Jump to content


Photo

So, You Think You Are Not Religious?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:54 AM

So you think you are not religious?

I get a chuckle out of people who claim dogmatically (usually most people that claim to be atheist) they are not religious. In most cases such people have pulled a dichotomy and are just as demandingly anti God as they once were pro God! I find it their dogmatic demanding point of view that is their maajor dysfuntional as part of their personality. Often their demandingness is transfered to other concepts of their personal belief system!

Jesus once said, "You search heaven and earth to create one proselyte and turn him into twice the son of hell as you are." Atheists aren't very forgiving of those of us who believe in God.

Jesus further commented on the attitude some that allege (dogmatically) there is no God seem to share! Jesus: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father."

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.

When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."


  • mike the wiz likes this

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 April 2017 - 02:13 AM

 

 

Mike: When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."

 

This is good logic Mike, because it is a request to show X, and obviously the scripture says, "not X", forcing the atheist to acknowledge a contradiction.

 

The reason you get silence to many of these topics is because they don't know how to answer, it's a kind of silent guilt.

 

What is, "wrongdoing" anyway, in an accidental universe? They can't answer - they only carry on acting as though they are the righteous moralisers, without qualifying why we should treat them that way.

 

Here is a nice example of an atheist atrocity Mike, which you may wish to use against anti-theists when they bring out the retarded argument that "Hitler was a Christian" and the "the New testament condones the crusades and IRA" which it clearly doesn't.

 

Here is my example; imagine if a group of people went around hunting pregnant women tonight, hundreds of this group which we shall call group X. Now imagine if this group went into women's bedrooms at night, breaking into their houses, and killed the unborn babies in their wombs. Imagine the headlines on the news; "mass atrocity as hundreds of unborn babies murdered."

 

See where I am going yet? Oh how epithets rule the brains of the eternally stupid, Mike! Have you noticed the billions of babies they have aborted? Do you hear about that on the news? What? No headline about an "atrocity"? What? No headline about, "murder".

 

Hmm....let me think for a moment since I am Tarzan and am rather dull-witted,....I suppose that must mean that billions of babies being aborted, isn't murder, if they don't use the word murder, and isn't an atrocity if they don't use the word atrocity? I guess if a woman "chooses" to abort then it's not murder? Mike, don't you realise when I come and gun you down tonight, that's not murder, because I am making a "choice". LOL

 

I guess that means that if I rob a bank tomorrow morning and convince all of the people working in the bank that it's okay for me to steal the money, then that means it's not, "stealing".

 

There's an example of atheist logic for you. If you get enough people to say, "it's okay we've decided it's moral" then they think by defining it as, "not immoral" that their hands are now clean.

 

LOL!

 

So then, what can we conclude? We can conclude a Godless society had murdered billions of unborn children, and we can conclude this, with 100% sound logic on our side. Therefore atheists have killed billions more than any religion. That they done it in white suits behind the curtain, with fancy epithets such as, "choice", and "abortion", I am afraid makes no logical difference.

 

Now - can atheists now tell us why it is okay for them to murder, and why none of these atrocities they have committed and approved of, are deemed as "immoral", because if you can switch morality, "OFF" when it suits you, then you have no basis for morality to begin with, and therefore cannot state anything about morality.

 

 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#3 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 April 2017 - 11:08 PM

So you think you are not religious?

I get a chuckle out of people who claim dogmatically (usually most people that claim to be atheist) they are not religious.

 

Any standard definition of religion has some form of "belief in God or the supernatural" as core to the definition itself (unless you are equivocating). Since atheism is the disbelief in such things, atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby; it's nonsense. Your assertion that religion is any belief or belief system is something you made up.

 

Why do you feel the need to control the language of others to the point of making up your own definitions which do not keep with the spirit of the standard definitions, or the etymology of the word, or how it is commonly used in practice? There is more to being a control freak than 'physically' forcing people.

 

 

In most cases such people have pulled a dichotomy and are just as demandingly anti God as they once were pro God! I find it their dogmatic demanding point of view that is their maajor dysfuntional as part of their personality. Often their demandingness is transfered to other concepts of their personal belief system!

 

Whoa now, aren't you referring to a group instead of individuals, I thought you weren't supposed to do that. Even when I tried to explain to you that when I refer to groups I do so within the confines of things like statistics and understanding that there are always individual exceptions in a large enough group, but that never stopped you from complaining about how I had the audacity to refer to groups no matter how nuanced I made it.

 

Hypocrisy aside, is it so strange that people who were once religious and are atheist now often show similar levels of zeal as an atheist compared to when they were religious, especially considering how pervasive and influencing religion and religious institutions are in our society?

 

 

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.

 

Atheists also have no holy texts, no holy teachers, no rituals, no sacraments, no holidays, no prayers, no place of worship or to gather, no commandments, and no doctrine whatsoever unless you want to count the definition of atheism itself as the one and only 'doctrine'; and if that is the only thing you can point to to say atheism is religion, than that is clearly grasping at straws.

 

Is the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun also religion according to you? While we don't normally refer to such a belief in this way because few people reject such beliefs, we can say that those who believe such things are heliocentrists. The belief in heliocentrism has no holy texts, no holy teachers........ and no doctrine whatsoever unless you want to count the definition itself as the one and only 'doctrine', what say you? How many religions do you ascribe to?

 

 

When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."

 

 

I have never heard of an atheist say that they don't have a belief system, period. And I don't think most atheists would object to saying that atheism plays a role in their belief system, but what they object to is you and others who insist that atheism is a religion despite that it is not a religion according to any standard definition you can come up with. You have to twist the definition of religion in order to put atheism in it. Why do you insist on this level of control where you blatantly make up definitions? Is that not a sign of a control freak? 

 

 

"Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."

 

 

I have never heard an atheist make or allude to such a statement, although I have heard statements to the effect of 'religion is at the core of mankind's problems', but as we all know you are not fond of 'figurative language' so I must assume that your statement above is not some sort of figurative language like hyperbole and is meant to be read woodenly (i.e. wooden literalism). 

 

Is this sentence of yours a question where you simply forgot to put the question mark in? Because if it's not, I have to ask, why do you insist on telling people what they believe? - isn't that an indication of a control freak?


  • philosophik likes this

#4 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 April 2017 - 12:28 AM

Here is my example; imagine if a group of people went around hunting pregnant women tonight, hundreds of this group which we shall call group X. Now imagine if this group went into women's bedrooms at night, breaking into their houses, and killed the unborn babies in their wombs. Imagine the headlines on the news; "mass atrocity as hundreds of unborn babies murdered."

 

See where I am going yet? Oh how epithets rule the brains of the eternally stupid, Mike! Have you noticed the billions of babies they have aborted? Do you hear about that on the news? What? No headline about an "atrocity"? What? No headline about, "murder".

 

.......


So then, what can we conclude? We can conclude a Godless society had murdered billions of unborn children, and we can conclude this, with 100% sound logic on our side. Therefore atheists have killed billions more than any religion. That they done it in white suits behind the curtain, with fancy epithets such as, "choice", and "abortion", I am afraid makes no logical difference.

 

Now - can atheists now tell us why it is okay for them to murder, and why none of these atrocities they have committed and approved of, are deemed as "immoral", because if you can switch morality, "OFF" when it suits you, then you have no basis for morality to begin with, and therefore cannot state anything about morality.

