Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 141920212223242526272829 LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 566
  1. #461  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Does anyone else find it ironic that the examples cited of the type of regime to fear (fascism, Nazism & Communism are/were all rooted in secular humanistic philosophies?
    Not at all. I am against all form of dogmatic and fundamentalistic belief systems, regardless of their roots.
    These regimes were and to this day are resisted (in some cases unto death) by people of faith. Pre-reformation, the Catholic Church was a corrupt institution. The Church, like all human institutions, is imperfect. However...
    True, some people of (religious) faiths sometimes opposed some regimes, but I don't think they did it more frequently than others. E.g. the role of the churches (both Protestant and Catholic) in Nazi Germany was highly dubious, and among those who opposed the Nazis, there were at least as many Socialists and Communists as Christians.
    I might have missed it... could someone please point me to where during the past 500 years (or ever for that matter) any Christian institution has killed millions of people???
    I think you are not familiar with the history of religious wars in Europe (whole generations lost) and the Crusades. And how about the Inquisition and burning women for being witches?
    My secular friends, recent history would seem to indicate we the people (not simply Christians) have much more to fear from the extremes of yourworldview, would it not?
    I am not against religion, I am against blind adherence, dogmaticism, fundamentalism and the notion of possessing literal truth, independent of whether these beliefs are Communist, Christian, White Supremacist, Islamic, or whatever.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #462  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Where in the Bible does it say the laws of the Old Testament were repealed and not binding to you and others any more? And how do you know the early explanations of how the world was created were not repealed, too?

    Why do you think that earth is only a few thousand years old?
    The books of Acts and Romans include ongoing discussions about grace and law. Much is discussed about the role of former Jews who have put their faith in Jesus as well as Gentiles who have come to Jesus as well.

    The former Jews were under the law but had their law fulfilled through Jesus Christ. Jesus to the Jews: Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." He is the 21st Amendment to their 18th (in keeping up with my Constitution parallelism).

    The Gentiles were never under the law but were (are now) under the grace of Jesus Christ. For Gentiles, the Law never had to be repealed (so to speak) because they weren't under it to begin with. Paul to the Gentiles: Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." The Gentiles showed up late to this game so the law didn't apply to them to begin with. Likewise, you won't find laws of the Magna Carta repealed in our Constitution. We started from scratch (with our mutual history in mind).

    Laws are people and place dependent. The laws of the Jews ONLY applied to the Jews even when there were Gentiles around. I've never been a Jew so the law never has been in effect for me. You won't find anywhere in the Bible where Gentiles were commanded to obey the law of the Jews. Your country never had to repeal the 18th Amendment of our Constitution.

    The grace of Jesus Christ ONLY applies to those who accept it. The US Constitution ONLY applies to those from the US.

    How do I know that the history wasn't repealed? Um... I don't read it in the Bible anywhere. How do I know the earth is only a few thousand years old? I don't. All I can do is add up the years represented in the text. If something was omitted, I don't know about it. I don't claim perfect knowledge or knowing perfect truth. I just know where it is. Getting it out of there is not a simple thing.

    These things that I've written are not from my own head, my own belief system, my own church's belief system. They are in the book available to anyone who wants to believe what they read. Shopharim and I don't go to the same church or know the same people, but I'm sure he'll tell you the same things I just did as he reads the same book. This topic is not about personal opinions. I'm just reading to you.
    Last edited by AlaskanDad; 10/05/2005 at 07:45 AM.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  3. #463  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    How do I know that the history wasn't repealed? Um... I don't read it in the Bible anywhere. How do I know the earth is only a few thousand years old? I don't. All I can do is add up the years represented in the text. If something was omitted, I don't know about it. I don't claim perfect knowledge or knowing perfect truth. I just know where it is. Getting it out of there is not a simple thing.
    So if earth is only a few thousand years old, why does ALL of the scientific evidence using various, independent methods point to an age of earth and the universe of several billion years, meaning about one million times older than what you believe?
    These things that I've written are not from my own head, my own belief system, my own church's belief system. They are in the book available to anyone who wants to believe what they read. Shopharim and I don't go to the same church or know the same people, but I'm sure he'll tell you the same things I just did as he reads the same book. This topic is not about personal opinions. I'm just reading to you.
    If it is so obvious and not a matter of personal opinions, why have Christians been burning each other at the stake for the supposedly heretic views of the other side?

