Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Maybe we should put the evolution debate into the “World is flat” file? Darwin published his Origins of Species in 1859. that’s only 150 years ago. How long did people think the world was flat? Or that the stars circled the earth? That chunky was better than smooth PB?
Those that accept evolution as fact may be jumping the gun. Ditto for those that reject it. Seems like it’s more a continuing scientific study that has yet to reach final conclusion.
I know I don’t know nearly enough about scripture, its application, and its interpretation to hold any meaningful discussion with Jim in Iowa on that. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around white holes…
But the question comes to mind…what in the Bible do you read literally, and what as an allegory or metaphor? And why? How do you tell what is and isn’t “meant” to be taken literally.
Actually, Humphreys PhD is not in Physics, but in engineering. Engineering is not the same as science, though research is done in both. And certainly expertise in one area does not transfer over into another.
Where do you find that? His book jacket states his degree is in physics, not engineering.
The major problems in his book is that a) his model has real world consequences and phenomena–they’d confirm his hypothesis (and would go a long way towards building a real scientific theory)–except that these observations don’t exist, and b) other people (working cosmologists) have looked at his work and have worked out the equations and found out that his premises result in a universe that’s pretty much the same as what current scientists think exist (i.e., his theory doesn’t do what he thinks it does).
Can you send me your sources that have reviewed his work? I would be interested in reading them. I have found two, but they don’t state what you are saying, so I am curious to get another perspective.
Given that, I really don’t think he should be taken seriously until his hypothesis starts fitting the real world better.
I partially agree, which is why I was careful to simply state it was a possible explanation to the question about the age of earth vs. the age of the universe. I take a hpyothesis that seems to fit the facts seriously enough to investigate it further, as I have done with his theory. I withold accepting (or rejecting) a theory until I have at least some understanding of the theory and of the presuppositions behind the theory. Which is why I am interested in the reviews you mentioned. I am interested in seeing why the disagree.
Jim in Iowa
Seriously, this goes to the heart of the problem with creation. Creationists take the approach of, “We don’t understand this one point, so God must have intervened here.” Reali scientists when confronted with the same puzzle, say, “We don’t understand this, so we must study it further until we do.”
I agree that is a key issue. I would suggest, however, that if scientists say that there IS a natural explanation, they have excluded a supernatural explanation.
Most creationists do not go along and just plug God into any equation that is missing a piece. In fact, for hundreds of years, “creation” scientists made many discoveries in every field of science. Their belief in God did not lead them to use God as a cheat to not explain what they observed. Creation scientists are “real” scientists (at least in most cases). There are currently creation scientists in every aspect of science today doing credible research and making real developments. It is only when you get into the question of the origin of the universe or life on earth that the presupposition of a creation scientists really becomes an issue.
Which leads back to my original question: Is it possible for a “real” rational/natural scientist to come to a point where she (or he) would admit that they have no explanation, and that an outside intelligence might logically be the answer? Some evolutionists already do this when they suggest life on earth was “seeded” by another alien race, so this is a very valid question that goes beyond the confines of the debate between creation and evolution. Is there a point where if the evidence indicates an intelligence is involved, a “real scientist” can make such an hyopthesis? Why is itnecessary for a scientist to still insist that there must be a “natural law” explanation?
Jim in Iowa
King bob:
The biological reasons against incest aren’t really concerned with the immediate impacts of such unions. As you’ve pointed out, a single incident isn’t a big statistical risk over non-incest pairings (for the math challenged, like me, a 25% greater risk would mean that, if say 1 in 100 non-incest babies are born with birth defects, 1.25 babies out of a hundred born from incest pairings would have birth defects…I think…)
Anyway, it’s the long term impacts of inbreeding that biology tells us can spell the doom for a population.
Well, you seem to be assuming an increase in the number of incestuous relationships as well as births. I seriously doubt that would happen as most people who have incestuous relationships are doing so despite cultural taboos and laws, and of course, there’s always birth control and abortion.