 

What's amusing about the abortion example is that abortion is not considered murder according to your own God. In fact your God specifically allows abortion in the case of infidelity (Numbers 5). Exodus 21:22-25 makes it clear that hurting a pregnant woman to the point that she miscarries is not equivalent to murder. God does not change his mind (Numbers 23:19) and Jesus said not one jot or tittle from the law will be removed until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:18).

 

So I can show logically, 100%, that you cannot say godless society has murdered billions of unborn children if you are in fact Christian. ;)

 

I can only speak for myself, but my view of abortion is that it is a necessary evil (however noble the adoption solution is, it is simply not feasible to put every would-be aborted child up for adoption), and we as a society should take steps to reduce the need for abortion. Comprehensive s@x education for minors is known to reduce teen pregnancy (something the "Christians" in America oppose). Access to contraceptives also reduces unwanted pregnancy (something the "Christians" in America oppose giving to minors, and many religious sects frown upon contraceptives for all ages). Study after study shows that the core reason why most people who get abortions do so is because they do not have the financial means to take care the child. In addition studies show that when you educate and empower women they tend to not get pregnant until they are older and have a stable and good-paying job to afford a child.

 

IOW comprehensive s@x education, access to contraceptives, education for women, and raising the standard of living for the lower and middle class is known to reduce abortion, and those are all things I support.
 


  • philosophik likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 April 2017 - 03:02 AM

You quote-mined what Exodus says, Goku.

 

It says this, in context;

 

Ex 21;22 on;“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

 

Your example doesn't even refer to the unborn child and it's a bit ambiguous, I suppose you could say it refers to the child but it says if there is serious injury then take life for life. 

 

 

 

Goku: So I can show logically, 100%, that you cannot say godless society has murdered billions of unborn children if you are in fact Christian

 

Not really. Even if the bible doesn't mention abortion which it doesn't, it also doesn't mention torturing people by inserting a red hot poker up their behind, does that mean God okays that action?

 

 

 

Goku: I can only speak for myself, but my view of abortion is that it is a necessary evil (however noble the adoption solution is, it is simply not feasible to put every would-be aborted child up for adoption),

 

That's an appeal to consequences fallacy. "If we don't murder and eat bullies, then their victims will continue to suffer".

 

 

 

Wiki: Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

 

 

 

 

Goku: Comprehensive s@x education for minors is known to reduce teen pregnancy (something the "Christians" in America oppose). Access to contraceptives also reduces unwanted pregnancy (something the "Christians" in America oppose giving to minors, and many religious sects frown upon contraceptives for all ages)

 

Amish Christian societies don't have any unwanted pregnancies, despite the education there is still a large number of people that do, meaning the true cause can't be a lack of education as the Amish raise them Christian where there is no education.

 

I don't want certain people to exist to, like the prime minister, does that mean I should be able to end her life by law? And to bring in the issue of contraception is a red-herring, since I have not mentioned that issue, or whether I would or wouldn't support it.

 

 

 

 Goku: Study after study shows that the core reason why most people who get abortions do so is because they do not have the financial means to take care the child. In addition studies show that when you educate and empower women they tend to not get pregnant until they are older and have a stable and good-paying job to afford a child.

 

This is another appeal to consequences fallacy. Study after study shows that men rape women because they're horny, how can you suggest they stop, given they have no wife? It's evil of you.


It's no good, Goku - I have heard all of the justifications already, and all of the arguments are fallacious. I can list them for you and tell you the specific fallacy you commit when you argue that somehow murdering in the womb is justifiable.

 

You can't morally justify X because of other problem P. 

 

If a child is getting bullied badly to the point of taking her life, and indeed many are and there is much misery because of it, that won't justify arresting all known bullies and murdering them. 

 

You see problem P can be solved, society, like the bible said, should pay for the woman who is poor and can't afford the child. Many children are born, and people take responsibility for those children, showing it's perfectly feasible, for people are smart and they find a way. You can't appeal to consequences you don't know there would be a solution to, because after all the babies are aborted, therefore you can't know if those issues would have been solved, but even if they couldn't be solved, problem P won't justify action X. For example I could argue the same, that if we take in any more immigrants then the country would be overflowing. I could have been killing immigrants for years and saying, "I have to, the country would have flooded had I not done it," but then how can we know that would have happened, logically speaking, if I murdered them so that we can't find out how the problem would be solved? It's the same for abortion, had it never been legalised, the society would have addressed those problems when they arose, so that now those problems wouldn't exist.

 

:acigar: :P

 

Conclusion: all of the reasons given to justify abortion, won't stop it from being murder by definition. To take someone's life premeditatively. So to win the debate on logical grounds you have to show that it isn't murder.

 

To which most atheists respond that the child isn't a fully formed human being. I admit that if the child doesn't yet have a brain for example, because it is very early pregnancy, that might differ logically, from later on.

 

P.S. I'm not an American Christian. There goes that generalisation fallacy of yours again. :rolleyes:

 

(the point of my previous post was largely to attack those atheists that use atrocities to try and argue Christians are guilty, and all religious people are the problem, as though non-religious people have not done those things. Morally speaking, there isn't any sound argument that justifies murdering babies in the womb, only sophistry that is easily refuted. The justifications for abortion, aren't particularly smart arguments, and never were. I'm sorry to let you know, that all of those arguments don't get a Godless society off the hook for murder.)

 

If you went into a pregnant woman's house and murdered her unborn child in a sneaky way, so she didn't even wake up, you would be called a murderer and it would be regarded as an atrocity. The only difference is she didn't have a choice. So then is that action okay if she decides by choice she doesn't want the child? If it is then a person that doesn't want a living child would also not be a murderer if they shot the child in the head.

 

Think about it - you would be called a murderer, and if many were killed it would be an atrocity. But if all those women woke up and said, "it's okay we didn't want those children", would it then not be an atrocity?

 

LOL!

 

To highlight how silly that is imagine this news reporter; "A terrible atrocity has been comitted, hundreds of babies in the womb have been slaughtered, men snuck into houses at night to do this, and now for the part that is the atrocity, the women didn't agree to it!"

 

:rotfl3: 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 April 2017 - 05:36 AM

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has S@xual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
 
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had S@xual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having S@xual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
 
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
 
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
 
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

 

 

Numbers 5 as referenced by Goku. Learn your bible ;)



#7 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 April 2017 - 11:34 AM

You quote-mined what Exodus says, Goku.

 

It says this, in context;

 

Ex 21;22 on;“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

 

Your example doesn't even refer to the unborn child and it's a bit ambiguous, I suppose you could say it refers to the child but it says if there is serious injury then take life for life.

 

I don't see how it is a quote mine when I referenced the exact same verses, plural, as you did for the correct 'context'.

 

In the context of Judaism the Exodus verses are almost certainly talking about a miscarriage (which some translations say it is, e.g. RSV), not a premature birth where the baby so happens to survive unharmed. Perhaps the easiest way to explain this is through the part you highlighted where it says "life for life". The Hebrew word used for life in this passage is "nefesh", which literally means "soul". In Judaism fetuses do not have a soul. This goes back to Genesis where God breathed into Adam the "breath of life" and then he became a living "soul". Until a baby takes a breath of air there is no soul in it (although there is somewhat of an exception once the mother goes into labor, although it is not a blanket exception). So if a fetus is too underdeveloped when it comes out of the womb and cannot survive/breathe, it cannot have a "life" to take. This is consistent with what the Talmud states as the fetus for the first 40 days is "mere fluid", and after that it is a "limb of the mother" (usually referenced as the "thigh") until it is born and breathes the breath of life imbuing it with a soul (now read Numbers 5). The only way to make sense of the passage in light of Judaic understanding is to say that the "serious injury" and "life" refers exclusively to the mother and not the unborn child.