    Why does your interpretation of the bible make you think earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution did not take place, when e.g. the 2 billion members of the Catholic church are not expected to deny the scientifically proven facts of evolution and earth being about 4.5 billion years old?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #464  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    And how about the Inquisition and burning women for being witches?
    I was hoping for a more recent example. The Church has, in the distant past, committed terrible atrocities. They were amateurs, however compared to the modern institutions mentioned. Burning women as witches was an awful abuse. Not really in Hitler's league, though. I am familiar with the religious wars of Europe. They were fought just as much or more over mundane geo-political issues as over religion. Religion is what the state (the Church, of course) used to induce the people to fight.
    I am not against religion, I am against blind adherence, dogmaticism, fundamentalism and the notion of possessing literal truth, independent of whether these beliefs are Communist, Christian, White Supremacist, Islamic, or whatever.
    In our modern world, there are very, very few "blind" adherants to the Christian faith. Because of reforms within the Church and in society, people are free (in the West, anyway) to choose whether and what to believe. There is a nearly limitless amount of information on religious issues available. People can study the Bible for themselves, unlike back during the days when most of the abuses you mention occurred.

    I understand and share your fear of blind believers in anything. I just think that Christianity would hardly be the place you should concentrate on.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #465  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    ...Shopharim and I don't go to the same church or know the same people, but I'm sure he'll tell you the same things I just did as he reads the same book. This topic is not about personal opinions. I'm just reading to you.
    Perhaps to the delight of the opposition, I would say "similar" things, but I would frame them differently especially as it relates to law and grace.

    Most importantly, I would highlight that from the beginning, there was no prescribed "law". There was only relationship between God and humanity. The prescribed "law" was instituted much later as a means of escorting humanity back to the relationship that it had been abandoned. That purpose was and is fulfilled through Jesus (grace). However, the full manifestation of that restored relationship has yet to occur. So, in the interim, the law continues to serve as an escort. As to how that escort service is used by "Jews" versus "Christians", versus anybody else......PM me
  6. #466  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Perhaps to the delight of the opposition, I would say "similar" things, but I would frame them differently especially as it relates to law and grace.

    Most importantly, I would highlight that from the beginning, there was no prescribed "law". There was only relationship between God and humanity. The prescribed "law" was instituted much later as a means of escorting humanity back to the relationship that it had been abandoned. That purpose was and is fulfilled through Jesus (grace). However, the full manifestation of that restored relationship has yet to occur. So, in the interim, the law continues to serve as an escort. As to how that escort service is used by "Jews" versus "Christians", versus anybody else......PM me
    No argument here. There is A LOT more to the discussion than I have presented in a few paragraphs.
    Last edited by AlaskanDad; 10/05/2005 at 08:56 AM.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  7. #467  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So if earth is only a few thousand years old, why does ALL of the scientific evidence using various, independent methods point to an age of earth and the universe of several billion years, meaning about one million times older than what you believe?
    If it is so obvious and not a matter of personal opinions, why have Christians been burning each other at the stake for the supposedly heretic views of the other side?

    Why does your interpretation of the bible make you think earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution did not take place, when e.g. the 2 billion members of the Catholic church are not expected to deny the scientifically proven facts of evolution and earth being about 4.5 billion years old?
    I'm sorry but I won't justify atrocities (did you really expect me to?). I also can't justify anything the Catholic Church believes as I'm not Catholic.

    Why does science believe things (according to their understanding of the evidence) other than what is in the Bible? I don't know. I'm not trying to justify science nor am I trying to justify or defend the Bible (I didn't write it, I just believe it). I'm just telling you what it says. Call me a fool if you'd like.

    You asked me questions about law and grace and I answered.