But the question comes to mind…what in the Bible do you read literally, and what as an allegory or metaphor? And why? How do you tell what is and isn’t “meant” to be taken literally.
Here is my answer: I try to use the same rules we use for every other piece of literature and for other human communication. I try to use the context and allow the literature to interpret itself.
This is actually easy for most of the Bible. Unless you a priori reject the supernatural such as miracles, the existence of God, etc., the text generally speaks for itself.
One important caveat: The Bible was written in another culture, at another time, in another language, from an eastern worldview. You have to do the normal work you would with any piece of ancient literature. You can’t pick up an original copy of Romeo and Juliet and understand everything on first reading. But with a normal amount of study, you can gain a great degree of confidence that you understand the message Shakespeare was writing. Many of the so called mistakes people quickly point to in the Bible come from an unwillingness to do the basic work you must do for any ancient work of literature.
With such a large piece of literature, written primarily in two very different languages, over a large amount of time, there is no quick answer to your question. But there are plenty of books you can read that will help. Bottom line, most problems do not come from the Bible being difficult to understand. They come from people not agreeing with what they do understand.
Jim in Iowa
DEN
The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth’s atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.
And how do you explain that they knew enough at the time Genesis was written to know about the Big Bang thory and evolution.
I’m not claiming that they did. In fact, I’m claiming the opposite, that both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory come from the Bible. In fact, there are scientific theories to explain not only if the Great flood or the parting of the Red Seas actually happened and if so, how.
No, it doesn’t. Evolution is descent with modification; it works with what’s already there and adapts it to to a new function. And it would only do so if with respect to its environment. What you’re talking about would DISPROVE evolution.
What you say does not make sense, so please explain it again. How does an organism work with what is already there? How did an eye develop? It was not already there? As Michael Behe argues, there are some systems that are quite complex that need to show up in a complete form. As I mentioned, language has no true forerunner in the animal kingdom. There is no “primitive” language. The ability to language appears quite suddenly and with no explanation. (Bird calls, ape signs, etc., are signals, but they have no grammar, syntax, or any of the other key elements that allow humans to communicate — as we are on this very site! For language to exist, it must occur in a community, since language only matters when it is shared with someone else. There is no evolutionary/environmental theory that can explain this development. There are a few attempts, but they fail to address the key issues that must be addressed.)
And by the way….the process of species changes is NOT necessarily something we can see on a human scale. It’s certainly not something we’d “expect” to see.
What do you meant by this? Why can’t we at least see some evidence for this?
There are numerous examples of transitional fossils between large classes. And the fossil record actually does bear out Darwin’s hopes (don’t use the word progression; it has some implications that don’t apply).
There are some suggested transitional forms. But without evidence for progression between the forms, they don’t prove anything. There are too many assumptions that must be made to use them as solid evidence. Darwin’s theory was that we could see the development of these changes in the fossil record. That has not happened with over 100 years of further research.
(Why do you not like the word “progression”? What are the implications that do not apply?)
Jim in Iowa
You state your problem well. I am curious as to how you would explain the level of evil that exists in our world. Why do so many make a moral “free” choice to do evil?
You are assuming a predisposition to evil that I don’t. If you look at most people in their day-to-day life, most don’t make many evil choices. I would argue that most people make morally good choices most of the time. 99% of us get up, go to the office, work hard to earn for the family, go home, spend time with them, and go bed without committing evil actions. I think it’s easier to argue that people make more good choices than bad ones. Children lie because of immaturity, not because they are evil.
Are there exceptions? Sure. Do we stumble sometimes? Sure. That’s the beauty of free will.
You are assuming a predisposition to evil that I don’t. If you look at most people in their day-to-day life, most don’t make many evil choices. I would argue that most people make morally good choices most of the time. 99% of us get up, go to the office, work hard to earn for the family, go home, spend time with them, and go bed without committing evil actions. I think it’s easier to argue that people make more good choices than bad ones. Children lie because of immaturity, not because they are evil.