 

 

From an article in My Jewish Learning (emphasis mine): http://www.myjewishl...in-jewish-law/

 

Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.

Based upon this biblical statement. Moses Maimonides asserts as follows: “If one assaults a woman, even unintentionally, and her child is born prematurely, he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman.” Maimonides continues with statements regarding how these compensations are computed. A similar declaration is found in Joseph Karo’s legal code Shulkhan Aruch. No concern is expressed by either Maimonides or Karo regarding the status of the miscarried fetus. It is part of the mother and belongs jointly to her and her husband, and thus damages must be paid for its premature death. However, the one who was responsible is not culpable for murder, since the unborn fetus is not considered a person.

 

 

 

Goku says: My understanding does not stem from this one article (I just found it today looking for a source so you wouldn't have to take my word for it); back before I was an atheist I had the question of abortion, and after reading various Christian commentaries I was left dissatisfied and turned my attention towards Judaic understanding. There, I found clear, concise, information that made sense to me. I don't agree 100% with the Judaic view, but on the whole my personal view of abortion is very similar to traditional Jewish understanding.

 

 

Not really. Even if the bible doesn't mention abortion which it doesn't, it also doesn't mention torturing people by inserting a red hot poker up their behind, does that mean God okays that action?

 

The Bible does, more or less, mention abortion. Numbers 5, which Fjuri has kindly copy-pasted, at the very minimum demonstrates that God is fine with abortion in the case of the women being unfaithful.

 

There is simply no Biblical justification to say that abortion is murder, and plenty of hints in the Torah to suggest otherwise along with the Talmud which directly states that it is not murder.

 

That's an appeal to consequences fallacy. "If we don't murder and eat bullies, then their victims will continue to suffer".

 

It's not an appeal to consequences fallacy (although it is an appeal to consequences) because this is a matter of morality, not objective truth, and recall that I called it a "necessary evil" because from a practical standpoint we cannot feasibly outlaw abortion and put every would-be aborted child up for adoption. We can go over the numbers if you want, but in a nutshell (at least here in America) we have a hard enough time as is to get kids adopted. Yes, there are huge wait lines and people will say there aren't enough kids to satisfy the would-be parents looking to adopt, but that is only because parents looking to adopt overwhelmingly want white males with no medical conditions, which is not what most of the kids looking to get adopted are, nor would most of the would-be aborted kids be white males with no medical conditions (most will be black or hispanic, and I assume roughly half will be female as the male-female birth ratio is close to 1:1).

 

There are approximately 400,000 children in foster care right now; in America that is where children go when they don't have a parent to take care of them and have not yet been adopted. I found this ABC article (here) which says that it costs taxpayers about $40,000 for each child in foster care. Each year over a million abortions are performed (source). If every abortion turned into a child in the foster care system, and since it takes 18 years to "age out" of foster care, once the dust settles and the influx from this new source of foster care children evens out we are talking over 18 million people in foster care. 18,000,000 multiplied by $40,000 is over 700 billion or almost 20% of the federal budget - as in we have to increase the federal budget by 20%. Simply put it would be the largest single item on the budget save social security.

 

But it is more than just money. Imagine a system that currently holds 400,000 children of varying ages all of a sudden being dumped with a million infants within a single year, and a million infants each subsequent year. The system is simply not designed for that. It would be a logistical disaster if nothing else. And I honestly don't know if that 700 billion dollar figure accounts for the additional staff required to keep the system functional. Another question is where are we going to find the additional families to take in these new foster kids?

 

In addition the foster care system is not exactly ideal. Both physical and S@xual abuse are commonplace and many of the kids in the system have psychological issues; not everyone who signs up to be a foster parent does so out of the kindness of their heart, which again speaks to where are we going to find all these additional foster families? PTSD, unemployment, homelessness, crime activity, drug abuse, and unwanted pregnancy (I'm sensing a positive feedback loop) are all many times higher in former foster kids than the general public, and I can't imagine what such an influx would do to make the problems only worse.

 

I honestly don't see how such a proposed solution to abortion would not be a royal disaster.

 

Amish Christian societies don't have any unwanted pregnancies, despite the education there is still a large number of people that do, meaning the true cause can't be a lack of education as the Amish raise them Christian where there is no education.

 

I don't want certain people to exist to, like the prime minister, does that mean I should be able to end her life by law? And to bring in the issue of contraception is a red-herring, since I have not mentioned that issue, or whether I would or wouldn't support it.

 

I am trying to look at society as a whole in order to see what a given policy would mean in the real world, and in the real world those things are known to reduce abortion rates. Saying we should all live like the Amish, which are not the saints you think they are (there is a ton of abuse in Amish culture due to the reclusive nature of the group, lack of USA policing of the group, and the male-dominated paradigm of the group), is not a serious solution.

 

Contraception is not a red herring; it is a known way to reduce abortion rates. Again I am trying to look at objective reality and what is feasible, not some fantasy where we all magically become Amish saints living on an idyllic farm singing with big happy smiles on our faces for the rest of time.

 

This is another appeal to consequences fallacy. Study after study shows that men rape women because they're horny, how can you suggest they stop, given they have no wife? It's evil of you.

It's no good, Goku - I have heard all of the justifications already, and all of the arguments are fallacious. I can list them for you and tell you the specific fallacy you commit when you argue that somehow murdering in the womb is justifiable.

 

You can't morally justify X because of other problem P. 

 

If a child is getting bullied badly to the point of taking her life, and indeed many are and there is much misery because of it, that won't justify arresting all known bullies and murdering them. 

 

You see problem P can be solved, society, like the bible said, should pay for the woman who is poor and can't afford the child. Many children are born, and people take responsibility for those children, showing it's perfectly feasible, for people are smart and they find a way. You can't appeal to consequences you don't know there would be a solution to, because after all the babies are aborted, therefore you can't know if those issues would have been solved, but even if they couldn't be solved, problem P won't justify action X. For example I could argue the same, that if we take in any more immigrants then the country would be overflowing. I could have been killing immigrants for years and saying, "I have to, the country would have flooded had I not done it," but then how can we know that would have happened, logically speaking, if I murdered them so that we can't find out how the problem would be solved? It's the same for abortion, had it never been legalised, the society would have addressed those problems when they arose, so that now those problems wouldn't exist.

 

:acigar: :P

 

Conclusion: all of the reasons given to justify abortion, won't stop it from being murder by definition. To take someone's life premeditatively. So to win the debate on logical grounds you have to show that it isn't murder.

 

To which most atheists respond that the child isn't a fully formed human being. I admit that if the child doesn't yet have a brain for example, because it is very early pregnancy, that might differ logically, from later on.

 

Again this is not an appeal to consequences fallacy; that fallacy refers to objective truth, not subjective statements about what is or isn't moral.

 

We don't know with certainty what will happen if we make abortion illegal tomorrow, but we can get a rough idea based on actual data of what is happening now, and what that picture paints is not pretty.

 

Sure if society never legalized abortion there would be various solutions people would have made. My dad grew up in an area where abortion was illegal. You know what girls at his high school did when they got pregnant? They crossed the boarder into Mexico to get an abortion, or they simply got a back alley abortion if they couldn't get to Mexico for whatever reason. People still had abortions, only they had less safe abortions.

