he contradicted himself, he was evasive.

I am registered Republican, but over these last couple of years I have become more and more independant.

I think Bush did a very credible job during the first debate. The "gimaces" were pretty minor. That got overstated. I do think President Bush looked a little uncomfortable there, but here he just looked out of control.

Not only that, but I could really understand Kerry's reasoning behind his decisions because of his answers. It may be "pandering" to some, but I found it quite helpful. Both certainly repeated themselves (even repeating zingers from the last debate! - Neither one of them could come up with a response by now?)

What I'm AMAZED about is that NO ONE brought up gay people.

There aren't people in NY? I've lived here a while and either we have plenty of people, or some incredibly realistic automatons. Fortunately, it sounds like we New Yorkers don't have you.

Actually, I was suggesting that PAD should get out of his NY liberal bubble. Oh, I know he goes to conventions and such, but why not come here to SE Minnesota or visit Iowa or South Dakota? Ask some of the voters in this area, many who happen to be pro-life, if they consider themselves religious extremists?

http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/ rest of link

Hmm. I've never seen the words "flip flop" used so many times in one place. You'd think they'd have come up with another catch phrase by now.

Either that, or they just want to cheat Google's system like people did with "miserable failure". :)

Ask some of the voters in this area, many who happen to be pro-life, if they consider themselves religious extremists?

Having lived in Iowa and Illinois for most of my life... yes, there are extremists. Plenty of them.

I distinctly recall a classmate when I was in high school making an off hand comment (I don't recall how the discussion lead to this) saying she wanted genocide against homosexuals.

Why? She seems to think that that's what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.

Scavenger: C'mon Lugi...it was obvious what he meant
Luigi Novi: Hence my referring to it as a “Bushism.”

Scavenger:...there's legitimate stuff to slam him for:)
Luigi Novi: A Yale grad and U.S. President’s inability to exercise any command over the English language—to the extent that such mutilations of it are so frequent—is certainly legitimate to a certain degree, as it goes to his knowledge and intellect, even if it’s not the paramount issue.

And besides, it’s fun to point ‘em all out. :-)

R. Maheras: If oration skills are the only reason someone has for voting against Bush, that's a bit superficial, wouldn't you say?
Luigi Novi: It would be, if anyone here actually gave that as the “only” reason. Since they haven’t, this is just a Straw Man.

The debate seemed more even to me with both candidates avoiding offering some real answers, but Bush did seem angry.

Related topic- I just watched the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD and all of its extras and it is very powerful!!
Those innocent Iraqis citizens are suffering the kind of Orwellian nightmare right now that is feared over here.
The army coming into your home in the middle of the night, putting guns in your face, taking away a member of your family, not telling you why or what the charge is, with your children being terrified that they are going to be shot/beaten/raped... it's too horrible to really comprehend.

How could any Government-fearing, from-my-cold-dead-hands NRA supporter watch someone being hauled away in the middle of the night to be imprisoned indefinitely for the simple crime of owning a rifle to protect your flock of sheep, support Bush or this war??

This the "Freedom" the US wants to bring to Iraq? Do you blame them for not wanting it? How would you react if an invading army killed your baby?
This war has to stop, Bush should be imprisoned right next to Saddam. He's as much of a terrorist as Bin Laden!
Yet with so much at stake less then half the eligible voters still won't vote.

me:

>>If this was calculated, I'd be even more concerned at his short-sightedness, as he would be catering to 1 state, leaving the other 49 thinking that he is an idiot.

Bill:

>You should never assume intelligence based on pronunciation. It's true that people do, though it is usually done to reaffirm an already existing bigotry--denigrating blacks for the way many pronounce certain words, for example, or denigrating Southerners by quoting Deliverance (ok, that's mostly just me).

>Anyway, it's a foolish way to judge someone, one that probably says more about the judger than the judged.

Bill, l've lived in enough places not to judge a a regular joe on based on accents or dialects. As far as pronunciation, it doesn't phase me except for public speakers. Correct and clear pronunciation is one of the first rules of Speech 101.

With Bush, this is only one of many flubs in a long history. Add to it "internets", mix in somr unintentional misstatements that he didn't correct because he seems to repeat his material from his campaign trail so often and no longer even listens to what he is saying..... and it is not unreasonable to question his intelligence.

T:

>As Bill M. points out, Fred's complaint reflects a common thread of intolerance and snobbery towards Bush's not-so-slick oratory skills. I said it before and I'll say it again: Just because a person fumbles during public speaking does NOT mean they are a poor leader or a boob. Richard M. Daley and his father Richard J. (both Democrats) are/were two of the best leaders Chicago has ever seen -- yet both butcher(ed) the English language as well.

Not a complaint at all. Simply an observation. No snobbery, but fact. People react, respond and form opions on th way way a speaker speaks. Bush's poor leadership and being a boob are totally seperate matters all together...... that is, of course, unless he is one day heard saying, "I will not be told how to pronounce a word by an English Dictionary."

oops, sorry, missed a point.

R:

>>"In speaking of Saddam :"We Know he has invaded other countrIES"??? Ugh."

>Saddam DID invade two countries: Kuwait, and prior to that, Iran. Saddam tried to permanently seize the Iranian oil fields that border Iraq.

If memory serves correctly, the two countries were not only at war, but Iran has attempted to seize Iraqi soil as its own, iniaiting the boundary-marking squirmish.

Regardless, both of these incidents took place years ago. To use them as a justification for the current war is like pointing to Vietnam as a reason to invade the U.S.

"Kerry's total lack of humor just throws me. I've heard he's a funny guy in person but I haven't seen any sign of it."

I'll watch Jon Stewart for humor...I want a President who thinks that 1060+ soldiers dead is serious....that crippeling deficit is serious. Running the country is a serious job for serious people, not the class clown.

Granted. I was, however, talking about the debate, not their qualifications to be president.

For some, Bush's mispronunciations are enough yo make him the debate loser. For me, the ability to demonstrate something approaching a sense of humor is of more importance. Different strokes.

"Bill, l've lived in enough places not to judge a a regular joe on based on accents or dialects. As far as pronunciation, it doesn't phase me except for public speakers. Correct and clear pronunciation is one of the first rules of Speech 101."

"With Bush, this is only one of many flubs in a long history. Add to it "internets", mix in somr unintentional misstatements that he didn't correct because he seems to repeat his material from his campaign trail so often and no longer even listens to what he is saying..... and it is not unreasonable to question his intelligence."

I thought your statement seemed out of character--I see now that I misread it--you were talking about others, not yourself. My apologies. In my defense, my drinking game this time was to kick back a shot of Frangelica every time Kerry said the word "plan". It took a ride to the emergency room and having my stomach pumped with a charcoal slurry but I'm doing much better now and am expected to recover fully.

But if Bush is such a dope what's wrong with Kerry that he can't finish him off?

Luigi Novi: So why'd he vote for the Patriot Act?

LKW: Well ... I would like to think that he, or his people, had read the whole thing; so, if so, he probably should have held out for some changes. But in the immediate wake of 9/11, everyone was understandably concerned about reacting as strongly and as quickly as possible. And, even if Senator Kerry had taken a stance against it at that time, it is very unlikely that any changes would have been effected, and he or whoever dared stand against it would have taken some major political damage. Should integrity matter more than saving political face? Sure, ideally. But, unfortunately, in our system, electability comes first.

Not that I'm trying to knock our democracy; it just ain't perfect. Our government is dominated by people who seem to care about getting re-elected and ripping the opposing party to shreds first,and then taking care of the country.

But, given that reality, I'd still rather have (as I know you would, from your other posts; just finishing my thought out here) someone who went along with the Patriot Act initially for political expediency, but acknowledges that it needs changes before its renewal, rather than the candidate who thinks it's just fine as is, with Darth Ashcroft enforcing it.

Oh, and Bush did acknowledge making a mistake a little more specifically than "I've made mistakes"? Sorry, didn't pick that out in his "answer" ;)

Does Bush get any points for punking Charlie Gibson? It was pretty good debate up until Bush went all "Jerry Springer" on us.

But if Bush is such a dope what's wrong with Kerry that he can't finish him off?

People love to say it's Bush's "likability". Frankly, I don't see what's so likable about him.

But then, command the English language is an ability lost to many Americans.

Heck, Jeff Foxworthy would make a better president. He may be a redneck, but he also knows the English language. Which goes to show that anybody can learn it. :)

Just a note regarding Saddam's multiple invasions:
When Saddam "invaded" Iran, a few points should be mentioned in terms of context. Roughly six years earlier, Saddam and the Shah of Iran signed an agreement (for clarification, I'm using the heads of state, though it's more likely it was the foreign ministers of each country who actually signed the agreement itself...but I digress...) which would allow Iraq rights to travel the Shatt-al-Arab unimpeded. Prior to that agreement, the two countries disputed their common border at the Shatt, though Iran, at the time, had the military power to control the Shatt outright, and had done so. Iraq had claimed the border should be down the middle of the Shatt. After the Shah was overthrown, there was no guarantee that the newly-established Islamic Republic of Iran would adhere to the treaties signed under the Shah's regime. Further, the Emirate of Kuwait (save that name for later reference) feared Khomeini's Iran having full control over the Shatt which would allow the Iranian mullahs a much closer point to export their revolution to the various Gulf States (a similar fear was felt by both the UAE and Oman which were in an uncomfortably close proximity to several Gulf islands controlled by Iran--much closer, in fact, than would be guessed when looking at a fairly large-scale map of the Middle East which shows the Strait of Hormuz as a form of natural defense); as a result, Kuwait and the other Gulf States were staunch supporters of Saddam's invasion. Incidentally, the major section of Iran which Saddam's armies overran was largely populated by ethnic Arabs (also, a northern sector of the frontlines was populated by ethnic Kurds who feared the Khomeini regime more than they did Saddam, primarily due to the Kurds' being mostly Sunni, not Shi'a). Even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave financial backing to Saddam's invasion (the Kingdom also promised to allow Iraqi oil to be transported through Saudi pipelines to offset any potential damage that might be done by the Iranians); this support was due largely as a reaction to the 1979 siege of the Grand Mosque, widely believed to have been provoked by a statement by Khomeini against the Saudi royal family. Saddam wanted to make sure his country had free access to the Persian Gulf, and after the Iran/Iraq War ended, the border situation reverted to the agreement brokered under the Shah's regime. (Granted, it was a large waste of resources and personnel for the sheer sake of maintaining the status quo, but one could say much the same thing about the Western Front during WWI when thousands might die in one day to win a few square miles only to have it lost the next day.)
Now getting to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, it should be remembered that it was *OUR* ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, who reassured Saddam personally that the United States had no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes, and she did use Secretary of State James Baker's name in conjunction with this. While Tariq Aziz has stated that it was tacitly understood that the US would have a reaction, there's nothing to indicate that Iraq expected the war that followed. (It should also be noted that a great deal of the rush to war has been shown to have been based on propaganda by Kuwaitis who had rather interesting connections--such as the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the US gave "testimony" about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and leaving them to die--while ignoring some of the Emirate's less-than-democratic principles of their own.) It also should be noted that Saddam wasn't the only Iraqi leader who either invaded or wished to annex Kuwait. Kuwait's very independence in 1961 was threatened from the onset, and was saved only by the British military. (The military leaders in Baghdad had the fairly recent memory of the British and French assault on Egypt in 1956 to stay their plans to annex Kuwait in 1961.) Although Iraqi leaders did recognize Kuwaiti sovereignty a couple of years later, that did not guarantee that Iraq fully relinquished its claims over the area (much the way that, despite acknowledging British control of the Islands, Argentina still claims the Falklands/Malvinas although it doesn't press the issue and maintains good postwar relations with Britain). Perhaps Sec'y Baker or Ambassador Glaspie would have done better to state outright a US position regarding Arab-Arab disputes, but given the fact that oil reserves were involved (one of Saddam's claims was that Kuwait was drilling in areas too close to the existing border, using a diagonal drilling method which was drilling into Iraqi reserves; this claim was never proved, but as far as I know, it wasn't disproved either).
Overall, Saddam has been no more aggressive than any number of other leaders in history (Woodrow Wilson committed American troops to put down "rebellions" in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America several times during his Presidency; Mussolini launched invasions of Ethiopia and Albania prior to WWII, within 3 years of each other), but his reasons were no worse than Bush's own decision to attack Iraq. And, of course, the US fully backed Saddam's war against Iran with the current President's father as Vice-President during that period, and Dubya's current Sec'y of Defense even went to Baghdad and facilitated the selling of weaponry to Saddam. (I can't really count Saddam's invasion of Iran as being as condemning as Dubya appears to make it.)

Luigi wrote:

"Luigi Novi: It would be, if anyone here actually gave that as the “only” reason. Since they haven’t, this is just a Straw Man."

It might be a straw man argument if I was the one who raised the "oratory skills" issue in the first place. I didn't. I merely vocalized my observation that Bush's natural way of speaking seemed to be emerging here as a central focal area for post-debate Bush bashing -- a pretty superficial reason to criticize someone, in my opinion.

Joseph wrote:

"Saddam wanted to make sure his country had free access to the Persian Gulf, and after the Iran/Iraq War ended, the border situation reverted to the agreement brokered under the Shah's regime."

It doesn't matter what sort of rationalization Saddam had for invading Iran, nor who stood by and "winked" as he did it. The fact is, Saddam DID invade two countries during his reign, and thus Bush's plural usage "countries" during the debate was accurate.

I merely vocalized my observation that Bush's natural way of speaking seemed to be emerging here as a central focal area for post-debate Bush bashing -- a pretty superficial reason to criticize someone, in my opinion.

Why superficial? We know he went to Yale and we know he had a privledged upbringing. The rest of his family does not seem to have a major problem with the English language. (And they seem to be able to speak without that drawl. Listen to good ol' Jeb sometime.) With all the advantages he's had in his life, he couldn't take the time to learn how to speak properly? There are people all over the country that are denied jobs every day because they don't speak in a "caucasion" way. (There have been investigative reports where a "white" sounding individual and an "African American" sounding individual applied for jobs. In many cases the African American's interview ended with the phone call, while the white person was called in.) Dan Quayle was crucified in the press for much less.

Bill:

>I thought your statement seemed out of character--I see now that I misread it--you were talking about others, not yourself. My apologies. In my defense, my drinking game this time was to kick back a shot of Frangelica every time Kerry said the word "plan". It took a ride to the emergency room and having my stomach pumped with a charcoal slurry but I'm doing much better now and am expected to recover fully.

Man, I've never experienced it firsthand, but have witnessed enough college students have it administered that I don't envy you. ;)

>But if Bush is such a dope what's wrong with Kerry that he can't finish him off?

Simply put, Kerry spends too much time and focus on attempting to defend himself and not nearly enough focusing on the plans he has clearly laid out on his site. The 2nd debate was another example of this. He was great when he answered questions, but felt the need to preface nearly everything he said with some sort of jab at his opponent or defense of himself.

Fred

I thought that Bush raising his voice early on was not dissimilar to Sam Waterston yelling during cross-examination on Law and Order. I also felt that when Bush called Kerry's statements "Naive and Dangerous," Bush was running scared. I honestly do. Because no one in their right mind would boil their opponent's remarks as "Naive and Dangerous."

Karen wrote:

"There are people all over the country that are denied jobs every day because they don't speak in a "caucasion" way. (There have been investigative reports where a "white" sounding individual and an "African American" sounding individual applied for jobs. In many cases the African American's interview ended with the phone call, while the white person was called in.) Dan Quayle was crucified in the press for much less."

Which is exactly why I say criticizing Bush (or the Daley's) for the way they speak is superficial.

Karen also wrote:

"With all the advantages he's had in his life, he couldn't take the time to learn how to speak properly?"

I've known plenty of highly intelligent people who just cannot speak with smoothness and slickness in public, regardless of how hard they try. Would you tell a person who stutters, "Hey, the only reason you stutter is because you're lazy, stupid, or both"?

Public speaking is very hard for most people. Jerry Seinfeld once quipped that public speaking is the number one fear people have -- even greater than dying. His punchline? That means that a guy at a funeral might fear giving the eulogy more than being in the coffin.

And I'll also repeat the fact that I have known some real smooth talkers who were really bad people.

If anyone is around and/or interested, CNN is replaying the 2nd debate from 2pm - 4pm est (Right now).

Fred

I've known plenty of highly intelligent people who just cannot speak with smoothness and slickness in public, regardless of how hard they try. Would you tell a person who stutters, "Hey, the only reason you stutter is because you're lazy, stupid, or both"?

Bush has been speaking in public for a number of years and I don't see fear when he does it. I only see discomfort when he has to answer questions he dislikes. If Bush had a speech impediment we would not be having this conversation. My next door neighbor has a speech impediment, but still manages to speak English properly, although slowly. This is about a man who had every advantage, but still won't be bothered to put a sentence together without sounding like he is a high school drop out. I am not asking for smooth slickness. I am asking that the leader of my country be held to a higher standard when speaking than the average person.

Why? She seems to think that that's what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.

But at least you're tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?

Fuck. I'm really pissed that that guy in the audience asked Bush why his rights are being watered down by the Patriot Act, because it allowed Bush to say that they're not being watered down, and talk about parts of the Act that make it easier for differnet agencies to share information, which is obviously not what that guy was talking about. What that guy should've asked was about SPECIFIC parts of the Act he was thinking about, like the ability to survey and jail people without evidence.

It's a sad time in our country's history when the government can determine land boundaries without evidence. I'm sure you actually were referring to surveillance rather than surveying, but given that so much criticism of the President focuses on his speaking style-- including his foolish tendency to pronounce the name of the state he's in like most of the residents, who regrettably don't know the proper pronunciation-- I don't think this is a cheap shot. Obnoxious, perhaps, but the truth hurts.

Your substantive point is equally weak. Bush can easily say that the USA-PATRIOT Act doesn't water down our rights... because it doesn't. The fact that there's a running battle in the courts over the Act tells me that our system is working precisely the way it's supposed to, and it's not as though the Act could trump the Fourth Amendment even if there were anything invidious in the Act. The surveillance provisions are actually fairly trivial-- they allow wiretap warrants (issued by a Federal judge, mind you) to follow a person rather than be linked solely to one phone number. This is a Good Thing. There is NO provision for jailing people without evidence. Here's a link to the text of the Act itself. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/patriotact.pdf Point to a provision like the one you describe. Prove me wrong. (I'll even make it easy for you. You probably want Section 412, and I'd be glad to debate with you the merits of that section, and why I think it's a good deal less offensive than some commentators would make it seem.)

Couple of things..

Kerry's abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise..
"I have to decipher that." - Bush.
I have an IQ over 80, so I understood it just fine.

I wish Kerry a few times instead of hitting the point again that he just did. Just said something to the effect of, I just covered that I'm glad the American people were listening... and not hit back every time.

And yes, PAD, I thought the same thing about Kerry. End of his speech he should have said.. anyone didn't get their question asked of me come up and ask it, I won't leave until your questions are answered.

Kerry's abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise.

Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.

Ken:

>>Kerry's abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise.

>Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.

The original post echoed mine. Seperation of church and state. Kerry gets it. George doesn't. One need not agree morally with all laws governing the rights and freedoms of others, but the president should support them.

What part of Kerry's intelligent abortion answer didn't you understand Ken?

Why do the anti-choice religio-fascists have the right to force their religios beliefs on others?

YOu don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one stupid!

But don't you DARE tell someone else they can't. It's none of your goddamn business. IT's unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you'd be happier living in Iran where religion rules...

QUESTIONER: Sen. Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

The questioner asked what will you do to reassure people that our tax money won't go to help causes that are morally wrong and he essentially answered with "Screw you! Let's stop unwanted pregnancy and have no responsibility for our actions!"

Ken: Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.

No, what he said was, as was my interpertation, was that 'freedom for all' meant freedom for all. Just because Kerry, personally, did not believe in something like abortion (he may or may not, I don't think he said), does not mean that other people in this nation who do believe in abortion should be denied that option.

Kerry may or may not believe abortion is right, and either way, it's a moot point. As a legislature, he has an obligation to afford others that option.

I thought Kerry's response to his vote against Bush's bill on partial birth abortion was smart, because if you do believe that all life is important, then the life of the woman carrying the child is also important, and if having the child might kill her, she should have the right to save her own life. Bush's response was so small minded, it's insane. He might as well have jumped up and said "Fuck that! She's havin the kid even if it kills her!"

The functions suck on this sight.

All but the last paragraph is a quote and should be bolded.

"But then, command the English language is an ability lost to many Americans."

Er...did you mean "...command of the English language..."?

Which just shows why it's important to proofread when criticizing the language skills of others.

>>YOu don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one stupid!

>>But don't you DARE tell someone else they can't. It's none of your goddamn business. IT's unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you'd be happier living in Iran where religion rules...

Abortion isn't a purely religious issue. Unless the pregnancy poses an imminent threat to the life of the mother, I'm against abortion; and it has nothing to do with my religion (Lutheran, for those keeping score at home). So Kerry's statement made complete sense to me, but it seemed to me that Ken's post wasn't religiously motivated (and he didn't even state his stance on abortion) and Blade's tirade against him seemed completely unfounded. To me, he seemed to be of the opinion that Kerry's answer was basically political pandering to pro-choice voters while doing his damndest not to alienate fundamental Catholics and other pro-life voters. Kerry's answer did make mention of separation of church and state, but more importantly, it allowed voters to see the grey area of an issue as opposed to the Bush administration's black-or-white BS.

Was Kerry's explanation of his vote for partial birth abortions political? Of course it was. But it may have been true as well.

But did he vote for it because of political reasons or personal feelings about the issue? THIS is the point I think Ken was trying to make, and I don't know the answer. Senators have a RIGHT to be against abortion, or for it. They have a RIGHT to outlaw abortion, or legalize it. But they do not have the right to outlaw abortion "because the pope said so" and I hate to think that just because a congressman should choose to vote against it (and happens to be Catholic), that it automatically means they're writing thier religion into law.

Bush:
And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills, because we work together.

Doesn't hurt to have Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

Bush again:
Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control.

FACT: 2.5% before, 8.2% after according to the conservative Cato Institue.

But at least you're tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?

Umm, actually, it means I don't feel the need to kill a bunch of people to satisfy some disgusting mental problem.

And I can't say I really care for the word "tolerant" since all it means is "not intolerant". People like Bush and that classmate of mine? They're intolerant of gays.

So no, I'm not tolerant, I'm supportive - I have gay friends, a gay relative. I support gay marriage. And I support them doing what they want when the way, to the point where it becomes offensive, same as any hetero couple.

Which just shows why it's important to proofread when criticizing the language skills of others.

Typing is one thing, saying is another.

Oh, damn, I forgot "of". I guess I don't know English from shit on a stick. But hey, I know that if I said that sentence aloud, I wouldn't forget it. Bush might though.

Maybe I should have typed "command of the Engrish language" to make it more appropriate for Bush's speech patterns.

The difference? I don't misunderestimate myself.

An update on Amendment 36, which would change the Colorado Constitution and make our electoral colleege votes proportional:

Meanwhile, the Republican- funded group fighting the ballot initiative is airing an ad that urges Democrats to vote against it because, it says, Democrat John Kerry could win the state.

The radio ad says: "The real flaw in Amendment 36 is that it concedes Colorado to Bush and Cheney. Have you conceded Colorado? Have you given up on John Kerry? When we win Colorado, we want all nine electoral votes in the Kerry-Edwards column. We can do it. We can make it happen. No on Amendment 36."

This is utterly @#%^'ing disgusting, and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Now they're posing as Democrats?

Even worse, our Republican governor supports the group that appears to have made the ad.

PAD wrote: The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.

Bush completely dodged the "3 mistake" question -- and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question.

I know many of you believe Bush is an arrogant jerk who can't figure out how to get dressed in the morning (and that only overstates the case for some of you). Even if true (and it is not), it still is an unfair question for two reasons:

1.) What person in his or her right mind would answer this question in a debate such as this? To do so would demonstrate he or she was an idiot! Let's change this around. Let's say the debate was in 1996 between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, and President Clinton was asked the question. What would Clinton have done? The same thing as Bush (though of course he would have been more slick about it). Why? Cause *ANYTHING* he were to name is just handing live ammo to his opponent who is about to follow him.

2.) It is a grossly unfair question because Kerry is not asked the same question. And that is where the true hypocrisy about all of this would be on display. Name me just *ONE* example of any real substance where Kerry would admit a true mistake? Just one? He would not. (And don't give me his clever line that he made a "mistake" in how he talked about the $87 billion. Nice soundbite, and a good way to gloss over his dumb comment, but not an admissions of substance.) I think it is because, like Bush, he does have some (in my opinion liberal) core convictions, and he does think he has made the right decisions.

For Charlie Gibson to have used this question at the end was unfair and borders on biased since it is a no win question for Bush. Short of saying the words some of you want to put in his mouth that he lied about WMD's and should never have gone to war, there is nothing he could have said that would have really made a difference.

Jim in Iowa

Wow, I didn't realize states could change how their electoral college votes were "spent", neither HS or college American Government classes brought that up. I'd have thought that be a federal, US Constitution thing...

Yeah Jim, just as fair as the Bush/Cheney "If Kerry is elected, we will be attacked" garbage...

Maybe if Bush had been a man and answered the "What's your mistake?" question when it was originally asked, there'd have been no reason for Chuck to ask it...

Why do the anti-choice religio-fascists have the right to force their religios beliefs on others? YOu don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one stupid! But don't you DARE tell someone else they can't. It's none of your goddamn business. IT's unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you'd be happier living in Iran where religion rules...

Kerry's answer about abortion was a joke. You cannot truly believe that something is murder and then say that someone else should have the right to choose. If it is murder, then you are morally obligated to try to prevent it.

Let's change the scenario. Some believe that the death penalty is murder. They believe it is wrong to execute someone, even if the person was a serial murderer. I don't see that person being satisfied with saying "I believe the death penalty is wrong, but go ahead and practice it if that is what you really believe." It doesn't happen. They protest. They write movies. They vote against people who believe in the death penalty.

Comments such as Bladestar's above show the real sentiment behind this and it demonstrates the hypocrisy of it. Why do you, Bladestar, want to force your belief, whatever the source, on someone else? Because that is what you are equally doing.

The fact that a given belief has a religious context is ultimately irrelevant. There are many who oppose abortion who have no given religious convictions (just as there are those who support and reject the death penalty, etc., on both sides of the "religious" fence).

Why do you believe stealing is wrong? The Bible says it is. Am I guilty of legislating my religious beliefs? This argument about the separation of church and state is very one sided. Those who argue as Bladestar has want to say the "church" or any "religion" should have no say in what society sees as right and wrong. Yet when the tables are turned, as they now are in California, a religious organization is being forced by the government to go against their religious convictions with the ruling that Catholic insurance has to provide birth control. I personally don't agree with the Catholic church position, but it is wrong for the government to impose this rule on a Catholic charity.

Back to Kerry: His answer is a joke because it shows he really does not believe abortion is a true murder. I don't know of *anyone* in any other context who would say they believe something is murder, but since the other person does not agree, the first person will not interfere in the murder happening. Such a stance is morally wrong and absurd.

The comment that we don't want the "Pope" dictating policy misses the point. Anyone elected should have a core set of values. Those values should be admitted. We, the voters, then can decide if we want to elect someone who holds those values. If we don't agree with the Pope's view on the issues, then don't vote for a Catholic who actually believes and practices his religion. That is not a case of the Pope dictating things to a President, it is a President being consistent with what he says he believes.

Bush missed a chance to point out that Kerry's position is logically absurd. Whether Bladestar and others would agree is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is Kerry has no true problem with abortion.

Jim in Iowa

Maybe if Bush had been a man and answered the "What's your mistake?" question when it was originally asked, there'd have been no reason for Chuck to ask it...

My question still stands: Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years. Do you honestly think he would answer that question? What would you say was his mistake?

I can think of at least one: During the first Gulf War, when we had the coalition Kerry demands and when Saddam clearly invaded a neighbor, Kerry still voted against the war. Was that a mistake?

Jim in Iowa

>For Charlie Gibson to have used this question at the end was unfair and borders on biased since it is a no win question for Bush. Short of saying the words some of you want to put in his mouth that he lied about WMD's and should never have gone to war, there is nothing he could have said that would have really made a difference.

>Jim in Iowa

The question was thrown out because it is on people's minds. It's on people's minds because the president has been asked on numerous occassion about anything he feels could have been done differently during his administration and he has failed to think of a single area that he believes he could have or could do better.
Fair or unfair, Bush could have turned this around simply by saying, "Sure, I'm human, I'm not infallible." Non-specific, but makes the point. I truly would give George his props if he gave any indication at all about having some/any insight about his own flaws as a human being, president or not. Whether he sees this denial as a stregth to be shown to others or truly can't come with something, I have a difficult time trusting or having faith in a leader with this mindset and lack of response.

Fred

Fair or unfair, Bush could have turned this around simply by saying, "Sure, I'm human, I'm not infallible."

Bush has essentially said that at other times. The reason it does not satisfy is that in regards to the "big question" of whether he should have gone to war in Iraq, the answer is still yes.

Jim in Iowa

Tell me Jim, I'm dying to know...

How is letting a woman decide for herself if she wants to have an abortion "forcing my belief on someone else?"

I'd really like to know, asshole.

How is letting another person decide what to do with their body "forcing my beliefs" on them? I'm not forcing them to have an abortion if they don't want one, and I'm not telling a woman its forbidden to have one if she wants one.

SO how the HELL do you figure I'm forcing anything?

Capital punishment is PUNISHMENT for an action. Capital punishment and abortion are two TOTALLY different things.

Goddamn you are stupid Jim, laws about stealing have nothing to do with religion. Stealing affects many people. Abortion affects only the woman having one. A woman's abortion has NO BEARING on YOUR life. You have NO RIGHT to stop her or ban her from having one.

And until the churches, catholic or otherwise start paying taxes, they can shut up and obey the laws of this country, including providing the full range of medical services on any insurance plans they may offer.

Abortion isn't murder, it ain't a baby till it's born. And even then not until it can exist outside the womb (without the aid of medical equipment).

Incidentally, for those still wondering about whether or not Bush was wired for the first debate, here's his spokesman:
"I love this. Am tempted to say, 'I cannot confirm or deny,' and let the story get some legs. Or, how about, 'Since we put the metal plate in his head, we have had some measure of success with audio transmissions to the President.' Or, 'Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.' Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal."

Glad to see them giving it the attention it deserves. Bush really ought to work in some reference to this nuttiness in the last debate, tie it into the whole "reinstate the draft" fraud and make his oppoenet look like a member of the hard core tinfoil hat brigade (an unfair comparison but that's politics.)

Also, for those who still believe it--try Cinefoil. It's extra thick and colored black on both sides so it will keep your head warm.

But at least you're tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?

Umm, actually, it means I don't feel the need to kill a bunch of people to satisfy some disgusting mental problem.

And I can't say I really care for the word "tolerant" since all it means is "not intolerant". People like Bush and that classmate of mine? They're intolerant of gays.

So no, I'm not tolerant, I'm supportive - I have gay friends, a gay relative. I support gay marriage. And I support them doing what they want when the way, to the point where it becomes offensive, same as any hetero couple.

It's a good thing you're not fond of the word "tolerant," because I was using it sarcastically. I was referring to your cavalier disdain for the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. If anyone referred to the Koran or, for that matter, to the Veda as a "great work of fiction," as you termed the Bible, there would be people in the streets with pitchforks and burning torches. Anti-religious bigotry is no more attractive than religion-inspired antipathy to homosexuals. So why are you so selective in the groups of which you're supportive?

I'm not saying you have to accept the lunatic in your high school class. In the immportal words of Mr. Garrison, "Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! ... 'Tolerate' means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!" This is why the ACLU backs the Illinois Nazis' right to march-- they're assholes, but we tolerate assholes in this country (and in fact both parties keep nominating them for political office). But I do maintain that if you're going to overshoot your criticism-- if you're going to go from reasonably criticizing one fanatic to insulting an entire culture-- then you may be less violent than she is, but you're no better. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I think I interpreted you correctly.

Abortion isn't murder, it ain't a baby till it's born.

In your opinion and many medical professionals disagree with you entirely.

You have a hard time acknowledgeing the fact that not everyone against abortion is religious. But your rants show that you don't let facts get in the way of your thinking anyhow.

No, I don't let other people's ignorance get in my way.

The whole goddamn point is if you don't want an abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!

But you have no right to use force of law to force others to live the way you want them to.

Examples: Posted by Bladestar at October 9, 2004 10:37 PM :

"Goddamn you are stupid Jim" and
"I'd really like to know, asshole."

Nice. Strong language and personal attacks and not just these two...sigh...precisely the reason I do *try* to avoid posting on blog follow-ups and message boards and the fact that no matter how little I write--or what exactly is written--there's always *someone* on peterdavid.net wanting to mince words with my POV or opinion from. Gee, I'll be suprised if this one gets off the hook.