Thanks. My use of “evil” was a poor choice of words since it does not allow for the degree of flexibility that I meant. There are degrees of selfishness, etc. I do not mean that most people go out of their way to hurt others deliberately. But neither do I see people going out of their way to help others — it is the exception, not the rule. We tend to be selfish. (Which leads to another debate about “enlightend self interest,” and we don’t need to go there.)
I would suggest your last statement is a way to just rename my point. Immaturity does not really explain a child’s natural tendency to be selfish, to lie, etc. But thanks for answering my question.
Jim in Iowa
Anyone want to see what Dr. Doom will look like in the Fantastic Four movie: Go to: http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Fantastic_Four/The_Movie/Movie_Stills&image=drdoom.jpg&img=&tt=
Jim in Iowa: Luigi, did you even bother to read my point? Your very response makes by point: homosexual “behavior” is an action.
Luigi Novi: But the orientation towards it is not. Who you
Luigi Novi wrote…
Who you
Jim, you have finally stirred me to ire.
There is one belief, and one only, that is central to Christianity; and that is the proposition that Jesus Christ was born the Son of God, lived, died, and rose again, with His death as payment for all mankind’s sins – the ultimate Judas goat, as it were.
The literal existence of Adam and Eve and the Garden and all the rest of it is NOT central to Christianity. Were it, many devout Jews and Moslems would be Christian, too, as they have the same tale in the Torah and the Qu’ran. The point of divergence for the Qu’ran is in the question of whether the Kingdom belongs to all the children of Abraham/Ibrahim, or only those descended through Israel. The point of divergence for the Christian Bible (besides declaring the Books of the Maccabees aprocryphal, which is amusing, considering the Maccabean Revolt is historically verifiable) lies in the birth, death, and rising of Christ. All the rest is window dressing.
As for the prohibitions in Leviticus against homosexuality, it should be noted that the same book forbids just as often the abomination of “boiling a baby goat in its mother’s milk”, quite aside from the prohibition against meat and milk cooked together (which is why someone earlier asked if you eat cheeseburgers). In fact, the same chapter that first mentions homosexuality also forbids trimming your hair or beard. Unless you now bear a passing resemblance to the Unibomber, you’re in violation…
Look, Jim, you can’t pick and choose. Either you believe that when Christ said that He came “in fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets,” that meant His followers were freed from those restrictions, or you’re going to Hëll for eating ham and not making sure there’s a parapet around your roof. Maybe you should read the Pentateuch for yourself, rather than relying on some televangelist to tell you what it says…
Luigi Novi wrote: “The Bible is not evidence of Christ. It was written entirely by mortal men of questionable moral character, for the purpose of religious indoctrination rather than as a historical text, the Gospels were not contemporaneous with the alleged Christ, and there is no way to know for certain at this time that they were not tampered with by early Church leaders.”
The truth of the matter is th Bible was written over a 1500 year period by over 40 different authors. These authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects with agreement and unity from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelations and there are no contradictions. How is this possible Luigi if the Bible did not come from God??? The Bible is evidence of Christ and He even said so himself in John 5:39 whe He said, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”
Luigi Novi wrote: “Do I read the Bible, Kevin? I have. Do you read about the Bible from an objective viewpoint? Or has all of your knowledge of come from either it or apologists?”
Yes, I read the Bible from an “objective viewpoint” and my knowlege comes from reading and studying the Bible…
Luigi Novi wrote: “I didn?t say anything about ?faith? in Christ.”
I never said that you did… 🙂
Mark L wrote: “You just hit on why I reject Christianity – even though I believe in God. Christianity puts forth the concept of original sin: that we are somehow “stained” from birth due to the choices of Adam and Eve. People are therefore “born sinners” and must be baptized and saved to receive grace. Jesus’ sacrifice was supposed to help wipe away that original sin for those who believed.”
People who “claim” to be Christians are the ones who state that one must be “baptized” to remove the stain of “original sin”. The truth of the matter is infants cannot sin and are therefore not candidates to be baptized. Sin is an act and it cannot be passed down from one generation to the next.