 

As I've shown abortion is not considered murder according to the Bible.

 

I think a fetus is best described as a potential life, and as such is of value, but not the same value as a life already here, and I do agree with the sentiment that the more developed a fetus is the more precious the life. Fetuses can feel pain by 20 weeks, and according to the CDC only about 1% of abortions occur after this mark. Simply put the vast majority of abortions are done before the fetus has developed enough to feel pain.

 

P.S. I'm not an American Christian. There goes that generalisation fallacy of yours again. :rolleyes:

 

(the point of my previous post was largely to attack those atheists that use atrocities to try and argue Christians are guilty, and all religious people are the problem, as though non-religious people have not done those things. Morally speaking, there isn't any sound argument that justifies murdering babies in the womb, only sophistry that is easily refuted. The justifications for abortion, aren't particularly smart arguments, and never were. I'm sorry to let you know, that all of those arguments don't get a Godless society off the hook for murder.)

 

If you went into a pregnant woman's house and murdered her unborn child in a sneaky way, so she didn't even wake up, you would be called a murderer and it would be regarded as an atrocity. The only difference is she didn't have a choice. So then is that action okay if she decides by choice she doesn't want the child? If it is then a person that doesn't want a living child would also not be a murderer if they shot the child in the head.

 

Think about it - you would be called a murderer, and if many were killed it would be an atrocity. But if all those women woke up and said, "it's okay we didn't want those children", would it then not be an atrocity?

 

LOL!

 

To highlight how silly that is imagine this news reporter; "A terrible atrocity has been comitted, hundreds of babies in the womb have been slaughtered, men snuck into houses at night to do this, and now for the part that is the atrocity, the women didn't agree to it!"

 

:rotfl3: 

 

I don't know why you think I was trying to imply that you were an American Christian; it was a commentary of how counter productive the Christian right is in my country when it comes to reducing abortion rates which, so long as abortion is legal, should be an issue we can work together on. It was also to demonstrate that I am not pro-abortion, I want to reduce abortion, and these are ways that are known to reduce abortion rates while still giving women the choice because I am ultimately pro-choice.

 

I don't think abortion is morally good; I think it is morally permissible. I'm not sure if that is the same thing as saying abortion is "okay". I think it is a very personal choice a woman has to make between herself, her family, her doctor, and her pastor/God (assuming she is religious).

 

I think the abortion debate largely centers around the right of the woman to control her body versus the right to life of the fetus. While I certainly think a fetus close to viability has a right to life with the exception of a legitimate medical reason to terminate (this is where I depart from traditional Judaic thought), early in the pregnancy I think the pendulum is in the woman's court and her decision.

 

I can see both sides of charging, and not charging, someone with murder in a court of law for destroying the life of an unborn child. If it is close to viability I wouldn't have any problems with them being charged with murder (again this is a departure from Judaic thought - you are closer to me on this issue than you are to your own God). I think early in the pregnancy it is much harder to justify a murder charge, and I am more inclined to agree with Judaic thought that in such a case the criminal is charged with bodily harm to the woman for causing a miscarriage. As you can see there is a lot of grey area as the pregnancy progresses, and I do not feel qualified to give any sort of threshold.



#8 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

Goku said:

Any standard definition of religion has some form of "belief in God or the supernatural" as core to the definition itself (unless you are equivocating). Since atheism is the disbelief in such things, atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby; it's nonsense. Your assertion that religion is any belief or belief system is something you made up.

Yep I created it! I am a creator just like you!
You
Take the belief not to kill or steal. I am sure you probably generally follow those two rules. Now add the belief in God. What does that do to the two beliefs to turn it into a religion? If you think about it adding that belief supposedly adds credibility to the mentioned beliefs. That's the only difference I can see. "A rose by any other name would smell the same."

Why do you feel the need to control the language of others to the point of making up your own definitions which do not keep with the spirit of the standard definitions, or the etymology of the word, or how it is commonly used in practice? There is more to being a control freak than 'physically' forcing people.

language exist for my benefit not me for the benefit of language.

And when have my words forced you to do anything? I am trying to get you and others to see the deception we are all under based on the belief Satan passed off on Adam and Eve. There is no good or evil in any event external from our mind. There are no externals causing emotion and behavior. "It" can't do anything to us. We are doing it to ourselves and the only way to stop is to quit. Religion isn't doing anything to you.

And If you (we ) are ever going to have peace you (we) are going to have to create it individually in our minds.

I am trying to convice you to think outside the paradign you have accepted--to question what you have accepted as your personal (belief system or religion) rules. It becomes a religion because you add your own credibility to your beliefs. Therefore believe in God or no God is not the issue. You have the power yolbecome your own credible source. Thus sayeth Goku. LOL

I give different meanings and spin to jog you into questioningg anything you believe such as religion becoming an entity by you continiously peronyfying it!

I realize that you might see me as a control freak so I try to get you to realize that you can be a control freak by trying to maintain the status quo! My efforts are motivated by the great affection my mind has created for you.

The most efficient method of being a control freak is to sell pernicious ideas to others like the old addage feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for life. I want you to rule you and slow the belief that you need to save us from belief in God. I have e occasion why don't think you are qualified to determine who can exist in the universe. In
 
 

Mike Summers, on 31 Mar 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

In most cases such people have pulled a dichotomy and are just as demandingly anti God as they once were pro God! I find it their dogmatic demanding point of view that is their major dysfuntional as part of their personality. Often their demandingness is transfered to other concepts of their personal belief system!
 
Whoa now, aren't you referring to a group instead of individuals, I thought you weren't supposed to do that. Even when I tried to explain to you that when I refer to groups I do so within the confines of things like statistics and understanding that there are always individual exceptions in a large enough group, but that never stopped you from complaining about how I had the audacity to refer to groups no matter how nuanced I made it.

I assume that you are talking to me? Not the group? There is no group brain (central control) of people. We all act in a unilateral fashion based on our individual belief system.

I will tell you what I think and feel about you as an in dividual! I think of you as my brother and because of that I am responsible to treat you fairly and tell you "the truth" (as I do myself and others). I get the impression you don't think I belong to the same group you do? Right away that sets up this "us vs them" aura about the things you say as if you are mr high and mighty and not a fellow human being. I haven't done any of the things you acuse "my" in group of doing. I don't see nyself being against anyone!

Hypocrisy aside, is it so strange that people who were once religious and are atheist now often show similar levels of zeal as an atheist compared to when they were religious, especially considering how pervasive and influencing religion and religious institutions are in our society?

There you go perdnyfying religion as if it is an entity and has will and volition. Individuals are persuasive not artificial entities such as groups and corporations (iinstitutions). How powerful is "religion" over you when you seem yo and I think you have discarded it? This is an example of self-deception at its zenith!

Mike Summers, on 31 Mar 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.
 
Atheists also have no holy texts, no holy teachers, no rituals, no sacraments, no holidays, no prayers, no place of worship or to gather, no commandments, and no doctrine whatsoever unless you want to count the definition of atheism itself as the one and only 'doctrine'; and if that is the only thing you can point to to say atheism is religion, than that is clearly grasping at straws.

What an incredible naïve declaration. Are you really saying that alleged atheists have no belief system? What are you using to to rasom with if not your beliefs? Don't you think?

Is the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun also religion according to you?

Yes, it is a belief from part of my religion (belief system by another name). I guess you have a similar belief? What makes a belief system a religion is the belief yhat God believes the same thing we claim we believe. The addition of belief in God supposedly adds credibility. But you hsve proven to yourself that you don't need the addition of God as you can generate your own credibility. You would not be so dogmatic in your belief in atheism if you werem't adding your own c rdibility to your decrees!