Peter, by the way, I have emailed you 2 or 3 times in the last couple months...did you receive my emails or do you no longer use "Padguy@aol.com"?

You sure don't let your own ignorance get in your way, Bladestar!

if you don't want an abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!

In other words, if you don't want to commit murder, than don't commit murder!

Baldestar wrote: How is letting another person decide what to do with their body "forcing my beliefs" on them? I'm not forcing them to have an abortion if they don't want one, and I'm not telling a woman its forbidden to have one if she wants one. SO how the HELL do you figure I'm forcing anything?

You *are* forcing your viewpoint on at least one person: the unborn child.

At least right now, it is currently impossible for medical science to know when human life begins. We don't know if it is at the second of conception, or 3 days after, 3 weeks after, or 3 months after.

What medical science has done is vastly roll back the age a child is that can survive outside the womb. Medical science is currently showing that the baby, at a very early stage, reacts to pain, sucks its thumb, and shows other signs of self-conciousnes. Is it really "human" at that stage? I don't know. But neither do you. But these signs are as early as late in the first trimester.

At least for now, both sides of the debate have an opinion on when life begins based on whatever belief or faith they profess. The Bible, which I do hold as true, does not explicitly say when life begins. But it is clear that it begins at some point while the child is in the womb. But even if the Bible said nothing, my common sense would say that I should not kill something that might possibly be alive.

Go back 200 years and you find the same arguments made about slaves. They were treated as cattle and as less than human. Such logic was necessary to justify the terrible brutality done to the slaves from Africa. Some used the Bible to support this view. But others used the Bible to show slavery was wrong. Go read the history of England. You will find that it was so called "fundamentalist Christians" of that day that fought for an end to slavery in England -- and they won. They "imposed" their morality on others who said just what you did, that if they thought slavery was wrong, then just don't own slaves.

The anti-slavery movement also owes a large part of its success to "fundamentalist Christians." They helped lead the charge against slavery. Some of the great thinkers of the day who agreed with you, who thought Christians were just trying to legislate their morality, who fought to keep slavery legal.

Obviously slavery and abortion are two different issues. The fact that Christians were right about that issue does not mean they are right now. But it does demonstrate two things. First, someone is always legislating their morality on someone else. The wonderful thing about America is that it ultimately lies in the hands of the voters, not a church or any one politician. If I don't like that Kerry is effectively pro-abortion, I don't have to vote for him. If you don't like that Bush is proudly pro-life, then don't vote for him.

Second, Christians, overall, tend to at least be honest about their beliefs and what they mean. I consider Kerry dishonest. Either he does not really believe abortion is murder, or he does but doesn't really care. Which is worse? I want a candidate whose values are not left at the door. If Kerry wants to be pro-choice, that is his right. He should do so, without hiding behind absurd exceptions as he did in the debate. Most of us who are pro-life agree to an exception when the life of the mother is physically in danger. Kerry does not have the guts to actually say what he clearly believes about gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues.

Jim in Iowa

But you have no right to use force of law to force others to live the way you want them to.

Does that mean you're opposed to antidiscrimination laws?

At present, biologists cannot agree on when life begins. (For that matter, there's still some controversy about exactly what constitutes "life", but that's a whole other matter...) Therefore, there can be no objective law forbidding abortion - if it's not yet alive and human, destroying it can't be murder. Any law outlawing abortion per se would have to have at its base an assumption of just what a "human life" is - a decision which, so far, must be based on faith, not reason.

**you missed Bush saying "Missoura"

ME: Big deal. I’ve heard tons of people say “missoura”. I’ve also heard people say “New Yak” & “Baston”. Can’t believe of all things you people focus on that.

**Sad, inexplicable but true -- a substantial percent of people in residing in that state say "Missouruh". Every voiceover of every political ad aired in that state says "Missouruh". I believe you can imagine who they're pandering to.

ME: See!!!!

**Kerry answers the abortion/murder question very well. Either one agrees or not, but his response was straightforward, clear and respectful.

ME: Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman’s right to have an abortion because it’s constitutionally protected. SO IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. So will Kerry buy people guns if they can’t afford it. It is after all their constitutional right.

**Not one word on the safety of the mother. Unbelievable.

ME: Let’s go to extremes now. Of all the abortions performed daily in this country, how many are because there are complications over the safety of the mother. Unbelievable is right. Save the forest, save the whales, get rid of the death penalty and kill the unborn, because, fuck it, they might grow up to be republicans. Maybe if more liberal Democratic women would have abortions, maybe in 25 years we’ll have less of you people having so much compassion over such an evil, evil man like Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people and invaded a country a little over 10 years ago, and hates the U.S. so much. But hell, we should be defensive instead of offensive, we should wait until Saddam does it again before interfering. I can’t believe you people really like this guy. This guy hated us, so FUCK him!

**Man, Bush is really being a prick over Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion. I'm against partial-birth abortion myself, and even I think Bush's description of Kerry's proposition of it is distorted.

ME: That’s because you don’t like George Bush and you hate everything he does.
Kerry had a plan for everything - in fact he constantly talked about his plans.
ME: Your right. He says “I have a plan” all the time. And he never tells you what his plan is.

**What I'm AMAZED about is that NO ONE brought up gay people.

ME: Hot topic, neither candidate would touch this with unless it was really necessary.

**Why? She seems to think that that's what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.

ME: You just insulted, the Jews (the torah is the 1st 5 books of the bible and they love the old testament), the Catholics, the Protestants, The Mormons and even some Muslims, since the Koran is based on the Torah. Way to go. You know, your buddy John Kerry believes in “that great piece of fiction”.

**Related topic- I just watched the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD and all of its extras and it is very powerful!!
Those innocent Iraqis citizens are suffering the kind of Orwellian nightmare right now that is feared over here.
The army coming into your home in the middle of the night, putting guns in your face, taking away a member of your family, not telling you why or what the charge is, with your children being terrified that they are going to be shot/beaten/raped... it's too horrible to really comprehend.

ME: So our army is an army of “thugs” Why don’t you move to France, please.

**Kerry may or may not believe abortion is right, and either way, it's a moot point. As a legislature, he has an obligation to afford others that option.

ME: And I want my constitutionally protected right to bear arms. So when will Kerry send me one.

**You don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one stupid!
But don't you DARE tell someone else they can't. It's none of your goddamn business. IT's unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you'd be happier living in Iran where religion rules...

ME: Ah, Bladestar, the angriest man alive. What’s wrong with you, did your parents finally kick you out of their basement? All your comments are always so full of anger. Sheesh. Only one candidate brought up religion in that little abortion question and it was your hero, John Kerry. The question was about those that believe abortion is MORALLY wrong.

**And until the churches, catholic or otherwise start paying taxes, they can shut up and obey the laws of this country, including providing the full range of medical services on any insurance plans they may offer.

ME: The people that attend those institutions pay taxes you fucking idiot. It's the organization that is not taxed. So those people that pay there the can talk all they want.

Prick.
**Abortion isn't murder, it ain't a baby till it's born. And even then not until it can exist outside the womb (without the aid of medical equipment).

You are quite a monster, by the way. Why I bet you get your kicks by killing cat's and puppies. You are rude and have no manners. You call Jim an asshole because his opinion is different from yours. Someone tries to make a point you don't like and you treat them like shit. FUCK YOU, you arrogant piece of shit. I wonder why your mom didn’t use her constitutionally protected right to abort you.

Posted by: Joe V.
“ME: So our army is an army of “thugs” Why don’t you move to France, please.”

Typical republican attitude: agree with me or leave the country.

I never once called the army/soldiers thugs, I simply described exactly what happened during a scene on the DVD. You referred to the DVD's scene of the army's actions as thuggish.

The soldiers in Iraq are doing the job they have been sent over and ordered to do and they are laying their lives on the line. They are not thugs, they are pawns of the terrorist George Bush.
Or does the definition of terrorism no longer include killing innocent civilians who want nothing to do with war and have not made any kind of hostile/threatening act against you? Maybe Bush’s actions put him more in line with Hitler.

I guess Joe V., that if the army ever breaks into your home in the middle of the night and takes you away to be imprisoned indefinitely because you may own a firearm (of course they also won’t let you know why they’re taking you) then you’ll agree with the action and support it. Or is that only the case if a Republican president is in charge?
Hopefully you will never have to find out.

As for the abortion debate: Medical science can not agree on when life begins. Medical science can’t even provide a definition of life itself so it is not a “fact” that abortion is murder it is an OPINION.

If abortion is murder then so is birth-control. The millions of male sperm cells are alive. They have a life cycle. They start out young, grow old and die. So does the female ovum. The fact that they are not yet fully-formed, live-outside-of-the-womb babies does not mean that killing either the sperm or the egg isn’t “ending life” Or do the pro-lifers agree that there some cases when a sperm cell and an ovum are not an innocent unborn person that needs to be protected?

Science in general holds to the principle that actuality supersedes potentiality. Applied to abortion that means that the life and rights of an actual person i.e. the pregnant female, outweigh the potential rights and needs of a POTENTIAL person. Therefore abortion should be an option available to the pregnant female.

Disagreeing with abortion is perfectly fine, counselling or advising one against it is also perfectly fine, but at the end of the day the choice should be left up to the woman involved.
I like Bill Mahr’s attitude of being Pro-death: for abortion, for the death penalty, for medically –assisted suicide.

Okay, I may be mistaken here, but my impression is that even most regular church or synagouge-goers don't take the Bible literally literally - the world only began 10,000 years ago, Noah put two of every species on the Ark, etc. - so acknowledging it as fiction doesn't attack every member of a faith involving the Bible ... although that may or may not be what Craig J. Ries intended ....

If abortion is murder then so is birth-control. The millions of male sperm cells are alive. They have a life cycle. They start out young, grow old and die. So does the female ovum. The fact that they are not yet fully-formed, live-outside-of-the-womb babies does not mean that killing either the sperm or the egg isn’t “ending life” Or do the pro-lifers agree that there some cases when a sperm cell and an ovum are not an innocent unborn person that needs to be protected?

Unfortunately most forms of birth control are also not on the church's approval list. Which is why federal funding is withheld when teachers teach sex education. According to our present government the only form of birth control is abstinance. They have us coming and going. Don't teach anything about birth control so we can avoid unwanted pregnancy (not to mention STD's), but you're also not allowed to to have an abortion, even though you may not be physically, mentally, or fiscally ready to care for a child.

Luke K. Walsh: Well ... I would like to think that he, or his people, had read the whole thing; so, if so, he probably should have held out for some changes. But in the immediate wake of 9/11, everyone was understandably concerned about reacting as strongly and as quickly as possible.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but my question was not merely why he voted for the Patriot Act, but why he was stating here in the debate that we were not going to let the terrorists reduce our constitutional rights in the same breath as he was admitting that he voted for it?? This seems like a contradiction.

Anthony White: Does Bush get any points for punking Charlie Gibson? It was pretty good debate up until Bush went all "Jerry Springer" on us.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I was really distressed by the part where Bush said, “Oh no you DIH-N’T!,” and “You all up mah Kool Aid,” and then Kerry responded by smashing a chair over Bush’s head. That was just surreal.

R. Maheras: If oration skills are the only reason someone has for voting against Bush, that's a bit superficial, wouldn't you say?

Luigi Novi: It would be, if anyone here actually gave that as the “only” reason. Since they haven’t, this is just a Straw Man.

R. Maheras: It might be a straw man argument if I was the one who raised the "oratory skills" issue in the first place. I didn't.
Luigi Novi: The definition of a Straw Man argument has nothing to do with who raises a given topic of discussion.

R. Maheras: I merely vocalized my observation that Bush's natural way of speaking seemed to be emerging here as a central focal area for post-debate Bush bashing -- a pretty superficial reason to criticize someone, in my opinion.
Luigi Novi: You stated that it was superficial to vote against Bush if oration skills were the “only” reason to do so. No one said they were voting against Bush with this as the “only” reason. Hence, a Straw Man argument. Rewording what you said post hoc doesn’t change what you originally said.

And in response to this point, it is not superficial. For a Yale graduate and President of the United States, to be so incapable of exerting a command over the language that such screw-ups are so habitual on his part (as opposed to the lesser frequency with which the rest of us sometimes experience slips of the tongue), is an indicator of his education, his literacy, and the importance he places on communications skills.

R. Maheras: Would you tell a person who stutters, "Hey, the only reason you stutter is because you're lazy, stupid, or both"?
Luigi Novi: False analogy.

1. Stuttering is caused by biological factors, with recent research indicating that neural synchronization problems in the brain, such as disrupted fibers between the speech area and language planning area, both in the left hemisphere of the brain is the cause, possibly due to early brain damage or heredity. The lack of importance Bush places on the literacy and education necessary to communicate with those he leads, and to being a good example for them, is not caused by such factors. He may lack a natural talent for speaking, but his dismissiveness of the importance of education, and his refusal to improve this aspect of himself by reading, studying, and practicing is a question of his character. Not biology.

2. There are treatments for stuttering, and stutterers can and do avail themselves of them (albeit with varying results). James Earl Jones, John Stossel, Marilyn Monroe, and Winston Churchill are examples of those who did so. There are treatments for poor verbal skills like Bush’s, but Bush has not apparently availed himself of them.

Craig J. Ries: I distinctly recall a classmate when I was in high school making an off hand comment (I don't recall how the discussion lead to this) saying she wanted genocide against homosexuals. Why? She seems to think that that's what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.

Luigi Novi: What that guy should've asked was about SPECIFIC parts of the Act he was thinking about, like the ability to survey and jail people without evidence.

David Bjorlin: It's a sad time in our country's history when the government can determine land boundaries without evidence. I'm sure you actually were referring to surveillance rather than surveying, but given that so much criticism of the President focuses on his speaking style-- including his foolish tendency to pronounce the name of the state he's in like most of the residents, who regrettably don't know the proper pronunciation-- I don't think this is a cheap shot. Obnoxious, perhaps, but the truth hurts.
Luigi Novi: The truth is that my mistakes are made with the same amount of frequency as the average person’s, give or take. Bush’s are not. In addition, he’s a Yale graduate, and President of the most powerful nation on Earth, and should be held to a somewhat higher standard. I’m neither of those two things.

David Bjorlin: Your substantive point is equally weak. Bush can easily say that the USA-PATRIOT Act doesn't water down our rights... because it doesn't.
Luigi Novi: Except that he DIDN’T. He went off on a tangent about interagency info-sharing, which had nothing to do with what that guy was talking about. Whether the Act does or does not infringe upon our rights is separate from the issue of Bush’s obligation to answer the question that was asked of him in a pertinent manner.

David Bjorlin: The fact that there's a running battle in the courts over the Act tells me that our system is working precisely the way it's supposed to, and it's not as though the Act could trump the Fourth Amendment even if there were anything invidious in the Act.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about the system, we’re talking about the Act itself.

Section 215 allows the FBI, without a warrant, to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." They can conduct secret and unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records, and the FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy. Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.

Section 218 of the Patriot Act allows your home to be searched without probable cause. Section 213 allows for "sneak and peak searches," meaning law enforcement can search your home and tell you within a "reasonable time." If they don't take anything and just snoop around, they're not required to tell you at all. This is done with secret warrants from a secret court (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court). They can simply tell the judge that it’s for intelligence purposes, and get the warrant rubber stamped. The Act also gave Ashcroft the power to search for any information using a “national security letter,” and when the House Judiciary Committee demanded to know how many he issued, he stonewalled them with his powers, which means whether probable cause was shown is harder to determine. The Act lessens insight into searches and seizures, which gives the authorities the power to violate civil rights.

Hundreds of communities, including several major cities and several states, have now passed resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties. More than one member of Congress has introduced legislation taking the teeth out of its most invasive provisions. And in a huge shock to the Justice Department, in July the so-called "Otter Amendment"—which de-funded the act's "sneak-and-peek" provision—passed in the House by a vote of 309-118. Introduced by a conservative Republican congressman from Idaho, C.L. "Butch" Otter, the amendment revealed the extent to which the Patriot Act engenders jitters across the political spectrum. Then there are the lawsuits, including one filed recently by the ACLU, urging the court to invalidate provisions of the act that threaten privacy or due process.

Jim in Iowa: Kerry's answer about abortion was a joke. You cannot truly believe that something is murder and then say that someone else should have the right to choose.
Luigi Novi: Did Kerry say he thought it was murder?

But the reason some who might believe it murder might still be pro-choice is because they recognize that that conclusion is a personal belief, and is not an empirical conclusion, and would not feel it right to make it a law in the absence of an empirical conclusion about where life begins. We can argue about theft and the death penalty empirically. We cannot argue about where life begins empirically, for there is no scientific consensus on where life begins. The most we can come up with are personal feelings on that question, which is why pro-choicers, even ones who personally believe abortion is wrong, refuse to legislate such feelings.

David Bjorlin: It's a good thing you're not fond of the word "tolerant," because I was using it sarcastically. I was referring to your cavalier disdain for the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. If anyone referred to the Koran or, for that matter, to the Veda as a "great work of fiction," as you termed the Bible, there would be people in the streets with pitchforks and burning torches. Anti-religious bigotry is no more attractive than religion-inspired antipathy to homosexuals. So why are you so selective in the groups of which you're supportive?
Luigi Novi: The Bible is a work of mythology and fiction. That is a statement of fact, and thus, asserting it is not “disdain,” or “bigotry,” or an “insult.” It is merely true.

Jim in Iowa: At least for now, both sides of the debate have an opinion on when life begins based on whatever belief or faith they profess. The Bible, which I do hold as true, does not explicitly say when life begins. But it is clear that it begins at some point while the child is in the womb.
Luigi Novi: And yet it also indicates that fetuses are not considered human beings afforded the same rights as the post-born, and that causing miscarriages is not unlawful in the eyes of God. Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that God does not believe that causing a miscarriage is a crime. Hosea 9:14-16 depicts God causing woman to miscarry. Genesis 38:24 supports the killing of a woman who is pregnant. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 and Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 make the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.

Jim in Iowa: Go back 200 years and you find the same arguments made about slaves.
Luigi Novi: Slaves are as human as non-slaves, and this can be argued empirically. The same does not hold true for embryos and fetuses. The fact that there is no consensus on where life begins, nor any way to argue empirically that it begins where pro-lifers say it does, is precisely why this is not a situation where one group—pro lifers—can impose their morality on others.

Jim in Iowa: Second, Christians, overall, tend to at least be honest about their beliefs and what they mean.
Luigi Novi: Christians are no more honest (or less) about anything than any other group.

Joe V.: Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman’s right to have an abortion because it’s constitutionally protected. SO IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. So will Kerry buy people guns if they can’t afford it. It is after all their constitutional right.
Luigi Novi: Safe abortions are a health issue involving the safety and care of women. Guns are not.

Luigi Novi: Man, Bush is really being a prick over Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion. I'm against partial-birth abortion myself, and even I think Bush's description of Kerry's proposition of it is distorted.

Joe V.: That’s because you don’t like George Bush and you hate everything he does.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s because his description of Kerry’s statements was distorted. Your ad hominem comments are irrelevant.

Marc: Maybe Bush’s actions put him more in line with Hitler.
Luigi Novi: Geez, can we please stop comparing the current President we don’t like to Hitler? It’s such a cop-out, and is so devoid of any sense of scale or proportion. Comparing Bush to Hitler is just as stupid as comparing Bill Clinton to Hitler.

Joe V.: Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman’s right to have an abortion because it’s constitutionally protected. SO IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. So will Kerry buy people guns if they can’t afford it. It is after all their constitutional right.

Luigi Novi: Safe abortions are a health issue involving the safety and care of women. Guns are not.

Government-assisted abortions also save taxpayers untold millions of dollars a year in health care costs for carried-to-term children living in low-income family situations.

Fred

Thanks for mentioning that Fred, I've always felt that way, but it's not just poor people that want/need abortions. that why I didn't bring it up.

I'd rather a few hundred tax $$$ go to an abortion as a one-time thing rather than paying welfare/ADC/Food Stamps, etc for the next 18 years...

"Abortion isn't murder, it ain't a baby till it's born. And even then not until it can exist outside the womb (without the aid of medical equipment)."

Ummm...so let me see if I get this right. You are saying that a baby born with any condition that necessitates it being placed in an incubator is not, in fact, an actual baby and could therefore be killed without any fear of being brought up on murder charges?

Ooooookay (backing up very very slowly, reaching for door handle)

Carried to term. Is that phrasology more to your liking?

Secondly, if the parents WANT extra measures taken to safegaurd a preemie, then by all means, take every step needed to save a WANTED baby.

Although yes, I think the parents of babies born with life-long debilitating disease SHOULD have the option of euthanasia...

Luigi Novi: Did Kerry say he thought it was murder?

But the reason some who might believe it murder might still be pro-choice is because they recognize that that conclusion is a personal belief, and is not an empirical conclusion, and would not feel it right to make it a law in the absence of an empirical conclusion about where life begins. We can argue about theft and the death penalty empirically. We cannot argue about where life begins empirically, for there is no scientific consensus on where life begins. The most we can come up with are personal feelings on that question, which is why pro-choicers, even ones who personally believe abortion is wrong, refuse to legislate such feelings.

Kerry did not explicitly call it murder at the debate. But a few months ago Kerry clearly stated that he agreed with the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception. In the debate, the implication was there, that he personally believed it began at conception.

If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a "feeling" I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.

But that misses the greater point. If we do not know when life begins for sure, and we don't, then on which side should we err? You should *ALWAYS* err on the side of protecting life. Which is worse? Yes, a woman bearing a child to term is an inconvenience, but in the overwhelming number of cases, it is only an inconvenience. Yes, an "unwanted" child may struggle, but only if that child is allowed to stay in that condition. But if the unbornd child is alive as I believe it is, then to end the pregnancy is murder. That is not just and inconvenience, it ends the life of a totally innocent human being. Until you can demonstrate empirically that the unborn child is not alive, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. It is immoral to assume for the sake of convenience that the child is not alive and therefore abortion is all right.

Luigi Novi: And yet it also indicates that fetuses are not considered human beings afforded the same rights as the post-born, and that causing miscarriages is not unlawful in the eyes of God. Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that God does not believe that causing a miscarriage is a crime. Hosea 9:14-16 depicts God causing woman to miscarry. Genesis 38:24 supports the killing of a woman who is pregnant. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 and Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 make the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.

This is not the place to get into a theological debate, so I will keep this brief. Exodus 21 is not as clear as you imply. Many commentators believe that if the child is born dead, then it is considered murder, and just punishment can be taken. Genesis 38:24 is a story, not a command, and does not in any way say God agreed with the suggestion. Hosea 9 talks about punishment for sin, which is often the natural consequences of bad choices. Ecclesiastes is being figurative and poetical, and does not mean someone should actually kill an unborn child.

Luigi Novi: Slaves are as human as non-slaves, and this can be argued empirically. The same does not hold true for embryos and fetuses. The fact that there is no consensus on where life begins, nor any way to argue empirically that it begins where pro-lifers say it does, is precisely why this is not a situation where one group—pro lifers—can impose their morality on others.

But you are imposing your morality on another. Unless you assume (which you must do because you cannot prove it) that the unborn child is not "alive," you are indeed imposing your morality on someone else. If fact, you are doing so in the worst possible way: You are killing an innocent person. Until you can empirically prove you are not taking an innocent life, the burden must fall on your shoulders.

Jim in Iowa

Sorry, forgot to bold the second paragraph. Lugi's full comment was as follows:

Luigi Novi: Did Kerry say he thought it was murder?

But the reason some who might believe it murder might still be pro-choice is because they recognize that that conclusion is a personal belief, and is not an empirical conclusion, and would not feel it right to make it a law in the absence of an empirical conclusion about where life begins. We can argue about theft and the death penalty empirically. We cannot argue about where life begins empirically, for there is no scientific consensus on where life begins. The most we can come up with are personal feelings on that question, which is why pro-choicers, even ones who personally believe abortion is wrong, refuse to legislate such feelings.

Section 215 allows the FBI, without a warrant, to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." They can conduct secret and unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records, and the FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy. Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.

Wrong. Section 215 allows the Federal Government to order documents, and it does prohibit disclosure of that fact to the suspect. I have absoltely no problem with the secrecy aspect-- we don't let the Mafia know we have their houses or phones bugged, so why should we tip off terrorists that we're checking their email records? But your claim that this is conducted by the FBI "without a warrant" is directly contradicted by the Act itself. The Patriot Act permits a senior official in the FBI to "make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Notice the words "make an application." The next paragraph of that same section provides that the application must be made to a Federal court or Federal magistrate. So what precisely do you think a warrant is, if not an order issued by a judge after an application made by a law enforcement agency? The only thing new about this warrant system that the Feds couldn't already do is the secrecy provision, and I've already stated that I don't have any qualms about that.

Section 218 of the Patriot Act allows your home to be searched without probable cause.

Behold the entire text of Section 218:

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking ‘‘the purpose’’ and inserting ‘‘a significant purpose’’.

Hmm, don't follow you. There's no purported grant of authority to search anything under any standard. And your quibbling about whether the system protects us better than the Patriot Act misses my point, because you're claiming that the Act authorizes things that it doesn't purport to authorize, and truth is that the system fills in the gaps-- the Act doesn't suggest any standard other than the Fourth Amendment standards that the courts would apply anyway. I honestly think you're undermining your own objection to Section 215 by conceding here that there is a Federal court that governs intelligence surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of course predates the Patriot Act by 23 years. As to your allegation that it "rubber stamps" warrant requests, it's true that in its first 20 years the Court only denied one warrant (as one they had no authority to grant) but the judges on that court like to point out that they've sent warrant requests back for further review (i.e. establishing probable cause) before granting them. It's also true that I've never had a judge deny an order I've requested, and our judges are elected. If the law enforcement agency does its homework ahead of time, it should ALWAYS have the basis for the order it's requesting.

Luigi Novi: The Bible is a work of mythology and fiction. That is a statement of fact, and thus, asserting it is not “disdain,” or “bigotry,” or an “insult.” It is merely true.

No, that's your opinion. It also happens to be my opinion with regard to large sections of the Bible, but that doesn't make it established fact. And frankly, I do think that flatly claiming the foundation for an entire belief system to be "fiction" is an unnecessarily insulting and incendiary way of saying "I don't believe in that."

The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction.

Just because in PAD's books, gravity works (and gravity is a FACT) doesn't mean the New Frontier, Apropos, and Knight series aren't all fiction.

You sprinkle in a few facts among the lies and fabrications and that doesn't make the book any "realer" or truer.

Bladestar wrote: The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction.

Your argument would be true about most of the history we have of the ancient world. You cannot "prove" history like you can a lab experiment.

You do not have to believe the Bible is true. That is fine. But there is a very large number of events and people in the Bible that have been verified from other sources. The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa: Your argument is not logical. This is not just a "feeling" I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.
Luigi Novi: Semantics. The point is, it is not one based on empiricism, or objective criteria. You don’t base laws on personal “convictions” or “beliefs.” You base them on objective criteria, and there are no objective criteria on which a consensus of where life begins can be formed. This is perfectly logical.

Jim in Iowa: But that misses the greater point. If we do not know when life begins for sure, and we don't, then on which side should we err? You should *ALWAYS* err on the side of protecting life. Which is worse?
Luigi Novi: And since there is no way to form a consensus on what >is life as it pertains to a fetus, I believe we should air on the side of the rights of the mother to control her own body.

Jim in Iowa: Yes, a woman bearing a child to term is an inconvenience, but in the overwhelming number of cases, it is only an inconvenience.
Luigi Novi: It is not only an “inconvenience.” It is a huge burden on the mother of the unwanted child, her family, the state, and on that child.

Jim in Iowa: Until you can demonstrate empirically that the unborn child is not alive, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

If you have a specific claim—in this case, that an unborn child is a life deserving of the same rights as the post-born—then the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. Not on someone else to prove otherwise. The burden of proof for claims always falls on the person to prove the POSITIVE. Not on others to prove the NEGATIVE.

Jim in Iowa: Genesis 38:24 is a story, not a command, and does not in any way say God agreed with the suggestion.
Luigi Novi: Does he indicate it would’ve been wrong?

Jim in Iowa: But you are imposing your morality on another. Unless you assume (which you must do because you cannot prove it) that the unborn child is not "alive," you are indeed imposing your morality on someone else.
Luigi Novi: If I conclude that we do not have objective criteria on which to base any law regarding where life begins, that therefore abortion can only be a personal choice that each woman makes based on those personal criteria of hers, and that the state should stay out of it, this does not constitute “imposing morality.” What it constitutes is an admission that I cannot impose my morality on someone else. That’s fairly enlightened, I think. I do not like abortion, and I don’t know if I’d be able to bring myself to have one if I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy (or like it if my pregnant significant other had one). But I cannot force others to live by my “feelings.” That’s not imposing morality. That’s quite the opposite, as it is an example of restraining oneself from doing so, and allowing others to follow their own hearts on the matter. Any insistence on your part to the contrary is nothing more than arbitrary wordplay and playing around with definitions.

Jim in Iowa: If fact, you are doing so in the worst possible way: You are killing an innocent person. Until you can empirically prove you are not taking an innocent life, the burden must fall on your shoulders.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. I don’t have to prove anything. You want to make a special claim that would change the law, and impose your viewpoint on every other citizen, it is YOU who has to prove it. Barring that, we’re not going to force everyone to live by your subjective criteria.

David Bjorlin: Wrong. Section 215 allows the Federal Government to order documents, and it does prohibit disclosure of that fact to the suspect.
Luigi Novi: My research indicates otherwise.

David Bjorlin: I have absoltely no problem with the secrecy aspect-- we don't let the Mafia know we have their houses or phones bugged, so why should we tip off terrorists that we're checking their email records?
Luigi Novi: We usually have probable cause when bugging them.

David Bjorlin: And your quibbling about whether the system protects us better than the Patriot Act misses my point….
Luigi Novi: It might, if I ever said such a thing. In point of fact, I did not.

Luigi Novi: The Bible is a work of mythology and fiction. That is a statement of fact, and thus, asserting it is not “disdain,” or “bigotry,” or an “insult.” It is merely true.

David Bjorlin: No, that's your opinion.
Luigi Novi: Nope. That the Bible is not a history book, but a collection of stories and mythological parables is a fact. That referring to it as such does not constitute an “insult” is an opinion, I suppose, but one based on the criteria that it is merely being referred to as what it is.

David Bjorlin: It also happens to be my opinion with regard to large sections of the Bible, but that doesn't make it established fact.
Luigi Novi: No, the fact that so much of its material cannot be corroborated independently, and that much of it is historically and scientifically WRONG, is what makes it so. Not merely your or my “opinion.”

David Bjorlin: And frankly, I do think that flatly claiming the foundation for an entire belief system to be "fiction" is an unnecessarily insulting and incendiary way of saying "I don't believe in that."
Luigi Novi: Whether the Bible is a book of fiction is a question of fact, and thus, stating words to that effect is therefore a dispassionate statement with no intended insult. Whether someone chooses to adhere to an entire belief system that is based on it doesn’t change this. This has nothing to do with what “I don’t believe,” because belief implies a subjectivity. The conclusion that the Bible is not a book of history or science is not subjective at all, but a statement based on reason and logic.

Jim in Iowa: Your argument would be true about most of the history we have of the ancient world. You cannot "prove" history like you can a lab experiment.
Luigi Novi: No one said you could. But the modern practice of historiography does follow certain scientific criteria for corroboration of historical fact, and what we consider history is corroborated through that process. The same does not hold true for the Bible.

David Bjorlin: You do not have to believe the Bible is true. That is fine. But there is a very large number of events and people in the Bible that have been verified from other sources. The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.
Luigi Novi: Yes, there are some things in the Bible that are corroborated from other sources. There are also a good number of things that are not. This doesn’t make it a “historical document,” any more than the fact that Troy was discovered makes everything in Homer’s works “historical documents,” or the fact that England is a real place makes the Harry Potter books historical documents. No historian considers the Bible a historical document with which events can be solely referenced without corroboration.

Too many idiots, so little time!

Luigi, I believe the problem here may stem from phraseology. You describe the Christian Bible as "a work of mythology and fiction", a phrase which can plausibly be applied only to works completely devoid of any historical accuracy (as, for instance, Bullfinch's Mythology, which describes the ancient Greek myths as if they had happened - but was never meant to be taken seriously). However, there are events described in the Bible which, at least in part, did happen - as when Pharoah Ramses II, for reasons he declined to disclose in official records, evicted the Hebraic slaves from his kingdom, or when Haggai, of the Persian province of Judah, successfully petitioned the Governor to authorize the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple. The surrounding material in the Bible may or may not be historical fiction, but its historicity must be acknowledged.