Mark L wrote: “However, in my opinion, the greatest gift God gave man is free will – the ability to choose our path. We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet – and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God’s will. I don’t accept the need for Christ’s sacrifice for Adam and Eve’s sins since I don’t believe in the stain of them.”
Yes, God did give us “free will” and the ability to choose our path. We can either choose to obey Him in obedience to the gospel of Christ and be with Him in heaven or we can reject the gospel and be lost for eternity in hëll. The only thing we inherit from the sin of Adam is the consequences of his sin which is death…
Jeff Lawson: I’m not going to wade too far into this debate, because I’m honestly not very interested, but I feel I should point out that there’s a lot of evidence that indicates that who (or, perhaps more accurately, what you’re attracted to is not completely innate. As we all know, we live in a society that tells us what to find attractive all the time.
Luigi Novi: Jeff, what you
Craig said I’ve had better conversations with brick walls. That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative – they probably won’t understand.
Does the wall ever talk back to you? Never mind, I really don’t want to know. It’s probably a good companion for you. :0)
I’m not going to wade too far into this debate, because I’m honestly not very interested, but I feel I should point out that there’s a lot of evidence that indicates that who (or, perhaps more accurately, what you’re attracted to is not completely innate.
I agree with Jeff Lawson, both on the issue of this facet of the debate being relatively uninteresting, and in the likelihood that sexual orientation is at least partially acquired behavior. Exhibits A and B are classical Greece and Italy. Unless there was something in the drinking water around the Mediterranean basin that explains why bisexuality was dramatically more prevalent in those two cultures than in any other known culture, I think we have to accept that in some contexts it is not innate. That’s not even addressing opportunistic homosexuality in single-sex environments, as in prison, the military, or English boarding schools.
Luigi said There are loads of contradictions in the Bible
Is that all you can come up with? I’m sure if you tried really hard you could come up with some more.
I entered “Contradictions in the New Testament” in google and there were LOTS of hits. This one looks pretty comprehensive.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
re: Humphreys
I screwed up about his degree; I misread his vita and conflated his Duke and LSU degrees. However, his main work at Sandia HAS been in nuclear engineering.
Some of the problems in Humphreys model has been brought up by Connor and Page in their paper STARLIGHT AND TIME IS THE BIG BANG, which is available on the trueorigins sight. Also, some folks have been pointing out that the results from the 2nd Sloan Digital Deep Space Survey, which is a 3D mapping of matter (both dark and conventional) in the universe, is pretty much totally inconsistent with Humphreys model (which he hasn’t updated, to the best of my knowledge, in the past 3 or four years). Sorry, I can’t be more detailed, since cosmology isn’t one of my specialties.
Humphreys model, however, runs up into the hard facts of geology (where I >am
Luigi Novi wrote…
what you
In speaking to Jim, Luigi said 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.
You have no way of proving how long it took the Earth to be created. I offer something I found:
“The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one
Luigi said 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.
“Genesis 1.25-26 records animals as being created before man. It might seem to some that Genesis 2.19 has God creating animals and bringing them to an ALREADY existent Adam for naming. However, the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative sequence whereby God created Adam and the animals. Instead, the verse merely states two straightforward facts: (1) God made animals, and (2) God brought the animals to Adam to be named.”
Does the wall ever talk back to you? Never mind, I really don’t want to know. It’s probably a good companion for you. :0)
Well, it doesn’t talk back, for starters. It won’t preach. It won’t tell me I’m going to hëll for thinking for myself, etc etc.
Is that all you can come up with? I’m sure if you tried really hard you could come up with some more.
Once again, you fire back, yet are shooting blanks.
As for contradictions in the Bible, I think it’s pretty ridiculous to automatically assume there are none.
But then, I think it’s worse that people are hypocritical in what they take (and what they leave behind) from the Bible.
Great link, btw, PAD.
