Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[dimreepr]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

[Essay]

Is religion created by Science or Science is created by religion?

...its sort of an apples and oranges problem, depending upon various definitions....

...or maybe it depends on your perspective....

===

 

From a sociological perspective, functionally, religions and sciences both provide narratives or stories that help explain the human condition and what we observe; or as Molly Worthen (author of “Apostles of Reason”) says, “…how people make sense of reality.” So it would be easy to say religions were the earliest attempts to create an all-encompassing worldview, and that later sciences developed as an objective system for discovering, understanding, and managing various practicalities of the physical world--a worldview of only practicalities. But technically, science is more about the method, whereas religion is more about the dogma; so neither seems related, istm, except that both derive from a desire to know more….

 

However by using a very loose definition for “science,” I’d say from an anthropological perspective that ‘science’ created ‘religion’ because …in the beginning was the word (or, in the beginning …was meaning), which seems to signify the dawn of intelligence and memory and pattern recognition as well as symbolic thought and communication. It wouldn't qualify as true science, but people were always trying to make sense of reality; whether religions existed or not. Religion seems to serve as a part of the societal superstructure, which later develops out of whatever “scientific” structure might arise from any society’s original infrastructure; it develops later, out of whatever systems people utilize for making sense of their circumstances.

 

imho

~

[Nicholas Kang]

i am advised not to discuss about sex since young. Please, don`t ever change my mind. sex, is just a matter of future, when I am a man later not now.

 

Addendum: let`s talk about religion and science, not using sex as an anology, please, science and religion, please. Thanks.

 

Reference; Addendum writting style based on Sato`s style.

 

Thanks, again, stop using sex as an anology in dicsussing science and religion. Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Nicholas Kang

Finally, you are coming, Essay. Welcome. and a good start with a fact-filled passage. I appreciate that, Thanks.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Fred Champion]

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

How many men have you known?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

[Nicholas Kang]

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

 

What do you mean?

[dimreepr]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

So from your conservative (male) perspective you think it’s the woman’s fault if she falls pregnant and that they should be more responsible because men have a sex drive that they are unable to change.

 

Yet more evidence to support the idea that women mature faster than men.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yet another straw man, my point was directly related to the post I quoted.

Edited July 11, 2014 by dimreepr

[Fred Champion]

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

 

Quote

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

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

 

...

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

[John Cuthber]

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

It's The Book.

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

 

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

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

 

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

Either, God causes abortions, or

The Bible lies.

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

 

Which one do you want to pick?

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Finally, this

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

does not make any sense.

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

Edited July 13, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Fred Champion]

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

It's The Book.

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

 

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

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

 

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

Either, God causes abortions, or

The Bible lies.

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

 

Which one do you want to pick?

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Finally, this

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

does not make any sense.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What do you mean?

What I mean is I hope you recognize that attempting to silence inquiry or dissenting views is always a good indication of a wrong idea.

 

I can say with great conviction that any time anyone tries to limit your inquiry into any subject or tries to prevent you from looking into different ideas or views on any subject, that person is trying to control you, not educate you or help you. The one exception is in parenting. In some instances it is best for adults to control their children's exposure to certain things, but when the child reaches an age of reasoning and inquiry, such control is not good.

 

There are many ways people try to control other people and many reasons. Most, if not all, of the time there is some agenda the "controllers" are promoting. Today "political correctness" is one of the most prevalent. Political and religious ideology is often the agenda. Look out for those who try to limit your inquiry by putting down your ideas and questions; they will not serve your best interest. Much better to listen to those who encourage you to look at all views and alternatives and make informed decisions on what is right for you.

[John Cuthber]

You have ignored the obvious options.

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

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

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

 

But I was wondering what your explanation was.

 

Is the Bible lying, or is God an abortionist?

 

OK, so I accept that the terminology is different.

I should have said

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

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

 

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

Edited July 13, 2014 by John Cuthber

[aaa16797]

"Religion is used to explain what hasn't been publicly explained by science. Easy."

Can you give some examples please?

Also, please remember "God id it" isn't an explanation of anything unless you can explain where God came from and why He did it.