While we don't normally refer to such a belief in this way because few people reject such beliefs, we can say that those who believe such things are heliocentrists. The belief in heliocentrism has no holy texts, no holy teachers........ and no doctrine whatsoever unless you want to count the definition itself as the one and only 'doctrine', what say you? How many religions do you ascribe to?


Heliocentrism, I believe, has little effect (usage as an ac tion causing belief motivated by an intelligent being) and on the relationships that people have with each other. How many wars have there been fought lately that involve whether the earth revolves around the sun or not?

Mike Summers, on 31 Mar 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."
 
 
I have never heard of an atheist say that they don't have a belief system, period. And I don't think most atheists would object to saying that atheism plays a role in their belief system, but what they object to is you and others who insist that atheism is a religion despite that it is not a religion according to any standard definition you can come up with. You have to twist the definition of religion in order to put atheism in it. Why do you insist on this level of control where you blatantly make up definitions? Is that not a sign of a control freak?

This is an example of semantics misused. The word religion and belief system are often interchangeable terms. So that when someone refers to it, atheism, being a religion they are pointing out everyone of us has a belief system. People that allege atheism try to give the impression that they don't have a belief system. All of us have a belief system no matter what we call it. As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell the same." 

Mike Summers, on 31 Mar 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

"Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."
  
I have never heard an atheist make or allude to such a statement, although I have heard statements to the effect of 'religion is at the core of mankind's problems', but as we all know you are not fond of 'figurative language' so I must assume that your statement above is not some sort of figurative language like hyperbole and is meant to be read woodenly (i.e. wooden literalism).

I would say that hate is one of mans problems. Blaming religion is much too general.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to know which specific beliefs within a person's belief system (religion) is problematic. Since there are many beliefs in a person's belief system (religion) isn't it far too general to claim the entire belief system is problematic?

Is this sentence of yours a question where you simply forgot to put the question mark in? Because if it's not, I have to ask, why do you insist on telling people what they believe? - isn't that an indication of a control freak?

I'm not telling them what they believe. I am giving them feedback on how they say something comes across to me. More accurately I would be reflecting how they come across to me as what they believe and are communicating.

#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 02 April 2017 - 05:12 PM

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”


Numbers 5 as referenced by Goku. Learn your bible ;)

 

 

Fjuri and Goku.

 

Here's the problem. You guys are relying on a corruption of God's Word as inflicted on the naive world by the likes of Wescott and Hort, two alleged "theologians" who deny the diety of Christ and believe a whole host of blasphemous doctrines.

 

The plain fact is that Numbers 5:22 in no way, shape or form refers to abortion.

 

Here is the correct version of that verse:

 

 

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. -- KJV

 

Thigh -- Strong's Concordance for thigh means, guess what?, a thigh -- defined as "From an unused root meaning to be soft," "yârêk, yaw-rake'; from an unused root meaning to be soft; the thigh (from its fleshy softness); by euphemistically the generative parts; figuratively, a shank, flank, side:—× body, loins, shaft, side, thigh."

 

Rot -- Strong's Concordance for rot means, "nâphal, naw-fal'; a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):—be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (× hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, × surely, throw down."

 

Here are how most other Bible versions handled this verse:

 

 

and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy body to swell, and thy thigh to fall away. And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen. -- ASV

 

 

"May this water that causes the curse go into your inner parts and make your abdomen swell and your private parts shrivel up!"- and the woman is to respond, "Amen! Amen!" -- Complete Jewish Bible

 

 

'May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, Amen.' -- ESV

 

 

"May this water enter your stomach and cause it to swell up and your genital organs to shrink." The woman shall respond, "I agree; may the Lord do so." -- Good News Translation

 

 

'Let this water that delivers a curse enter your body so that your belly swells and your womb shrivels.' "Then the woman shall say, 'Amen. Amen.' -- The Message Bible

 

and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away." And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen." -- NASB

 

'Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel. ’ And the woman will be required to say, ‘Yes, let it be so.’ -- NLT

 

'may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, Amen.' -- RSV

 

 

And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make [thy] belly to swell, and [thy] thigh to perish. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. -- The Webster Bible

 

Many of these renderings speak of extremely unpleasant results for the unfaithful woman, but the only way to get abortion out of these verses is to have an agenda going in. Which speaks exactly to the Wescott/Hort motives in mis-translating their NIV version.

 

You managed to find one of these versions that so corrupts God's word that it inserts abortion where it is in no way intended. There are a couple more Bible versions that do that, all heavily influenced by the Wescott/Hort blasphemy.

 

Here it is from one of the most popular versions:

 

 

"May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”  Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” -- NIV

 

New International Version? No surprise there. That happens to be Wescott and Hort's crowning achievement in aiding and abetting Satan's war against God. Beware of any Bible version released with the title beginning with New. It's nothing new under the sun, just merely the serpent's old lies repackaged in a new binding.

 

Now, you can believe what you want to, but don't think that you can hang a whole theologically unsound and anti-Biblical doctrine on one word from a corrupt Bible version.



#10 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 03 April 2017 - 01:38 AM

Fjuri and Goku.

 

Here's the problem. You guys are relying on a corruption of God's Word as inflicted on the naive world by the likes of Wescott and Hort, two alleged "theologians" who deny the diety of Christ and believe a whole host of blasphemous doctrines.

 

The plain fact is that Numbers 5:22 in no way, shape or form refers to abortion.

 

Here is the correct version of that verse:

 

 

Thigh -- Strong's Concordance for thigh means, guess what?, a thigh -- defined as "From an unused root meaning to be soft," "yârêk, yaw-rake'; from an unused root meaning to be soft; the thigh (from its fleshy softness); by euphemistically the generative parts; figuratively, a shank, flank, side:—× body, loins, shaft, side, thigh."

 

Rot -- Strong's Concordance for rot means, "nâphal, naw-fal'; a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):—be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (× hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, × surely, throw down."

 

Here are how most other Bible versions handled this verse:

 

..........

 

Many of these renderings speak of extremely unpleasant results for the unfaithful woman, but the only way to get abortion out of these verses is to have an agenda going in. Which speaks exactly to the Wescott/Hort motives in mis-translating their NIV version.

 

You managed to find one of these versions that so corrupts God's word that it inserts abortion where it is in no way intended. There are a couple more Bible versions that do that, all heavily influenced by the Wescott/Hort blasphemy.

 

Here it is from one of the most popular versions:

 

 

New International Version? No surprise there. That happens to be Wescott and Hort's crowning achievement in aiding and abetting Satan's war against God. Beware of any Bible version released with the title beginning with New. It's nothing new under the sun, just merely the serpent's old lies repackaged in a new binding.

 

Now, you can believe what you want to, but don't think that you can hang a whole theologically unsound and anti-Biblical doctrine on one word from a corrupt Bible version.

 

I have no idea who Wescott or Hort is, nor is my understanding coming from any English translation or version of the Bible; it comes from my understanding of Judaism.

 

Yes, I know the word is literally "thigh". You probably missed it being buried in my posts, but I've said repeatedly that in Judaism the fetus is considered a "limb of the mother" which is usually referenced as the "thigh".

 

From the Encyclopedia of Judaism: https://books.google...judaism&f=false

 

Rashi, the great 12th-century commentator on the Hebrew Bible (see TORAH) and TALMUD, states clearly that the fetus is not a person. The Talmud contains the expression "ubar yerech imo - the fetus is as the thigh of its mother."