    I have no expectation that you will ever say, "OK, I understand your view now. I don't accept it but I understand it." When you ask honest questions, I would like to provide honest answers. When you're scorning views or atrocities, I'll take that as a rant and let them lie.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  8. #468  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I'm sorry but I won't justify atrocities (did you really expect me to?).
    Hmm, I don't understand what you mean and why you ask this, but in order to answer your question: No.
    Why does science believe things (according to their understanding of the evidence) other than what is in the Bible?
    Because that's what the evidence says, based on the methods of science. If those methods were wrong, drugs and all the rest of modern medicine - in fact everything based on science and engineering, which is rooted in science, too, would not work.
    I have no expectation that you will ever say, "OK, I understand your view now. I don't accept it but I understand it."
    I'd rather say "I don't understand your view but I accept it" - with some difficulties though, because I don't find it consistent. You accept scientific methods and trust them in some places, but not when they happen to contradict a fundamentalistic interpretation of the bible.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #469  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    In our modern world, there are very, very few "blind" adherants to the Christian faith. Because of reforms within the Church and in society, people are free (in the West, anyway) to choose whether and what to believe.
    True, but our world is "modern" not because of Christianity, but because of ideas which came up in the Renaissance and later in the Age of Enlightenment. It is the result of pushing back the influence and the dogmatism of the churches.
    I understand and share your fear of blind believers in anything. I just think that Christianity would hardly be the place you should concentrate on.
    Would you not say that fundamentalism, belief in having absolute and universal truth, and the like is steadily increasing in some places, and getting more influence in education, government, supreme court, and the like? Terry Schiavo case? Science curricula? Middle East/Israel politics with Biblical prophecies in mind? Principiis obsta!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #470  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    True, but our world is "modern" not because of Christianity, but because of ideas which came up in the Renaissance and later in the Age of Enlightenment. It is the result of pushing back the influence and the dogmatism of the churches.Would you not say that fundamentalism, belief in having absolute and universal truth, and the like is steadily increasing in some places, and getting more influence in education, government, supreme court, and the like? Terry Schiavo case? Science curricula? Middle East/Israel politics with Biblical prophecies in mind? Principiis obsta!
    Your argument of increasing absolutes can easily be countered with the argument that because of a lack of absolutes we have increased use of euthaniasia, abortion as birth control, sexual prominiscuity especially in younger teens (13-15 year old), abuse of drugs and alcohol, spousal abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse to name just a few.
  11. #471  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Your argument of increasing absolutes can easily be countered with the argument that because of a lack of absolutes we have increased use of euthaniasia, abortion as birth control, sexual prominiscuity especially in younger teens (13-15 year old), abuse of drugs and alcohol, spousal abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse to name just a few.
    Actually, sex-ed and available birth control lower abortion rates.

    Edited to add, and where are you obtaining your stats on these "increases"?
  12. #472  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Hmm, I don't understand what you mean and why you ask this, but in order to answer your question: No.Because that's what the evidence says, based on the methods of science. If those methods were wrong, drugs and all the rest of modern medicine - in fact everything based on science and engineering, which is rooted in science, too, would not work.I'd rather say "I don't understand your view but I accept it" - with some difficulties though, because I don't find it consistent. You accept scientific methods and trust them in some places, but not when they happen to contradict a fundamentalistic interpretation of the bible.
    I think you understand my view more than you're saying. I trust the Bible in everything while I accept scientific methods and trust them when they are not in direct contradiction of the Bible (I'll leave out your adjectives). That's pretty consistent, wouldn't you say?

    I know that I understand your view rather well: Science is right in all things because it has been proven. To keep it consistent, you won't engage the Bible in any of those scientific discussions. Did I get this right?
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  13. #473  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Your argument of increasing absolutes can easily be countered with the argument that because of a lack of absolutes we have increased use of euthaniasia, abortion as birth control, sexual prominiscuity especially in younger teens (13-15 year old), abuse of drugs and alcohol, spousal abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse to name just a few.
    Nice try, but that has nothing to do with lack of absolutes... We have e.g. far lower teenage pregnancy rates and far lower abortion rates than the US (in fact both are record high in the US), despite being a far less religious and "absolute" society.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #474  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Actually, sex-ed and available birth control lower abortion rates.

    Edited to add, and where are you obtaining your stats on these "increases"?
    It is difficult to get accurate #s on euthanasia since it is still not lawfull in most places http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/327/7408/201

    And since the CDC changed reporting procedures the numbers may not be totally accurate, but still a very large number of abortions
    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

    Data on STDs http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats...Trends2000.pdf

    Where did you get your data on decrease in abortions directly related to sex-ed and birth control?

    (edited forgot to put in the links)
  15. #475  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    It is difficult to get accurate #s on euthanasia since it is still not lawfull in most places http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/327/7408/201

    And since the CDC changed reporting procedures the numbers may not be totally accurate, but still a very large number of abortions
    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

    Data on STDs http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats...Trends2000.pdf

    Where did you get your data on decrease in abortions directly related to sex-ed and birth control?

    (edited forgot to put in the links)
    Although recent "abstinence only" programs try to claim to be the cause, the downturn (note DOWNTURN, NOT "increase") in abortion rates is more correlated with gov't spending on sexual health education and the promotion of safe sex through the use of condoms.