(Ironically enough, as Isaac Asimov has noted, one of the most easily verifiable parts of the Torah was regarded as "apocryphal" by the Christian Church - the Books of the Maccabees, describing the short, only partially successful Maccabean Revolt against the invading Persians. It's even more ironic when you consider that without this tale, most of us in the modern world would never have heard of the Zealots...)

Jim in Iowa: Yes, a woman bearing a child to term is an inconvenience, but in the overwhelming number of cases, it is only an inconvenience.
Luigi Novi: It is not only an “inconvenience.” It is a huge burden on the mother of the unwanted child, her family, the state, and on that child

Are you suggesting that being born is more of a burden on the fetus/infant than being terminated?

David Bjorlin: Wrong. Section 215 allows the Federal Government to order documents, and it does prohibit disclosure of that fact to the suspect.
Luigi Novi: My research indicates otherwise.>/i>

Um, that's the sentence where I was agreeing with you.

David Bjorlin: I have absoltely no problem with the secrecy aspect-- we don't let the Mafia know we have their houses or phones bugged, so why should we tip off terrorists that we're checking their email records?
Luigi Novi: We usually have probable cause when bugging them.

What does the probable cause finding have to do with secrecy? That is the only difference between the Patriot Act orders and subpoenas that I can issue right now without even going to the trouble of finding a judge to issue an order.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ctu/Section_215.htm

David Bjorlin: And frankly, I do think that flatly claiming the foundation for an entire belief system to be "fiction" is an unnecessarily insulting and incendiary way of saying "I don't believe in that."
Luigi Novi: Whether the Bible is a book of fiction is a question of fact, and thus, stating words to that effect is therefore a dispassionate statement with no intended insult. Whether someone chooses to adhere to an entire belief system that is based on it doesn’t change this. This has nothing to do with what “I don’t believe,” because belief implies a subjectivity. The conclusion that the Bible is not a book of history or science is not subjective at all, but a statement based on reason and logic.

OK, so where's your evidence that the Bible is false? I'm serious; if you have evidence that the Bible is falsifiable, I would dearly like to see it. It can't be proven or disproven, which makes it by definition an article of faith. Had Mr Ries referred to the Bible as "uncorroborated," "inaccurate," or "unproven" we wouldn't be having this discussion, but he also wouldn't have been able to insult anyone, which is what I'm fairly certain he intended to do. As to your statement, No, the fact that so much of its material cannot be corroborated independently, and that much of it is historically and scientifically WRONG, is what makes it so. Not merely your or my “opinion.” The lack of independent corroboration doesn't make it fiction. It makes it uncorroborated. I could give you a detailed and accurate statement of my activities over the last 24 hours that you couldn't independently corroborate, which would not be fiction. Nor does the tension between evidence of evolution and the creation story in Genesis render the fundamental claim-- that God created the universe-- fiction. One would have to falsify that claim to fairly characterize the Bible as fiction. Good luck with that.

"The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction."

Since this has degenerated into a argument over semantics and basic logic, let me jump in and say that this statement, at least, is unsupportable.

Many things that are "true"--ie. real, actual, happened, the way things are, etc.-- cannot be "proven". Evolution cannot be proven. The Big Bang cannot be proven. Germ theory cannot be proven. The preponderance of the evidence dictates that I am on solid ground in stating that all 3 are "facts".

If one were to dig up a chunk of papyrus tomorrow that described an actual event of the year 750 BC, with a level of accuracy that would make Asimov look like Dan Rather, it would probably be forever "un-provable". But it would not be fiction.

One could also show the fallacy of the statement by simply reversing it--would it be at all logical to say that if one cannot PROVE a book to be fiction it must therefore be nonfiction?

Penn and Teller addressed the bible on one of their "Bullshit" shows on Showtime. Do I need to tell you what their take was on the subject? I'm not sure if you can still get it OnDemand. I bet it will be available when their next season starts, though.

The blurb on the P&T bible show from the Showtime website:

We'll reveal the many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Why all the confusion? Shouldn't anything that is "divinely inspired" be crystal clear? Did Noah build an ark big enough to hold all those animals? Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus even exist? We'll take on the most sacred of sacred cows to show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer. Hey, we're going to burn in hell anyway, why not buy a first class ticket?

Karen:

>The blurb on the P&T bible show from the Showtime website:

>We'll reveal the many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Why all the confusion? Shouldn't anything that is "divinely inspired" be crystal clear? Did Noah build an ark big enough to hold all those animals? Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus even exist? We'll take on the most sacred of sacred cows to show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer. Hey, we're going to burn in hell anyway, why not buy a first class ticket?

I love these guys! Their 1st season is available on DVD. I rented all 3 discs from a local video rental store and so there are some out there to be rented, if not outright purchased.

Penn & Teller are not only highly entertaining, with sharp wit, but take time to explore many topics that they see as "bullshit". The 1st season dealt with a dozen or so different topic, including space abductions, ouija boards and mediums, chiropractors, Save the Earth movements, fung shuai (spelling? I'm clueless), anti-smoking laws, and much more. Regardless of where you fall on these topics, certainly amusing, insightful and worth watching.

Fred

Fred,
I haven't missed one yet. Like the Daily Show they use humor to inform. Although it's a little sad that a fake news show cuts through the BS, while regular news just repeats it. Anyway, I agree completely with your review. :)

LOVE Penn & Teller's show. Of course you had better have a strong degree of confidence in your opinions since it is likely that at least once or twice during the course of the last 2 seasons they will be skewering something that you yourself believe in. At least they do it with wit.

I'm surprised they haven't been killed by enraged animal rights activists by now.

Karen:

>I haven't missed one yet. Like the Daily Show they use humor to inform. Although it's a little sad that a fake news show cuts through the BS, while regular news just repeats it. Anyway, I agree completely with your review. :)

Two liberals agreeing on this site, go figure. ;)

>Bill:

>LOVE Penn & Teller's show. Of course you had better have a strong degree of confidence in your opinions since it is likely that at least once or twice during the course of the last 2 seasons they will be skewering something that you yourself believe in. At least they do it with wit.
>I'm surprised they haven't been killed by enraged animal rights activists by now.

Hell, I'm surprised that they haven't taken on circuses and their treatment of animals, while throwing in several Siegfeld & Roy jokes. I'm guessing that it is a matter of time....

Fred

Penn wrote a very funny article for Razor magazine discussing animal rights groups like PETA.Dont know if it was the same material as the show but is was funny as hell.Of course I tend to be a cynical bastard anyway so i appreciate any humor at the expense of "established" concepts.

"If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a "feeling" I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief."

Simply being a conviction or a belief still doesn't make something a fact.

monkeys.

"If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a "feeling" I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief."

A president is obligated to represent ALL the people, not just the people that happen to agree with him religiously. That is why there are laws and a seperation of church and state. Tell me, how does Bush reconcile starting a war when his religious beliefs state "Thou shalt not kill" Or for that matter why is he pro death penalty? You want it all ways so long as they agree with your point of view.

No, it's not a federally mandated situation. Two states, Nebraska iirc and another I can't recall now off the top of my head, already use the proportional method of distributing electoral college votes.

I was referring to your cavalier disdain for the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

Well, it's hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things.
The concept alone that the world was created in 7 days? Well, I just can't accept it.

Yet, people can accept this as fact and then be so horrible to their fellow human beings, regardless of religion, sexual preference, etc, is just mind numbing.

In general, I just flat out think we're better off without major religion.

The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.

Perhaps the best term is "historical fiction" then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.

Take The Three Kingdoms (or Romance of the Three Kingdoms). 1800 year old Chinese history written about 600 years ago. Considered to be "seven parts history, three parts fact", yet there are numerous historical records from the time period to show what was true and what was false.

Still makes for a great tale in it's current fictional form though.

Definately.

Craig:

>>The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.

>Perhaps the best term is "historical fiction" then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.

Much can be proven as historical fact, while a great portion must be relied upon with faith.

I've always been incredibly curious about the pile of books that were purged from the Bible and destroyed by various religious figures and monarchs. Guess history really is written by the victors..... or edited anyways.

Fred

Well, it's hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things.

To be fair, if people weren't fighting over religion, they'd be fighting over culture, race, property, world communism, or the color of paint to be used when remodelling the kitchen. War and oppression will end if and only if our species becomes extinct. The remarkable thing about the Abrahamic religions is that they are a set of belief systems that have as central tenets the declaration that morality consists of people being civilized to one another, even if those tenets are inconsistently obeyed. No idea has ever killed or hurt anyone. It's awful people behaving in unacceptable ways that cause trouble.

Besides, if you're unwilling to show respect for other people's beliefs, why should we tolerate yours?

Luigi Novi wrote: If you have a specific claim—in this case, that an unborn child is a life deserving of the same rights as the post-born—then the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. Not on someone else to prove otherwise. The burden of proof for claims always falls on the person to prove the POSITIVE. Not on others to prove the NEGATIVE.

You can only make that statement because you start with assuming it is not a life. It is clear that at some point life begins (since I have to unfortunately state the obvious). In such a circumstance, it is YOUR moral responsibility to know if the unborn child is alive at the point of abortion. The child is "alive" at some point. We don't allow a child to be killed once it is born (unless, of course, it is alive after an abortion, but no one wants to admit that this does happen on some rare occasions). The burden does indeed rest on your shoulders to prove that the child is not alive.

If you are out hunting, it is your responsibility to make sure you are shooting at a deer (or whatever animal you are hunting) and not another hunter. If you were pointing a gun at a child, would you tell me I had to prove the "positive," that the gun was loaded, before you pulled the trigger? You have set up the argument in such a way to conveniently ignore the question.

All of this misses my original point. You do not believe the child is alive, so it makes logical sense that you do not believe it is murder. Kerry has clearly stated, on the record, that he believes life does begin at conception. If that is what he truly believes, then my point is that his position is not defensible.

This is not just my opinion. In Saturday's paper, the "God Squad" wrote the following about what they hoped a Catholic priest meant when he spoke about abortion and the position of candidates:

Many politicians who support abortion on demand still want Catholic votes, and it's your choice whether to accede to their appeals. However, to appeal for Catholic voters without appealing to Catholic values is dishonest.

One favorite rhetorical device to seduce Catholics into voting for pro-abortion candidates is for the candidate to say something like, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose." This is profoundly immoral and disingenous.

The "God Squad" are hardly right-wing radical fundamentalist Christians, yet they clearly understand that Kerry's position is "profoundly immoral an disingenous." Whether you agree with me on abortion or not, they state my point well: Kerry's position is a joke. He is either believes it is murder but does not care, or he is lieing and does not really believe life begins at conception. Those are the only two options that exist.

Jim in Iowa

Luigi,

John Kerry said this:

***Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

I said this:

***Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman’s right to have an abortion because it’s constitutionally protected. SO IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. So will Kerry buy people guns if they can’t afford it. It is after all their constitutional right.

You replied:

***Safe abortions are a health issue involving the safety and care of women. Guns are not.

To which I reply John Kerry said:

***...making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to HAVE WHATEVER the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

To which I once again say where is my Constitutionaly protected right to get a gun if I can't afford it. He said it, not I.

Craig wrote: Well, it's hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things. In general, I just flat out think we're better off without major religion.

You are right that much wrong has been done in the name of religion, including Christianity. But you are ignorant of history if you think you would be better off without Christianity. It has done far more good than it has done evil. Christians were the ones who curbed many of the abuses in Rome. Christians were the top scholars and scientists for the last 1,000 years. A lot of our music and other forms of art that we value today came from Christians. The very concept of hospitals has its roots in Christian teachings and practices. Slavery in the modern world came to an end because of what some today call right wing radical fundamentalist Christians. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom by Christians. And the list goes on.

Perhaps the best term is "historical fiction" then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.

I realize this is not the best place for a debate on this topic. There is much in the Bible that cannot be proven to be historically accurate because it is the only existing record of for some of recorded history. But for the points when there is an outside record, it has been shown to be enormously accurate and consistent. Things that even 20 years ago people said the Bible made up have now been verified as true. Let me suggest a book that is easy to read. "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel does an excellent job of showing how the Gospels are a very reliable historical record.

The only reason some want to call the Bible "historical fiction" is because they don't like what it says. We rely on many other ancient documents with far less outside documentation. There has not been a single story in the Bible that has been clearly proven false. There are many that are questioned, but there is a lack of evidence, not proof the Bible is wrong. It is up to you whether you want to read it or accept it, but take the time to actually research this issue before declaring it is fiction. (By the way, I would suggest Penn & Teller are not the best place to start in your research efforts.)

Jim in Iowa

Luigi Novi: It is not only an “inconvenience.” It is a huge burden on the mother of the unwanted child, her family, the state, and on that child

David Bjorlin: Are you suggesting that being born is more of a burden on the fetus/infant than being terminated?

Well, David, for starters, being pregnant is more than an "inconvience". Getting up to change the channel on the tv is inconvient. Having your body physically altered, having your body chemisty altered, having another entity that is feeding off of the nutrients in your flesh is far more than "inconvient". You have to look at both sides of the equasion. The woman carrying the child is (or may be) a sentiet, independant person with rights of her own. Given that is her body being used, does she not have the right to have a say about her own physical and emotional well-being?

And using the short sighted response of "she shouldn't have gotten knocked-up then" does not work. What if the woman got pregnant because her method of birth control did not function properly, or she was raped? In either instance, the pregnancy was forced upon her. What then? What if the mother is 13 or 14, and made a decision that, mentally, they weren't prepared to make?

What do you say to them? "Screw you. Your life, your body, and your well being is less important than the fetus inside of you." Is that what you say to them? Sounds rather uncaring.

And Kerry's response about his vote against Bush's ban on partial-birth abortion was based on that there was no exemption for if complications caused by pregnancy cause potentially fatal problems for the mother. Under US law, wheter or not you agree that the fetus is a person or not, it is permissable to kill another if your life is in imminent danger. Kerry's position was that if a woman in late-term pregnancy developed a problem that could kill her (and potentially kill the child too), then she has the right to save her own life, even at the cost of the childs. In almost every hospital across america, it's standard practice that if life-threatening complications happen during birth, the doctor's priorities are to save the woman's life.

Jim in Iowa: If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a "feeling" I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.

Wrong. First of all, ALL feelings are illogical. Just ask any Vulcan :). Secondly, convictions and beliefs are one thing and one thing only, an opinion, and as such, they are not facts, and they are not absolute universal truths that apply to everyone and everything. With leads me to, thirdly, Kerry's moral obligation is to share his belief, to say to someone "I think what you are doing is wrong, and here are several options you should consider instead." but he still has to allow that someone else to make that decision for themselves, not force all others to live by what he thinks is right and wrong, and that's what he said in the debate.

John Kerry (during the debate): But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

How anyone could not understand that is beyond me...

Jim in Iowa: If you are out hunting, it is your responsibility to make sure you are shooting at a deer (or whatever animal you are hunting) and not another hunter. If you were pointing a gun at a child, would you tell me I had to prove the "positive," that the gun was loaded, before you pulled the trigger? You have set up the argument in such a way to conveniently ignore the question.

You're wrong again. In any court case involving murder, the prosecution has to prove that it was murder. Therefore, yes, you would have to prove that the child was alive before being shot (he could've shot a dead body), you have to prove that the gun shot wound caused the death of the child (what if the bullet grazed the kids arm?), you have to prove gun was loaded before he pulled the trigger (meaning you have to prove the bullet that killed the kid came from his weapon), and you have to prove that he was the one who pulled the trigger as well (just because it was his gun, or that he held the gun at some point, doesn't mean he killed 'em). Don't you watch any of the CSI shows?

Anyway, be sure you get your metaphors right in the future.

> You know what would be interesting? If
> Kerry said, "If you guys want, I'll hang out and
> answer more of your questions, unprepared.
> Just toss 'em out."

Senator Kerry no more wanted a true unscripted, open forum than Usurper Bush -- both sides had a written contract with each other to keep as much control over the process as they could get, which is why Mr. Gibson had to approve the questions, why the microphones were turned off except during the reading of the pre-approved questions, why the questioners were threatened with physical removal on the spot and the cessation of the "debate" if any of them deviated from their pre-approved question, and why the minor parties were locked out (Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik and Green nominee David Cobb were arrested outside the building by armored riot police). All of this is in the contract.

This "debate" was just as scripted as the Bartlet vs. Ritchie debate on The West Wing -- but not nearly so well written as anything by Aaron Sorkin.

Jim in Iowa: The "God Squad" are hardly right-wing radical fundamentalist Christians, yet they clearly understand that Kerry's position is "profoundly immoral an disingenous." Whether you agree with me on abortion or not, they state my point well: Kerry's position is a joke. He is either believes it is murder but does not care, or he is lieing and does not really believe life begins at conception. Those are the only two options that exist.

Sheesh man... wrong, wrong, wrong... to put it to you like this:

My mother wasn't happy that I decided to goto straight to college, and work my way through instead of going to the military first. It was her conviction, her belief, that my life would be better as a military officer, however, she respected the fact that it was my decision to make... it was not her place to tell me what to do.

Or... while, I, personally am against porn, I defend the right for porn to exist. While I disagree with the degrading of women in those movies, it's not my place to decide what grown women allow to be done to their own bodies, nor is it my place to decide what people watch in the confines of their own homes.

While Kerry may have the opinion that abortion is wrong, he still respects the fact that it is the right of the individual to choose that option, and he knows that it's not his place to deicde for the woman, especially if he's not the guy who got her pregnant in the first place (but that's a whole nother matter).

And it's not the church's place either, Jim.

Speaking of the Missou-ree vs. Missou-rah thing, as a St. Louisan, I can tell you that it's an urban-vs.-rural thing. You'll hear the "-ree" ending pronounced by anyone raised in St. Louis or Kansas City, and the "-rah" ending pronounced by anyone raised outstate, such as John Ashcroft, for example. It isn't "wrong", it's dialectical.

Non of you have addressed my point about the death penalty. If Bush is so concerned about his faith and truly believes that all life is sacred, then why is he so gung-ho to kill criminals? Isn't Christianity all about giving a person the chance to confess their sins and repent? How will a convicted murderer do that if he is dead? This is where his hypocrisy comes in. You can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty if you are basing these things on your religion.

You're wrong again. In any court case involving murder, the prosecution has to prove that it was murder.

My metaphor is correct, you are just twisting it to something I didn't say. You are turning it into a court room drama. (Actually, the person would be convicted of man-slaughter, not murder, but that is not the point.) Let's talk real life for the moment. My point is very simple: Life obviously begins at some point between conception and birth. Do you know when exactly that is? Since you do not, you do not know if you are killing an unborn child who deserves the same rights as you and me, or if you are simply getting rid of an unwanted tissue mass.

Here is one more example: A person is unconcious and "appears" to be dead. Do you just bury them or do you make sure they are really dead first? You would check first to make sure the person was dead. You always err on the side of protecting someone's life unless it is in self defense. If a doctor assumed someone was dead and started cutting him open to remove his heart for medical research and killed the man, he would be guilty of malpractice.

Sheesh man... wrong, wrong, wrong... to put it to you like this: My mother wasn't happy that I decided to goto straight to college, and work my way through instead of going to the military first. It was her conviction, her belief, that my life would be better as a military officer, however, she respected the fact that it was my decision to make... it was not her place to tell me what to do.

Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?

Your example is not valid because it ignores what Kerry said. A better example is the following. Imagine that you had an infant son and you lived in Texas. You had a habit of leaving your son alone in the car for hours with the windows rolled up, no AC, in 100 degree heat. You could use all sorts of excuses of how the baby slowed you down, got in your way, was a pain to take care of, etc., but if the child died from heat stroke in your car, you would be convicted of manslaughter. If your mom knew you did this and did nothing about it, she would be guilty as well (perhaps not in a court of law, but definitely morally). It would be immoral and inexcusable for someone to say that he or she did not like what you were doing, but they had to respect your decision. When your decisions end the life of another human being, it is no longer your decision.

Until you prove that the child is not a human being, alive and deserving of the same benefits as a one month old baby, your example is irrelevant. Your actions are hurting another human being.

Frankly, I find it amazing how easy it is to ignore a simple question: When does life begin for a baby? As I have said before, it clearly does at some point. Why do you hide behind the "I don't know so it doesn't matter" answer? Because if it could be proven that life began at say, 3 months in the womb, it would make abortion after the third month of pregnancy immoral. That is unacceptable to many people (I could speculate on the reasons, but it really does not matter why). Life begins at some point. The burden is on you to show you are not killing an innocent child.

Jim in Iowa

I just read on Yahoo news that Christoper Reeve passed away. I hope Superman is finally running where ever he is..
Rest in peace.

Non of you have addressed my point about the death penalty. If Bush is so concerned about his faith and truly believes that all life is sacred, then why is he so gung-ho to kill criminals? Isn't Christianity all about giving a person the chance to confess their sins and repent? How will a convicted murderer do that if he is dead? This is where his hypocrisy comes in. You can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty if you are basing these things on your religion.

There is one very significant difference between abortion and the death penalty. The child is completely innocent, while the person being executed is guilty. There is no hypocrisy because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Note: For the sake of this discussion, let's agree that the person is actually guilty of cold blooded murder. They are not falsely accused and they did not just have an accident.

According to the Bible, life is precious. The death penalty is based on this principle. First, the only equal punishment for taking another's life is to forfeit your own. Second, if you took one person's life, it is possible you will do so again. So to protect other innocent lives, the murderer is executed.

The Bible had safeguards, such as requiring two eye witnesses, to try to avoid someone being wrongly executed. In addition, if it is later found that an eye witness lied, that witness would die. While not perfect, it was actually a remarkable achievement for its day. Instead of there being revenge where a whole family would be wiped out in revenge for one death, there were strict limits and guidlines which protected life overall.

In regards to repentance, a person who is executed by the government does have a chance to repent since it is not a revenge killing done without warning. The murder does have a chance to repent. There is no obligation to give him or her a lifetime to repent.

The Bible does not require the death penalty in every circumstance. Indeed, there are many cases where mercy is shown. But fundamentally, executing a murder is the "maximum" and just punishment for the crime of murder.

Jim in Iowa

Then why is the Pope against it? Isn't he God's interpreter on earth?

And if you say that you are not a Catholic Christian, then you are just proving our point. Different views for different religions.

Then why is the Pope against it? Isn't he God's interpreter on earth? ... And if you say that you are not a Catholic Christian, then you are just proving our point. Different views for different religions.

How exactly am I proving your point? It really doesn't matter how many religions (or variations on Christianity) that there are. For at least some things, there seems to be an absolute (or at least something close to it). Every culture that has ever existed has some prohibition on murder. The details vary, but the concept is similar. Every culture rejects a "Judas," someone who betrays them, as a bad person.

I firmly believe in religious freedom here in America, but that is not feedom from religion. If a Buddist is opposed to the death penalty and a muslim is for it, there is nothing wrong with that. Someone can be completely opposed to abortion for purely logical reasons that have absolutely no basis in an organized religion.

The problem is not religions, it is people. You can go to many cultures today who effectively remove religion who disagree on various issues. When you get below the surface, there are just as many variations among non religious people as among those who follow a particular religion.

Your point was that being pro-life and pro the death penalty was inconsistent. I just showed you that it is not necessarily so. They are two separate issues. The fact that the Pope disagrees is irrelevant. That does not mean I am right and he is wrong. It is just that the two views are not mutually exclusive.

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa: Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?

Well... let's see... my skin cells are alive, does that mean anytime I scratch that I'm commiting murder? No, it doesn't.

Roaches are alive. Should everyone who owns a can of Raid be sent to jail?

There is no difinitive moment when you can say a ton of cells become a human being. Kerry can think a human being begins at conception, but he can't prove for a fact that it does. Just because you think it's murder, doesn't magically make it a fact that it's murder. By your standards, every woman who has a miscarriage should be tossed in jail for manslaughter.

People once justified slavery because they thought slaves were no smarter than dogs; just animals to be trained. However, it's a proven fact that any black child has the same intellectual potential as any other human being born on the planet, thus slavery was outlawed.

There are no clear facts regarding when a fetus becomes a human being, just opinions, and to make laws based solely around opinions is not only irresponsible, but is also "profoundly immoral and disingenous". While Kerry may strongly believe life begins at conception, Kerry, however, is smart enough to realize his opinion is just that, his opinion, and nothing more.

That would be like, if a mayor had a strong personal conviction that everytime someone cursed, a bird suddenly dropped dead somewhere on earth, (say this mayor was a strong believer of the Chaos theory) should he err on the side of "life" and push to outlaw cursing? I think not.

There is one very significant difference between abortion and the death penalty. The child is completely innocent, while the person being executed is guilty. There is no hypocrisy because you are comparing apples to oranges.

I disagree

According to the Bible, life is precious. The death penalty is based on this principle.

Killing as a punishment is based on the idea that life is prescious.... I surprised you missed the contradiction in that. If you take the stance that all life is prescious, then ALL life is prescious, including the life of the murderer, and killing is therefore never justified under any and every circumstances. No exceptions.

But if you want to make exceptions to the rule based on your own opinion, then you have to allow others to make exceptions based on their opinions, right?

First, the only equal punishment for taking another's life is to forfeit your own.

Forefitting your own life is suicide, the act of killing one's self, or, as a stretch, giving permission to allow ones self to be killed. However, an execution is not suicide. No one who gets executed wants to, or allows themselves to get killed... or do people sign a waiver before sitting in the electric chair?

Second, if you took one person's life, it is possible you will do so again. So to protect other innocent lives, the murderer is executed.

So, what, locking them up, and keeping them away from everyone else won't work?

Not sure if anyone missed it, but Christopher Reeve dies. :(

Truly a Superman on and off screen and a hero to us all.

Fred

"Bush completely dodged the "3 mistake" question -- and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question."

Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.

PAD

The Constitution says you ghave a right to bear arms. It says nothing about being provided one for free.

Although I think every home should be issued one firearm for free. Along with a mandatory gun safety class if you want your free gun.

And Jim, you're whole repetivive stupid argument of "The Bible says..." is meaningless and pointless because the USA is NOT a religion-based government (Theocracy?), it's a representative-Republic (and not a Democracy like Bush and others claim).

Besides, if you're unwilling to show respect for other people's beliefs, why should we tolerate yours?

Ahh, we're already back to the wonderful word "tolerate".

The only reason some want to call the Bible "historical fiction" is because they don't like what it says.

Umm, no. I would say it's historical fiction because I think it is impossible to walk up to a body of water and part it with the wave of your hand (roughly speaking). And that is one example of many.

I think you're being very short-sighted when you say that people don't believe the Bible only because they don't like it.

Slick: Killing as a punishment is based on the idea that life is prescious.... I surprised you missed the contradiction in that. If you take the stance that all life is prescious, then ALL life is prescious, including the life of the murderer, and killing is therefore never justified under any and every circumstances. No exceptions.

But if you want to make exceptions to the rule based on your own opinion, then you have to allow others to make exceptions based on their opinions, right?

Well said, and my point exactly. Jim thinks it's OK to murder criminals, but it's not OK to have an abortion. He says they are two separate issues, but how can it be? The action is to stop life in both cases. In the case of abortion it is MY belief that you are stopping it before it starts, hence no murder, while the death penalty stops life after it starts, hence the immorality. Taking a murderers' life is revenge, not justice.

"Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?"

You said it best: Kerry said he BELIEVES...
He realizes that it is a belief, and not a fact, which is very good and very refreshing.

And as far as pregnancy being inconvenient or a burden, realize that a developing fetus is more or less a parasite up to a certain point. It will take the nutrients it needs from mom, whether it gets it from mom eating well or syphoning (sp?) it right out of her muscles and bones. My aunt was pretty poor about getting enough calcium during her pregnancies, and now she has bone density issues because the babies took what they needed out of her anyway. I'm by no means saying babies=evil or anything, but just something to think about when deciding why a woman should have the right to make her own decisions concerning abortion (I personally couldn't go through with it and would have a tough time if my wife wanted one).

Monkeys.

He realizes that it is a belief, and not a fact, which is very good and very refreshing.

Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn't have strength to stand up for his convictions!

That is what I look for in my political leaders, someone who says he believes in something but does nothing about it.

It shows real moral fortitude!

No, it's refreshing to see someone, anyone, realize that just because you believe something doesn't mean you are right and that you can force others to bend to your will. There is a difference between having a belief based on "gut feelings" and religion and having a belief based on facts. Sticking up for the latter could be construed as moral fortitude, the former is blindness and zeolotry when one refuses to acknowledge other factors.

You can stand up for something and say "I think this is wrong", but it doesn't mean you can control other people just because you think you're right when you can't prove it.

Monkeys

It showes him to be on higher moral ground than people like Bush and the Aytollah's who force their religious BELIEFS on others through force of law.

THe hi-jackers of 09/11 fame BELIEVED in what they were doing and BELIEVED it was their god's will. Does that mean you worship them and respect them?

Says a lot more about you than what you say about Kerry...

You people who are anti-choice think this is an easy decision for a woman. We all know the potential for life exists, but there are so many reasons why a woman is not able to care for a child. Forget about what the pregnancy itself does to a womans' body. What about the 18+ years of financial, moral, and physical responsibility of caring for the child? What about the woman's partner? If he takes no responsiblity and she is unable to do this alone? (And please don't tell me that the courts will help. Men get out of child support everyday, some just by refusing to pay. And money is not the only issue.) It is one of the most important jobs any person can attempt. Some fail, which is why we have many problems in this country. Kerry is right. He respects the views of those who do not believe in abortion and even shares them on a personal level. But he does not want to legislate from his religious views. Except for the current administration, that is what leaders of our country are supposed to do.

There is a big difference between "standing up" for one's convictions and forcing them on others. Sometimes a person has two separate convictions and they have to pick one before the other. I, for example, believe that abortion is wrong, but I also believe that our government should not make decisions based on religious principle, nor do I believe that one person's religious opinion should be forced on another. My beliefs on abortion are rooted in my religious beliefs and not on absolute facts. Therefore, my strong conviction that "Congress shall make no law..." overrides my personal feelings on abortion, and I would have to side with Kerry.

Does that mean that I'm not standing up for my beliefs, Ken?

Eric

Yes, the way our legal system is set up so that it is fluid and can be changed, that is exactly what that means.

I don't want a leader who will do nothing to change bad laws.

Getting off the religious straw-man argument, there is considerable amounts of medical proof that supports abortion is killing a living being. Most likely those who support abortion are doing it for personal opinion moreso than facts, as evidenced by the anti-life posts here.

Ken: I don't want a leader who will do nothing to change bad laws.

Well, what is a "bad law"? A law that you don't like? Laws can be fair or unfair, just or unjust, but none of them are "bad". That's like having "bad words".

Secondly, to say abortion is murder, you are therefore accusing anyone who has an abortion of commiting murder. To justifiably change the law to reflect that, Kerry, as the accuser, would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that abortion is murder. While Jim in Iowa believes that we should err on the side of life, our legal system is still based on the philosophy of "Innocent until proven guilty". The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions.

While Kerry may believe life begins at conception, in order to change the law to reflect that, Kerry would have to goto the Supreme Court and prove that a human life does begin at conception. He can't, and he knows he can't. Therefore, he can't justifiably change the law to reflect that arguement. You may not agree with a woan's right to choose, but at the momment, it is a fair and just ruling.

Ken: Getting off the religious straw-man argument, there is considerable amounts of medical proof that supports abortion is killing a living being. Most likely those who support abortion are doing it for personal opinion moreso than facts, as evidenced by the anti-life posts here.

Well, first off, an abortion is killing and expelling organic tissue. Whether or not that tissue comprises an actual human being that does have rights, or not, is open to personal interpertation... therefore, those who are pro-life are doing it more for personal opinion than based on facts as well.

So Ken, you haven't answered, so I guess you DO admire the 09/11 hi-jackers for following their beliefs?

Anti-life? Nice rhetoric. Are you Darkseid?

Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn't have strength to stand up for his convictions!

I'm sure Hitler was only standing up to his convinctions either.

I'd find it more freshing when somebody stands up to their convictions, but then atleast has the balls to admit they were wrong.

Hmm, changed thoughts mid-stream apparently.

First sentence in my post about Hitler should have "as well" at the end, not "either".

Slick wrote: While Jim in Iowa believes that we should err on the side of life, our legal system is still based on the philosophy of "Innocent until proven guilty". The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions.

Once again you are guilty of using a false analogy. Yes, if you are accused of a crime, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not how things work in real life. If you are driving down the road and see what might be the body of a child in the road, what should you do? Just run over it in hopes that it is not a child? If you saw it in time and could have stopped but did not, you would be guilty of manslaughter if you killed the child.

Jim in Iowa

Bladestar, I didn't answer because it was an ignorant question?

Their methods for showing their believes were wrong.

Slick wrote:

"...our legal system is still based on the philosophy of "Innocent until proven guilty". The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions."

Well, if you're talking about the candidates running for president this election (and their VP picks), you sure couldn't tell that based on some of the posts I've seen here.

No politician is innocent. Since we are not in court, the burden of proof is on them, not us. They must show they are able to run the country well enough for us to vote for our candidate.