 

BTW, had you read all the thread before you posted?

actually i am only answering to the original question of this thread. and an example is what happens to our "soul" (proposed by religion) after death. Science has not been able to publicly make a theory about this, so different religions have made multiple explanations for it.

[Ophiolite]

so different religions have made multiple explanations for it.

Are these explanations, or are they descriptions. There doesn't seem much by way of explanation. What is the nature of this soul? Can you weigh it? Interact with it? Where is it located? If you say in Heaven, where is heaven, etc?

 

I trust you see my point.

[John Cuthber]

actually i am only answering to the original question of this thread. and an example is what happens to our "soul" (proposed by religion) after death. Science has not been able to publicly make a theory about this, so different religions have made multiple explanations for it.

Science has a very clear theory about this.

There is no such thing as a soul.

If there were then there would be evidence for it.

 

So, do you have any examples of real things?

[Essay]

Sorry. So, can you tell me all the parts in details? I don`t think such things exist in Wikipedia, do you?

 

Here are some important "parts" to consider, imho. Start by reading some of the different topics, already listed on the religion forum here, especially the first "pinned" topic about "recommended readings" and the second topic about how God is defined.

 

Trying to define God….

I imagine if you locked any two philosophers in a room, they’d happily emerge with three definitions.

And if any two theologians (even of the same faith) were similarly locked in a room, I’m expecting that only one would emerge alive.

===

 

Our definitions (especially the nitty-gritty details …or even worse, the contradictions or lack of details in those definitions) make all the difference. If you see unwanted differences, or you want different scenarios, or you want to resolve or transcend dichotomies, then re-examine your definitions.

 

But first, learn how “stable complexity” will develop or “emerge” out of simple, robust, chaotic systems (the parts).

There is a book called The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains this very well; so you don’t need to learn all about Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors (try an image search of that phrase, or for “Chaos Theory and Stable Attractors”).

 

...for some random research and applications, even aside from their beauty!

 

Science examines the stable complexity of our universe while it tries to deduce and understand the simple, robust, chaotic parts, which make up the systems (as they are defined) that the various scientific disciplines choose to study.

 

Do disciples of any faith do any differently? If we imagine that there could be "a comprehension" of all the meaning and significance in all the matter/energy in all of space/time, then wouldn’t that be like comprehending the omniscience in the omnipotent omnipresence? The source of preference, power, and place is mysterious enough to be approached, and reconciled, from both religious and scientific perspectives, istm.

 

Learning how Power is related to matter/energy changing within spacetime (mass times acceleration times the movement/time ...or something along those lines), and learning how matter and energy relate to mass and dimension, are good starting points for developing a comprehension of how the various parts might build up into an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent whole....

 

...depending upon your own definitions, of course. Good luck with your studies!

 

~

[Fred Champion]

You have ignored the obvious options.

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

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

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

 

But I was wondering what your explanation was.

 

Is the Bible lying, or is God an abortionist?

 

OK, so I accept that the terminology is different.

I should have said

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Phi for All]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[John Cuthber]

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

 

 

Science confirms that our mind (thoughts, attitude) can make us sick and cause pain of all sorts. If an abortion were the result of the trial, it would be the guilty womans body responding to her mind. I expect there are few medical doctors who would deny that fright and stress, even today, can cause a woman to abort.

 

The law was basically the rules people in that society were supposed to live by. Not much different from the purpose of the law we have today. Different society, different beliefs, different laws.

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

And the second bit is worryingly similar to this

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

 

re the law.

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

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

[Nicholas Kang]

 

Here are some important "parts" to consider, imho. Start by reading some of the different topics, already listed on the religion forum here, especially the first "pinned" topic about "recommended readings" and the second topic about how God is defined.

 

Trying to define God….

I imagine if you locked any two philosophers in a room, they’d happily emerge with three definitions.

And if any two theologians (even of the same faith) were similarly locked in a room, I’m expecting that only one would emerge alive.

===

 

Our definitions (especially the nitty-gritty details …or even worse, the contradictions or lack of details in those definitions) make all the difference. If you see unwanted differences, or you want different scenarios, or you want to resolve or transcend dichotomies, then re-examine your definitions.

 

The key point is definitions make the difference. So, Mr. Sam, you mean I should define God first?