“What you say does not make sense, so please explain it again. How does an organism work with what is already there? How did an eye develop? It was not already there? As Michael Behe argues, there are some systems that are quite complex that need to show up in a complete form. As I mentioned, language has no true forerunner in the animal kingdom. There is no “primitive” language. The ability to language appears quite suddenly and with no explanation. (Bird calls, ape signs, etc., are signals, but they have no grammar, syntax, or any of the other key elements that allow humans to communicate — as we are on this very site! For language to exist, it must occur in a community, since language only matters when it is shared with someone else. There is no evolutionary/environmental theory that can explain this development. There are a few attempts, but they fail to address the key issues that must be addressed.)”
Well, I’m not terribly as well versed in evolution and such things as I’d like, but the way I have understood it, something doesn’t just suddenly, say sprout a fully developed new trait. An ancient fish didn’t give birth to a four legged creature with lungs. A random genetic mutation perhaps gave one fish out of a bajillion longer fins, which either didn’t hinder it’s ability to live and procreate, or it gave it a very slight edge. That longer finned fish had a bunch of babies, some of which had normal fins, a few of which maybe had his longer fins. Some long fins breed with other long fins, and the trait gets passed on, and maybe mutates further. Some of the mutations aren’t successful and prevent those fish from surviving and procreating and passing on those genes. Others do. It’s very gradual.
It comes down to random mutations (in humans, there are babies born with down syndrome, or extra fingers, or even flippers)that either prevent the individual from passing it’s genes along, don’t affect it one way or the other so it passes it’s genes along, or gives it an edge (makes it better able to avoid predators or to catch more food or whatever) so it does pass it’s genes along. Evolution doesn’t have a specific goal (that’s why “progression” shouldn’t really be used, it implies there is some ultimate goal or form to be achieved) it’s just random mutations that occasionally are beneficial in the long run.
And as far as other animals and language, I’d suggest doing a bit of reading on whales and elephants and their communication skills. I had read some studies that indicated the sounds they made had specific structures and syntax and meaning. There was actually a pretty good documentary on the Discovery Channel about elephant communication.
Besides, just because we can’t understand how or what they are saying, doesn’t mean they aren’t saying anything. Kinda like if there is life other than on earth, we might not recognize it because of how we are looking for it, or what we are looking for (i.e. carbon based).
Monkeys.
Luigi said In Genesis 7:2-3, God instructs Noah to take seven of every clean animal (which it refers to as simply
Craig said Once again, you fire back, yet are shooting blanks.
I think my wife might disagree with the shooting blanks part, lol.
I beg to differ, I’m firing away on all cylinders boyo.
Luigi said In Deuteronomy 24:16, God says that individuals should be punished for their own sins, not parents for their children
To Jim in Iowa:
Not sure how much time you have on your hands, but try taking a Comparative Anatomy class (or whatever equivalent) at your University. It should be under the Biology department. If you really want to try to understand evolution, then it would be really helpful to study it from the point of view of those who believe in it as opposed to reading books on evolution written by creationists…don’t you think? 🙂
Craig said It won’t tell me I’m going to hëll for thinking for myself, etc etc.
That’s a good reason you have for talking to a wall.
Who told you that you would go to hëll for thinking for yourself? God gave you free will to chose to do right or wrong.
If your thinking for yourself means you make the wrong choices, then that’s your decision. You should know the difference between right and wrong without someone having to tell you.
Peter said I entered “Contradictions in the New Testament” in google and there were LOTS of hits. This one looks pretty comprehensive.
I honestly do not understand you Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament. That boggles my mind. Consider me shocked.
Luigi said There are loads of contradictions in the Bible, and I listed a long list of them at the end of my October 20, 2:32am post on the Hi, what’d I miss? board
Can you be satisfied with the fact that each and every assertion you make as a possible contradiction can be debunked by someone else as not being a contradiction? I seriously doubt it, but one has to ask.
Me: “I never claimed Peter should be happy to be targeted for conversion, but how does name-calling help?”
PAD: To quote Rupert Giles, It doesn’t; it’s more of an end unto itself
David Bjorlin: Which part of this justifies calling Jim a chowder-head, comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, a yahoo, snot-faced, or lame-brained? {… Do you even read other posts} portions that you QUOTE?