PAD wrote: Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.

So you admit it *was* an unfair question? ;-)

Jim in Iowa

The only ignorance is you dodging the question, oh he-who-worships-those-who-exercise-their-beliefs.

THey did what their beliefs called for. Those were the methods they believed they needed to follow. You're losing this one VERY badly...

Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.

Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.

So are there any unfair questions for someone who just wants to hold as much power as the president? Just curious.

Jim in Iowa

Jim:

>>Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.

>So are there any unfair questions for someone who just wants to hold as much power as the president? Just curious.

Not if he expects me to consider giving him my vote to give him the position he seeks. ;)

Any question pertaining to office, policy or decision-making and how this process is done is fair game in my mind.

How does my sarcastic remark about Kerry's stance on abortion:

Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn't have strength to stand up for his convictions!

That is what I look for in my political leaders, someone who says he believes in something but does nothing about it.

It shows real moral fortitude!

Equate to me being:

he-who-worships-those-who-exercise-their-beliefs.

???

It doesn't, except maybe in the world of Bigotstar, where logic tells him that circles are squares and that 4+4= eggs.

I want a leader that will stand up for what he believes in. That does not mean that he goes to extremes like flying a plane into a building or bombing abortion clinics. The people who do that are extremist and crazy, not leaders.

And a leader leads ALL people, not just those who share his religious beliefs.

Exactly Karen.

And Ken, you've said all along your admiration and worship for those who follow their beliefs and force them on others.

I'm not a bigot, you are. I allow others to make their own choices. YOu want an abortion, fine. You don't fine.

Actually, doesn't someone willing to die for their beliefs the ultimate vessel of their god?

I must have missed it, where did I say that I worship anyone.

And your last little sentence only makes sense in your world.

So am I understanding you right, Karen, to you a good leader is someone that is a hypocrite?

Also, B-star, where did I say that forcing your beliefs on others is what I am advocating. Trying to change laws in a way that you think is for the better is not forcing your beliefs. As leaders, it is their obligation.

"A woman doesn't want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone, or a Porsche. A woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."

-- Frederica Mathews

Ken,

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective

Sounds much more like Bush than Kerry.

If you aren't willing to die for your beliefs, obviously you don't believe in them very much.

Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.

"Bush completely dodged the "3 mistake" question -- and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question."

Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.

Nope. It was an unfair question in another debate 16 years ago. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not actually sure that the question this year was unfair, but your response puzzles me.

Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.

No, but that assumes that the activity in question actually is someone's right. That's the whole debate: pro-life people deny that it is.

Luigi Novi: It is not only an “inconvenience.” It is a huge burden on the mother of the unwanted child, her family, the state, and on that child

David Bjorlin: Are you suggesting that being born is more of a burden on the fetus/infant than being terminated?

Well, David, for starters, being pregnant is more than an "inconvience".

OK, go back and read what I wrote. Then please be kind enough to point out where I said that it was just an inconvenience. All I did was ridicule Luigi for saying, inter alia, that not being aborted was a burden on "that child." I make an idiot of myself enough already; I'd prefer not to have additional bad ideas attributed to me. (Usually I agree with Jim in Iowa on most things, but I didn't actually endorse his characterization of pregnancy as an "inconvenience.")

Your argument is basically the Judith Jarvis Thomson argument, which I think is the best one for legalized abortion.

Any question pertaining to office, policy or decision-making and how this process is done is fair game in my mind.

One clarification. When I said the "tell me 3 mistakes you made" was an unfair question, I specifically said it was unfair because it was one sided. It was only asked of Bush. If it had been asked of both candidates, then it at least would not be the equivalent of saying,

"Hey, President Bush, can you hand 3 live grenades for your opponent to throw back at you 2 minutes from now?"

The Dukakis question was not unfair in the same way in that his opponent (the father Bush, if memory serves me right), would have been glad to have answered the same question.

Jim in Iowa

Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.

This is an empty argument. The government already "takes away some rights." Have you ever heard of a law that requires you to wear a seatbelt? Have you ever heard of a law that makes it illegal to smoke a joint? Have you ever heard of a law that makes it illegal to sell your body for sex? All of these are things done to your own body and some would argue does not hurt anyone else. Since there is a second, innocent life at stake, it is actually the governements responsibility to protect it.

Jim in Iowa

Alright Jim, prove to me that life begins at conception. Don't quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.

Usually I agree with Jim in Iowa on most things, but I didn't actually endorse his characterization of pregnancy as an "inconvenience."

Ok, I agree I was being a little sarcastic in using the term. But if abortion really is murder, then other than to save the life of the mother or a similar extreme condition (such as incest or rape), what would justify an abortion? Many of the same arguments used for justifying an abortion (the burden of raising a kid, the need for a loving home, etc.) could also be used 1 day after a child is born. The difference is, at least currently, everyone agrees that a 1 day old child has a right to life.

If a 1 day old child has a right to live, why doesn't a kid at 7 months that will clearly survive outside of the womb? (My neice was born at 7 months and is a very healthy 10 year old today. She was "viable" at 7 months.)

There are frequent cases of kids born at 5 months who survive. Can we at least limit abortion to before 5 months?

A child at 4 months is very well developed. The 3-D ultrasounds now available from England are astounding. If you saw them, it would be hard to at least mentally believe this was not an actual child. In fact, the unborn child responds to touch, light, etc., much as a newborn does. It seems at least possible, if not likely, many 4 month old unborn babies are alive? Can we at lest limit abortion to the first 3 months?

Then what if medical science were to show that a baby is alive at 2 months? 1 month?

At this point, I can hear the howls of anger at my "legislating morality" again. But keep in mind, I just specificed that we have shown that the baby shows every sign of being alive. There are brainwaves, it responds to stimulus, it acts on its own at 5 months. Why is it that some who are "pro-choice" refuse to set any limits at all to abortion? Could it be because there is no willingness to consider the possibility the baby is alive and that abortion, at least at that stage, is murder?

This argument that I am legislating morality is absurd as soon as you consider whether the unborn child is alive. A very strong case can be made that a baby is alive at least 5 months old in the womb. Are you who are pro-choice willing to limit abortion to the first 4 months of pregnancy?

Let me add one thing: This is just a "religious" issue. I come to these conclusions based on logic and science, not just my religious beliefs. The fact is, we don't know for sure what human life is to begin with. Why are we different than other animals (at least to some degree)?

If Christopher Reeve had slipped into a coma, at one point do you pull the plug? Most would agree that when the brain waves cease and he is brain dead, that you would not be killing him by pulling the plug. (All things being equal, and I am not getting into the right to die issues which are related but different.) By those same standards, an infant is without doubt alive while still in the womb. Life begins in the womb. I have yet to hear a single person explain why it is right to abort a baby without knowing when that life begins and whether the life of an infant is being tragically cut short.

Jim in Iowa

Karen wrote: Alright Jim, prove to me that life begins at conception. Don't quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory.

Good question, Karen. See my previous post. I cannot do so, nor have I claimed to be able to do so scientifically. What I have argued is that by sceintific standards, life begins in the womb. It begins far earlier than was believed in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was reached.

I know others disagree with my logic, but it is valid nonetheless. The burden is on you to prove you are *not* killing an innocent child rather than ending a growth of tissue. If you can prove to me that at 3 months the fetus gains life, then I would agree that abortion before that point is not murder and is permissable.

The reason some do not accept the challenge is because once it is admitted that life begins at say 5 months in the womb, we will then need to limit abortion to, say 2.5 months, just to make sure we don't accidentally do the math wrong and kill an innocent child. And limiting abortion to almost any time frame will be unacceptable to many who are pro-choice. The pro-choice advocates understand this is a losing proposition for them, so at least some oppose a woman being truly educated, including being shown the new, 3-D pictures of a growing fetus, because they know doing so will cause many women to decide it is a child and not go through with an abortion.

Let me state one thing: I do not see all people who do abortion as "evil." I think they are confused and wrong, but they are not getting a kick out of killing a baby. But make no mistake, their very financial livelihood is being threatened if I were to successfully convince women that even at 3 months it would be murder to have an abortion.

Jim in Iowa

Let me add one thing: This is just a "religious" issue.

I hate it when my brain is faster than my hands can type and I leave out a crucial word. The sentence should read as follows:

Let me add one thing: This is NOT just a "religious" issue.

To avoid any confusion, let me reword one sentence:

I do not see all people who PERFORM an abortion as "evil."

I don't see people how have an abortion as "evil" either, but my sentence dealt with abortion providers, and I wanted to make sure that was clear.

Jim in Iowa

Jonathan: Luigi, I believe the problem here may stem from phraseology. You describe the Christian Bible as "a work of mythology and fiction", a phrase which can plausibly be applied only to works completely devoid of any historical accuracy (as, for instance, Bullfinch's Mythology, which describes the ancient Greek myths as if they had happened - but was never meant to be taken seriously).
Luigi Novi: I believe myths, at least as far as I was taught in grade school, were stories that could be based in part on some general truth, but were embellished and created for the purpose of moral commentary or some other truth. Thus, myths can have some basis or inspiration in truth. There really is a place called Jerusalem, for example. There really were Egyptian rulers called Pharoahs. But when we read about talking apples with snakes, and two of every single animal being brought onto a ship and maintained during a global flood, that most certainly is myth, Jonathan.

David Bjorlin: Are you suggesting that being born is more of a burden on the fetus/infant than being terminated?
Luigi Novi: I’m saying that for some pregnancies, it is most certainly a burden on the woman, her family, the state, and yes, it can be a burden on the child.

David Bjorlin: Um, that's the sentence where I was agreeing with you.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I misread the statement.

David Bjorlin: What does the probable cause finding have to do with secrecy?
Luigi Novi: If the authorities search you or your property, and you or your lawyer feel they have no probable cause, or no warrant, you can take legal action against them. You can’t do this if you are not made aware of the search.

David Bjorlin: OK, so where's your evidence that the Bible is false? I'm serious; if you have evidence that the Bible is falsifiable, I would dearly like to see it.
Luigi Novi: The Bible states many things are falsifiable. It states in Leviticus 11:5-6 that rabbits chew cud (they don’t), it states in Genesis 3:14 says that snakes eat dirt (they do not), I Kings 7:23 indicates that Pi is 3 (it’s actually 3.14159), it states in Genesis 6:5, Proverbs 23:7, Luke 9:47, Hebrews 4:12 and numerous other places that thinking is done in the heart (it’s actually the brain*), it states in Revelation 2:23 and many other places that emotions reside in the kidneys (they originate in the brain), it states through a combination of Matthew 4:8, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1, Isaiah 40:22, and Revelation 20:8 that the Earth is a flat disk (it’s actually a sphere), and other passages indicate that the Earth is larger than the Sun, that the Sun circles the Earth, that the sky is a solid dome with windows to let rain through, etc. Matthew 4:8 states that you can see all the kingdoms of the world from one high mountain on Earth. Since at the time of the Bible’s writing, there were civilizations in Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome, Korea, and other settlements, and since Earth is a sphere, you cannot. In addition, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 and Revelation 20:8 refer to the Earth as having “four corners.” The Earth does not have corners, as it is a sphere. The Book of Revelation indicates that stars can fall to Earth. This is false. Stars are light years away from us. Even our own Sun is 93 million miles away. The Genesis Flood story indicates that Noah fit two of each of millions of species, and their food, into a boat 450 by 75 by 45 feet, fed them, watered them cleaned up after them, and kept them from preying upon one another. If you need science to come out and “disprove” this, then perhaps you shouldn’t be reading this. The Bible indicates that the Earth and heavens were created in six days. Evidence clearly shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12-15 billion years old.

Why did the humans who wrote these things write them down? Because they didn’t know any better. An omniscient, omnipotent god would not have that problem.

As for much of the rest of the supernatural phenomena in the Bible, yes, they’re not falsifiable. But it’s hardly unreasonable to refer to such pseudoscientific stories as fiction. Whether others choose to believe such occurrences as having literally occurred, and to take such a comment as an insult doesn’t change this.

David Bjorlin: It can't be proven or disproven, which makes it by definition an article of faith.
Luigi Novi: And since when are “historical documents” determined by “faith”? Yes, supernatural occurrences like talking burning bushes and instant partings of the Red Sea are not falsifiable, which means they are not scientific, not historical events, and can most certainly be deemed “fiction.” They are not merely “uncorroborated” they way things that could have happened are uncorroborated, like the Trojan War. They are supernatural, magical, and pseudoscientific, and it is most certainly reasonable to call it “fiction.” That someone—or even many people—choose to believe on faith that such things actually happened does not change this. The definition of the word “fiction” isn’t determined by a cultural majority.

David Bjorlin: Had Mr Ries referred to the Bible as "uncorroborated," "inaccurate," or "unproven" we wouldn't be having this discussion, but he also wouldn't have been able to insult anyone, which is what I'm fairly certain he intended to do.
Luigi Novi: And your proof of his intent is…?

Funny how belief in the Bible as true should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is not, and is actually considered an “insult.” I mean, it’s not like believers today wrote the damn thing, did they? I mean, if you write an account of something, and I don’t believe, I could see that author being insulted for perceiving being called a liar (even though disbelief need not equate with thinking him a liar), but why should others be insulted just because they do believe him?

David Bjorlin: I could give you a detailed and accurate statement of my activities over the last 24 hours that you couldn't independently corroborate, which would not be fiction.
Luigi Novi: And why couldn’t I independently corroborate them? Were you completely alone? Unseen by any witnesses? Did you not leave any traces of your existence during that time? Even so, your activities, unless you are purporting to have raised the dead or walked on water, were not supernatural or unscientific. If they were, then, yes, I could call them fiction.

Luigi Novi: If you have a specific claim—in this case, that an unborn child is a life deserving of the same rights as the post-born—then the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. Not on someone else to prove otherwise. The burden of proof for claims always falls on the person to prove the POSITIVE. Not on others to prove the NEGATIVE.

Jim in Iowa: You can only make that statement because you start with assuming it is not a life.
Luigi Novi: I make that statement because it’s simply true, Jim. I make that statement because that’s how science works. It does not work with “assuming” anything. It works by way those who come up with the claim to prove it true.

Jim in Iowa: The burden does indeed rest on your shoulders to prove that the child is not alive.
Luigi Novi: No. I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re the one with a claim. You’re the one who has to prove it. Otherwise, each person’s individual belief or feeling on where life begins is just as good as the next person’s. And unless you can prove to me that my belief that an embryo or fetus in the first month or two is not alive is scientifically false, it will remain my belief.

Jim in Iowa: If you are out hunting, it is your responsibility to make sure you are shooting at a deer (or whatever animal you are hunting) and not another hunter.
Luigi Novi: False analogy. Deer and hunters are known, established quantities, and easily discernable for one who wishes to do so. The fact that where life begins is not so easily discernable, and has not been established, is precisely why abortion continues to be a divisive issue.

Jim in Iowa: All of this misses my original point. You do not believe the child is alive, so it makes logical sense that you do not believe it is murder. Kerry has clearly stated, on the record, that he believes life does begin at conception. If that is what he truly believes, then my point is that his position is not defensible.
Luigi Novi: It’s perfectly defensible in that others do not share his belief. And since there is no evidence that proves one side over the other, it would be wrong to impose his belief on those who do not share it.

Jim in Iowa: He is either believes it is murder but does not care, or he is lieing and does not really believe life begins at conception. Those are the only two options that exist.
Luigi Novi: No, those are the only two options that you arbitrarily focus on. This is called the False A or B tactic, and it’s a logical fallacy. There may be possibilities C, D, or E that you have not considered. In this case, I and others have explained that Kerry does not want to impose his religious beliefs on others.

Joe V.: To which I once again say where is my Constitutionaly protected right to get a gun if I can't afford it. He said it, not I.
Luigi Novi: What do you mean “once again” say? That’s not what you said. You asked if Kerry was going to BUY people guns. You yourself quoted what you originally said:

Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman’s right to have an abortion because it’s constitutionally protected. SO IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. So will Kerry buy people guns if they can’t afford it. It is after all their constitutional right.

Now you’re backpedaling, and pretending that you were merely asking where is your constitutional right to a gun. Funny how you can quote both the original statement and make the new different one, and think I won’t notice that. You already have the right to a gun. It’s called the Second Amendment.

Jim in Iowa: This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom by Christians.
Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not Christians. Read a history book, Jim.

Jim in Iowa: "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel does an excellent job of showing how the Gospels are a very reliable historical record.
Luigi Novi: The Gospels were third-person narratives anonymously written after the alleged time of Christ.

Jim in Iowa: The only reason some want to call the Bible "historical fiction" is because they don't like what it says.
Luigi Novi: Nope. It’s because some of them have studied non-apologist material on the Bible, and have concluded it.

Jim in Iowa: Here is one more example: A person is unconcious and "appears" to be dead. Do you just bury them or do you make sure they are really dead first?
Luigi Novi: Same answer as above. There are scientific procedures and methodologies by which a person’s status can be tested. Hence, you follow those procedures to see if the person’s dead. There are not scientific criteria by which a consensus has been reached on where life begins. Hence, another false analogy.

Jim in Iowa: Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?
Luigi Novi: Because it’s only his opinion. Not a scientific or legal fact.

Jim in Iowa: Imagine that you had an infant son and you lived in Texas. You had a habit of leaving your son alone in the car for hours with the windows rolled up, no AC, in 100 degree heat. You could use all sorts of excuses of how the baby slowed you down, got in your way, was a pain to take care of, etc., but if the child died from heat stroke in your car, you would be convicted of manslaughter. If your mom knew you did this and did nothing about it, she would be guilty as well (perhaps not in a court of law, but definitely morally). It would be immoral and inexcusable for someone to say that he or she did not like what you were doing, but they had to respect your decision. When your decisions end the life of another human being, it is no longer your decision.
Luigi Novi: Pro-choicers do not believe a fetus is a human being.

Jim in Iowa: Until you prove that the child is not a human being, alive and deserving of the same benefits as a one month old baby, your example is irrelevant. Your actions are hurting another human being.
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. Not in mine.

Jim in Iowa: Frankly, I find it amazing how easy it is to ignore a simple question: When does life begin for a baby? As I have said before, it clearly does at some point. Why do you hide behind the "I don't know so it doesn't matter" answer?
Luigi Novi: Who here has given that as an answer?

Ken: Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn't have strength to stand up for his convictions! That is what I look for in my political leaders, someone who says he believes in something but does nothing about it. It shows real moral fortitude!
Luigi Novi: A Straw Man argument. What part of “Kerry does not believe he has the right impose his personal religious beliefs on others” are you not getting? Standing up for a conviction doesn’t always mean LEGISLATING it. The fact that you are unable to grasp this principle doesn’t make Kerry a hypocrite; it just makes you obtuse.

Karen: You people who are anti-choice think this is an easy decision for a woman.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily.

Ken: There is considerable amounts of medical proof that supports abortion is killing a living being. Most likely those who support abortion are doing it for personal opinion moreso than facts…
Luigi Novi: Care to provide some?

Jim in Iowa: Are you who are pro-choice willing to limit abortion to the first 4 months of pregnancy?
Luigi Novi: Sure.

Jim in Iowa: What I have argued is that by sceintific standards, life begins in the womb.
Luigi Novi: What scientific standards? There is no scientific consensus on when life begins.

If you aren't willing to die for your beliefs, obviously you don't believe in them very much.

Except that with the stupid example that you give, those people killed for their beliefs.

Standing up for your convictions does not equal being an extremist that kills for their beliefs.

Jim in Iowa: Once again you are guilty of using a false analogy. Yes, if you are accused of a crime, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not how things work in real life. If you are driving down the road and see what might be the body of a child in the road, what should you do? Just run over it in hopes that it is not a child? If you saw it in time and could have stopped but did not, you would be guilty of manslaughter if you killed the child.

Firsty, I'm not using false anaolgies. You are, but I suspect you'll disagree with me on that :)

Secondly, yeah, innocent until proven guilty isn't how things work in real life, especially if you're black.

And thridly, running over it would be one method. Driving around it would be another. (and why the body of a child would be lying in the middle of the road is another stupid question all together) But your point is off base.

You seem to keep saying "check to see if it's a child". Ok, when does a fetus become a child, Jim? Conception? 3 days after that? Two weeks after that? A month? nine months? I don't know. No one knows. It's all speculation. And given that it's all speculation, then someone has every single right to decide that it is not yet a child, and therefore has no inherent right to live, and thus terminating it's life is not murder.

If someone accidently runs over an actual human being, no matter the age, it's manslaughter. If someone runs over, say, a deer, it's just roadkill. It's up to the judgement of the driver, and the driver alone. And if you're not the driver, what right do you have to decide their cource of action? None.

Until a fetus is proven to be a child, then it is not endowed with the same inalienable right as every human being, including the right to life.

Luigi Novi: If the authorities search you or your property, and you or your lawyer feel they have no probable cause, or no warrant, you can take legal action against them. You can’t do this if you are not made aware of the search.

Actually, you can't. There's a doctrine called "sovereign immunity," that says that the government and its agents cannot be sued for acting in their official capacity. (There is an exception for certain civil rights violations, which are rather difficult to establish when the officers are legitimately investigating a crime, and the government can waive its immunity and does so in certain cases, which is why you can sue the Feds if you get run over by a mail truck.) The usual remedy for an unlawful search or seizure is to have the evidence supressed at your trial, by which time you've necessarily learned of the search.

Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not Christians. Read a history book, Jim.

I'm not Jim, but I've read a bunch of them. It was kind of a requirement for my MA in history. Your knowledge of history matches your understanding of the law. The best argument you could marshal would be that several of them were in fact Deists, and perhaps a couple of Unitarians (arguably making them heretical Christians). The Continental Congress ordered copies of the Declaration to be published and sent to churches, so that they could be read from the pulpit. Washington was an Episcopalian, although he seems to have attended church about as irregularly as I do. He was also one of several Founding Fathers who supported an established church, provided that the church was established by state governments instead of at the Federal level. Franklin was a Presbyterian who appears to have become something between a deist and a proto-Unitarian. Jefferson was a deist. It's worth noting that the "separation of church and state" is a phrase from a letter Jefferson wrote to some New England Congregationalist churches, requesting that the church fathers refrain from politicking. The fact that Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was engaged in a political campaign at the time, whereas the Congregationalist ministers were overwhelmingly Federalists, is of course a mere coincidence that is irrelevant to the great principle Jefferson was promoting. For a dissenting point, see John Adams, whom most people would consider a Founding Father. Quoth Adams, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Read more history books, Luigi.

Oops. I misspelled "suppressed."

Until a fetus is proven to be a child, then it is not endowed with the same inalienable right as every human being, including the right to life.

Actually, you just made my point. Based on the same standards we use to determine if a person who is in a coma is alive or "brain dead," we can show that life does begin in the womb. You are correct that it is impossible to pin point the exact moment when that transition occurs, whether at conception, 2 weeks, or 2 months. The fact, though, that it cannot be pin pointed does not mean it does not happen.

A fetus is a baby, at least at some point. Since you are taking the action to end its existence, you do indeed shoulder at least the moral responsibility to be sure it is not a life.

Jim in Iowa

Karen:
"...prove to me that life begins at conception. Don't quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory."

From Encylopedia Britannica Online,
"Pregnancy: Process and series of changes that take place in a woman's organs and tissues as a result of a developing fetus. The entire process from fertilization to birth takes an average of 266–70 days, or about nine months.
A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg."

Following the merging of the sperm and the egg, mitosis (cellular division) begins and the fetus begins to form and grow.

From Miriam Webster Online,
Life: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

I'm generally pro-choice, primarily due to the Thomson argument. (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cheathwo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) I think abortion sucks, but I have to conclude that it has to be allowed in at least some circumstances. I have to admit, though, that I don't understand why so many pro-choice people have such difficulty accepting that pro-life advocates have a legitimate concern. The core argument that we should be risk averse-- that, given a behavior that may or may not constitute the killing of a human being, we should err on the side of not killing a human being-- seems to be a very powerful one. I'd be interested in seeing an intelligent counter-argument to that.

If someone accidently runs over an actual human being, no matter the age, it's manslaughter. If someone runs over, say, a deer, it's just roadkill. It's up to the judgement of the driver, and the driver alone. And if you're not the driver, what right do you have to decide their cource of action? None.

If someone truly accidentally runs over an actual human being, it's not necessarily even a crime. If someone negligently or recklessly runs over a human being, then it's manslaughter, and if it's done maliciously or intentionally, it's murder. If someone accidentally runs over a deer it's roadkill. If someone intentionally runs over a deer, then it's cruelty to animals and it's a crime (particularly if it's not even hunting season). Society has both the right and the power to judge the driver's course of action in both hypotheticals, and we do so constantly.

Luigi wrote: Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not Christians. Read a history book, Jim.

I have. Which one did you read? :-)

George Washington, to name just one, was clearly a Chrisitan, as was Patrick Henry and may others. Some were not Christians (Ben Franklin is a prime example), yet even Franklin acknowledged the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions. Thomas Jefferson stated that our inalienable rights come from a Creator, not from logic or anything inherent in ourselves. While you could argue Jefferson was not a Christian, it is clear Christianity provided the very foundational principles for this country.

Jim in Iowa: "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel does an excellent job of showing how the Gospels are a very reliable historical record.
Luigi Novi: The Gospels were third-person narratives anonymously written after the alleged time of Christ.

Nothing you just said shows they are not a reliable historical record. That is shown by comparing them to other records of the day. There is strong evidence that they were written within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the time Christ was alive. One example: There is a fragment containing verses from the book of John that was found in Egypt at a very early date. At the latest, it dates to 150 AD, and some scholars suggest it could be as early as 90 AD. Either way, in a day without printing presses, to find a copy of a book in a distant land demonstrates it was around for a while. And there are plenty of other proofs that they were written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Obviously, that does not prove the story of Jesus' walking on the water, raising the dead, etc., actually happened. I completely agree that this comes down to a matter of faith. But it ignorant to dismiss the gospels as a legend some no name authors created years after Jesus was around. The evidence for their authenticity, at least in terms of being written within Christ's life time, is enormous. (Not to mention there are at least 2 references to Jesus Christ in literature of that day in addition to the Bible. A pretty remarkable accomplishment for an unknown carpenter in a small, unimportant country, at the far end of the Roman empire.)

Jim in Iowa

Luigi Novi: The Bible states many things are falsifiable.

Cute list. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your examples are easily explained. Without going blow by blow, you confuse a lot of metaphors or poetic ways of saying things for mistakes. Do you ever say the sun will rise? Then by your own logic, you just made a mistake, since it is actually the earth rotating. Even today, we talk about loving someone with all our heart. There are difficult passages, but you have chosen the ones that are easily dealt with. Want to try again?

Jim in Iowa

Jim,
Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?

Here's some info for Planned Parenthood(bolding is me):

Since the legalization of abortion throughout the U.S. in 1973, abortion services have become more widely accessible and knowledge of them has grown. As a result, the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. For a number of reasons, however, abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women.

The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small

Between 1996 and 2000, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.31 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003). The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003).

Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold, 2003).

Me again. I had to consider abortion. I became pregnant at age 39. An older mother has an increased risk for numerous birth defects. I had the amniocentisis and, luckily, my baby was healthy for everything tested. At my age, and my husbands, we had to think about how we would care for a baby with birth defects, and were we physically, emotionally, and mentally able to do so. You seem to have wrapped this issue up neatly into a little black and white world, but it is complex, as are the reasons a woman would contemplate having an abortion. By declaring that women who have them are murderers and anyone who supports choice is an accessory or a hypocrite, you've taken something that is one of the most difficult decisions anyone must make and made it about good and evil. Well, there is much more to it than this simplistic viewpoint.

Jeff,
Then I guess we need to start worry about amoeba. Have you started any rallies to make sure we stop killing single celled flora and fauna? For that matter, better stop eating meat or vegey's. It's all life.

Luigi,

RE: Creation. For thousands of years, which was before modern science and the ability to judge the age of the earth, Jewish and Christian theologians have argued that Genesis 1 is poetic and not meant to be 6 literal days. That does not mean they rejected it, just that they felt Genesis 1 was a poetic summary of God's creative act, not a scientific description of every detail.

What is interesting is that when you compare Genesis 1 to current evolutionay theory, most things appear in Genesis 1 in the same order as they do in evolutionary theory. (The one exception is the sun and moon and stars. But that is because it talks about the "unveiling" of them as the atmosphere clears, which again matches evolutionary theory.)

All of that being said, I personally lean towards the interpretation that it was 6 literal days. My point, though, is that it is difficult to prove a poetical account false.

RE: Noah. You mistate an important fact. The Bible says there was 2 of each kind, not species. (For example, you would not have to bring every variation of dog on board.) That is very possible for the size of ark and the number of days. Also, there you again are dealing with language of appearance/perception. It would be completely accurate if the flood killed every human being (the "known" world at the time), but did not cover the entire earth.

The story (or "myth" if you insist) of the flood exists in a huge number of cultures. There is reason to believe a real flood actually occured. I would suggest the Bible is an accurate record of what actually happened. Within the parameters set in the story, it is not impossible for it to have occurred. (Current evolutionary theory suspects an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Who would have suggested this 100 years ago? The fact that it is a one time event does not mean the flood could not have happened.)

Jim in Iowa

Actually, you just made my point. Based on the same standards we use to determine if a person who is in a coma is alive or "brain dead," we can show that life does begin in the womb. You are correct that it is impossible to pin point the exact moment when that transition occurs, whether at conception, 2 weeks, or 2 months. The fact, though, that it cannot be pin pointed does not mean it does not happen.

No one is arguing that it does not happen at some point, but since the location of that point is up for dispute, you can't tell if it is or it isn't. And using standards for human beings in a coma isn't an adequate, or objective standard. There is no objective standard to go by.

A fetus is a baby, at least at some point. Since you are taking the action to end its existence, you do indeed shoulder at least the moral responsibility to be sure it is not a life.

And as many people have said, there is no real measuring stick for when it evolves into a real life. It's something woman carrying the fetus has to decide for herself. And I'd venture to guess that anyone who considers an abortion, let alone goes through with having one, does make that judgement for themselves. That's why it's called "pro-choice"... and that's why Kerry can personally disagree with abortion, but not prevent a woman from making that decision for herself.

: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Sounds much more like Bush than Kerry.

You have got to be kidding me! Bush actually follows what he says he believes! You may not agree with his positions, but Bush's religious beliefs match what he does.

Jim in Iowa

Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?

Because every attempt to put a limit on it has been completely rejected by the pro-choice lobby. There may be individuals who don't agree, but as a lobby, there has been a strong opposition to any restrictions. The ban on partial birth abortions is a good example. Even in states where there has been a clear exception for the life of the mother, it has been opposed. Pro-Choicers have consistently rejected any attempt to set a true limit on when an abortion could be performed.

The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small

They may seem small if you talk about 10%, but when you realize that 10% of 1.2 million is 120,000 abortions, that is a lot of them happening. They are not all for the life of the mother.

By declaring that women who have them are murderers and anyone who supports choice is an accessory or a hypocrite, you've taken something that is one of the most difficult decisions anyone must make and made it about good and evil. Well, there is much more to it than this simplistic viewpoint.

First, I would call it manslaughter rather than murder, since that seems to be a better definition of what technically is happening. Second, I understand it is a difficult decision. But if the child is alive (as I believe is true) and if abortion really does take the life of the child, then forgive me if I see it as a matter of "good" and "evil."

Jim in Iowa

The core argument that we should be risk averse-- that, given a behavior that may or may not constitute the killing of a human being, we should err on the side of not killing a human being-- seems to be a very powerful one. I'd be interested in seeing an intelligent counter-argument to that.

Thank you. That is an honest summary of my position. Wich I could have put it so clearly and concisely.

Jim in Iowa

Funny how belief in the Bible as true should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is not, and is actually considered an “insult.”

Of course it's this way. To believe otherwise might be to have their heads explode or something.

It's just one more reason why religion is bad for these people, because it appears to deny them the ability to question things around them, and it just has them assume that if you are not of the same faith as them, you are wrong.

No basis in fact, just on conviction.

Sounds alot like Bush on his reasons for going to war in Iraq.

What is interesting is that when you compare Genesis 1 to current evolutionay theory, most things appear in Genesis 1 in the same order as they do in evolutionary theory.

Are the dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

I find it hard to believe that the two are even comparable, as you cannot equate "6 days" with "4 billion years", no matter how "poetic" you make it.

Single celled flora and fauna? Ooooookay. Someone's been watching a little too Trek recently. : )

Karen, you asked for Jim to "prove to me that life begins at conception. Don't quote the bible or a priest. Give me some reason that would be valid and scientific, that will prove your theory." You must have missed the point in the definition I found where it says that "a new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg." Either that or you deliberty decided to change the discussion about abortion to one about vegetarians, vegans or amoeba.

A dictionary is not a legal or scientific tome.