 

 

But first, learn how “stable complexity” will develop or “emerge” out of simple, robust, chaotic systems (the parts).

There is a book called The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains this very well; so you don’t need to learn all about Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors (try an image search of that phrase, or for “Chaos Theory and Stable Attractors”).

 

...for some random research and applications, even aside from their beauty!

 

Science examines the stable complexity of our universe while it tries to deduce and understand the simple, robust, chaotic parts, which make up the systems (as they are defined) that the various scientific disciplines choose to study.

 

Do disciples of any faith do any differently? If we imagine that there could be "a comprehension" of all the meaning and significance in all the matter/energy in all of space/time, then wouldn’t that be like comprehending the omniscience in the omnipotent omnipresence? The source of preference, power, and place is mysterious enough to be approached, and reconciled, from both religious and scientific perspectives, istm.

What does istm means? What are disciples? Mysterious enough to be approached? You mean making the borders between Science and Religion blur and thus they are more likely to combine/reconcile or they share the same properties since time immemorial?

 

Here are some important "parts" to consider, imho. Start by reading some of the different topics, already listed on the religion forum here, especially the first "pinned" topic about "recommended readings" and the second topic about how God is defined.

 

Trying to define God….

I imagine if you locked any two philosophers in a room, they’d happily emerge with three definitions.

And if any two theologians (even of the same faith) were similarly locked in a room, I’m expecting that only one would emerge alive.

===

 

Our definitions (especially the nitty-gritty details …or even worse, the contradictions or lack of details in those definitions) make all the difference. If you see unwanted differences, or you want different scenarios, or you want to resolve or transcend dichotomies, then re-examine your definitions.

 

But first, learn how “stable complexity” will develop or “emerge” out of simple, robust, chaotic systems (the parts).

There is a book called The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains this very well; so you don’t need to learn all about Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors (try an image search of that phrase, or for “Chaos Theory and Stable Attractors”).

 

...for some random research and applications, even aside from their beauty!

 

Science examines the stable complexity of our universe while it tries to deduce and understand the simple, robust, chaotic parts, which make up the systems (as they are defined) that the various scientific disciplines choose to study.

 

Do disciples of any faith do any differently? If we imagine that there could be "a comprehension" of all the meaning and significance in all the matter/energy in all of space/time, then wouldn’t that be like comprehending the omniscience in the omnipotent omnipresence? The source of preference, power, and place is mysterious enough to be approached, and reconciled, from both religious and scientific perspectives, istm.

 

Learning how Power is related to matter/energy changing within spacetime (mass times acceleration times the movement/time ...or something along those lines), and learning how matter and energy relate to mass and dimension, are good starting points for developing a comprehension of how the various parts might build up into an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent whole....

 

...depending upon your own definitions, of course. Good luck with your studies!

 

~

 

Good luck with your studies!

 

~

 

Thanks. Just to tell you:

First: History assignment done, not yet being checked by the teacher but surely, 100% with poor handwriting due to short time.

Second: I tried doing several Electricity experiment personally in my home. I connect circuits myself, and I found out that I am lack of resources, like corcodile clips-I have none of them, battery holders-I have only one-AA size 1.5V times 2 holder but I have two 1.5V battery, 5 1.2V rechargeable battery and 3 1.5V C/D size battery, Ammeter and Voltmeter.

[Moontanman]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

[Fred Champion]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

Authority and responsibility. Two sides of a single coin.

When does life begin if not at conception?

Killing is sometimes justifiable.

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

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

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

And the second bit is worryingly similar to this

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

 

re the law.

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

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

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

 

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

 

The establishment always fights to maintain the status quo.

[Phi for All]

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

Authority and responsibility. Two sides of a single coin.

 

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

 

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

[Fred Champion]

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Ophiolite]

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

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

[Moontanman]

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

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."^%5B16%5D As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones".^%5B31%5D The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.^%5B16%5D Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.^{%5B16%5D%5B32%5D}

 

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

 

Any chance you could tell us which parts are attributable to god?

 

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

So slavery is ok?

 

 

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

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

 

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

Ok, so this applies to men as well as women?

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

[Fred Champion]

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

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

 

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

 

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