 

 

Goku says: So when you read in the "correct version", "thy thigh to rot", it means "thy fetus to rot".

 

Of course you can parse over which wording and phrasing is the most accurate out of the various translations, but the bottom line is that translated into contemporary English for the masses "abortion" is an accurate way to describe what is going on.

 

Just look at the various translations you gave: "thigh to rot", "thigh to waste away", "thigh fall away", "thigh to perish", "womb to shrivel", "private parts shrivel up". You really think it is talking about a literal "thigh" as in part of your leg? Do you really think this potion will cause her leg to fall off? Why are some of the 'good' translations substituting "thigh" with "private parts" and "womb"?

 

If the woman has been unfaithful and thus with child, what do you think is going to happen to the unborn child according to the passage? That the mother's leg will fall off and in several months she'll give birth to a baby?
 


  • Fjuri likes this

#11 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 April 2017 - 09:40 AM

Goku, you need to understand that in this topic I am not taking a stand on whether God is pro-abortion or pro-life. I am merely pointing out the correct interpretation of the words in Numbers 5:22.

 

To begin with, early Hebrews did not write the Bible. Scripture was penned by men inspired by God to write down everything that God told them to write ... word for word, letter by letter, even the little jots and tittles. See my posting in the topic, "Is the Bible God's Word" where I offer these little YouTube snippets as irrefutable proof:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=flbaJfRwYxM

https://www.youtube....h?v=pxYwLvtnoyc

 

Second, the Talmud is not canonical. It is merely made up of the opinions of Jewish scholars, and we all know how wrong they were about many things up to and including the first coming of Jesus Christ as Messiah. In fact, Jesus said about the most notable, scholarly, highest-ranked rabbis of the day that their father was the devil.

 

Third, you are right that often Scripture uses figures of speech to get a point across ... the word "thigh" being one of them. However, in the verse in contention here God's use of the word thigh and rot is not the least bit ambiguous. While God elsewhere in Scripture does show us extremely graphic illustrations of condemning to death those who come under his judgment, he makes it very clear and unambiguous that he is doing so. Also, in no case does he ever judge the unborn child and condemn him or her to death.

 

And speaking of the unborn. In literally every case where the preborn is mentioned he or she is described in human terms. They are called "baby," "child,"  and some even have names and refer to real people who have important missions after they are born and grow up. They are always referred to by personal pronouns. Nowhere in Scripture will you find God referring to the preborn as a non-human fetus, or as you say, a limb of the mother, like a thigh. That's something that was apparently made up by Hebrews with a who-knows-what agenda.

 

The interesting thing you'll notice when you research this topic, specifically Numbers 5:22, is that virtually all historical and current conservative Christian commentary comes down on the side of the correct interpretation. And that modern, liberal commentators, "new" Bible versions, and especially pro-abortion advocates come down on the side that wants to paint God as an abortion advocate. As I have harped on many times on this forum it always comes down to a person's worldview.

 

Finally, I was going to post some photos but I was grossing myself out. If you want to see what a rotting of the thighs does look like do a Google for "venereal disease rotting of the genitals". Numbers 5 in no way expresses that the wife being judged was pregnant, or that the drink was an abortifactent. But God very clearly does illustrate what could be the literal, dramatic result of adulterous s@x -- and Google has it in living color.

 

Bottom line? If your worldview swings that way and you want to see abortion in Numbers 5 you will see it. But, that doesn't make it Scripturally correct.



#12 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 03 April 2017 - 08:02 PM

Goku, you need to understand that in this topic I am not taking a stand on whether God is pro-abortion or pro-life. I am merely pointing out the correct interpretation of the words in Numbers 5:22.

 

To begin with, early Hebrews did not write the Bible. Scripture was penned by men inspired by God to write down everything that God told them to write ... word for word, letter by letter, even the little jots and tittles. See my posting in the topic, "Is the Bible God's Word" where I offer these little YouTube snippets as irrefutable proof:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=flbaJfRwYxM

https://www.youtube....h?v=pxYwLvtnoyc

 

 

I cannot express how absurd it is to me to say that the Jews didn't write the Torah. I understand the belief that "God dictated it all", I've heard that belief before and I am still in shock that people seriously believe that. As I understand it the individual writing personalities of the various authors do manifest in the Bible, especially when reading the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts despite that most English translations try to compress the differences and shift it to a style for their intended audience. Textual criticism for example is able to look at various parts of the Bible and determine who wrote what parts. My point is that I don't see why this would be if God dictated the Bible word for word stroke for stroke. Of course you can say that only shows the greatness of God to take the various personalities and language differences throughout time into these amazing number patterns, but I think Occam's razor is on my side.

 

I am not familiar with Ivan Panin's work, but in the past I've ran across various 'Bible codes' debating Christians and so far I haven't found anything that wasn't replicated in other non-biblical works....... A quick google search appears to confirm my past experiences.

 

This is from the Edgar Allen Poe link in the link below. For those not familiar with Panin's work he assigned a similar letter-number code and was obsessed with the number seven and multiples of seven:

 

http://users.cecs.an...ugim/panin.html

 

 

For this example, we will use numerical values for English letters assigned using the same pattern as used for Arabic, Greek and Hebrew.

  A=1   B=2   C=3   D=4   E=5   F=6   G=7   H=8   I=9
  J=10  K=20  L=30  M=40  N=50  O=60  P=70  Q=80  R=90
  S=100 T=200 U=300 V=400 W=500 X=600 Y=700 Z=800

We will analyse the famous first line of Poe's classic poem "The Raven":

   Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary

 

  • There are 7x7 letters.
  • The first and last words sum to 202x7, of which the first letters contribute 80x7.
  • The consonants in words starting with a consonant sum to 537x7.
  • The consonants in words ending with a consonant sum to 485x7, of which 192x7 comes from the odd length words and 293x7 from the even length words.
  • The consonants in words 2,4,6,8,10 sum to 177x7.
  • There are 7 words ending with consonants.
  • There are 3x7 consonants in words of even length.
  • Considering words 1,3,5,7,9,11:
    • There are 3x7 letters.
    • The even (2,4,6..) letters in each word total 138x7.
    • The last letters of each word total 205x7.
    • The first and last letters of each word total 51x7x7.
  • Considering the verb "pondered":
    • The first letter has value 10x7.
    • The vowels have total value 10x7.

In his original article, Charles wrote:

  There are a number of other objections to Panin's methodology 
  as well, which time does not permit me to go into.

It appears that Charles is just as good at writing numerical text as Poe was.

  • The sentence has 3x7 words and a total value of 143x7x7.
  • The first word has value 44x7.
  • Words ending in vowels have value 230x7.
  • Words ending in consonants have value 708x7.
  • The three pronouns total 40x7.
  • The words which start with a vowel and end with a consonant total 3x7x7x7.
  • Considering just words 2,4,6,8,...,20:
    • There are 6x7 letters.
    • The 3x7 letters in odd position in the sentence total 53x7x7.
    • The 3x7 letters in odd position in a word total 54x7x7.
    • The first letters total 163x7.
    • The consonants total 408x7.