Secondly, can that egg/sperm combo survive without a host organism? No. Doesn't qualify as a "person" until it does.

"RE: Noah. You mistate an important fact. The Bible says there was 2 of each kind, not species. (For example, you would not have to bring every variation of dog on board.) That is very possible for the size of ark and the number of days. Also, there you again are dealing with language of appearance/perception. It would be completely accurate if the flood killed every human being (the "known" world at the time), but did not cover the entire earth."

There is indeed a lot of evidence that a massive flood occured during the alleged time of Noah, but not a flood covering the whole earth. Two of each kind of every animal would not have fit on a craft that size, and when you realize that there are probably millions of "kinds" of animals that don't and didn't exist anywhere near that part of the world, you've got a lot of reason for scepticism. At least to the point that most stories tend to take on a life of their own and become gross exaggerations of the facts. Maybe there was a huge flood that submerged a large area of that part of the world, after many tellings and many generations, that could easily evolve into the whole earth being flooded. And taking aboard a boat a male and female of all of your livestock and perhaps other local animals could easily become "two of every kind", especially if you had never seen, say, a kangaroo, you wouldn't know you had left them behind.

Based on fact (or based on a true story) is not the same as fact.

Monkeys

let us not forget, as well, that two of every kind of animal would lead to what?

massive inbreeding, causing a host of recessive traits to be brought to the surface in the animals, leading to the deaths of a large amount. and the survivors? hy, they'd have to inbreed some more.

of course, then one would have to consider the physics of the earth, gravity, and volume, as well as geology.

to wit: the amount of water on the earth being finite, and the amount needed to flood the earth, the addition to the seas of the world would have been more then is contained in the world, including icebergs. additionally, such an event could not have occurred without leading significant geological sedimentary evidence. remember, according to the bible, the water was so high that land could not be seen, and was also high enough that the ark was left on a mountain when the waters receded.

unfortunately, the geological evidence does not back this up.

finally, to quote michael showalter: "penguins aint natural. noah didn't take no penguins on the ark. they were created chemically. read your bible"

Well, when global warming melts the polar icecaps, I guess we'll get to experience massive flooding ourselves.

Jeff,
Actually I was being a little sarcastic. I wasn't changing the subject because your definition includes single celled critters and the subject is human life. Perhaps I should have phrased the question better. I usually don't agree with Bladestar, and when I do I usually don't agree with the way he says what he says, but in this instance I think his definition of viability outside the womb is a good one.

There is indeed a lot of evidence that a massive flood occured during the alleged time of Noah, but not a flood covering the whole earth.

Another thing I wonder about is whether we're talking about a single massive event, or something that, like the legends of King Arthur and Troy, come from many sources and were combined over the ages.

Places like China and India have massive floods all the time. I lived along the Mississippi during the Flood of '93. Some believe that Atlantis sank in a flood.

It's easy take the myths of these stories, when they happened thousands of years ago, and make it into one massive event.

Thanks Karen, I'm glad I was making myself clear, as you know I don't have a way with words :)

Adam, forget the inbreeding in the animals, what about the inbreeding of the Noah Clan? First we're all supposedly inbred from adam and eve, then the entire race collapses to one family and the inbreeding cycle begins again...

Lots of silly arguments to defend the king of fiction, the bible...

Bladstar:
>Lots of silly arguments to defend the king of fiction, the bible...

Huh, I thought that Roger Zelazny was the king of fiction.... anyways....

Ouch, a big difference between "stating a fact" and intentionally provoking people.

Bladstar, while I essentially stand on the same side of the religion line as you, I suspect that we are a few acres apart. I am not sure how long that you have held the beliefs that you currently do, but I suspect that it either hasn't been very long or you were burned bigtime by someone of "faith". If this is the case, it is quite likely that with some additional time or introspection and dialogue around this topic, you'll find yourself a bit less negative towards religion and those who carry whatever belief that they do.

I don't want to come across as judgemental, as if I know you, etc, etc. I can tell you that this tends to be a pretty typical response on the road of growth away from organized religion. Again although I don't know details or past, if you sit back and take a breath, you may see that you are coming across as judgemental, close-minded, and dismissive as those you are pointing at.

Fred,

First of all, I appreciatye your concern, but I don't care how "people of faith" veiw my opinion of them.

I was born, baptised and raised Catholic through about Grade 4 (Catholic School till then).

Attended many years of Baptist Sunday School during the next several years. Then some time at as a regular at a Lutheran church.

If god does exist, I see him as an idiot and an incompetent. I see his followers as sadly misguided children who don't want to take any resposnibilty for their own lives and/or the state of the world.

They all seem to preach tolerance but they don't practice it.

god gave free will they spew, but, for example (just one of many possible), Did Jon Bonet Ramses asked to be raped and killed? Was her "Free Will" choice to be murdered? What about abused and murdered and neglected children worldwide, is it their "Free Will" choice to be that way and have those things happen to them?

Yet when you ask the leaders and followers they all bleat the same responses "god's will" and/or "free will". It's god will that the innocent suffer, pretty shitty god.

It was the free will of the rapist/murderer/abuser? Why did their free will take precendence? Oh that's right, they were stronger/cleverer than their victims. Sounds more like "Survival of the fittest" to me...

When a car crash ends a life, or when a sick person hangs on and won't die even though they want to, it's always "god's plan". Not much of a plan in my eyes. And if all goes according to god's plan, why bother praying? And if god changes his plan based on prayers: A) Whose prayers and B) why bother with a plan.

My switch from "My parents go to church", to "I go to church", to "what's this silliness", to "you poor deluded bastards" was journey of over 20 years, and reasoned steps along the way.

The false hopes and deluded dreams they preach are pretty and sweet and beautiful, but they do nothing to make them come true and the world doesn't bear out their very distorted world view.

Looking at the world, I find the old greek gods that used earth and it's people as playthings more believable than any modern religion.

Stop looking to a book written thousands of years ago by men, translated throughout the ages by men, interpreted by power seeking men for the answer.

There is no answer. You live your life, you eventually die. If your spirit finds it's way to rest, you are gone, otherwise your spirit is reborn and you take another ride through through life. Maybe as a human again, maybe as a bird, maybe as an insect... you just keep going till you escape...

I understand all of your points and had gathered as much from your previous posts. Looking at all of your points, it still doesn't explain the anger or why you actively insult those who believe in something that you no longer do.

Because I consider those who need religion weak...

"There is no answer. You live your life, you eventually die. If your spirit finds it's way to rest, you are gone, otherwise your spirit is reborn and you take another ride through through life. Maybe as a human again, maybe as a bird, maybe as an insect... you just keep going till you escape..."

That's an intereesting scenario, though one I find hard to reconcile with your opinion that those who need religion are weak. Isn't reincarnation a religious belief? It certanly has no basis in science. ANd who or what decides whether you come back as a rich man or a turtle or a tapeworm? God? Glactus? My high school locker partner Ned?

Bladstar:

>Because I consider those who need religion weak...

Being weak equals being worthy of attack?

Do you go around kicking puppies too? ;)

Fred

That's point, I don't "believe" that's what hjappens, it's a guess. as far as who decides who comes back as what? No one does, it's random. Whatever is born as you die is what you come back as if you come back at all. That's the whole point, there is no "higher power" guiding or controlling any of it...

Funny Fred, when did I advocate attacking religious people? Put them in mental instutions so they can't hurt anybody. You use the puppies as part of their recovery treatments. Puppies are cute (and a LOT better than people, by the way)...

I guess I just don't see how you can be so cavalier in your contempt for other people's unscientific beliefs...or "guesses", or however you pretty it up. Once you accept even the possibility of reincarnation you have pretty much lost the ability to mock religion and be taken seriously. Ok, maybe scientology, cause, well, geeze, but sneering at Presbyterians while you wait for the day you might come back as a red bellied musk turtle just seems a bit much.

But to each his own.

Me, I'd like to come back as an Orang Pendek or Mokele-mbembe.

Seeing as how when you die, that's it, there is nothing else, it won't really matter...

But if reincarnation were real, it'd be fu nto be a dolphin...

David Bjorlin: The best argument you could marshal would be that several of them were in fact Deists, and perhaps a couple of Unitarians (arguably making them heretical Christians).
Luigi Novi: Which is pretty much the only argument I need. That Jefferson and Paine, to name two, were Deists, and that Washington and Franklin were said to have been Deists (later in life for Washington) means that the Fathers were not, as a group, Christians, nor was this country founded as a Christian nation on what were solely Christian principles. They were a product of Christian society, and some of them may have been Christian to one degree or another as individuals, but they embraced many new ideas that they incorporated into this nation, including the ideas of the European Enlightenment, Deism, Christianity, Roman Law, Greek Philosophy, the Iroquois Federation, English Common Law, and even Freemasonry.

Many of the leaders of the American Revolution followed (to one degree or another) Deism, including Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the Bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of authority from divine proclamation. The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought.

David Bjorlin: The Continental Congress ordered copies of the Declaration to be published and sent to churches, so that they could be read from the pulpit.
Luigi Novi: And? This means that the FF were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles? Sounds to me that the CC knew they could educate the people on the Declaration by having it distributed in a public place.

David Bjorlin: Washington was an Episcopalian…
Luigi Novi: Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175] Michael H. Hart's book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History gives his religion as both Episcopalian and Deist, and asserts that it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues.

David Bjorlin: Franklin was a Presbyterian who appears to have become something between a deist and a proto-Unitarian.
Luigi Novi: Franklin was considered to be the least religious of the Fathers.
Franklin, who normally preferred to contemplate the eternal in the privacy of his own home, had been invited by Jedediah Andrews to become a member of the Presbyterian church. He attended for five Sundays in a row. He became a pew holder and a contributor, but he nevertheless ceased to attend weekly services. In general, most Franklin scholars have found him to be quite moderate in his attitude toward religion. Alfred Owen Aldridge has described Franklin as a confirmed Deist, who, in contrast to more militant Deists like Tom Paine, did not attempt to “wither Christianity by ridicule or bludgeon it to death by argument,” but said to “have found Christian dogma unintelligible.” One commentator wrote: "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers. "Here are some other quotes by Franklin:

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
.
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." -Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
.
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -in Poor Richard's Almanac

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."
.
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

David Bjorlin: Jefferson was a deist.
Luigi Novi: Correct. He is quoted thus:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ."
.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

David Bjorlin: It’s worth noting that the "separation of church and state" is a phrase from a letter Jefferson wrote to some New England Congregationalist churches, requesting that the church fathers refrain from politicking.
Luigi Novi: Yes, he wrote this to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions.

David Bjorlin: For a dissenting point, see John Adams, whom most people would consider a Founding Father. Quoth Adams, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
Luigi Novi: While most of FF were diplomatic in their public expressions concerning religion, in their private conversations, voluminous writings and correspondences they expressed contrary beliefs. Adams, for example is also quoted as saying:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - letter to John Taylor

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
.
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
.
"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" -letter to Thomas Jefferson
.
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
.
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
.
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

David Bjorlin: I have to admit, though, that I don’t understand why so many pro-choice people have such difficulty accepting that pro-life advocates have a legitimate concern. The core argument that we should be risk averse-- that, given a behavior that may or may not constitute the killing of a human being, we should err on the side of not killing a human being-- seems to be a very powerful one. I'd be interested in seeing an intelligent counter-argument to that.
Luigi Novi: I think there are good arguments on both sides, and that each one tends to ignore those in the opposition.

Jim in Iowa: George Washington, to name just one, was clearly a Chrisitan, as was Patrick Henry and may others.
Luigi Novi: Washington was a Deist. According to James W. Loewen’s Lies Across America, he was a member of the Episcopal Church, and believed religion was “an indispensable basis for morality,” but did not believe in conventional Christianity, and Freemasonry was more important to him than Episcopalianism. When the Postal Service issued a 1928 stamp commemorating the apocryphal tale of Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow of Valley Forge, Rupert Hughes, a biographer of Washington’s, attacked the stamp as “endorsing ‘what all historians know to be a downright lie,” saying that Washington “was in no sense a religious man.”

Jim in Iowa: Some were not Christians (Ben Franklin is a prime example), yet even Franklin acknowledged the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions.
Luigi Novi: The words “God,” “Jesus, Christ,” or “Christianity” appear nowhere in those documents. Those documents assert that the country is based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator. As for Franklin, see above.

Jim in Iowa: Thomas Jefferson stated that our inalienable rights come from a Creator…
Luigi Novi: Yeah. A creator. Not God. In Deism, “Creator” does not mean the Judeo-Christian God.

Luigi Novi: The Gospels were third-person narratives anonymously written after the alleged time of Christ.

Jim in Iowa: Nothing you just said shows they are not a reliable historical record.
Luigi Novi: No, the evidence that historians use to form these conclusions does. Not my merely “saying” it.

Jim in Iowa: That is shown by comparing them to other records of the day. There is strong evidence that they were written within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the time Christ was alive. One example: There is a fragment containing verses from the book of John that was found in Egypt at a very early date. At the latest, it dates to 150 AD, and some scholars suggest it could be as early as 90 AD.
Luigi Novi: A fragment dated to between 60 and 120 years after his alleged crucifixion proves that the original on which it was based was written before it? How do you figure this?

Jim in Iowa: Obviously, that does not prove the story of Jesus' walking on the water, raising the dead, etc., actually happened. I completely agree that this comes down to a matter of faith.
Luigi Novi: And since when are “accurate historical documents” based on “faith”? Historiography is based on evidence. Not “faith.”

Jim in Iowa: But it ignorant to dismiss the gospels as a legend some no name authors created years after Jesus was around.
Luigi Novi: That is exactly what they are. They are most certainly “no name” in the sense that no knows who wrote them. They were not written by followers of Jesus, the author of Luke admits to being an interpreter of earlier material and not being eyewitnesses in 1:1-4, none of them make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus, we have no original manuscripts (just copies of copies), and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were arbitrarily assigned to them in the 2nd Century by Irenaeus of Lyon. As for being created years after Jesus was around, the consensus of most biblical historians puts the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E., making it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. They were not written in the alleged Christ’s lifetime.

Hell, the Bible didn’t even exist in its current form until the Guttenberg printing press was invented in the 15th century. Prior to this, the editing and formation of the Bible was done by members of the orthodox Church, and since the fathers of the Church owned and determined what would appear in the Bible, there existed plenty of opportunity to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

Jim in Iowa: (Not to mention there are at least 2 references to Jesus Christ in literature of that day in addition to the Bible.)
Luigi Novi: And those would be…? (I certainly hope you’re not talking about Flavius Josephus, and the two mentions of Christ in his Antiquities, which aside from being hearsay accounts written after Jesus’ life, historians believe to be either interpolations, or outright forgeries. Some suggest they were forged by Bishop Eusebius, who openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church.)

Jim in Iowa: Cute list. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your examples are easily explained. Without going blow by blow, you confuse a lot of metaphors or poetic ways of saying things for mistakes. Do you ever say the sun will rise? Then by your own logic, you just made a mistake, since it is actually the earth rotating. Even today, we talk about loving someone with all our heart. There are difficult passages, but you have chosen the ones that are easily dealt with.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, Jim, but it looks like you’re trying to have it both ways. You say that it’s an accurate historical document, but then say that it’s taken on “faith,” and now that it’s “poetry” and “metaphors”? Since when are historical documents discerned as such when they’re filled with poetry and metaphors? Besides, you’d think an omnipotent, omniscient god would know how to phrase things to make them clearly understood. Mreover, many passages casually refer to things in passing that do not seem at all to be “poetic.” Leviticus 11:20 refers to four-legged insects. Insects do not have four legs. But in what way was this intended as “poetry”?

Jim in Iowa: Luigi, RE: Creation. For thousands of years, which was before modern science and the ability to judge the age of the earth, Jewish and Christian theologians have argued that Genesis 1 is poetic and not meant to be 6 literal days.
Luigi Novi: Which means that it is not an “accurate historical document.”

Jim in Iowa: All of that being said, I personally lean towards the interpretation that it was 6 literal days. My point, though, is that it is difficult to prove a poetical account false.
Luigi Novi: So first you say it’s an accurate historical document, then you say it’s poetry and metaphors, and now you say that it’s literal? Which is it? The evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and took a lot long than six days to form.

Jim in Iowa: RE: Noah. You mistate an important fact. The Bible says there was 2 of each kind, not species. (For example, you would not have to bring every variation of dog on board.)
Luigi Novi: Hairsplitting. Obviously, books written thousands of years before modern science came up with the concept of “species” are not going to mention the word. Duh. But I’d like to know how you know that the different animals on the Ark were not different species, just out of curiosity.

And dog breeds are not different species. They’re all the same species, Canis lupus.

Jim in Iowa: The story (or "myth" if you insist) of the flood exists in a huge number of cultures.
Luigi Novi: I sense that you’re not aware that by saying this, you’re actually proving my point. Yes, many of the stories in the Bible are found all over the world, in societies that invented them independently of the Bible, and in some cases, even before it. Take the Noachian flood myth. Birth and rebirth myths like the flood story are but one variation on the Sea Creation Story, which is found among the Burmese, Choctaw Indians, Egyptians, Icelanders, Maui Hawaiians and Sumerians. The earliest version is the Sumerian one, from around 2800 B.C.E., which predates the Biblical one by over a thousand years. Between 2000 to 1800 B.C.E., in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh learns of the flood from an ancestor named Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim was warned by the Earth-god Ea that the gods were about to destroy all life on Earth with a flood, and commanded to build an ark 120 cubits (180 feet) long, with seven floors, each divided into nine compartments, and to take along a pair of each animal. The story existed for centuries throughout the Near East and was known in Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews. Literary comparison makes its influence on the Noachian flood story obvious.

One can find similar antecedents for other aspects of the Bible, most notably Jesus, such as Hercules, Horus and Zoroaster. Comparing their traits with Jesus’ traits (Having twelve followers, ascending to heaven, being born of a god and a mortal, etc.) makes the similarities obvious. Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel so closely to the alleged Jesus that to ignore its similarities is to ignore mythological history. There have been dozens of similar savior stories that propagated the minds of humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. The concept of salvation was first introduced by Osiris, who lived 1400 years earlier than Jesus (Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21). The virgin-birth concept also belongs to Krishna, Dionysus, Buddha, and Balder, who are just a few Messiahs that were born of a virgin mother and a divine father. The tradition of baptism also belongs to Paganism. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water (Iliad 1.313). Tertullian, an ancient Church Father, even describes the amazing similarities with Pagan and Christian baptism (Tertullian, On Baptism Ch 5). Asclepius raised the dead, as did the Pagan Messiah Dionysus. Buddha fed 500 men from “a small basket of cakes.” Pythagoras calmed a mighty storm, just as Jesus did. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" is original or new.

For example, the religion of Zoroaster was founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in ancient Persia and roused mankind in the need for hating a devil, the belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, probably influenced early Christianity with their beliefs. The Magi described in the New Testament appear to be Zoroastrian priests. The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. For some examples:

Horus and the Father are one
Horus is the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus was the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

Or how about Jesus’ similarities with the Hindu Savior Krishna?

Both were called a God and the Son of God.
Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
Their adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful.
Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper.
Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others compare to the Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all are pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; were born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all were worshiped by "wise men" and were alleged to have fasted for forty days.

The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all before the advent of Christianity. Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. To the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

So thank you, Jim, for admitting that the Bible is not very original, and that its stories exist independently in other cultures, some of which predate the Bible, and some of which were not touched by Middle Eastern civilizations. It makes it easier to illustrate how the Bible was inspired by all this material that preceded it.

Jim in Iowa: There is reason to believe a real flood actually occured. I would suggest the Bible is an accurate record of what actually happened. Within the parameters set in the story, it is not impossible for it to have occurred. (Current evolutionary theory suspects an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Who would have suggested this 100 years ago? The fact that it is a one time event does not mean the flood could not have happened.)
Luigi Novi: You said above that it did not have to cover the entire planet, right? Well, then what are you arguing? That floods that did not cover the entire planet could have occurred? Well, duh! Of course they do! Who’s debating that? Cultures are influenced by their geography, so naturally, cultures whose major rivers flooded and destroyed the indigenous villages told flood stories, as in Sumeria and Babylonia, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers periodically flooded. Even cultures in arid regions have flood stories if they are subject to whims of flash flooding. By contrast, cultures not on major bodies of water typically have no flood stories.

Bladestar: They all seem to preach tolerance but they don't practice it.
Luigi Novi: Some do not. I think most do.

Bladestar: god gave free will they spew, but, for example (just one of many possible), Did Jon Bonet Ramses asked to be raped and killed?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that was the six-year old girl who ruled ancient Egypt, right? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. ;-))

Bladestar: Because I consider those who need religion weak...
Luigi Novi: That’s rather judgmental. Assuming that you’re American (correct me if you’re not), and the fact that most Americans hold some spiritual beliefs, wouldn’t that mean that most of the people you know are “weak”? Are all of your friends, acquaintances and family members atheists or agnostics? Or do you simply think that most of the people in your life are “weak”?

Luigi, if I have forgotten Jon Bonet's last name (it has been a while), I apologize. Otherwise, good joke.

I think they're weak in the misguided sense. But my family and friends also don't go around preaching and trying to push their beliefs on others. They practice their faith for the most part quietly and privately, they don't rely on a particular church and like I said, they don't go pushing their beliefs on others. That makes them less mentally ill than most.

So yes, many are weak by that description, but the weak need the guidance, help, and healing of the strong. As long as they aren't religious-whackos, they can remain friends and accepted family.

One of the strongest men I know, my uncle, is a very religious man, but he also knows his beliefs are not everyone else's and doesn't try to push them on everyone around him.

See, this is where the proper wording and/or use of qualifiers and modifiers is important. You didn't say "religious people who don't know how to practice in private and try to shove their religion down others' throats" are week. You said "those who need religion," which is kinda harsh.

Luigi Novi: Which means that it is not an “accurate historical document.”

Your definition of an "accurate historical document" is faulty. You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.

For the moment, leave aside what are clearly intended to be a "miraculous" story, a one time event such as Creation of the Flood, or Jesus walking on water. When the Bible says that a person lived, that he lived in a particular place, etc., where we have evidence, it has shown to be accurate. When it describes a historical place, when we have evidence (because 2,000 or 3,000 years later, some places don't exist anymore), the Bible has been found to be accurate.

When it comes to the Gospels, there is more evidence for the early date of the Gospels being written and more copies which verify the consistency of the same story, that even the liberal scholars are beginning to concede the point. At one point they placed the Gospels being written between 150 and 250 AD. Evidence proved that was not the case. If the Gospels were written 40 years after the original events, there it is indeed possible an eyewitness was still alive (someone 20 at the time would be 60).

The fact that they were anonymous does not mean they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It would take too long here, but it in fact is a sign of authenticity for that time period that they were anonymous and yet were well accepted. The authors wanted the focus to be on Jesus, not on themselves. They did not need to add their names to the documents to give them credibility (which makes sense if they were written in the lifetime of the apostles -- people would know they were the authors).

Luke clearly states he was not an eye witness, but you ingore the fact that he specifically says he interviewed eye witnesses. There is a clear intention, especially in his Gospel, to write it according to the scholorarly style of his day (which is different than how we write things today).

Back to the poetical expressions. Your point is invalid because the context of the quotes clearly shows they are not intended to be a "scientific explanation" of how things work, but rather a description of life as they saw it. To hold them to contemporary standards violates the normal interpretation of literature. Every day a weatherman refers to sunrise and sunset. No one thinks they are idiots and no one sends letters complaining that the weatherman thinks the earth is flat. Every day language is filled with expressions such as this.

Luigi Novi: And those would be…? (I certainly hope you’re not talking about Flavius Josephus, and the two mentions of Christ in his Antiquities,

Yes, one of them is Josephus. The scholars you cite who think it is not authentic have been more than adequately answered by other scholars based on extensive research.

In addition, Tychichus (sp?), also makes reference to Jesus. Ancient letters from 100 years after Christ also make reference to Jesus. This is highly unusual and happens with no other historcial figure of the time period.

Whether on not Jesus is the Son of God, etc., is a matter of faith. Whether he peformed miracles, raised the dead, etc., is impossible to independently prove. Whether Jesus was a historical figure is a certainty based on well established principles of verifing historical events and personalities. (Have you forgotten that Time magazine, hardly a conservative Christian magazine, did an extensive issue on Jesus a few years ago? Scholars conceded that Jesus was real, they just argued about whether the Bible was true in everything it said about him.

Jim in Iowa

See Luigi, Jim is a perfect example of the sad pathetic religious person I'm talking about. He has no identity of his own without his favorite fictional book.

When the Postal Service issued a 1928 stamp commemorating the apocryphal tale of Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow of Valley Forge, Rupert Hughes, a biographer of Washington’s, attacked the stamp as “endorsing ‘what all historians know to be a downright lie,” saying that Washington “was in no sense a religious man.”

It is astonishing the way history has been rewritten. I don't claim Washington would have been a member of Jerry Falwell's church were he alive today. But it is ludicrous to say that Washington was in no sense a religious man. The fact that one story was apocryphal does not matter. There are very clear quotes that Washington makes that show without a doubt that he was indeed a very religous man.

Here is just one of many quotes that demonstrate this point:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot it should be our highest glory to add to the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all Good. (from John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931-1944), vol. XI, pp. 342-43.)

Luigi Novi: The words “God,” “Jesus, Christ,” or “Christianity” appear nowhere in those documents. Those documents assert that the country is based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator. As for Franklin, see above.

I respectfully suggest you are wrong. First, in 18th Century America, *EVERYONE* would know that talking about a "Creator" refers to a Judeo-Christian God. The fact that they don't contain the words "Christian" or "Jesus Christ" is irrelevant. The founding documents were created in the context where Christianity was virtually the only religion practiced. The issue at the time was not allowing religious freedom to a Buddhist or Muslim, it was to allow religious freedom to the various denominations that make up the broader group of Christians. There were some, but not many, who rejected God or were agnostic, and they recognized that fact as well. The point is, you are again applying contemporary language to an 18th century setting. Words like "Creator," "Providence," and "Supreme Author of All Good" would be immediately understood as a reference to the God of the Bible. This was not an AA group talking about a "higher power," whatever it might be.

Fact: 24 out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were seminary graduates. That meant they were well versed in all of the literature of the time (Greek, Roman, etc.), but that also meant they were Chrisitans and that they filtered all other philosophy through the grid of their understanding of the Bible.

Fact: When John Hancock, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and was there for the approval of the Constitution, was asked for a list of the men who were the pillars that made American independence a reality, his list included a large number of pastors of the day.

Let me be clear: I do not agree with the belief some hold that the Founding Fathers tried to truly set up a "Christian Nation" as it would be understood today. But history is clear that they not only founded this country on Christian principles, but that they did not see it a violation of the separation of church and state that some do today.

To put it differently, without Christianity, America today would not exist as we know it. No other country has established a constitutional democracy that has endured as long as ours. No one in at least 4,000 years of recorded history. This is not conjecture. When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is clear that Christian priciples guided the very foundation that was established. Enlightenment principles guided many other constitutions, such as one in France, and it did not last. We are unique in our origin.

Jim in Iowa

See Luigi, Jim is a perfect example of the sad pathetic religious person I'm talking about. He has no identity of his own without his favorite fictional book.

Bladestar,

Why do you find it necessary to personally attack someone with whom you do not agree? You know nothing about me, why I am a Christian, or the path I have traveled which has led me to believe Christianity is true.

You do have one thing correct: The Bible is my favorite book (oviously I don't think it is fiction). Out of curiosity, what is yours?

Jim in Iowa

Karen wrote: Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?

One more reason why: Partial Birth Abortion.

When this bill went before Congress, my understanding is that not a single medical doctor was willing to go on record and say this was a medically *necessary* procedure. Some said it was not wrong, but none could scientifically say it was a necessary procedure.

Within an hour of the bill being signed, it was challened in 3 Federal courts. Why? Because it was so strict it did not allow the loopholes doctors could use to come up with virtually any excuse to do the procedure.

When this went before the San Francisco Federal court, the judge acknowledged that this was not a medically necessary procedure. He also acknowledged that it was scientifically proven that the child (the word the judge used, not mine) felt pain and experienced trauma during the procedure. The judge then said that the woman's right to have an abortion came before anything else.

What other conclusion could I reach but that pro-choicer leaders want abortion available throughout the pregnancy.

The argument that we should not impose our morality on others seems to ignore that it is the pro-abortion movement that is doing so. There has not been a single legislative action where abortion was made legal since 1973. It has only been made legal by the action of the courts.

Current surveys show 65% of the nation believe life begins at conception. So who is imposing their beliefs on whom? When slavery and discrimination were over ruled by the courts, laws protecting former slaves and laws helping those who were victims of segration soon followed. That has not been the case with abortion. The majority of this country does not agree with "abortion on demand." Yet medical peronnel and pharmacists are being fired when they refuse to be involved with an abortion.

Someone is legistlating morality right now, and it is the courts, not the people. That is wrong.

Jim in Iowa

One of many internet articles about the faith of George Washington:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1976/jul-aug/edavis.html

Jim in Iowa

Here is another article, but one stating the other side:

http://www.virginiaplaces.com/religion/religiongw.html

As stated above, George Washington would not be a member of Jerry Falwell's church. That does not mean he was not a religious man. Washington had a correct understanding of the separation of church and state, rather than the extreme one found today.

While Washington, Jefferson, and Franlkin may be 3 of the founding fathers we think of first, they are not the only ones. It is amazing how the pastors and those who were clearly strongly "evangelical" in todays terms are left off of the lists and out of textbooks.

Jim in Iowa

You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The style of writing makes no difference.

The Bible could've been written by Shakespeare for all I care, and it is still the same fiction.

. Every day language is filled with expressions such as this.

Everybody walks on water too. Or is that an old expression for getting high? :)

There are very clear quotes that Washington makes that show without a doubt that he was indeed a very religous man.

It's just too bad that so many think that, to be religious, you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god (don't forget the Muslim part).

Where do you come up with this stuff? The style of writing makes no difference.

There has been over 2000 years of work done on how to read literature. Perhaps "style" is not the best word, but I was using what was in the original response to my post.

If you write poetry and talk about how "your eyes make my heart to flutter," it does not have to mean my heart is actually racing. When we talk about a "sunrise," it is not meant to be a scientific description that the sun is revolving around the earth, rather than the other way around.

When the Bible says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands," it does not mean the author had read Tolkien and thought trees could actually walk, talk, and clap their hands.

Take Genesis 1 and 2, for example. If you know the gods that were respected by the Egyptians, you will suddenly realize that the Creation account was written in such a way to mock the Egyptian Gods. (Why do you think the "sun" is not revealed until day until day 4? Because the Egyptian Sun God was similar to the Greek God Zeus or the Roman God Juipter. It was deliberately offensive to Egyptian way of thinking, and was a not too subtle way of trying to break the Hebrews who had lived in Egypt for 400 years from an Egyptian mindset.) That does not mean it was not intended to be accurate in its basic detail, but it is not a scientific description like the current theory of evolution. (Whether it also was meant to be a literal 6 days or not is a separate issue for another time.)

The Bible is filled with hyperbole, metaphors, and other figures of speech the same as any English book today. It is made up of poetry, historical narrative (which is an accepted and valid and accurate way of conveying actual historical events), proverbs, letters, and apocalyptic writings. Each has its own "style" and method of communicating.

The Bible is a collection of writings, not one single book. It was written in different cultures and different languages. Not many people could pick up an unedited version of Shakespeare today and understand it, and his writings were done in English within roughly the last 500 years. I am not making excuses or saying it is impossible to understand, just that it is common sense and normal literary practice to give the author the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what he means before condemning it.

Jim in Iowa

It's just too bad that so many think that, to be religious, you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god (don't forget the Muslim part).

I agree that you can be religious and believe in a different "god." I do want to point out that in the 1700's, the Muslim popluation was virtually non-existent here. In the culture of Revolutionary America, the Christian God was overwhelmingly the agreed upon worldview.

Jim in Iowa

The following link has some bad language (it deals with anonymity and on line communication)

http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19

Blogs occasionally make me wish for the ending credits resolution, from "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" (which I'm probably the only person reading this blog low-brow enough to have watched it)

bryan

ps. This is not referring to the preceding post....

Ok, this is WAY off topic. I am relatively new at PAD's site. Is 261 the highest number of comments posted? It definitely far exceeds the average.

Jim in Iowa

earlier comment: Funny how belief in the Bible as true should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is not, and is actually considered an “insult.”

Of course it's this way. To believe otherwise might be to have their heads explode or something.

The problem I have with calling the Bible "fiction" is that it assumes facts not in evidence: that the core belief in the existence of God is false. You may believe it is false; feel free to call it an "implausible hypothesis." But don't insult your opponent, not least because you're asking to have the allegation blow up in your face. Albert Einstein and Thomas Aquinas were both theists, and I can guarantee either of them was smarter than anyone on here, so show at least a minimal level of respect.