Luigi Novi: Why no, David, I just sit blindfolded at the computer and let my fingers guide me. 🙂
You know, judging by some of your arguments, I almost believe this.
Luigi again: What part justifies rudeness? I think that
Nova, can you truly only believe in the Bible’s deeper truths if you believe that it’s inerrant and totally non-contradictory?
For a more contemporary example, try reading Spider Robinson’s “Callahan’s Place” stories. Spider himself said that he deliberately inserted contradictions into the stories. Does that make the moral points of his stories any less valid?
For that matter, does the fact that Heinlein’s “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” tells a story totally at odds with his earlier “Starship Troopers” invalidate its points about honor, duty, and sacrifice?
The tale of Noah tells us of faith and trust in a way that, IMHO, is in no way lessened even if its details are impossible (fitting seven pair of each clean animal, and two pair of each unclean, into a vessel of the described dimensions).
Jim in Iowa: For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution.
Your first stop should be The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. It’s highly readable, and it’s also one of the accepted classics of its field. It also directly addresses one of your objections, the idea that complex features couldn’t develop incrementally, because they are useless until relatively fully developed.
I think the reason Roger Tang objected to your use of the word “progress” was that it’s implicitly teleological– it suggests that the progress is toward some predetermined goal. I disagree with his quibble; evolution basically boils down to the development of more complex life forms from less complex life forms. I have no problems categorizing that as “progress” or an “advance,” even without the goal-directed connotations.
Novafan,
“I honestly do not understand you, Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament.”
Oh, for crying out loud, Novafan. He did no such thing. He looked for “contradictions in the New Testament”. As someone who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, let me say THERE ARE MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!
Acknowledging that does not “debunk” anything. It simply points out a fact.
Actually, in my HIGH SCHOOL religion class, we were taught that, believe it or not, NOT EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
The Red Sea, for example, the one made famous in The Ten Commandments, was likely The Reed Sea, a much smaller body of water than usually portrayed or conceptualized. Those who were considered “possessed by the devil” were likely having epileptic seizures, only science and medicine were not as advanced then, so that was the reason they came up with it for people suddenly having seizures.
The Bble has a lot of truth in it, but it has also been rewritten various times. It should not always be taken literally for this and other reasons.
By studying it, researching it and asking questions, many Christians feel they know more of the Truth contained in its pages, and this actually STRENGTHENS their faith.
“This boggles my mind. Consider me shocked.”
Well, maybe your mind wouldn’t be so boggled and you wouldn’t be so shocked if you didn’t take everything at face value and did your homework. You do not have to believe in the Bible and take everything in its oages literally to be a ggod Catholic, and you do not have to support your President – be it Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton – 100% of the time to be a good American either. In either case, you may find questioning to make your beliefs stronger.
Luigi Novi: Since Gore never said that he developed the Internet, I
eclark1849: “If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can’t teach evolution because it’s in the Bible, Torah, and Qu’ran”
well, since it sparked an interesting discussion in class, i just wanted to point out that im not sure the koran actually put a timeline to the order things happened in as specific as genesis did, although i think that it did say six days, and basically had one or two lines that could be interpreted to support the big bang and evolution. well, animals evolving from the water anyway. i’ld probably have to look it up tho, because honestly, i never did pay much attention to that prof. oops :oD
To eclark 1849:
“Chrissie:
I think both you and (I believe) Craig are using the story of Lot out of context. Way out. One : the bible condemns incest. Two: Lot’s two daughters thought they and their father were the last three beings on the planet. Lot was too grief stricken at the loss of his wife to tell them otherwise, nor did he knowingly consent to have sex with his daughters. They got him drunk, and then took advantage of him.”
–Thanks for pointing that out, and I do agree that the Bible condemns incest. 🙂 I think my question was phrased in a confusing way though. What I meant was, true, incest was mentioned in the Bible but it was condemned…so, is homosexuality likewise mentioned AND condemned or was it noted as something that just *is*?