 

 

 

Goku: In addition it appears Mr. Panin fudged the data on his last 12 verses of Mark he talked about in the video. From one of the links from the site above (emphasis in the original): http://users.cecs.an...panin_mark.html

 

 

 

Everyone familiar with the history of the Greek New Testament knows that there are very many editions.  The primary reason for this is that they follow the decisions of editors who have different degrees of access to early manuscripts and different opinions on how discrepancies between them should be resolved.  The result of this subjectivity is that, apart from intentional reprintings, all the editions differ from one another.  Sometimes the differences are small, and sometimes they are large, but almost any difference is harmful to Panin's results.  That is because many of Panin's patterns rely on the exact words, or even the exact letters, that appear in the text.

 

Panin used the edition of Westcott and Hort as the "basis" for his work, but very often made use of the many alternative readings that those authors suggested.  He was prepared to pick and choose almost arbitrarily from the variations, meaning that in fact he was really working with a huge number of texts, few of them corresponding to any real manuscript.  After this deliberate tweaking of the text to make his patterns work, he then calculated "probabilities" without taking that tweaking into account.  Panin even published his own Greek text, carefully tweaked to provide the patterns that he most liked.

 

Panin believed that he was reconstructing the original text, but his logic was circular.  By deliberately designing the patterns himself by tweaking the text, he eliminated his own argument that the patterns proved an original design.  The very most he could logically conclude was that his attempt to produce patterns had been successful.

 

Ken Smith of Brisbane did an investigation which proves our point forcefully.  Panin's report on the last twelve verse of Mark begins with the observation that there are 175 = 25x7 words in the Greek text.  If that much is wrong, it is obvious that many other things will be wrong also.  So Ken collected a large number of editions and counted the words in that passage.  Here are his findings.
 
 

Edition Words Elzevir's edition of Textus Receptus (1624) 166 Wilson (1864) 165 Alford (1874) 166 Westcott and Hort (1881) 172 Weymouth (1886) 167 Nestle (1898) 168 Souter (1902) for Accepted Version 166 ditto, for Revised Version 168 Nestle (1904) 168 Souter (1910) 168 Huck (1936) 167 Souter (1947) 169 British and Foreign Bible Society (1958) 168 Tasker (1961) 165 Nestle/Aland (1975) 170 Huck/Greeven (1981) 168

 

 

 

 

Goku: I don't want to end up copy-pasting the entire site, but a satirical refutation of Panin's work is also given which I found most amusing: http://users.cecs.an...im/vis6006.html

 

 

Second, the Talmud is not canonical. It is merely made up of the opinions of Jewish scholars, and we all know how wrong they were about many things up to and including the first coming of Jesus Christ as Messiah. In fact, Jesus said about the most notable, scholarly, highest-ranked rabbis of the day that their father was the devil.

 

I don't think explaining what certain words mean in their cultural context - i.e. thigh = fetus -  requires any special divine sanction. At least for me once this knowledge is known the entire section of Numbers 5 we're looking at is as straight forward as can be.

 

Third, you are right that often Scripture uses figures of speech to get a point across ... the word "thigh" being one of them. However, in the verse in contention here God's use of the word thigh and rot is not the least bit ambiguous. While God elsewhere in Scripture does show us extremely graphic illustrations of condemning to death those who come under his judgment, he makes it very clear and unambiguous that he is doing so. Also, in no case does he ever judge the unborn child and condemn him or her to death.

 

And speaking of the unborn. In literally every case where the preborn is mentioned he or she is described in human terms. They are called "baby," "child,"  and some even have names and refer to real people who have important missions after they are born and grow up. They are always referred to by personal pronouns. Nowhere in Scripture will you find God referring to the preborn as a non-human fetus, or as you say, a limb of the mother, like a thigh. That's something that was apparently made up by Hebrews with a who-knows-what agenda.

 

I don't think Numbers 5 is ambiguous at all; knowing that the fetus is referred to as the thigh of the mother in Judaic culture makes the passage clear as day to me.

 

18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

 

Revelation 2:18-23 KJV

 

As you can see in the above passage God actually has no problem killing children to punish the mother. Of course you can always pull out Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the inequity of the father". That is one passage I leaned on as a believer, but then there's passages like Numbers 14:18 which states (God speaking), "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." And of course there is the famous last plague of Egypt where the firstborn of every Egyptian was killed because of the hardened heart of Pharaoh (another topic altogether). There's also all the "kill everyone in the city" and "kill everyone who is not a female virgin" passages which would obviously include pregnant women. The Bible is not exactly consistent on various doctrine, but my point is that there are many instances where God does in fact kill (or orders his chosen people to kill) children including fetuses for the sins of their parents and/or society. I see no reason to think the fetus of an adulterer would be spared.

 

And speaking of the unborn. In literally every case where the preborn is mentioned he or she is described in human terms. They are called "baby," "child,"  and some even have names and refer to real people who have important missions after they are born and grow up. They are always referred to by personal pronouns. Nowhere in Scripture will you find God referring to the preborn as a non-human fetus, or as you say, a limb of the mother, like a thigh. That's something that was apparently made up by Hebrews with a who-knows-what agenda.

 

The interesting thing you'll notice when you research this topic, specifically Numbers 5:22, is that virtually all historical and current conservative Christian commentary comes down on the side of the correct interpretation. And that modern, liberal commentators, "new" Bible versions, and especially pro-abortion advocates come down on the side that wants to paint God as an abortion advocate. As I have harped on many times on this forum it always comes down to a person's worldview.

 

Finally, I was going to post some photos but I was grossing myself out. If you want to see what a rotting of the thighs does look like do a Google for "venereal disease rotting of the genitals". Numbers 5 in no way expresses that the wife being judged was pregnant, or that the drink was an abortifactent. But God very clearly does illustrate what could be the literal, dramatic result of adulterous s@x -- and Google has it in living color.

 

Bottom line? If your worldview swings that way and you want to see abortion in Numbers 5 you will see it. But, that doesn't make it Scripturally correct.

 

So the Hebrews didn't write (nor understood) the Torah despite physically writing it, and they made up what the Torah says for some unknown agenda, yet God has revealed to the conservative Christians what the Torah actually means? That is a dizzying world view.

 

The Jews are not pro-abortion, and plenty will call it a sin; it's just not "murder".

 

In Numbers 5 the test is done because the wife may or may not have been cheating, and the only way the test comes back positive is if she was cheating. As we all know cheating often leads to pregnancy, and unless you want to say God supernaturally kept the woman from getting pregnant I think we have to assume that she is pregnant. What do you think the drink does; give the woman herpes or something if she cheated? 

 

Bottom line? If your worldview swings that way and you don't want to see abortion in Numbers 5 you will not see it. But, that doesn't make it Scripturally correct.

 

I would say the same thing back to you, only with the added emboldened "don't" and "not".



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 April 2017 - 02:39 AM

 

 

Goku: The Bible is not exactly consistent on various doctrine, but my point is that there are many instances where God does in fact kill (or orders his chosen people to kill) children including fetuses for the sins of their parents and/or society. I see no reason to think the fetus of an adulterer would be spared.

 

It's funny that atheists usually use examples of God killing in the bible to say God is evil, and is guilty of atrocities against humanity.

 

But now your argument seems to be that because God kills, it is okay for Godless humans to kill the unborn. This is essentially a clear contradiction and a position-shift. Even if somehow God and Christians would be guilty - my argument was that atheists have committed atrocities by aborting billions. That's if we simplistically see it all as, "killing" in an ambigious context. So if you are saying, "ahh but you guys do the same, so does God", that argument isn't true, but even if it was true, that wouldn't mean that an atheist Godless society hasn't committed the atrocity of killing billions of unborn. It would lump you in - which is my point, that atheists only talk about "atrocity" when talking about religion, but seem to think they haven't any on their own list. 