It's just one more reason why religion is bad for these people, because it appears to deny them the ability to question things around them, and it just has them assume that if you are not of the same faith as them, you are wrong.

Any belief system will do this. Marxists are convinced that a dictatorship of the proletariat will lead to some bucolic never-neverland, and are reluctant to listen to any evidence to the contrary. Any person who has any deeply-rooted belief will be reluctant to challenge that worldview, because he has internalized so many of those premises. There is a certain logic to this; if you are right about a certain fact or premise, anyone who contends the opposite point is wrong by definition. The trick lies in being able to distinguish the scenarios in which you think you're right from those in which you know you're right. In either case, the whole concept of a marketplace of ideas is a metaphor for competition just such as this: people who fervently believe X arguing with people who equally fervently believe !X even though at least one party is wrong. (Marx was an idiot; Hegel, not so much.)

Bladestar has it exactly wrong. The weak people aren't the people with religion or any other belief structure. The weak people are the ones who either form no beliefs, or worse yet, have beliefs but refuse to act on them.

"Blogs occasionally make me wish for the ending credits resolution, from "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" (which I'm probably the only person reading this blog low-brow enough to have watched it)"

Oh THAT'S rich! I just sat througha double DVD session of THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA and GODMONSTER OF INDIAN FLATS. The latter in particular makes J&SBSB look like something Jean Cocteau might have come up with.

Bill (Happy now that his dvd restoration of THEY CALL HER ONE-EYE just arrived.)

Thanks Bill, I think :-)

bryan (who has seen too much Lion KIng II with his daughter)

Wrong again braindead Bill, I have beliefs and act on them, but I don't force them on others.

And you obviousl;y must be another terrorist lover since you love those who act on beliefs, like say the 09/11 hi-jackers who were willing to give their lives to strike a blow against those who their beliefs told them are their enemy.

Yep, acting on your beliefs can be a good thing sometimes, eh?

The Bible is filled with hyperbole, metaphors, and other figures of speech the same as any English book today.

Ahh, so this would explain why you guys only take seriously what you want to, and then come up with excuses to explain the rest? Just kidding. I think. ;)

That still doesn't explain the "magic" that people still automatically assume as literal truth - parting the sea, walking on water.

When I read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, I read it knowing it's "7 parts truth, 3 parts" fiction. But if I try and apply that to the Bible, it's an insult. I just don't get that.

But don't insult your opponent, not least because you're asking to have the allegation blow up in your face.

Ok. Smart people believed in god so that makes me wrong? Now, I find *that* rather insulting.

Nothing is blowing up in my face, because there are no allegations. This isn't a criminal trial. It's simply fact versus fiction.

That still doesn't explain the "magic" that people still automatically assume as literal truth - parting the sea, walking on water.

Fair question. I don't "automatically" believe the "magic" stuff. This is the part where it clearly is a matter of faith -- not blind faith, but reasoned faith. I have spent over 20 years reading a wide variety of material on this issue, including those critical of the Bible. I have also spent the last 30 years in an active relationship with God. And that is why I believe the "magic" parts are literally true. I have seen what God has done in my life. If God can transform me as radically as he has, then it is really not a stretch for me that he can part the waters or walk on them.

I have no problems with honest questions about the Bible. It has survived over 2,000 years in a way no other piece of literature ever has. I agree with your skepticism and your need to examine it rather than blindly accept it. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I do suggest that it is easier to understand it from the inside rather than the outside. Not a criticism, just a suggestion that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa: Your definition of an "accurate historical document" is faulty. You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.
Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we’re going to apply the scientific methodology that we know works the best. What other methodology would you propose? The Ouija Board School of Historical Divination? Tea Leaves? Argument by Fiat? Majority Rule? The documents in question are ancient. But history as a practice and a study is not. It is your argument here that is fallacious, and “faulty.” Not mine.

The question is not one of writing. It is a question of verifying the events, places, and people alleged to have occurred therein.

Jim in Iowa: When the Bible says that a person lived, that he lived in a particular place, etc., where we have evidence, it has shown to be accurate.
Luigi Novi: Bingo. WHERE-WE-HAVE-EVIDENCE. In other words, where we have independent corroboration by material OUTSIDE of the Bible. Hence, we know that there really were Egyptian Pharaohs, and Julius Caesar, and a city called Jerusalem, etc. Not so for much of the other stuff, including a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Jim in Iowa: When it comes to the Gospels, there is more evidence for the early date of the Gospels being written and more copies which verify the consistency of the same story, that even the liberal scholars are beginning to concede the point.
Luigi Novi: And what early date is that? And what is this “evidence”? What exactly is it that these scholars are saying, and who are they who are saying it?

Consistency? Sure. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark is the common element between Matthew and Luke and was the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. So yeah, of course they’re largely consistent. They were cannibalized from one another. According to Randel Helms, author of Who Wrote the Gospels?, the author of Mark, whoever he was, stands at least at a third removed from Jesus and more likely at the fourth removed.

Jim in Iowa: At one point they placed the Gospels being written between 150 and 250 AD. Evidence proved that was not the case. If the Gospels were written 40 years after the original events, there it is indeed possible an eyewitness was still alive (someone 20 at the time would be 60).
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter if it’s “possible” that an eyewitness was alive. What matters is whether we can verify the account. We can’t. We don’t know who wrote the Gospels, we have no original manuscripts of the Gospels, we have no way to corroborate what is written by the authors or allegedly said by these “witnesses,” and even then, such accounts would be hearsay. Moreover, how many people in 1st Century Palestine lived to be 60? And how would the author have verified the witnesses’ stories? Especially 40 years later?

Jim in Iowa: The fact that they were anonymous does not mean they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Luigi Novi: The fact that they were anonymous means that we don’t KNOW who wrote them. Again, Irenaeus of Lyon arbitrarily assigned them those names in the 2nd Century. Didn’t you read this above? How did he know who the authors were? The vast majority of the verses in the Gospel we call Matthew were simply cannibalized from Mark, and almost half of Mark’s verses were used in Luke. So it’s not like you can read each one and see a distinctive voice, and even if you could, there are no other works by any authors known to have been lifetime followers of Jesus by which you could compare for the purposes of identification.

Jim in Iowa: It would take too long here…
Luigi Novi: How convenient.

Jim in Iowa: but it in fact is a sign of authenticity for that time period that they were anonymous and yet were well accepted.
Luigi Novi: And yet were accepted? Accepted by whom? This means what, exactly, that that Gospels are authentic simply because people believe in them? Uh-uh, sorry, Jim, I don’t think so. Belief has absolutely nothing to do with fact or authenticity. People believe in all manner of pseudoscientific things, from aliens in UFOs, to supernatural aspects of the Bermuda Triangle, to Atlantis, to ESP, to ghosts, to homeopathy, etc. None of this means that those things actually exist.

Jim in Iowa: The authors wanted the focus to be on Jesus, not on themselves.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about “focusing on themselves,” and with fallacious Straw Man comments like this, you display your intellectual dishonesty. The issue is one of authorship. “Not focus.” If a book has the author’s name on the cover, does that mean he’s “focusing on himself”? No. It means that it is simply letting the reader know who wrote it.

Jim in Iowa: They did not need to add their names to the documents to give them credibility
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they did. I simply said that we do not know who wrote them. This has nothing to do with “need” or “credibility.” But if you do want to argue credibility, then yes, signing your name would help to confirm authorship.

Jim in Iowa: (which makes sense if they were written in the lifetime of the apostles -- people would know they were the authors).
Luigi Novi: How so? The Gospels give no indication of who wrote them, and two of latter ones are largely cannibalized by the first. What is distinctive about them that would alert people as to who wrote them? The only reason they have the names by which they are currently known is because Irenaeus of Lyon assigned them those names.

Jim in Iowa: Luke clearly states he was not an eye witness, but you ingore the fact that he specifically says he interviewed eye witnesses.
Luigi Novi: I don’t ignore it at all. I’m simply aware that this is called hearsay. Too bad you’re not.

Jim in Iowa: Back to the poetical expressions. Your point is invalid because the context of the quotes clearly shows they are not intended to be a "scientific explanation" of how things work, but rather a description of life as they saw it. To hold them to contemporary standards violates the normal interpretation of literature.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the Bible is a narrative, and not a historical account, is precisely one reason why it cannot be considered a historical document, let alone an accurate one, as you incorrectly said earlier. Yes, the Bible is literature. But not necessarily a factual, historically or scientifically accurate true-life account. Hence, events and people described therein cannot be concluded as such without outside corroboration. If you want to argue that it is, then you stray onto the turf of the modern Scientific Method and historiographical methodology, by which the Bible crumbles as an empirical document.

Jim in Iowa: Every day a weatherman refers to sunrise and sunset. No one thinks they are idiots and no one sends letters complaining that the weatherman thinks the earth is flat. Every day language is filled with expressions such as this.
Luigi Novi: I never used the word “idiot.” You did. One more Straw Man bites the dust. As for language, our inability to use the Bible as an accurate historical record without outside corroboration is not a mere matter of language, and arguing that it is is simply disingenuous. Let’s just say that the Bible were talking about the destruction of a city, and in so doing, it uses a poetic turn of phrase like “The walls fell as if from the lightning of God,” and scholars stated that this merely meant that it was destroyed by attackers who believed their actions were guided by their god. Now, the “lightning” part could explained this way. But the destruction of the city is an event, and its destruction could only be confirmed as historical if both its existence and its destruction had outside evidence for it. Here, it is the event we’re talking about, not the mere “language” with which it is mentioned.

Second, this does not account for Biblical literalists, who take such accounts as not poetic, but literally. You yourself seem to flip-flop on this, going on and on about poetry on the one hand, and then saying on the other hand that you lean towards a literal reading of the six day creation in Genesis.

When a weatherman tells us about sunrise and sunset, we not only know indisputably what he’s talking about, but we can ask him, we can test his predictions, and we can impeach his words if observed phenomena do not consistently line up with his predictions. This cannot be done with the Bible’s content.

Luigi Novi: And those would be…? (I certainly hope you’re not talking about Flavius Josephus, and the two mentions of Christ in his Antiquities…

Jim in Iowa: Yes, one of them is Josephus. The scholars you cite who think it is not authentic have been more than adequately answered by other scholars based on extensive research.
Luigi Novi: Really? How? What are their counterarguments? Where is this? Can you provide a link? A book title? This is simply your way of saying that you believe the Christian apologists that you want to believe. But no objective historian considers Josephus’ mentions of Jesus reliable, and there are valid reasons why.

First, here is the passage from Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This flowery and worshipful paragraph on Jesus in Antiquities is totally inconsistent with what we know about Josephus, and was probably added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century CE, during Constantine's reign, by Bishop Eusebius (who said that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the kingdom of god). Earlier versions of Josephus’ work dating from before the second century do not mention Jesus at all. The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time, but they didn’t. Why is this? Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding the passage’s first appearance (360 C.E.) didn’t buy the passage as coming from Josephus. Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ. That passage was known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius, but Jerome's Latin version renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ." And again, the passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, an orthodox Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

The passage’s brevity alone makes its inclusion suspicious. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. Recording every important person and event of the first 70 years of the Christian era, it comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold “ten thousand wonderful things,” a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines. Why does Josephus not mention these “wonderful things”? Or the disciples? If he was crucified by Pilate, why doesn’t Josephus mention him in connection with the Samaritan upheaval in the next chapter? Given that Josephus mentioned all the different Jewish sects, why didn’t he mention the Christians?

Other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. This is one of the main pieces of evidence on which a suspicion of tampering is based.
Even if Josephus’ mentions of the Jesus were not forged, you ignore the fact that they are HEARSAY accounts. Ditto for Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., who are also sometimes cited by Christian apologists who want to make believe that there is confirmed evidence for a historical Jesus. The fact remains that there is no consensus in the historical community as to the historicity of Jesus. That is simply fact.

Jim in Iowa: In addition, Tychichus (sp?), also makes reference to Jesus.
Luigi Novi: Is Tychicus mentioned outside of the Bible? I could find no mention of him outside of it using any of the reference sources at my disposal. If you could direct me to extra-Biblical reference to him, I’d appreciate it. :-)

Jim in Iowa: Ancient letters from 100 years after Christ also make reference to Jesus.
Luigi Novi: 100 years after Christ? And this makes them reliable? Letters written a century after his lifetime? Do you expect me to take this statement seriously?

Jim in Iowa: This is highly unusual and happens with no other historcial figure of the time period.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. There are numerous extant letters to and from Julius Caesar (not to mention coins, busts, books he wrote, etc.), who died only forty years before the alleged birth of Jesus.

Jim in Iowa: (Have you forgotten that Time magazine, hardly a conservative Christian magazine, did an extensive issue on Jesus a few years ago? Scholars conceded that Jesus was real, they just argued about whether the Bible was true in everything it said about him.
Luigi Novi: Time magazine does religious-themed stories all the time, and only consults such scholars, but not those who question his historicity, a testament to the biases of its editorial staff. So? What’s your point? Whether anything can be considered fact is based on one thing alone: EVIDENCE. Not mere pedigree of the magazine that publishes such material, which is just an Argument from Authority.

Bladestar: See Luigi, Jim is a perfect example of the sad pathetic religious person I'm talking about. He has no identity of his own without his favorite fictional book.
Luigi Novi: And non-theists who refer to others as “sad” and “pathetic” do more to harm their own cause and others’ perception of them than anything the theists do.

Jim in Iowa: But it is ludicrous to say that Washington was in no sense a religious man. The fact that one story was apocryphal does not matter. There are very clear quotes that Washington makes that show without a doubt that he was indeed a very religous man.
Luigi Novi: And many others that do not as illustrated by two different sites that you provided url’s to (for which I commend you), thus illustrating that whether he was “very religious” is at best, somewhat unclear. Funny how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by insisting he is “very religious” on the one hand, but then provide material presenting arguments for the other side afterwards.

Jim in Iowa: I respectfully suggest you are wrong. First, in 18th Century America, *EVERYONE* would know that talking about a "Creator" refers to a Judeo-Christian God.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, was a Deist. He wasn’t referring to your god. Why you think a Deist would refer to the Judeo-Christian God, when everyone knows that Deists refer to “nature’s god,” and that some of them believe the any such god is unknowable, I don’t know, but your suggestion is irrelevant.

Jim in Iowa: The fact that they don't contain the words "Christian" or "Jesus Christ" is irrelevant. The founding documents were created in the context where Christianity was virtually the only religion practiced.
Luigi Novi: The fact that these documents do not contain reference to things like “Jesus” is ENTIRELY relevant, as it goes to the fact that they are secular documents.

Jim in Iowa: Let me be clear: I do not agree with the belief some hold that the Founding Fathers tried to truly set up a "Christian Nation" as it would be understood today. But history is clear that they not only founded this country on Christian principles…
Luigi Novi: And principles of Roman law, principles of Greek democracy, principles of the European Enlightenment, and principles of the Iroquois Federation, which I mentioned above. I wonder why you ignored that? Funny how you just focus on the one set of principles out of many that inspired our system of government that just so happen to conform to your contemporary religious views, and ignore all the rest.

Jim in Iowa: …but that they did not see it a violation of the separation of church and state that some do today.
Luigi Novi: They didn’t see what as a violation of SoCaS? What are you referring to? They didn’t see slavery or prohibiting women from voting as wrong either. Your point?

Jim in Iowa: To put it differently, without Christianity, America today would not exist as we know it. No other country has established a constitutional democracy that has endured as long as ours.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with Christianity.

Jim in Iowa: Enlightenment principles guided many other constitutions, such as one in France, and it did not last.
Luigi Novi: First of all, how so?

Second, whether it “did not last” is not the issue. You seem to have a very developed talent and obfuscating what the topic of conversation is. The topic here is whether the country was founded on the principles of religious freedom by Christians, and in point of fact, not all the Founding Fathers were Christians, they did not found the country based solely on Christian principles, and indeed, Christianity does not even promote religious freedom, particularly given the first three Commandments. Christianity, like most, if not all other religions, claims itself as the only acceptable one. Historically, it has never encouraged deviation from it as morally or legally acceptable.

Jim in Iowa: We are unique in our origin.
Luigi Novi: What does this have to do with anything? What does uniqueness have to do with the question of whether Christian principles were the sole principles by which the country was founded?

Jim in Iowa: The argument that we should not impose our morality on others seems to ignore that it is the pro-abortion movement that is doing so.
Luigi Novi: The pro-choice movement does not impose morality. They simply want each person to have the power to choose to have an abortion, or NOT to have one. To say that “wanting choice” is “imposing morality” is a blatant distortion of words and their meanings.

Jim in Iowa: Washington had a correct understanding of the separation of church and state, rather than the extreme one found today.
Luigi Novi: What “extreme one” would that be?

Jim in Iowa: While Washington, Jefferson, and Franlkin may be 3 of the founding fathers we think of first, they are not the only ones. It is amazing how the pastors and those who were clearly strongly "evangelical" in todays terms are left off of the lists and out of textbooks.
Luigi Novi: What do pastors have to do with the Founding Fathers found in textbooks? Besides, textbooks leave A LOT out in order to paint a rosy picture of history.

Jim in Iowa: If you write poetry and talk about how "your eyes make my heart to flutter," it does not have to mean my heart is actually racing. When we talk about a "sunrise," it is not meant to be a scientific description that the sun is revolving around the earth, rather than the other way around. When the Bible says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands," it does not mean the author had read Tolkien and thought trees could actually walk, talk, and clap their hands.
Luigi Novi: I asked you before about passages that do not seem to have any poetic value, and you just stonewalled on the question.

I’ll state it again. Leviticus 11:20-23, for example, involves God giving instruction on eating habits. He says:

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Now why would God, when trying to impart important instruction, tell his followers about something that doesn’t exist? All insects have six legs, not four. How exactly is this “poetic”? Similarly, what is the poetic value of mentioning in passing, that while rabbits chew cud, they are not clean to eat, if in fact rabbits do not chew cut? Doesn’t including such a “poetic” falsehood make the instruction God is trying to give less clear, and serve no purpose? Why would he refer to emotions residing in the kidneys? You may try to argue that the Bible reference to thoughts originating in the heart is poetic, but in fact, the reason it says this is because people back then actually thought that’s where thoughts came from. Hence, the literature that MAN wrote (not an omnipotent God, who would know better), reflected this.

David Bjorlin: The problem I have with calling the Bible "fiction" is that it assumes facts not in evidence: that the core belief in the existence of God is false.
Luigi Novi: Not at all. Belief in God has nothing to do with the question of whether the Bible is literally or empirically true, and there are quite a few people who believe in God, but do not necessarily think the Bible is the ultimate authority on it. Mathematician and skeptic Martin Gardner, to name one prominent example.

David Bjorlin: You may believe it is false; feel free to call it an "implausible hypothesis." But don't insult your opponent, not least because you're asking to have the allegation blow up in your face.
Luigi Novi: I have not insulted my opponent. That the Bible is a narrative work of mythology and fiction extrapolated from some historical elements as a basis is a reasonable statement of fact. This is not an insult, because it says nothing about theists. But when some begin to argue that it is factual, literal, and/or empirical, they stray onto the turf of the Scientific Method, and other fields like history that employ it. If one sees the Bible with the fascination that Joseph Campbell did, so be it. But if one feels “insult” at being told that it is not a book that describes facts, that it their inference, not my intent.

Well, whaddaya know? My face has not pulled a Raiders of the Lost Ark on me after all!

David Bjorlin: Albert Einstein and Thomas Aquinas were both theists, and I can guarantee either of them was smarter than anyone on here, so show at least a minimal level of respect.
Luigi Novi: First of all, this is a blatant ad hominem argument, and I’d think someone such as yourself would be intelligent to understand the poverty of such an argument. The idea that “Einsten was a theist, and he was smarter than you,” is so intellectually vacuous that one can only marvel at the mental hernia that could produce such a canard.

Second, Einstein was not a theist. He did not believe in a personal God, or immortality, or a supernatural/divine origin of ethics. People who quote his “God does not play dice” line are distorting a statement he made on the nature of quantum physics. Here are some of Einstein’s thoughts on religion (quite odd for a “theist”):

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. --Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. -- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet. -- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

Bladestar: And you obviousl;y must be another terrorist lover since you love those who act on beliefs, like say the 09/11 hi-jackers who were willing to give their lives to strike a blow against those who their beliefs told them are their enemy.
Luigi Novi: Sure. Anyone who believes in acting on beliefs must therefore, ipso facto, believe in the most extreme and absolute examples of it, and therefore be sympathetic to the 9/11 attackers. Yeah, great way to shore up your argument, Bladestar.

Jim in Iowa: Fair question. I don't "automatically" believe the "magic" stuff. This is the part where it clearly is a matter of faith -- not blind faith, but reasoned faith.
Luigi Novi: There’s no such thing. Reason and faith are mutually exlcusive.

Jim in Iowa: And that is why I believe the "magic" parts are literally true.
Luigi Novi: So much for “reason.” Only a literalist could use the word “reason” to mean a method of testing empirical knowledge that somehow allows for confirmation of pseudoscientific claims.

Jim in Iowa: I have seen what God has done in my life. If God can transform me as radically as he has, then it is really not a stretch for me that he can part the waters or walk on them.
Luigi Novi: So radical change in a person’s life can’t occur with Divine intervention, and such radical change in a person’s life proves the possibility of a grotesque en masse parting of a major body of water? Oooookay. Personally, Jim, I think you should give yourself more credit. You, like every other person, are quite capable of effecting change in your own life all by yourself. You merely choose to attribute it to God.

Jim in Iowa: I have no problems with honest questions about the Bible.
Luigi Novi: And what constitutes an “honest question”? A question made so long as it does not conflict with your preconceptions and ultimate conclusions about it, and does not require you to revise them?

Jim in Iowa: It has survived over 2,000 years in a way no other piece of literature ever has.
Luigi Novi: 3,300-3,800 years, actually.

Jim in Iowa: I agree with your skepticism and your need to examine it rather than blindly accept it. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I do suggest that it is easier to understand it from the inside rather than the outside. Not a criticism, just a suggestion that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Luigi Novi: In other words, it is easy to accept it if you believe it, which is really a circular argument. It is actually easier to examine it objectively if you can put your preconceptions of it aside.

Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we’re going to apply the scientific methodology that we know works the best. What other methodology would you propose? ….The question is not one of writing. It is a question of verifying the events, places, and people alleged to have occurred therein.

You have not understood my point and are mixing up two different issues.

Luigi Novi: Bingo. WHERE-WE-HAVE-EVIDENCE. In other words, where we have independent corroboration by material OUTSIDE of the Bible. Hence, we know that there really were Egyptian Pharaohs, and Julius Caesar, and a city called Jerusalem, etc. Not so for much of the other stuff, including a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

You are imposing a burden on the Bible that is not on other ancient literature.

If you had a document from the Civil War, and you discovered that 20 out of 50 people and events it listed were true, and there were no clear contradictions or problems with the other 30, you would give it some benefit of the doubt that it may be an accurate document. If in the next 10 years you found out that 25, 30, and then 35 out of 50 were true, and there were still no clear contradictions, you would give the document even more weight.

This is what has happened with the Bible. There are events and people for which there was no outside confirmation for hundreds of years. Then a discovery is made to show that the Bible was accurate. (The existence of King David, the existence of Jericho, details of the history of Babylon and Persia have all been questioned at one time, and have now been shown to be accurate.)

There are questions about some dates, names, and places, as there is with any record of history. Palestine/Israel was never the center of world events like Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt, etc., so there is not going to be as much independent corroboration. That does not mean the things not corroborated are not true.

Luigi Novi: The fact that they were anonymous means that we don’t KNOW who wrote them. Again, Irenaeus of Lyon arbitrarily assigned them those names in the 2nd Century. Didn’t you read this above? How did he know who the authors were? The vast majority of the verses in the Gospel we call Matthew were simply cannibalized from Mark, and almost half of Mark’s verses were used in Luke. So it’s not like you can read each one and see a distinctive voice, and even if you could, there are no other works by any authors known to have been lifetime followers of Jesus by which you could compare for the purposes of identification.

Irenaeus of Lyon did not arbitrarily assign the names to the Gospels. He simply attached the names that people already believed were the authors. You make no room for oral tradition, something that has been demonstrated to be an accurate method of passing down history. This is not like our teaching American History 101 where the average student forgets 95% of what he was taught the moment he is done taking an exam. When you are in a religious context (whatever the religion), things are passed down to the next generation. If we were talking 1,000 years before the names were officially attached, I could see your point. The fact that the names were attached in the second century, a mere 100 years after the Gospels were written, is quite close to the source. It is not unreasonable to conclude that there is some basis for these names being assigned.

Jim in Iowa: The authors wanted the focus to be on Jesus, not on themselves.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about “focusing on themselves,” and with fallacious Straw Man comments like this, you display your intellectual dishonesty. The issue is one of authorship. “Not focus.” If a book has the author’s name on the cover, does that mean he’s “focusing on himself”? No. It means that it is simply letting the reader know who wrote it.

I was not putting words in your mouth; I was making a point you seem to not understand. The first century was not like today. You did not have printing presses, etc., to publish books. A book had to be written by hand on a scroll. It would then be passed on my hand. It was not necessary to put your name in the body of the work like we do today.

Back to my original point on this matter. I am suggesting that as a matter of piety and humility, the authors may have chosen to not put their names on the documents. In that time period, there were a lot of “pseudipigrahal” writings. An author would write something and then put someone else’s name on it, not his own. There are at least two reasons why.

First, it would be because they were an unknown person to begin with. Who would read a scroll by “John Smith.” But if the scroll said it was by “Thomas Jefferson,” people might read it. Second, it sometimes indicated they were trying to say what the name they put on the work would have said, such as if I tried to write about freedom, etc., and so decided to write under the name “Thomas Jefferson.”

The authors of the Gospels were nobodies in their world. There was no cable TV or Good Morning America on which to promote their written works. If the scrolls had been signed, it would raise as many doubts about their authenticity as if they were not signed.

Jim in Iowa: Luke clearly states he was not an eye witness, but you ingore the fact that he specifically says he interviewed eye witnesses.
Luigi Novi: I don’t ignore it at all. I’m simply aware that this is called hearsay. Too bad you’re not.

Your point makes no sense. If a biographer today were to go and interview 30 people and write a book about Bill Clinton, does that make it invalid? Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law, but it is standard practice in news articles, biographies, and other forms of history. An eyewitness cannot always write the record him or herself.

Jim in Iowa: Back to the poetical expressions. Your point is invalid because the context of the quotes clearly shows they are not intended to be a "scientific explanation" of how things work, but rather a description of life as they saw it. To hold them to contemporary standards violates the normal interpretation of literature.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the Bible is a narrative, and not a historical account, is precisely one reason why it cannot be considered a historical document, let alone an accurate one, as you incorrectly said earlier. Yes, the Bible is literature. But not necessarily a factual, historically or scientifically accurate true-life account. Hence, events and people described therein cannot be concluded as such without outside corroboration. If you want to argue that it is, then you stray onto the turf of the modern Scientific Method and historiographical methodology, by which the Bible crumbles as an empirical document.

The fact that the Bible is a narrative in no way means it cannot be considered a historical document. It does not crumble when looked at fairly. What examples would you give?

Jim in Iowa: Every day a weatherman refers to sunrise and sunset. No one thinks they are idiots and no one sends letters complaining that the weatherman thinks the earth is flat. Every day language is filled with expressions such as this.
Luigi Novi: I never used the word “idiot.” You did. One more Straw Man bites the dust. As for language, our inability to use the Bible as an accurate historical record without outside corroboration is not a mere matter of language, and arguing that it is is simply disingenuous. Let’s just say that the Bible were talking about the destruction of a city, and in so doing, it uses a poetic turn of phrase like “The walls fell as if from the lightning of God,” and scholars stated that this merely meant that it was destroyed by attackers who believed their actions were guided by their god. Now, the “lightning” part could explained this way. But the destruction of the city is an event, and its destruction could only be confirmed as historical if both its existence and its destruction had outside evidence for it. Here, it is the event we’re talking about, not the mere “language” with which it is mentioned.
Second, this does not account for Biblical literalists, who take such accounts as not poetic, but literally. You yourself seem to flip-flop on this, going on and on about poetry on the one hand, and then saying on the other hand that you lean towards a literal reading of the six day creation in Genesis.

I did not say you used the word “idiot.” I was giving an example. You also are mixing two different issues.

First issue: I don’t have time to reread all of the posts above, but one of them used what were expressions of appearance as proof the Bible had errors. I was responding in part to that post.

Second issue: How I take a given passage depends on its context. I do believe the Bible is literally true, but not in a strict, wooden way. Genesis 1 is a good example. The passage is clearly written as a poetical apologetic against the gods of Egypt. At the same time, it was also intended to give the story of creation. The text does not state the methodology God employed. It simply states that it happened. By definition, it is impossible to independently verify this account.

If you read passages in the historical narrative sections, such as the books of Samuel, Kings, or Acts, I do take them as literal.

If you read the book of Psalms, it is clearly poetical.

If you read prophecy such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Hosea, there is a mixture of elements. Parts are poetical, parts are historical, and parts are apocalyptic.

There will not be independent corroboration for every historical event recorded. As stated above, to require such evidence for every event is absurd and not how other ancient words are treated.

Luigi Novi: And those would be…? (I certainly hope you’re not talking about Flavius Josephus, and the two mentions of Christ in his Antiquities…
Jim in Iowa: Yes, one of them is Josephus. The scholars you cite who think it is not authentic have been more than adequately answered by other scholars based on extensive research.
Luigi Novi: Really? How? What are their counterarguments? Where is this? Can you provide a link? A book title? This is simply your way of saying that you believe the Christian apologists that you want to believe. But no objective historian considers Josephus’ mentions of Jesus reliable, and there are valid reasons why.

By your statement, you imply that any historian who thinks Josephus’ writing about Jesus is authentic cannot be objective.
One major scholar who believes it is authentic is Paul L. Maier Ph.D.(University of Basel (1957); Ancient Near East; Ancient Greece; Ancient Rome; Christianity and the Roman Empire; Reformation Era). He is the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. He wrote Josephus – The Essential Works. In it, he explains the scholarly reasons why he believes this passage to be authentic.

Luigi: Even if Josephus’ mentions of the Jesus were not forged, you ignore the fact that they are HEARSAY accounts. Ditto for Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., who are also sometimes cited by Christian apologists who want to make believe that there is confirmed evidence for a historical Jesus. The fact remains that there is no consensus in the historical community as to the historicity of Jesus. That is simply fact.

You can’t have it both ways. You reject what at least some major scholars believe are eyewitness accounts (the Gospels), and then dismiss outside evidence as hearsay.

For the moment, though, let’s think about this. The fact that there is hearsay evidence about Jesus is not without significance. It may not prove Jesus existed, but it certainly is what you would expect if he did exist.

The fact that there is no consensus does not mean there is no evidence. Because of the religious nature of these arguments, it is not surprising there is not consensus. To believe Jesus was historically true would then open up the possibility his teachings were also true.

Luigi Novi: Is Tychicus mentioned outside of the Bible? I could find no mention of him outside of it using any of the reference sources at my disposal. If you could direct me to extra-Biblical reference to him, I’d appreciate it. :-)

I may have been thinking of Tacitus whom you mention above. I will have to look it up.

Luigi Novi: Time magazine does religious-themed stories all the time, and only consults such scholars, but not those who question his historicity, a testament to the biases of its editorial staff. So? What’s your point? Whether anything can be considered fact is based on one thing alone: EVIDENCE. Not mere pedigree of the magazine that publishes such material, which is just an Argument from Authority.

My point is that Time magazine gave evidence to consider, and it definitely questioned scholars who questioned Jesus’ historicity.

Luigi Novi: I asked you before about passages that do not seem to have any poetic value, and you just stonewalled on the question.

I answered it above.

I’ll state it again. Leviticus 11:20-23, for example, involves God giving instruction on eating habits. He says:
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
Now why would God, when trying to impart important instruction, tell his followers about something that doesn’t exist? All insects have six legs, not four. How exactly is this “poetic”? Similarly, what is the poetic value of mentioning in passing, that while rabbits chew cud, they are not clean to eat, if in fact rabbits do not chew cut? Doesn’t including such a “poetic” falsehood make the instruction God is trying to give less clear, and serve no purpose? Why would he refer to emotions residing in the kidneys? You may try to argue that the Bible reference to thoughts originating in the heart is poetic, but in fact, the reason it says this is because people back then actually thought that’s where thoughts came from. Hence, the literature that MAN wrote (not an omnipotent God, who would know better), reflected this.

The question about insects is fair. I will have to research it.

The question about kidneys goes back to my earlier argument about poetical imagery and language of expression, which you quickly dismiss. Even today, we talk about a knot in our stomach, for example. You are insisting on making the Bible say more than it is saying. It is not necessary for God to state emotions come from chemical reactions in the brain when the effect of them are often felt in the very parts of the body mentioned.