I think the reason Roger Tang objected to your use of the word “progress” was that it’s implicitly teleological– it suggests that the progress is toward some predetermined goal. I disagree with his quibble; evolution basically boils down to the development of more complex life forms from less complex life forms. I have no problems categorizing that as “progress” or an “advance,” even without the goal-directed connotations.
I find it useful to discard old terminology for a while in order to understand fully new concepts; that way, I bring less baggage to the table when I look at something.
This is particularly useful when talking about evolution, because it’s surprisingly poorly understood; comments on this thread have some common misunderstandings about the concept (and I think we all can agree misunderstandings can get in the way of a discussion. That’s why I dislike using the term “progression”, because the connotations get in the way of what actually occurs.
Craig,
“If you want a broken record, go watch Bush during the debates.”
There’s still debates, even though Kerry conceded? Wow! What station are they on?
Seriously, instead of just responding to what i said and defending your point of view, you take a meaningless, laughable shot at Bush.
Which illustrates my point.
“I have made many points, along with many other folks here, and people such as novafan and yourself would rather dismiss us on a whim.”
I know you’ve made points, but you increasingly undermine them by getting in petty, immature digs at Bush and inserting your viewpoint, the topic be dámņëd.
Caling Giuliani and “idiot” for daring to support Bush and referring to the War In Iraq as Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake ad nauseum are just two examples of silly shots at Bush. Actually debating the merits and the success of Iraq is worthwhile, and both you and others have prsented solid arguments that contradict mine. I’ve never said otherwise.
But your rabid hatred of Bush undermines many of your arguments, as did your shoehorning your opinion about Abu Gharib into my response to someone who said “spitting is in order” regarding our troops as a result of the incident.
Yet again, you were so intent on criticizing the Administration, you completely failed to see the clear statement Nick Eden made.
Furthermore, you have yet to condemn it.
And stop with the “us”.
Many on this board present reasonable, rational, and even compelling arguments for their position. Luigi Novi is one. Tim Lynch is another.
The reason I am increasingly dismissing a lot of what you have to say is because lately you and your posts have become increasingly unreasonable and irrational.
“Apparently some folks can’t handle a debate with facts and truths. Apparently, some, such as Novafan, would rather just huddle in a corner when they find that their points are not holding up.”
First, I feel this doesn’t apply to me. Second, why are you bringing up and insulting Novafan in a response to me?
He seems to have REALLY gotten under your skin.
“The whole conservative argument is to say you’re full of šhìŧ, you have no proof and then provide no proof of your own.”
I could just say “bûllšhìŧ”. Instead – Wow, Craig is angry and painting all conservatives with the same broad brush. What a surprise.
“Fine, you say I have no proof that we are doing something in Afghanistan.”
“What the hëll do you want for proof, Jerome? What dámņ proof do YOU have that we’ve actually accomplished something over there.”
Since you asked, here is a statement from the Embassy of Afghanistan, based in Tokyo, on November 18, 2004:
“Hamid Karzai, President of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan and President Elect, in accordance with his stated policies and commitments for the elected period, considers narcotics the most significant threat against national interests, stability, security and prosperity of the Afghan people, a threat the extent of which may be bigger than that of terrorism in the region.
Therefore, the fight against narcotics will be the top priority for the elected government, and the president is strongly committed to this fight in all its dimensions, including but not limited to the eradication of poppy fields.”
“Lately, reports have been received from some districts of Nangarhar province about the application of aerial spraying of lands believed to have been cultivated with poppy.”
“While emphasizing its strong commitment to the eradication of poppy fields, the Government of Afghanistan opposes the aerial spraying of poppy fields as an instrument of eradication. In addition, the President is deeply concerned about complaints from the region pointing to possible side effects of the aerial spraying on the health of children and adults. Therefore, the formation of a joint investigation team from Ministries of Agriculture and Health has been authorized to travel to the areaand prepare a detailed report for the President in this regard.”
I think some of the key words there are “President Elect” – they aparently don’t use a dash in their spelling of the title – and “elected government” – both of which we helped to bring about.
“I’ve had better conversations with brck walls.”
You actually have conversations with brick walls?