    Per the CDC:
  16. #476  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I trust the Bible in everything while I accept scientific methods and trust them when they are not in direct contradiction of the Bible (I'll leave out your adjectives). That's pretty consistent, wouldn't you say?
    No, that is inconsistent: It is like saying "I trust this scale, I believe it gives the correct weight", however, you claim that for some inexplicable reason the scale does not give the correct weight for items G, P and Z, because according to a book you have, the weight of those items is totally different (sometimes by a factor of one million, e.g. in the case of the age of the universe). There is no reason for the scale giving wrong results for G, P, and Z only, it is just that your books says something different.
    I know that I understand your view rather well: Science is right in all things because it has been proven. To keep it consistent, you won't engage the Bible in any of those scientific discussions. Did I get this right?
    Science is not allway right in all things, and there are many very important things about which science does not say anything. However, therer are some things which are documented extremely well. E.g. that earth is not a few thousand, but a few billion years old.

    Science is about data. Since the bible does not add any data to the discussion, it indeed does not make much sense to engage the Bible in scientific discussions. The Bible contains some claims which can be verified or falsified scientifically, e.g. that earth was created before sun and moon. Many of those claims were not found to be consistent with the evidence gathered. No data were found which support the claim mentioned, and tons of data contradict it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #477  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Where did you get your data on decrease in abortions directly related to sex-ed and birth control?
    Like almost everything, it has been discussed before on TC.

    http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

    U.S. teenagers have higher STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) rates than teenagers in other developed countries—for example, England, Canada, France and Sweden—because they have more sexual partners and probably lower levels of condom use.


    LESSONS LEARNED FROM CROSS-NATIONAL STUDIES

    • Differences in sexual activity and the age at which teenagers become sexually active do not account for the wide variation in pregnancy and STD rates among comparable developed countries, such as Canada, France, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States.

    • Strong public support and expectations for the transition to adult economic roles, and for parenthood, provide young people with greater incentives and means to delay childbearing.

    • Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships.

    • Easy access to contraceptives and other reproductive health services contributes to better contraceptive use and, in turn, low teenage pregnancy rates.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #478  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    No, that is inconsistent: It is like saying "I trust this scale, I believe it gives the correct weight", however, you claim that for some inexplicable reason the scale does not give the correct weight for items G, P and Z, because according to a book you have, the weight of those items is totally different (sometimes by a factor of one million, e.g. in the case of the age of the universe). There is no reason for the scale giving wrong results for G, P, and Z only, it is just that your books says something different.Science is not allway right in all things, and there are many very important things about which science does not say anything. However, therer are some things which are documented extremely well. E.g. that earth is not a few thousand, but a few billion years old.

    Science is about data. Since the bible does not add any data to the discussion, it indeed does not make much sense to engage the Bible in scientific discussions. The Bible contains some claims which can be verified or falsified scientifically, e.g. that earth was created before sun and moon. Many of those claims were not found to be consistent with the evidence gathered. No data were found which support the claim mentioned, and tons of data contradict it.
    OK. We're in that death spiral again. There's nothing you've written that I don't understand and haven't heard from other sources. Lack of understanding is not a problem on my side. However, you continue to be befuddled by my statements. I wasn't asking for you to start believing (obviously you are not interested) but I was hoping for an intellectual understanding of a different view point. You can't get it so it's best I let it drop here.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #479  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Nice try, but that has nothing to do with lack of absolutes... We have e.g. far lower teenage pregnancy rates and far lower abortion rates than the US (in fact both are record high in the US), despite being a far less religious and "absolute" society.
    Really, when you have a few minutes read this article
    http://www.smw.ch/pdf200x/2003/15/smw-10105.PDF

    Even though you had one of the most restricitve laws on abortion. The law required procedure to be performed by physician, written consent, required a 2nd opinon, or it was an unavoidable life threatening condition, if these requirements were not followed both the woman and operator faced jail time. An estimated 8.9 per 1000 women aged 14-49 had an abortion, I wonder how high it would have been if there was no fear of jail? And, the gov't does not keep statistics so they can only use estimates. I guess you can estimate whatever number you like to make your point.

    What data did you use to refute the lack of absolutes being connected to increased acceptance of euthanasia, abortion, or abuse cases?
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #480  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Although recent "abstinence only" programs try to claim to be the cause, the downturn (note DOWNTURN, NOT "increase") in abortion rates is more correlated with gov't spending on sexual health education and the promotion of safe sex through the use of condoms.

    Per the CDC:
    The downturn in abortions (20 years ago) just happened to happen when the gov't stated funding abstinenc only program. Don't you find that ironic?
    http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/history.htm

Posting Permissions