In regards to the heart, that is a very well developed term of imagery in the Bible that is used to refer to the soul. The book of Proverbs is filled with instructions such as to “guard your heart.” When the Bible says, “As a man thinks in his heart,” or to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, it is dealing with the totality of ones being. This is not a scientific term, but rather a spiritual (or perhaps, psychological) term.

Jim in Iowa: Fair question. I don't "automatically" believe the "magic" stuff. This is the part where it clearly is a matter of faith -- not blind faith, but reasoned faith.
Luigi Novi: There’s no such thing. Reason and faith are mutually exlcusive.

I would differ. It is possible for reason to inform your faith. For example, when I met my wife, reason told me some things about her. But I then took a step of faith and married her.
There are things you can test completely with reason, but they tend to be things that must stay in the science lab. At some point, reason and faith intersect. You can exercise blind faith (such as marrying someone, sight unseen), or exercise reasoned faith (marrying someone after getting to know them).

You may disagree, but the world is made up of far more than what we can touch, feel, taste, measure, and test.

It is by definition impossible to prove there is a spiritual world. But I suggest that you can see the “fingerprints” if you will of where the spiritual world impacts the physical.

Jim in Iowa: I have seen what God has done in my life. If God can transform me as radically as he has, then it is really not a stretch for me that he can part the waters or walk on them.
Luigi Novi: So radical change in a person’s life can’t occur with Divine intervention, and such radical change in a person’s life proves the possibility of a grotesque en masse parting of a major body of water? Oooookay. Personally, Jim, I think you should give yourself more credit. You, like every other person, are quite capable of effecting change in your own life all by yourself. You merely choose to attribute it to God.

Do you, by definition, assume God does not exist? I agree some people change on their own. But there are many who do not until they look to something beyond themselves. This does not prove conclusively God exists. But when you have experienced it, it is clear that it was God and not just your own strength.

Jim in Iowa: I agree with your skepticism and your need to examine it rather than blindly accept it. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I do suggest that it is easier to understand it from the inside rather than the outside. Not a criticism, just a suggestion that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Luigi Novi: In other words, it is easy to accept it if you believe it, which is really a circular argument. It is actually easier to examine it objectively if you can put your preconceptions of it aside.

I am not trying to make a circular argument. Let me put it differently. I could try to describe electricity all day long to a man from the year 1000 AD. But if I were able to take him to 21st century America and turn on a light switch, he would have at least a little better understanding of what I was talking about.

Before I got married, I did not fully understand what it was like to be married. My friends could tell me all day long, but once I experienced it, I better understood it.

The same is true with Christianity. You can only understand so much from standing on the outside. Christianity is not just a collection of beliefs; it is a personal relationship with God. Experiencing it firsthand does make a difference in your ability to understand it.

Jim in Iowa

You are imposing a burden on the Bible that is not on other ancient literature.

I don't recall any Civil War literature claiming that a general parted a river so his men could get across, either.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is quite likely to be the second most widely read book in the world, uses magic and some potentially other fantastical events in it's "3 parts fiction", but people acknowledge the fiction for what it is.

Those that read the Bible, however, do not. So it is a well deserved burden.

I don't recall any Civil War literature claiming that a general parted a river so his men could get across, either.

I understand your point. My point is that, leaving aside the miracles, the Bible has been shown to be highly accurate in the history it records.

The reason the date for many of the books of the Bible is such an issue is because a contemporary date with the events would lend more weight to the possibility that eyewitnesses who saw the miracles agree with what was in the books (particularly the Gospels and the book of Acts, but also various books in the Old Testament).

If there was a book that was clearly written in 1865 that did talk about the parting of the waters, and did so in a way that indicated it was meant to be seen as literal, it would not make it true automatically, but it would be different than if a book was written in 1965 claiming the same.

If the Bible is filled with made up places, people, and events, then it would be very obvious that the miracles are also fictious. Because the Bible is an accurate history of actual events, it then leaves you with a question: What do you do with the miracles. The answer to this question depends enormously on your presuppositions. If you believe that miracles, supernatural events, are not possible, then you would treat the book as fictious. That does not "prove" it did not happen, but I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. If you believe that miracles are possible, then the accuracy of other events would suggest the miracles may also have acutally occured.

Jim in Iowa

David Bjorlin: Albert Einstein and Thomas Aquinas were both theists, Actually, it appears I was wrong about Einstein. and I can guarantee either of them was smarter than anyone on here, so show at least a minimal level of respect.
Luigi Novi: First of all, this is a blatant ad hominem argument, and I’d think someone such as yourself would be intelligent to understand the poverty of such an argument.

As opposed to the statement I was responding to:
Of course it's this way. To believe otherwise might be to have their heads explode or something. It's just one more reason why religion is bad for these people, because it appears to deny them the ability to question things around them, and it just has them assume that if you are not of the same faith as them, you are wrong.

(I've thus far been arguing against condescension, but since we just can't get away from it, I might as well join in.) Read those quotations. Can you honestly claim those statements weren't disparaging the intellects of theists? Pointing out the existence of intelligent theists made for a nice, efficient, reductio ad absurdam. Say it with me, kids: "counter-example." (Try it in syllogism form. Major {Ries's} premise: Theists lack critical faculties. Minor premise: Thomas Aquinas was a theist. Conclusion: Thomas Aquinas lacked critical faculties. Now, if the conclusion is false, and the minor premise is undeniably correct, the major premise must be faulty. Are you all with me now?) As for the allegation that I'm engaging in ad hominem attacks... um, is "not as smart as Thomas Aquinas" really that much of an insult? (See below for a real one.) I will stand by my earlier position: Nobody on this blog has written anything that indicates an intellect equivalent or superior to the one that wrote Summa Theologica. The point I was trying to make, and one that should have been clear but which I will restate simply, is this: Show respect for your opponents. Don't assume, as Mr. Ries did, that only narrowminded fools believe differently than you. The reason it will blow up in your face is that somewhere in the world there is always someone smarter, faster, tougher, stronger, and better looking than you, and underestimating your opponent is the best way to make sure that person shows up at an inopportune time. It's a corollary of Murphy's Law.

Ok. Smart people believed in god so that makes me wrong? Now, I find *that* rather insulting.

No, it doesn't make you wrong. Your statement that religion is bad for people because it diminishes their critical faculties makes you an ass. (This is an insult. See the difference?)

David Bjorlin: The best argument you could marshal would be that several of them were in fact Deists, and perhaps a couple of Unitarians (arguably making them heretical Christians).
Luigi Novi: Which is pretty much the only argument I need. That Jefferson and Paine, to name two, were Deists, and that Washington and Franklin were said to have been Deists (later in life for Washington) means that the Fathers were not, as a group, Christians, nor was this country founded as a Christian nation on what were solely Christian principles. They were a product of Christian society, and some of them may have been Christian to one degree or another as individuals, but they embraced many new ideas that they incorporated into this nation, including the ideas of the European Enlightenment, Deism, Christianity, Roman Law, Greek Philosophy, the Iroquois Federation, English Common Law, and even Freemasonry.

There are a few assumptions within this posting that I'd like to address. First is the straw man argument, one of the sort that you generally accues other people of making. Jim in Iowa said that the nation was founded upon Christianity. You actually concede that in your last sentence. Nobody in this blog has argued that the Republic was founded upon "solely Christian principles," to the exclusion of other influences. You've disproven that rather well, but it doesn't really help the argument against Jim in Iowa. The Republic didn't entirely come from Christianity, but it was suffused with Christian ideology. That claim cannot be so easily dismissed.

The second is your denial that the Founders were, "as a group, Christians." Jefferson was quite manifestly anti-Christian; Paine was Christianity-free but not as hostile to Christianity as Jefferson. But Washington was at least nominally an Episcopalian; unless someone has a functional "window into men's souls" (dead men's souls, no less) I'd be reluctant to claim he wasn't really Christian. Nor is it clear that deism requires a wholesale rejection of Christian values. Consider Franklin's speech at the Constitutional convention, requesting that each session begin with a prayer. He worries that, "In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understandings" (James 1:17), and remembered that "All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain those that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages." (Matthew 10:29, Psalm 127:1, Genesis 11:9, Deuteronomy 28:37, Psalm 44:13). (Citations freely lifted from http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/Franklin-prayer.htm; I'm not that devout, so I didn't get the references without help.) The Founding Fathers, as you note, were products of Christian society; so, too, was deism. Deists rejected certain parts of Christian theology, finding it inadequate, but only Paine was willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. (Jefferson edited the Bible down to the bones, but retained a volume he entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.") Deism isn't quite Christianity, but it is quite clearly the same God. (By definition, how many all-powerful creators of the universe can there possibly be? Deists and Christians disagree on how God interacts with His creation, not over the creation itself.)

You're also systematically undervaluing the connections of Deism to Protestant Christianity, and American democracy to its British forebears, and most notably Christianity to democracy. Monarchs did frequently claim divine right, but it was an episcopal Christianity that most strongly supported the crown. As James I put it, "no bishops, no king." Democracy and Protestant Christianity got along just fine; Anglo-American democracy first flowered under the Puritans. (See: Cromwell, Oliver; English Revolution; Commonwealth; Instrument of Government; Long Parliament.) The Whigs were traditionally the party of religious dissenters. Deism among the Founders was in some sense a logical growth from a Protestant society. Luther's declaration, "every man a priest" becomes Paine's "my mind is my own church."

Moreover, deism was a religion common only among the elites. The Founding generation, the generation that voted for the Constitution and fought the Revolutionary War, was rather broader. These are the people who inscribed on a cannon, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” As you mentioned, it was a Christian society. The members of that society were overwhelmingly Christian.

Regarding the quotations you marshal, I'd like to throw in another one, from a letter sent by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813: "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." That may or may not address your claim that the Founders were Christian in public and not in private, as Jefferson at least expected his letters to be published after his death, but I believe we have to assume that they meant at least some of what they said. A letter to Jefferson was also one of the sources you cited to cast doubt on Adams's piety; reconcile them however you like. I should like to point out that Adams's comments that you cite are hostile to high church Christianity, which one would actually expect from a Congregationalist scion of a Puritan colony. He does appear to dislike quite a few priests. So did the devout Christian Dante, if I may offer another intellectually vacuous counter-example.

On a side rant, Jefferson's statement "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law" is empirically quite true. Christian law was canon law, which existed in Church courts. The Common Law arose from the legal system Henry II erected parallel to the courts of canon law and superseding the county courts in England. Amusingly, Jefferson said this immediately after screwing up the history of common law in the same letter. But he was right about its independence from Christianity.

Jim in Iowa: Yes, one of them is Josephus. The scholars you cite who think it is not authentic have been more than adequately answered by other scholars based on extensive research.
Luigi Novi: Really? How? What are their counterarguments? Where is this? Can you provide a link? A book title? This is simply your way of saying that you believe the Christian apologists that you want to believe. But no objective historian considers Josephus’ mentions of Jesus reliable, and there are valid reasons why.

Shlomo Pines. I know you find counter-examples to be "intellectually vacuous" and a canard-inducing "mental hernia," but this time you did explicitly ask for it.

David Bjorlin: The Continental Congress ordered copies of the Declaration to be published and sent to churches, so that they could be read from the pulpit.
Luigi Novi: And? This means that the FF were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles? Sounds to me that the CC knew they could educate the people on the Declaration by having it distributed in a public place.

They didn't choose "a" public place. They chose churches. Not market squares, not town criers, not written copies to be posted on tavern doors. They sent copies to Christian churches, where pastors would read aloud statements attributing "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" and "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Plus, what interpretation do you think the audience sitting in those churches would have put on references to any kind of God in that document?

Even if Josephus’ mentions of the Jesus were not forged, you ignore the fact that they are HEARSAY accounts. Ditto for Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., who are also sometimes cited by Christian apologists who want to make believe that there is confirmed evidence for a historical Jesus.

Jim in Iowa's point that all professional works of history are based on hearsay is well made. (Ch. Thucydides-- partly a work of things he witnessed, mostly a work compiled from interviews of precisely the sort alleged in the Gospel, with the odd bit of speculative fiction thrown in. Not at all an inapposite analogy to the Bible, in my opinion.) Jim's point that it was an ancient book and thus should not be judged by modern standards of historiography is also better than you seem to believe; modern criteria of reliability simply didn't exist at the time, so no book of that time is entirely reliable. As with all ancient texts, it should be taken with a grain of salt, but the constituent is within the ore, if one is thoughtful and open-minded enough to exract it. Additionally, the fact that hearsay accounts of Jesus even existed ca. 90 AD is relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed at all. It's the same issue that comes up in debates about the existence of any kind of real King Arthur-- a reliable sixth-century reference of any sort would be tremendously important.

Mr Ries: When I read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, I read it knowing it's "7 parts truth, 3 parts" fiction. But if I try and apply that to the Bible, it's an insult. I just don't get that.

Actually, if you'd said that in the first place, I wouldn't have argued with you at all. (Seven parts truth to 3 parts fiction would make the Bible more accurate than Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars. Christians should be ecstatic if the Bible proves to be that accurate.) You actually said that the Bible was a work of fiction, in a context that suggested you meant "10 parts fiction, 0 parts truth," which I don't think is fair. I also think your subsequent commentary on theists' intellects is horribly unfair, and frankly mean-spirited. (My last post is almost as bad, which I regret. I was/am right, but it was uncalled for.) I'm willing to call a truce and concede that reasonable people can disagree on Biblical accuracy, if you're willing to concede that theists can in fact be reasonable people.

Your statement that religion is bad for people because it diminishes their critical faculties makes you an ass.

I'd say the bigger ass is the person who hides behind their religion and all in entails. This may not be you, but I think Bush and a few well known terrorists would qualify.

Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

HAte to admit when creationists get something right but I got gobsmacked by this one a few years back when I was arguing with one. One must keep in mind that the words we read are translations--according to some sources I've seen "Fowl" comes from a word that refers to a creature with wings, not a chicken.

It's also clear from the entire passage that locusts are NOT considered 4 legged animals. They have 4 legs for creeping and 2 "legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth"--the back legs, in other words.

So I'd always heard that the Bible says that insects have 4 legs so I brought it up when arguing with a guy who believes it to be without error. Imagine my joy when he flips the book to the exact passage and I had to admit I was wrong. I'm talking to a guy who thinks Noah managed to shove a few million animals, including dinosaurs, into an ark and I'M the one who has to admit he's wrong??? WTF?

It's perfectly legit to argue that the King James Version etc of the Bible has mistakes but to prove that the mistakes are inherent to the original texts would be more difficult.

Isn't it about time for someone to jump up and say "strawman"?

...that's a joke folks...

Luigi Novi --

Bill gave a good answer about the insect issue. Let me address another: the "rabbit" that chews the cud.

This issue is actually a textbook example of the point I was trying to make, namely, that it is a false burden to impose a modern definition on an ancient writing.

Today the term "chew the cud" has a very definite, scientific meaning. It refers to an animal who basically swallows food to store in a stomach, then later bring it back up to rechew it thoroughly and swallow again.

That is our definition today. That is *not* what it would have meant in the time of Moses.

The text lists rabbits, as well as coneys, as chewing the cud. By the modern definition, they do not. But in the time of Moses, they did not do dissection to look at the stomachs to see whether the animal actually regurgitated and rechewed its food. Instead, it referred to the mouth movements where it would appear they were doing so. The appearance of them doing so is so convincing that Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), to whem we owe the modern system of biological classification, at first classified the coney and the rabbit as ruminants (an animal that chewed the cud).

You suggested at another point that according to my view of the Bible an "omniscient God" should have known the truth and not allowed the author to make such a mistake. I would disagree, since it was not a mistake in the first place, not according to the definitions of the time. To question Moses' use of a term to which Linnaeus eventually gave a more restrictive meaning is anacrhonistic argumentation.

When we are dealing with the Bible, we are dealing with an ancient text written in a foreign culture in a foreign language anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 or more years ago. It is not special pleading to suggest that it is an unfair standard to take an English translation and on first reading insist there is a mistake. At the very least, it is valid to go back and try to understand the text in the original language and context to make sure you are understanding what it originally said. That does not mean we cannot have some confidence after studying the text. It just means reading an English translation is the beginning of study, not the end. (This is not special pleading; this is true for reading any translation of a work. That is why I would have had to have learned German and French to get a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, so that I could read the original works of theologians from France and Germany.)

On another note, let me make one other observation. Today we use history and science textbooks in schools across the country. If you were to pick up one of those texts, you would find not 1 or 2 errors, not even 100 errors, but well over 1,000 errors per textbook. Some of these are minor typos. Others are major mistatements of facts. Do we toss out those textbooks as works of fiction? No, we correct the errors, but we still use the textbook as an authoritative source. Even if you don't believe the Bible is "inspired by God," it is extreme to call the Bible a "work of fiction" because of a few errors (assuming there are some) and because it suggests there is a supernatural world. The work should be looked at as a whole before making a judgment.

Here is my personal belief about errors in the Bible: I don't believe the Bible has errors in the original documents. That is a matter of faith, not something that can be proven since the originals do not exist.

I also believe we have a very reliable record of what the original documents actually said. In fact, the record we have is light years better than any other ancient document. That is not an opinion, that is well established fact. While I believe 99.9% of the original has been carefully preserved, there are some problems. Some of the so called "errors" in the Bible are based on these issues. At least for me, I would expect there to be these problems, especially since these documents had to be copied by hand for close to 1,500 years. (This is especially true when you find differences in dates, names, etc., in the Old Testament. Since Hebrew does not have numerals back then, they used letters instead. That practice easily led to some mistakes in copying.)

There are other suggested problems, such as the issue of the insect or rabbit. These are not copy errors. Some may be translation issues (we do not exactly have an ancient Greek or Hebrew dictionary laying around, so there are times when later discoveries help us better understand the meaning of a word). Others are cultural issues (such as biographies written in the first century often being written by themes, not chronologically, leading to events being in different orders when comparing the Gospel records). Some are issues of applying modern definitions to ancient writings. These issues are not as easily resolved. But if you are willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt, there are reasonable ways to answer the questions.

Next, there are historical issues. There are names of leaders, locations of cities, etc. Some of these can be proven. Others cannot. There are at least 2 problems with 100%verification. First, there are cases where two different cities can have the same name (this happens here in America). There are different people with the same names. So even if an inscription is found with a name of a person or a city, it is not always definitive either way. Second, almost by definition, we have very few records from ancient times, and those records are often incomplete. To require there to be "independent" verification of every person or place or event is not a reasonable burden to put on the document. You can say you are not sure it is true or not, but you cannot say it is a work of fiction unless there is a very clear, demonstrable mistake (or better yet, string of mistakes). This is the area that is the easiest to "factually" try to prove an error in the Bible since it deals with hard facts.

Finally, there are the supernatural events included in the Bible. By definition, these are not normal events. And when you read, for instance, that Jesus turned the water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee, it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be an independent verification of this fact from another source. Your presupposition about miracles will influence your answer to this question as mentioned above. If you reject the possiblity of miracles, then by definition, these parts, at least, would be fictious. That conclusion is based on a prior belief/conviction, not on the evidence about the event.

I go through all of this for one reason: I research any error that people mention to me. My belief that the Bible is the Word of God is not just a blind acceptance of what someone else has said. I have looked into it myself.

My request is this. If you believe there are errors in the Bible, then please post them. I would welcome the challenge. I will not post my answer if I think you are incorrect since it is pointless to keep trading replies when we most likely will not convince each other. But I am sincere when I say I will research any you post. If I decide you are right, I will post that. Otherwise, I will spare everyone else long posts like this where I disagree with your point.

Jim in Iowa

Actually, the bit about rabbits is even better than you think. Not only do they appear to be chewing but they also have the habit of eating their feces to digest the food contained therin better, similar to the way cow barf up food and chew and swallow it again.

Damn, biology is disgusting.

One "mistake" that is often pointed out is that in the KJV of the Bible you find mention of the "unicorn". What is interesting is that the unicorn is found nine times in the KJV of the Bible. So, does this prove that the Bible is a work of fiction? Hardly.

“Unicorn” does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the “problem” is one of translation, rather than a problem with the original, biblical text.

In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word that is found in the texts referenced above is re’em, which is translated “wild ox” in the later versions. Most scholars believe the term refers to a large, fierce ox of the ancient world...a beast that now is extinct.

In Deuteronomy 33:17, the re’em is described as having “horns”, not a single horn. So no mythology can be charged to the Bible in connection with the term “unicorn.”

Jim in Iowa is right in that many people who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God do not just believe it because they were taught that. Rather, it is those who believe that research, study, and analize the Bible..while it is the critics who pull out single verses or a couple words to use as an argument against the validity of the Bible.

while it is the critics who pull out single verses or a couple words to use as an argument against the validity of the Bible.

Oh, I'm sure that critics have used far more than that. You guys just gives yourselves too much credit.

Jim in Iowa: Your definition of an "accurate historical document" is faulty. You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.

Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we’re going to apply the scientific methodology that we know works the best. What other methodology would you propose? ….The question is not one of writing. It is a question of verifying the events, places, and people alleged to have occurred therein.

Jim in Iowa: You have not understood my point and are mixing up two different issues.
Luigi Novi: What two issues? You kept talking about applying modern methodology to ancient literature, and I responded that the point is not the style of writing, but the manner in which we can confirm the empirical/historical truth of the event being described, which IS a modern discipline.

Jim in Iowa: You are imposing a burden on the Bible that is not on other ancient literature.
Luigi Novi: I am imposing the exact same burden that is on any other empirical claim. The question here is not whether the Bible is “literature,” it’s the manner in which an empirical claim can be confirmed. You have stated that the Bible is not merely literature, but an “accurate historical document.” In other words, you are arguing that the events therein actually happened, which means they are subject to the same Scientific Method as any other claim. Whether the claim in question is found in a piece of “ancient literature” is irrelevant. Homer wrote of the Trojan War in an ancient piece of literature. But we still have no evidence that such a war took place, because we have no outside evidence for it. Hence, the burden placed on Homer is the same. Yes, we don’t hold most other pieces of literature to this burden for the simple fact that most other pieces of literature that are not labeled “non-fiction” do not purport to describe actual historical events. When they do, then we most certainly hold them to this burden. Why you don’t understand this, I don’t know.

Jim in Iowa: If you had a document from the Civil War, and you discovered that 20 out of 50 people and events it listed were true, and there were no clear contradictions or problems with the other 30, you would give it some benefit of the doubt that it may be an accurate document.
Luigi Novi: No. We would give provisional credence to those 20 items that were corroborated as true. We would not give absolute credence to the whole thing. History is not an “all or nothing” endeavor where if we confirm one aspect of an account, we are obligated to do so with the entire thing. The fact that we can confirm George Washington existed does not mean that the story about him and the cherry tree is occurred, or the one about him throwing the silver dollar over the Potomac. Each individual notion must be confirmed individually. Again, why you do not comprehend this, I don’t know.

Jim in Iowa: If in the next 10 years you found out that 25, 30, and then 35 out of 50 were true, and there were still no clear contradictions, you would give the document even more weight.
Luigi Novi: To the extent that the 35 items were confirmed. But not the remaining 15 unconfirmed aspects of it. Moreover, 35 is 70% of 50, and we most certainly have not confirmed 70% of the Bible, and quite a bit of it stands in contrast to what we do know.

Jim in Iowa: This is what has happened with the Bible. There are events and people for which there was no outside confirmation for hundreds of years. Then a discovery is made to show that the Bible was accurate.
Luigi Novi: There was no such “discovery” that ever showed this, and the fact that you think that the Bible’s accuracy can be confirmed by “a discovery,” when the process of verifying historical and scientific knowledge is a slow and painstaking process that takes years, even centuries, is a marker of how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are. History and the Scientific Method are not one-discovery, one-study, one-experiment endeavors.

Jim in Iowa: (The existence of King David, the existence of Jericho, details of the history of Babylon and Persia have all been questioned at one time, and have now been shown to be accurate.)
Luigi Novi: The historicity of King David is in dispute. Biblical minimalists hold that David and his united kingdom never existed, and that the stories told about his life were made up much later by Jewish nationalists. Others consider him a real historical figure, but like King Arthur, consider most of the traditions relating to him to have more myth than substance. The details of David's life given in the Hebrew Bible are not corroborated by other historical documents. Some feel an ancient inscription found at Tel Dan to be a reference to a king of the "House of David", providing indirect evidence that David did exist as a historical king.

As for Babylon, Jericho, and Persia, yes, they exist. So what? There is external corroboration for that. For millennia, there was no city that could be identified as Troy. Then they discovered it. But does that mean that the Trojan War occurred? No. Does it mean that we can confirm other things that Homer wrote about, like Cyclopes, Gods, Sirens, and the like? No. Because we do not have external corroboration for those things. Similarly, there is no external corroboration for a Jesus of Nazareth, or for that matter, the existence of any city called Nazareth in the 1st Century. This is not a mere matter of “questions about some dates or names or places.”

Jim in Iowa: That does not mean the things not corroborated are not true.
Luigi Novi: It means that they cannot be confirmed as empirically true, and therefore, are not historical. You are shifting the methodology to argue their truth a priori, arguing about when something uncorroborated “does not mean a claim is not true.” That is not how it works. If you insist that something is an accurate historical document, then the burden of proof is on you to prove such things are true, not on others to prove that they are not true. The fulcrum point of the process is the strength of the evidence that proves that something is true. The burden is not what proves the things are “not” true.

Jim in Iowa: Irenaeus of Lyon did not arbitrarily assign the names to the Gospels. He simply attached the names that people already believed were the authors.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? What people? Who? Which of these people “believed” they were the authors? On what basis did they make this conclusion? Are you saying you have sources that provide the reason you cite as the reason for that attribution? Or are you just making this up as you go along? And when is popular belief (assuming that your assertion about what “people” is true) a valid form of evidence for something?

Read Book 3 of Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, in which he explains, in Chapter 11, his admittedly “mystic” reasons for why he chose only four Gospels (did people not believe in any of the others floating around at the time?), and elsewhere in the book why he chose the names of those four. You can read it at:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html#Section11

Lastly, to the Greeks, mythology was literally a part of their history; few ever doubted that there was truth behind the account of the Trojan War in the Iliad and Odyssey. The Greeks used myth to explain cultural variations, traditional enmities, and friendships. It was a source of pride to be able to trace one's descent from a mythological hero or a god. Does this mean that the Trojan War occurred? Or that the supernatural aspects of those stories (prophecy, Cyclopes, shapeshifters, Gods, nymphs, muses, sea monsters, snake-headed Gorgons, sirens, etc.) were real? No, it does not.

Jim in Iowa: You make no room for oral tradition, something that has been demonstrated to be an accurate method of passing down history.
Luigi Novi: Events cannot be historically corroborated without evidence, and oral tradition doesn’t cut it as evidence. Demonstrated? By whom? Where? In what way? The only way to demonstrate that oral tradition is an accurate method of passing down history would be to discover a primary source today for an orally-told ancient story, show that the primary source matches the current version of the story to a significant degree of detail, and that those who handed the story down did not have access to that newly-discovered source. You would also have to demonstrate that this has not only happened, but that it has happened often enough that it demonstrates that oral tradition can do this consistently.

Has this been done, Jim? If so, where?

Jim in Iowa: If we were talking 1,000 years before the names were officially attached, I could see your point. The fact that the names were attached in the second century, a mere 100 years after the Gospels were written, is quite close to the source.
Luigi Novi: 100 years is “close” to the source? Really? How the hell do you figure this? 100 years is, according to my calculations, a century. A century is most certainly NOT “close to the source,” and there is still the matter of primary source documents.

In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours, how while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously, how she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and how several people who stole things from her actually went blind. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened—by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? No, not really. So “closeness” is not the salient criteria by which to judge the veracity of allegedly historical events, and in point of fact, 100 years isn’t even close anyway.

You have a lot to learn about how empirical knowledge is properly tested and confirmed if you really believe this fallacy. The bottom line remains that Irenaeus had absolutely no evidence that the four names he attached to the four Gospels he chose out of many to be part of canon were actually the names of their authors, and that is a fact. “Belief” is not evidence for anything.

Jim in Iowa: It is not unreasonable to conclude that there is some basis for these names being assigned.
Luigi Novi: You are assuming that there is a basis for that assignation. You cannot conclude it if you don’t have evidence of that basis. The fact remains that there is absolutely no evidence for who those authors were, and your “conclusion” is an arbitrary one that you are making on an a priori basis because you want to believe it true, not because the facts lead to such a conclusion..

Jim in Iowa: I was not putting words in your mouth
Luigi Novi: You said “The authors wanted the focus to be on Jesus, not on themselves.” This is a Straw Man argument, because the issue of authorship has nothing to do with “focus.” The point is that absence of clear clues as to authorship makes confirmation of it impossible, not that the Gospel authors were or should’ve “focusing on themselves,” which has nothing to do with this point. My statement was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Jim in Iowa: I was making a point you seem to not understand. The first century was not like today. You did not have printing presses, etc., to publish books.
Luigi Novi: Oh. So I don’t understand this??? Well, gee whiz, Jim, thank you for pointing it out to lil’ ol’ ignorant me. Why, despite the fact that mentioned the Guttenberg printing press being invented in the 15th Century in my October 13th post, one can clearly tell from my writings that I was under the impression that people in the 1st Century got their books from Amazon.com!

Thanks for setting me straight, Jim. Nice to know I got folks like you wit dat fancy book-learnin’ to lean me to their infinite wisdom.

Jim in Iowa: It would then be passed on my hand. It was not necessary to put your name in the body of the work like we do today.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was. I simply pointed out that the authorship of the Gospels is completely unknown. You seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones.

Jim in Iowa: I am suggesting that as a matter of piety and humility, the authors may have chosen to not put their names on the documents. In that time period, there were a lot of “pseudipigrahal” writings. An author would write something and then put someone else’s name on it, not his own. There are at least two reasons why.
Luigi Novi: Jim, Jim, Jim. Do you understand that it doesn’t MATTER why they didn’t put their names? I don’t CARE why they didn’t put their names. I merely point out the fact that we cannot confirm their authorship because they DIDN’T. The reasons “why” they didn’t are irrelevant. What is relevant is only the fact that the absence of such clear indicators of authorship mean that authorship cannot be confirmed. As I said above, this is a descriptive conclusion, not a prescriptive suggestion or complaint. I’m not saying, “Hey, how come they didn’t sign their names?? That’s suspicious!” I’m simply saying, “Since they didn’t, we don’t know who they were.”

Jim in Iowa: Luke clearly states he was not an eye witness, but you ingore the fact that he specifically says he interviewed eye witnesses.

Luigi Novi: I don’t ignore it at all. I’m simply aware that this is called hearsay. Too bad you’re not.

Jim in Iowa: Your point makes no sense. If a biographer today were to go and interview 30 people and write a book about Bill Clinton, does that make it invalid? Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law, but it is standard practice in news articles, biographies, and other forms of history. An eyewitness cannot always write the record him or herself.
Luigi Novi: What is it with you and blatantly false analogies? Do you lack the ability to argue honestly? Are you really telling me that you’re just plain not sharp enough to see the obvious reasons why these two things are not analogous? Do I really have to spell it out for you?

Okay, fine, here goes:

When the biographer interviews 30 people about Bill Clinton, he takes NOTES. He records NAMES. He records PLACES. He CORROBORATES CLAIMS using multiple lines of independent evidence. He CITES SOURCES when he uses them, such as newspaper and magazine articles. He NAMES these interviewees and other sources in the book, and LISTS the notes and sources in the back of the book. Readers, reviewers and researchers can look up these primary source documents. This does not occur in the Bible. Luke does not mention who these “witnesses” were, nor does he even write in the first person as a biographer would when mentioning whom he talked to.

The Gospels are written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

Jim in Iowa: The fact that the Bible is a narrative in no way means it cannot be considered a historical document. It does not crumble when looked at fairly. What examples would you give?
Luigi Novi: Examples of what?

Jim in Iowa: There will not be independent corroboration for every historical event recorded. As stated above, to require such evidence for every event is absurd and not how other ancient words are treated.
Luigi Novi: Requiring evidence is not absurd if you want to treat it as historical fact, though the low regard you seem to have for the Scientific Method is quite telling. The Bible was written to indoctrinate people into religion, and thus, it was not written to be a historical document that could withstand the same degree of high criticism as modern ones, and because of this, its authors could take any liberties they wanted to embellish, exaggerate, or entirely fabricate anything they wanted.

Jim in Iowa: By your statement, you imply that any historian who thinks Josephus’ writing about Jesus is authentic cannot be objective.
Luigi Novi: I imply no such thing.