“That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative – they probably won’t understand.”
Well, if you’ve been saying things like distain instead of disdain all these years, maybe it’s because you haven’t been speaking English. Please, enough with the insults and paintng with broad brushes. George Will makes exceptional use of the English language, as does William F. Buckley, Jr. Will actualy had some tough questions/crticisms of Cond Rice in a recent column. And Pat Buchanan, who has written several books and speeches, actually started a magazine specifically because he disagreed with a lot of Dubya’s policies.
And you may hate Ann Coulter’s opinions but after four best-selling books, years writing a column, years giving speeches and working in the legal profession – where words are of paramount importance – I thnk it’s just a WEE bit silly to say she doesn’t understand the English language.
“The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture.”
It’s one-fourth of a lunar cycle. Man needed a unit of time greater than a day but less than a month. That’s the basis for it.
The problem I see with most defenders of creationism is that they only read the creationist argument, so no wonder they believe things like that.
Who told you that you would go to hëll for thinking for yourself? God gave you free will to chose to do right or wrong.
Who said going to hëll had anything to do with being right or wrong?
Oh, wait, not being a Christian is WRONG. Forcing your Christian believes is right, because God said so.
So, I’m obviously going to hëll. Because I can’t possibly be right, can I?
Do I believe in a god? I don’t know. I sure as hëll don’t believe in the Christian god.
“And then man convinced himself that black was white, and walked into a stampede of zebras.”
EXTREMEly paraphrased (since I’m doing it by memory) Douglas Adams.
Travis
PAD
I entered “Contradictions in the New Testament” in google and there were LOTS of hits.
Yeah, and we all know if it’s on the internet, it MUST be true.
No offense PAD, but a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human. I’m sure it’s something you can identify with:
Writing Star Trek, the comic (and for that matter, novels) while working in tandem with Paramount is like walking a tight rope with razor blades for nets.
Now it’s not so bad when they’re doing their job, which is to maintain Star Trek continuity. For example, I had an issue where I forgot to have a Klingon warship decloak before it fired on the Enterprise. That was fair and square–they caught it and it had slipped past both myself and Bob Greenberger, no question. Nor do I mind the self-proclaimed nitpicking changes. It’s the vascilation that can get to me. And the contradictions. And the ignoring of Star Trek history. We are told that Star Trek command personnel can never be less- than-sterling characters, despite “Patterns of Force” and “Doomsday Machine” and “The Omega Glory”, etc., etc. We are told that we must concentrate almost exclusively on the principle seven characters, but everytime we try and develop a storyline involving those characters (for example, Chekov wanting his own command, or Uhura returning home to visit her family) they are shot down
http://www.etext.org/Zines/Quanta/working.html
Heh. I could just imagine PAD working on the New Testament and complaining about the continuity headaches. “Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Those bášŧárdš don’t know what bloodline they want Mary’s son to follow! I’m just gonna say she was a still a virgin and let the editors work it out!”
heck, even the gospels contradict each other: Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
Was John the Baptist Elias? “This is Elias which was to come.” Matthew 11:14 “And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not.” John l:21
Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king
Posted by Den: “‘The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture.’
It’s one-fourth of a lunar cycle. Man needed a unit of time greater than a day but less than a month. That’s the basis for it.”
Actually, a lunar cycle is about 27.5 days, so a 7 day lunar based week would be 2 days off every 4 weeks.
Point is, there were 7 day weeks in use by the Romans, pre-Christianity. Not sure when Rome started using a 7 day week, but I’m guessing it wasn’t taken from the Pentatuch/Genesis.
Scripture may have the only documented basis for a 7 day week, but to say that it has no basis outside scripture is to beg the question of, if so, how did the Romans come to adopt it?
I take that back…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week
Says ancient Bablyon used a 7 day week based on the 7 visible planets. That’s a basis outside of scripture, no?
No offense PAD, but a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human.
And here I thought it was the Word of God.
And here I thought it was the Word of God.
So? Donald Trump doesn’t write his own business corespondence, but you know they’re from him.