I simply said (not implied) that no objective historian considers Josephus’ mentions of Jesus reliable, and I gave you specific reasons why. If an objective historian could uncover new information that addressed these very serious problems, like how an orthodox Pharisaic Jew like Josephus would write such a laudatory passage a man killed for blasphemy, or why the early Christian writer Origen claimed that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the passage where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah,” or why other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so, and showed why those passages are reliable after all, then the historical community would accept it, and so would I. But as it stands, it is obvious that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

Jim in Iowa: One major scholar who believes it is authentic is Paul L. Maier Ph.D.(University of Basel (1957); Ancient Near East; Ancient Greece; Ancient Rome; Christianity and the Roman Empire; Reformation Era). He is the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. He wrote Josephus – The Essential Works. In it, he explains the scholarly reasons why he believes this passage to be authentic.
Luigi Novi: Okay. How does he address all the problems pointed out about it by other scholars?

Luigi: Even if Josephus’ mentions of the Jesus were not forged, you ignore the fact that they are HEARSAY accounts.

Jim in Iowa: You can’t have it both ways. You reject what at least some major scholars believe are eyewitness accounts (the Gospels), and then dismiss outside evidence as hearsay.
Luigi Novi: And with this remark, you again show yourself to be intellectually dishonest. The only way to illustrate me attempting to “have it both ways” if I rejected the Gospels if I said they were eyewitness accounts, and then did the same with hearsay. But you didn’t do that. You just attempted a blatantly false fallacy by arguing that I rejected Gospels that OTHERS believe are eyewitness accounts. Nice try, Pinocchio.

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts, and I made that clear above. They are hearsay. The passage by Josephus is hearsay, as he was not an eyewitness. Hence, both are hearsay, and I said this previously, so there is no inconsistency. Your attempt to paint me as having it both ways is a distortion so blatant that it functions as a lie.

Try again.

Jim in Iowa: The fact that there is hearsay evidence about Jesus is not without significance. It may not prove Jesus existed, but it certainly is what you would expect if he did exist.
Luigi Novi: This is blatant rationalization. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof from one of clear evidence and primary source documents to one where we can rationalize hearsay as having some “significance,” and argue that hearsay is somehow consistent with the truth because it’s what we would “expect.” This is not how it works, Jim. When testing and confirming empirical knowledge, hearsay is not reliable, period. Yeah, you would “expect” hearsay if he did exist. You ignore the fact that you would also expect hearsay if he did NOT. True evidence is evidence that confirms a given notion to the exclusion of, or to a greater degree than, all other alternate explanations. Hearsay does not do this.

Jim in Iowa: The fact that there is no consensus does not mean there is no evidence.
Luigi Novi: No one said that there is no evidence because there is no consensus. The fact that there is no reliable evidence to conclusively prove the historicity of Jesus is precisely why there is no consensus on the question, and why the historicity of Jesus cannot and is not considered “historical fact” by the historical community. This is yet another nonsensical rationalization whereby you think you can give greater credence to unreliable information with clever wordplay, and it’s not working.

Jim in Iowa: Because of the religious nature of these arguments, it is not surprising there is not consensus.
Luigi Novi: The lack of consensus is due to evidence. Not religion. There are a slew of subjects in the historical community on which there is no firm consensus which have no current religious overtones to them at all (the population of pre-Colombian Native Americans and the degree to which they manipulated their environment being one notable example).

Jim in Iowa: To believe Jesus was historically true would then open up the possibility his teachings were also true.
Luigi Novi: One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. In the first place, Christians ostensibly believe in his teaching entirely separately from the question of whether he existed as a historical person, and there are some who assume his historicity who are not Christians. I myself continued to assume that he was historical, even after I became an agnostic, simply because he is treated as such by the uncritical mainstream media (that Time issue you mentioned is one example, as is A&E’s Biography of Jesus, and the Discovery Channel’s Jesus: The Complete Story, which is narrated by Avery Brooks, and is aired during Christmas and Easter, since they give little or no time to skeptics on the matter).

The question of Jesus’ historicity is entirely separate from any moral truth behind his teachings. Moral truths that are perceived to be valid should be valid regardless of whether their reputed originator was historical or mythical. The idea that his teachings would only be true if he existed historically is a non sequitur.

Jim in Iowa: My point is that Time magazine gave evidence to consider, and it definitely questioned scholars who questioned Jesus’ historicity.
Luigi Novi: No, that was not your point. Your point seemed to be that the mere fact that it was in Time gave it the imprimatur of credibility, which is not how empirical knowledge is confirmed. You were not saying that Time gave evidence to consider, and it definitely questioned scholars who questioned Jesus’ historicity, for the simple reason that you did not say that. You used a logical fallacy, and are now trying to backpedal, making believe you said something other than what you did.

Nice try.

Luigi Novi: I asked you before about passages that do not seem to have any poetic value, and you just stonewalled on the question.

Jim in Iowa: I answered it above.
Luigi Novi: And I pointed out how your answer was meaningless and irrelevant, because we’re not talking about weathermen or literature. We’re talking about GOD. An omnipotent, omniscient god would not tell his followers not to eat an animal that did not exist. He would instruct his followers by referring to the animals CORRECTLY. He would therefore tell them not to eat INSECTS. He would not tell them not to eat “insects with four legs.” Even if he referred to the number of legs, he’d refer to the correct number. If his followers were confused because they thought insects had four (I guess they had never bothered to count the legs on an insect?), then God would’ve set them straight. Why wouldn’t he, since he was giving them important instructions, and would want succeeding millennia of his followers to be able to understand him clearly? Wouldn’t an omnipotent god know that skeptics and believers would find these passages troubling millennia later, and make sure to spell it out clearly? Couldn’t he have cleared up a few matters like that when giving them rules on consumption? An eternal and omnipotent god would not be affected by such insignificant temporal details like whether a given reader was a “contemporary” of the Bible, or one for whom it was “ancient.” Not clarifying it for all would defeat the entire purpose of giving them instructions in the first place. The Bible was written by humans, and as such, it reads like it was written by humans, as it is bound by the limitations of human knowledge at the time. The humans who wrote it were not able to truly conceive of what an omnipotent being would be like, and it shows. It’s like when Q makes remarks about Worf being ugly in Deja Q(TNG), or makes sexist remarks about having a woman in charge of a starship in Death Wish(VOY). (The main difference being, that the writers of those episodes, while deliberately writing for their non-omnipotent audience, were not pretending that they were writing true-life historical events.)

Jim in Iowa: Fair question. I don't "automatically" believe the "magic" stuff. This is the part where it clearly is a matter of faith -- not blind faith, but reasoned faith.

Luigi Novi: There’s no such thing. Reason and faith are mutually exlcusive.

Jim in Iowa: I would differ. It is possible for reason to inform your faith.
Luigi Novi: The problem with this is that if a given notion is testable by reason, you have to abide by the conclusion reached by reason regardless of whether it confirms what you previously believed to be true, or disproves it. Many Christian apologists who insist that the Bible is literally and empirically true do not do this. They simply look for things to confirm their preconceptions, and ignore or rationalize that which doesn’t. The rationalizations you yourself offer on this board are a prime example of this.

Jim in Iowa: You may disagree, but the world is made up of far more than what we can touch, feel, taste, measure, and test.
Luigi Novi: But if you want to regard those things as empirical, and ancient events as “historical,” and the documents that purport them as “accurate historical documents,” then being able to test them and confirm them is EXACTLY what you need to do. You think you can obfuscate the issue by bringing up irrelevant points about other things that we do not test, when in fact, whether something is testable is precisely what we’re talking about, because it is you who insists that the Bible is an accurate “historical document.”

Jim in Iowa: It is by definition impossible to prove there is a spiritual world. But I suggest that you can see the “fingerprints” if you will of where the spiritual world impacts the physical.
Luigi Novi: In other words, if I were you, I’d agree with you. Or, if I believed in what you’d believe, I’d believe what you’re saying/agree with you. A circular statement. None of this bears any relevance to whether the Bible is a historical document.

Jim in Iowa: The reason the date for many of the books of the Bible is such an issue is because a contemporary date with the events would lend more weight to the possibility that eyewitnesses who saw the miracles agree with what was in the books (particularly the Gospels and the book of Acts, but also various books in the Old Testament).
Luigi Novi: The idea that sincere, objective, historians acting in good faith disagree with dates in the Bible only because of some ulterior agenda of not wanting to lend credence to the possibility of consistency in the reporting of miracles is a naïve, ad hominem insult. Historians disagree because of the manner in which they analyze the evidence, and how they reason with it, and they generally provide explanations as to this.

Jim in Iowa: If there was a book that was clearly written in 1865 that did talk about the parting of the waters, and did so in a way that indicated it was meant to be seen as literal, it would not make it true automatically, but it would be different than if a book was written in 1965 claiming the same.
Luigi Novi: What makes you think that books have not been written in the mid-1800’s and in the mid-1900’s on alleged miraculous events? They have. Libraries and bookstores are FILLED with books and paranormal and supernatural events dating back to recorded history, long before 1865, on subjects ranging from UFOs to aliens to the Bermuda Triangle to Bigfoot to Atlantis to ESP to homeopathy to ghosts, and so forth. And the only conclusion we can reach on any of them remains the same:

There is no evidence to conclusively prove them.

Why you think “clearly talking” about an event, and whether you do so in 1865 or 1965 is somehow the salient criteria by which you can judge a special claim to be empirically true, I don’t know. But you are clearly ignorant of how empirical knowledge is tested and confirmed if you believe this. 2,000 years old, a hundred and forty years ago, or just forty years ago makes no difference. It’s EVIDENCE you need. Nothing else.

Jim in Iowa: If the Bible is filled with made up places, people, and events, then it would be very obvious that the miracles are also fictious. Because the Bible is an accurate history of actual events, it then leaves you with a question: What do you do with the miracles. The answer to this question depends enormously on your presuppositions. If you believe that miracles, supernatural events, are not possible, then you would treat the book as fictious. That does not "prove" it did not happen, but I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. If you believe that miracles are possible, then the accuracy of other events would suggest the miracles may also have acutally occured.
Luigi Novi: No it does not. Accuracy of non-supernatural events does not prove supernatural events possible, and with this “truth by association” statement, you again prove how unable you are to form coherent logic. Again, in the 1870s, a city was unearthed that was declared to be Troy. Can we argue from this that Homer was indeed a single person, which historians dispute? Or that the Trojan War actually took place, which for which there is no evidence? No. And these are quite non-supernatural notions. Therefore it is even more specious to argue that we can conclude that Cassandra’s psychic abilities, the existence of Cyclopes, Gods, nymphs, muses, sea monsters, or Gorgons were real.

More examples: Historians doubted the existence of Alexander of Abonuteichos, an account of whom we only hear in Lucian, until we recovered evidence corroborating Lucian's account: coins and statues. Many of the people attested in early books of Livy are still dismissed as inventions simply because there is no physical evidence. Likewise the Historia Augusta is divided into "reliable" and "unreliable" halves, based on the observation that after a certain point the people it refers to are not attested anywhere else, whereas in the first half we have coins, inscriptions, and papyri confirming their existence. The “reliable” half does NOT give credence to the “unreliable” half. All claims must be corroboration INDIVIDUALLY.

David Bjorlin: I can guarantee [Albert Einstein and Thomas Aquinas] was smarter than anyone on here, so show at least a minimal level of respect.

Luigi Novi: First of all, this is a blatant ad hominem argument, and I’d think someone such as yourself would be intelligent to understand the poverty of such an argument.

David Bjorlin: As opposed to the statement I was responding to:
Of course it's this way. To believe otherwise might be to have their heads explode or something. It's just one more reason why religion is bad for these people, because it appears to deny them the ability to question things around them, and it just has them assume that if you are not of the same faith as them, you are wrong.
Luigi Novi: That is not an ad hominem statement. While certainly a statement that some may see as inflammatory, Craig was responding to an observation I made regarding the hypocrisy on the part of some theists, specifically the one in which belief in the Bible should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is an “insult.” He didn’t say that anyone who holds religious beliefs automatically has a crippled intellect. But his statement is valid for those who argue on an a priori basis and are not capable of objective, logical discussion, and whose behavior (when arguing the empirical or literal nature of their beliefs) is characterized by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, particularly when it comes to responding to legitimate problems or criticisms. He did not say, and I don’t think he meant (though I could be wrong) that “only narrow-minded fools believe differently from you,” though I can understand how someone might misinterpreted that. Clarification, Craig?

David Bjorlin: Nobody on this blog has written anything that indicates an intellect equivalent or superior to the one that wrote Summa Theologica.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, what do you feel is so ingenious about it? The part where he explains that homosexuality is a worse sin than rape? How choosing not to believe in God is the greatest sin?

David Bjorlin: There are a few assumptions within this posting that I'd like to address. First is the straw man argument, one of the sort that you generally accues other people of making. Jim in Iowa said that the nation was founded upon Christianity. You actually concede that in your last sentence.
Luigi Novi: I said that this country was founded upon principles from many different sources, of which Christianity was one (a truth that many from the “America is a Christian Nation” fringe ignore either unwittingly or deliberately), and that even if some or even most of the Founding Fathers held spiritual beliefs, that they made clear that this would be a secular nation with a separation between church and state.

David Bjorlin: Nobody in this blog has argued that the Republic was founded upon "solely Christian principles," to the exclusion of other influences.
Luigi Novi: That’s arguable. When someone says things like, “This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom by Christians,”—without any qualifier or modifier acknowledging the other sources, and without acknowledging that many aspects of our laws are actually antithetical to several of the Commandments—that is certainly what such a statement may appear to be.

David Bjorlin: The Republic didn't entirely come from Christianity, but it was suffused with Christian ideology. That claim cannot be so easily dismissed.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Good thing I didn’t dismiss it. :-)

David Bjorlin: You're also systematically undervaluing the connections of Deism to Protestant Christianity, and American democracy to its British forebears, and most notably Christianity to democracy.
Luigi Novi: Whether Deism may have some “connection” to Christianity in its origins or whatever else doesn’t make a Deist a Christian, any more than the connections between American democracy and Ancient Greek democracy makes us Greek. Using this reasoning, you could say that Christians are actually worshipers of Mithra, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus, and Balder, in that Jesus shared the same qualities with them, and was probably based in large part on them.

Jim in Iowa: Yes, one of them is Josephus. The scholars you cite who think it is not authentic have been more than adequately answered by other scholars based on extensive research.

Luigi Novi: Really? How? What are their counterarguments? Where is this? Can you provide a link? A book title? This is simply your way of saying that you believe the Christian apologists that you want to believe. But no objective historian considers Josephus’ mentions of Jesus reliable, and there are valid reasons why.

David Bjorlin: Shlomo Pines.
Luigi Novi: The Arabic manuscript from which the version of the passage of Josephus that Pines quotes is from the 10th century, which is about a millennium after Jesus’ alleged lifetime, and that is believed corrupted. It was written by Agapius, a 10th century Chrisitan Arab and Melkite bishop, and appears to have quoted the passage from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation.

David Bjorlin: I know you find counter-examples to be "intellectually vacuous" and a canard-inducing "mental hernia," but this time you did explicitly ask for it.
Luigi Novi: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your use of these of such phrases by me in referring to other things was not a deliberate act of dishonesty on your part, and a legitimate mistake of confusion or memory on your part. To correct you, I would point out that the use of these phrases was made in my October 15, 12:35 AM not in regards to “counter-examples,” but in response to the ad hominem statement by you about Einstein’s intelligence:

The idea that “Einsten was a theist, and he was smarter than you,” is so intellectually vacuous that one can only marvel at the mental hernia that could produce such a canard.

I never said the above statement in regard to “counter-examples,” nor did I ever mention anything about counter-examples. In fact, as you yourself pointed out, I asked for such examples. Jim in Iowa did not provide any, and refused to even respond to that request, and you did not mention what points Shlomo Pines made in response to the general feeling that Josephus’ mention of Jesus is not considered historically reliable.

David Bjorlin: Jim in Iowa's point that all professional works of history are based on hearsay is well made. (Ch. Thucydides-- partly a work of things he witnessed, mostly a work compiled from interviews of precisely the sort alleged in the Gospel, with the odd bit of speculative fiction thrown in. Not at all an inapposite analogy to the Bible, in my opinion.)
Luigi Novi: First, Thucydides did not include references to myths and the gods in his writing, and he vigorously consulted written documents and interviewed participants in the events that he recorded. Hence, the analogy to the Bible is just a tad inapposite.

Second, there is no ancient author, of any genre or subject, whom any modern historian completely trusts—and that even includes the most meticulous of them, even Thucydides.

David Bjorlin: Jim's point that it was an ancient book and thus should not be judged by modern standards of historiography is also better than you seem to believe; modern criteria of reliability simply didn't exist at the time, so no book of that time is entirely reliable.
Luigi Novi: Okay, so you’re saying that we can only judge allegedly historical events by the criteria of the modern standards of historiography if those events occurred during the era of high criticism when those criteria were adopted??? Where in the WORLD did you get a fallacious idea like this???? Ancient or modern, historical events are judged by the EXACT SAME standard.

David Bjorlin: As with all ancient texts, it should be taken with a grain of salt, but the constituent is within the ore, if one is thoughtful and open-minded enough to exract it. Additionally, the fact that hearsay accounts of Jesus even existed ca. 90 AD is relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed at all.
Luigi Novi: “Relevant to the question” not being the same thing as “proof of,” of course.

David Bjorlin: It's the same issue that comes up in debates about the existence of any kind of real King Arthur-- a reliable sixth-century reference of any sort would be tremendously important.
Luigi Novi: But no one says that King Arthur was a historical figure. At best, we can only speculate on the some of the possible historical figures on whom the medieval legend was based. Right now, we can do no better with Jesus.

Bill Mulligan: HAte to admit when creationists get something right but I got gobsmacked by this one a few years back when I was arguing with one. One must keep in mind that the words we read are translations--according to some sources I've seen "Fowl" comes from a word that refers to a creature with wings, not a chicken.
Luigi Novi: Well-said, Bill. For my part, I once repeated the criticism that the Bible refers to bats as birds, in a debate on the imdb boards, but then another poster posted a link to a page explaining that the reason bats are seemingly referred to as birds in the Bible was the because the original word wasn’t “birds,” but a word meaning “flying animals.” I conceded this point to this poster, and he and I are now good friends.

Bill Mulligan: It's also clear from the entire passage that locusts are NOT considered 4 legged animals. They have 4 legs for creeping and 2 "legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth"--the back legs, in other words.
Luigi Novi: Three points:

First, grasshoppers walk with their hind legs. They are known primarily for using them to leap, but they also use them to walk, along with their front legs. Ask any entymologist.

Second, even if we accepted that the expression in verse 21 "go upon all fours" is not saying that locusts have only four legs but just that they move about on four legs, then what about the passage in verse 23 that says: "But all winged swarming things which have four feet are a detestable thing unto you"? Here, without any reference to movement or motion, the passage described insects as "winged swarming things that have four feet." I t's rather hard to argue that this part of the passage was describing only the way that insects move about. Some translations like the King James Version and the Jerusalem Bible, have inserted the word "other" in verse 23. The statement hence reads, "Even these of them ye may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after its kinds. But all other winged swarming things which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you." The insertion of "other" makes the passage mean that one could not eat winged swarming things with four feet, except the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper. The word "other" clearly conveys the belief that locusts have four feet, and so do other winged swarming things. "Other," however, is not present in the Hebrew text, so translations that omit it accurately convey the reading of the original Hebrew, but it would be ridiculous to argue that the expression "all winged swarming things which have four feet," coming as it does immediately after the commandment concerning locusts and grasshoppers, should be seen as a statement completely unrelated to the preceding description of locusts and grasshoppers. But let's just assume that the statement "all winged swarming things which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you" was intended to stand alone and that it had nothing to do with the previous statement about locusts. What creature could this sentence be talking about? There is no animal that exists that is a winged swarming thing with four feet. The distinction had already been made between these "winged swarming things" and birds, which were discussed in verses 13-20. There is no "winged swarming" invertebrate with four feet, and there is no "winged swarming thing with four feet" in any other animal group. The only possibility is the "bat," but the bat had also been talked about completely separately in Leviticus 11:19. Besides this, the bat can hardly be said to "swarm," from a Hebrew word that meant movement as in the swarming of "an active mass of minute animals."

Lastly, if the Bible were written by God/with Divine guidance, God would not have messed this up. He’d have not only gotten it right, but made it CLEAR.

Bill Mulligan: It's perfectly legit to argue that the King James Version etc of the Bible has mistakes but to prove that the mistakes are inherent to the original texts would be more difficult.
Luigi Novi: Given that we don’t have any originals, yes, I would agree.

Jim in Iowa: Let me address another: the "rabbit" that chews the cud. This issue is actually a textbook example of the point I was trying to make, namely, that it is a false burden to impose a modern definition on an ancient writing. Today the term "chew the cud" has a very definite, scientific meaning. It refers to an animal who basically swallows food to store in a stomach, then later bring it back up to rechew it thoroughly and swallow again. That is our definition today.
Luigi Novi: And even that definition does not apply to rabbits. Rabbits aren’t ruminants. Neither are rock badgers (coneys). They both lack the four-chambered heart structure necessary for the category.

Jim in Iowa: Instead, it referred to the mouth movements where it would appear they were doing so. The appearance of them doing so is so convincing that Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), to whem we owe the modern system of biological classification, at first classified the coney and the rabbit as ruminants (an animal that chewed the cud). You suggested at another point that according to my view of the Bible an "omniscient God" should have known the truth and not allowed the author to make such a mistake. I would disagree, since it was not a mistake in the first place, not according to the definitions of the time. To question Moses' use of a term to which Linnaeus eventually gave a more restrictive meaning is anacrhonistic argumentation.
Luigi Novi: Of course it was a mistake. You yourself just said that they thought it act was chewing based on the appearance of chewing. But they were wrong. It only looked that way. You’d think an inquiring scientist like Linnaeus would’ve performed an dissection to see that they lacked the right type of stomach. Hence, a mistake.

Moreover, the word “chews” in Leviticus 11:6, translated from the Hebrew word “`alah,” more accurately means, "[cause to] ascend up." Thus, the Hebrew phrase for "chews the cud" translated literally means, "brings up the cud." This conclusively proves that Leviticus 11:6 gives a description of regurgitation, characteristic of true rumination.

Jim in Iowa: When we are dealing with the Bible, we are dealing with an ancient text written in a foreign culture in a foreign language anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 or more years ago. It is not special pleading to suggest that it is an unfair standard to take an English translation and on first reading insist there is a mistake. At the very least, it is valid to go back and try to understand the text in the original language and context to make sure you are understanding what it originally said.
Luigi Novi: This is not a question of language. If the Bible was written by an omnipotent being who wanted his instructions to be known, he would not have validated a erroneous belief regarding a function of an animal’s biology that it in fact did not possess. But humans wrote the Bible, and as such, it reflects their ancient ignorance of such things.

Jim in Iowa: If you were to pick up one of those texts, you would find not 1 or 2 errors, not even 100 errors, but well over 1,000 errors per textbook.
Luigi Novi: Documentation, please.

Jim in Iowa: Some of these are minor typos. Others are major mistatements of facts. Do we toss out those textbooks as works of fiction? No, we correct the errors, but we still use the textbook as an authoritative source.
Luigi Novi: No one regards history or science textbooks as inerrant, which is precisely why such corrections can be made.

Jim in Iowa: Even if you don't believe the Bible is "inspired by God," it is extreme to call the Bible a "work of fiction" because of a few errors (assuming there are some) and because it suggests there is a supernatural world. The work should be looked at as a whole before making a judgment.
Luigi Novi: And looking at it as such, we can see that there are most certainly errors, that they are not “few” in number, and that the supernatural events it describes—which are largely based on those of other cultures that preceded it—are most certainly why it is obviously a work of mythological/historical fiction, much like the works of Homer, Sophocles, or Max Allan Collins. The Gospel of Mark lifts liberally from Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and Matthew and Luke are largely cannibalized version of Mark.

Jim in Iowa: Here is my personal belief about errors in the Bible: I don't believe the Bible has errors in the original documents. That is a matter of faith, not something that can be proven since the originals do not exist. I also believe we have a very reliable record of what the original documents actually said.
Luigi Novi: Yes, it is faith. Not historical fact.

Jim in Iowa: In fact, the record we have is light years better than any other ancient document. That is not an opinion, that is well established fact.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what ancient documents you are thinking of in terms of comparison, but there are most certainly aspects of ancient history for which we have far greater confirmation than things that are mentioned only in the Bible. Julius Caesar’s life, for one.

Jim in Iowa: While I believe 99.9% of the original has been carefully preserved…
Luigi Novi: And your basis for this estimate?

Jim in Iowa: Your presupposition about miracles will influence your answer to this question as mentioned above. If you reject the possiblity of miracles, then by definition, these parts, at least, would be fictious. That conclusion is based on a prior belief/conviction, not on the evidence about the event.
Luigi Novi: With literalists and apologists who insist they are real, yes, that is the case. With skeptics, it is most certainly based on evidence. Produce conclusive evidence, which is confirmed by testing, independent corroboration, and/or the peer review process, and it will be given provisional agreement, and be termed a fact.

Jim in Iowa: I go through all of this for one reason: I research any error that people mention to me. My belief that the Bible is the Word of God is not just a blind acceptance of what someone else has said. I have looked into it myself.
Luigi Novi: Using only the point of view of a believer, and not the scientific method.

Jim in Iowa: My request is this. If you believe there are errors in the Bible, then please post them. I would welcome the challenge.
Luigi Novi: How many more do you need? I posted many of them, and you just rationalized them with the most threadbare of fallacies. You’re saying you won’t do the same with any more that I provide? Okay, here’s more:

The Bible states that he universe and the Earth was created in six days, and you admitted that you took this literally. In fact, the Earth was not created in six days.

Genesis 1:24-26 says that God created Man after the animals. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 indicate it was the reverse, which not only contradicts the first set of verses, but is incorrect, as there were many animals on Earth before homo sapiens appeared, or even the first hominids.

In Genesis 7:2-3, God instructs Noah to take seven of every clean animal (which it refers to as simply “a male and its mate”), two of every kind of unclean animal, and seven of every kind of bird. In verses 8 and 9, it refers to the animals as “pairs” (or depending on the version you have, as “two and two”). Footnotes say “or seven pairs, also in verse 3,” but verse 3 doesn’t say “seven pairs,” it just says “seven.” Not one of the available versions of the Bible available at biblegateway.com (17 of the 19 versions there have that passage) says “seven pairs,” and indeed, why would it indicate that Noah was instructed to bring them into the Ark in seven sets of pairs??

In Deuteronomy 24:16, God says that individuals should be punished for their own sins, not parents for their children’s sins, nor children for their parents sins. But in Isaiah 14:21 he indicates otherwise, instructing to prepare a place to slaughter sons for the sins of their forefathers.

Psalms 92:12 says that the righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, but Isaiah 57:1 says that the righteous will perish.

2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, but 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he was eight.

Proverbs 18:22 says that he who finds a wife finds what is good, and receives a favor from the Lord, but 1 Corinthians 7:1 says it is good for a man not to marry, 7:27 says an unmarried man should not marry, and 7:40 says a widow is happier if she does not remarry.

Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31 give completely different lineages for Jesus. Of the 28 male ancestors mentioned by Matthew, and the 41 mentioned by Luke, only four appear in both lineages: Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Eliakim, and of course, Jesus’ stepfather, Joseph. Matthew 1:16 says that Jesus’ paternal grandfather was Jacob, Luke 3:23 says it was Heli.

In Matthew 26:34, Jesus correctly predicts that Peter will deny him before the rooster crows, which later comes to pass in verses 69-75. In Mark 14:30, Jesus correctly predicts that Peter will do this before the rooster crows twice.

Matthew 28:16 reflects the fact that Judas had committed suicide by the time the remaining 11 apostles went to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. But 1 Corinthians 15:5, it indicates that Jesus appeared to “the twelve,” and doesn’t mention Judas’ death at all.

Acts 1:16-19 indicates that Judas used the reward he got for turning in Jesus to buy a field. Matthew 27:3-5 says he threw the money at the chief priests in the temple and left to go hang himself.

Solomon contradicts himself when he says to answer a fool not according to his folly in Proverbs 26:4, then says to do just that in the very next verse (5).

Galatians instructs the readers to carry each others burdens in 6:2, and then to carry one’s own burdens in 6:5.

In Matthew 5:16, God instructs his followers to let others see their good deeds, but in 6:3-4, he instructs them to do good deeds in secret.

Matthew 27:28 says that the robe placed on Jesus during his trial was red. John 19:2 says it was purple.

Matthew 28:1 indicates that Mary Magdalene and Jesus’ mother both went to the tomb. Mark 16:1 says they and Salome went there. John 20:1 says that Mary Magdalene was alone.

Matthew 28:2-5 says that the angel of the Lord appeared at the tomb before the two Marys, frightening the guards nearly to death, rolled the stone from the tomb entrance, told them Jesus was not there because he was already risen, and told them to go and see him in Galilee, which they did. Mark 16:5 says that the stone was already rolled when they got there, a man in a white robe (the angel?) was inside the tomb, and told them to go. No guards were mentioned. Luke 24:4, it was two such men who told them this after they entered the tomb. In John 20:12, Mary Magdalene saw the rolled stone and the empty tomb, and immediately went to Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple to tell them what she saw. No mention of any angels until after she brought the two disciples back to the tomb so they could see for themselves, and the two disciples then left. After this, the two angels (explicitly referred to as such) appeared to Mary Magdalene as she wept outside the tomb.

Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, 1 and Samuel 15:29 indicate that God does not change, or change his mind, but Jonah 3:10 and Genesis 6:6 depicts him doing just that (the latter being an instance of “regret” on his part).

Acts 7:16 refers to property that Abraham bought. Genesis 23:17-18 says it was deeded to him.

In Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, Jesus says he will come again before his generation died out.

Kings 9:23 says that Solomon had 550 overseers. 2 Chronicles 8:10 says it was 250.

Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to before 4 BC (the year Herod the Great died), whereas Luke dates it to 6 AD (the year of the first census under Quirinius).

The claim in the Gospels that a solar eclipse took place at the death of Jesus, which is impossible, because the crucifixion passover happened during a full moon, and the darkness supposedly lasted three hours. It was typical to assimilate eclipses to major historic events, even when they did not originally correspond. This is what the Gospel writers did. They were writing mythological stories.

Jim in Iowa: I will not post my answer if I think you are incorrect since it is pointless to keep trading replies when we most likely will not convince each other. But I am sincere when I say I will research any you post. If I decide you are right, I will post that. Otherwise, I will spare everyone else long posts like this where I disagree with your point.
Luigi Novi: In other words, you will not be responding at all.

James Tichy: Jim in Iowa is right in that many people who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God do not just believe it because they were taught that. Rather, it is those who believe that research, study, and analize the Bible..while it is the critics who pull out single verses or a couple words to use as an argument against the validity of the Bible.
Luigi Novi: Okay, so let me see if I understand this correctly…the typical person who believes in the Bible researches, studies and analyzes it, and critics and skeptics do not? Sorry, James, but I think you have it the other way around.

Where do all the dinosaurs whose remains scientists say are millions of years old fit into the popular fiction-book "The bible"?

Blade, that depends on just how one-sidedly literal you want your interpretation to be. For instance, when I read the tale of Creation in Genesis, ch 1, it works as a retelling of current understanding of cosmology - as best a tribe of illiterate goatherds could comprehend it. You couldn't expect these people to grasp the concept of "billions of years ago", when the largest number they probably used in daily conversation was about a hundred, and a long lifespan was one that lasted fifty whole years...

(Yes, I know the older books of the Bible speak of ridiculously long lifespans for the Patriarchs. Think of it as poetic license, remembering that as best we can tell, the first literate Patriarch was Moses, meaning that until the Exodus from Egypt, everything had to be passed down orally.)

The Bible does not speak of dinosaurs. It also doesn't speak of relativity, wavicles, or the germ theory of disease - does that "prove" or "disprove" anything?

Ultimately, of course (and I'm sorry, Jim, but it's true), one cannot "prove" or "disprove" the Bible. Its message can be taken on faith, or ignored on faith. Evidence doesn't properly lead one to a conclusion either way. In faith, without proof, I choose to believe that the Old Testament is a collection of history, folk tales, and allegorical allusions, all trying to teach a squabbling tribe how best to live as God wanted them to (a process which seldom worked, judging from the events in the Pentateuch alone...). I also choose to believe that the Gospels, while hardly inerrant (the four included Gospels give us three separate death speeches for Christ), do essentially give us the life of Jesus Christ, the mortal avatar of Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Odin/the Great Bird of the Galaxy/what-have-you, in an easily-digestible format, with most of the important lessons underlined (pay attention to what He says - and to what He doesn't say). The remainder of the New Testament is, of course, the collected works of commentors on the epxerience of Christ, with the exception of Revelation, which strikes me as being an over-the-top adaptation of the later parts of Daniel and Isaiah, included only because it struck the fancy of a vengeance-minded medieval audience.