 

Lol.

 

If God kills and you say He can't be God and is immoral, as athiests, then you can't say that your own killings of the unborn is moral, because God okays it in the bible.

 

Use your brain, instead of endlessly pouring out many paragraphs without stopping to realise that you are using a type of reason which isn't valid.

 

You can't read abortion into the bible. You can't show a passage where God is saying that if the mother doesn't want a child while pregnant, it is okay to kill it. Logically, to win the debate, you have to show where it clearly condones this particular thing, a passage giving punishment for miscarriage is not the same thing at all. (nice try though, but I'm not stupid, despite your patronising attempts to use scriptures ambiguously like the racists do to try and say racism is in the bible.)

 

Furthermore, it would be rather absurd from a biblical point of view, that God would give the command to go forth and multiply, and give us the context and purpose of marriage, and then say it's okay to murder the unborn child. It's clear that God's idea and plan for reproduction is a family, so it would be a blatant contradiction, to murder the family

 

Your attempts to say the bible is saying X because a non-biblical source says X is basically an assumption of atheism. You repeat this error many times. (argumentum ad nauseam)

 

Until you learn that in debate you  have to offer up sound argumentation, you will continue to offer many words of rhetoric.

 

EXHIBIT A;

 

 

 

Goku: I cannot express how absurd it is to me to say that the Jews didn't write the Torah. I understand the belief that "God dictated it all", I've heard that belief before and I am still in shock that people seriously believe that. As I understand it the individual writing personalities of the various authors do manifest in the Bible, especially when reading the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts 

 

This is a classic example of Gokuese rhetoric.

 

Firstly and indeed logically, if men don't live forever and God wants them to write the bible over centuries, then it's tautologous that there will be many authors, especially if God wants to establish the bible over a period of time for His own purposes.

 

Secondly, it wouldn't matter if they were Jewish. Our belief as Christians is that the bible is the word of God, meaning you can't use any other Jewish book to argue that the bible says something, without us assuming your atheism for you.

 

The books of the bible, being written by Jewish people, and the talmud being written by Jewish people, is of no consequence, for if the pharisees had written the New Testament saying Christ wasn't the Messiah then their version of history would be false, despite them being Jewish.

 

You go on these long tirades to hide the logic you are using, but you haven't succeeded - abortion, by definition is murder, and a Godless society has committed it. Killing a pretty well formed child in the womb, is no different from outside the womb. Do you think if you put a one year old child in an opaque sack and kill him, that it isn't murder?

 

Sorry, but you are all too ready to say God has committed atrocities in the O.T as atheists. Now you are saying it is okay to kill and commit atrocities because God does. He doesn't because God invented life so has the right to take it, and His motives are righteous. 

 

So when it favours you God is right and when it doesn't God is a tyrant that commits atrocities?

 

No sale. 

 

Nope. God is God, He punished because of sin, which has nothing to do with killing for the motive of unwanted pregnancy.

 

Conclusion: if atheists are going to talk about atrocities as the killing of innocents, then they have the largest number - billions of unborn, formed children a lot of the time.

 

At the very least Goku, you should see that is isn't fair to lay the blame at the foot of, "religion", and just justify and make excuses for the killings when they come under "Godlessness/atheism". Conspicuously trying to wriggle out of this, is only going to make it worse for you, not better, because you can't win this debate, by arguing a double standard where it's okay for atheists to kill and it not be atrocity, but any killing from religion, is atrocity.

 

Define, "atrocity" specifically, please. Then we will compare it with the common usage.



#14 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 04 April 2017 - 06:16 AM

So you think you are not religious?

I get a chuckle out of people who claim dogmatically (usually most people that claim to be atheist) they are not religious. In most cases such people have pulled a dichotomy and are just as demandingly anti God as they once were pro God! I find it their dogmatic demanding point of view that is their maajor dysfuntional as part of their personality. Often their demandingness is transfered to other concepts of their personal belief system!

Jesus once said, "You search heaven and earth to create one proselyte and turn him into twice the son of hell as you are." Atheists aren't very forgiving of those of us who believe in God.

Jesus further commented on the attitude some that allege (dogmatically) there is no God seem to share! Jesus: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father."

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.

When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."

 

No I don't think, I know I'm not religious.

 

Do you class all atheists as alleged atheists or just the ones that did have a belief in a god but now don't?



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 April 2017 - 10:13 AM

Galileo

No I don't think, I know I'm not religious.

LOL Which means you don't think you think. Ridiculous. Make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear!
"I am not saying what I am saying." Everyone has a belief system (philosophy of life or relgion by another name).

Do you class all atheists as alleged atheists or just the ones that did have a belief in a god but now don't?

I don't think you or anyone is qualified to say who can't exist as our information base is finite. For example I have three brothers. If you can't name them why should I believe you somehow know who can't exist in the whole universe? What are their names? You know people I don't know. I know people you don't know. Just because you don't know someone does not mean they don't exist. Think! You would have to be all knowing (a god) yo know who can't exist. Your claim "no God" is therefor self refuting.



#16 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 April 2017 - 11:30 PM

It's funny that atheists usually use examples of God killing in the bible to say God is evil, and is guilty of atrocities against humanity.

 

But now your argument seems to be that because God kills, it is okay for Godless humans to kill the unborn. This is essentially a clear contradiction and a position-shift. Even if somehow God and Christians would be guilty - my argument was that atheists have committed atrocities by aborting billions. That's if we simplistically see it all as, "killing" in an ambigious context. So if you are saying, "ahh but you guys do the same, so does God", that argument isn't true, but even if it was true, that wouldn't mean that an atheist Godless society hasn't committed the atrocity of killing billions of unborn. It would lump you in - which is my point, that atheists only talk about "atrocity" when talking about religion, but seem to think they haven't any on their own list. 

 

Lol.

 

If God kills and you say He can't be God and is immoral, as athiests, then you can't say that your own killings of the unborn is moral, because God okays it in the bible.

 

Use your brain, instead of endlessly pouring out many paragraphs without stopping to realise that you are using a type of reason which isn't valid.

 

Whether or not God is evil is a completely separate question to whether or not God views abortion as murder.

 

Dave said that no where in the Bible does God condemn an unborn child to death, and that's just incorrect. The God of the Bible on more than one occasion has punished children for the sins of their parents and/or society; so punishing an unborn child for the infidelity of the mother is not out of character no matter how much you protest, and the God of the Bible has ordered the killing of pregnant women (while also sparing the young female virgins). I see no reason to think an unborn child holds any special significance in God's eye.

 

You can't read abortion into the bible. You can't show a passage where God is saying that if the mother doesn't want a child while pregnant, it is okay to kill it. Logically, to win the debate, you have to show where it clearly condones this particular thing, a passage giving punishment for miscarriage is not the same thing at all. (nice try though, but I'm not stupid, despite your patronising attempts to use scriptures ambiguously like the racists do to try and say racism is in the bible.)

 

Furthermore, it would be rather absurd from a biblical point of view, that God would give the command to go forth and multiply, and give us the context and purpose of marriage, and then say it's okay to murder the unborn child. It's clear that God's idea and plan for reproduction is a family, so it would be a blatant contradiction, to murder the family

 

Your attempts to say the bible is saying X because a non-biblical source says X is basically an assumption of atheism. You repeat this error many times. (argumentum ad nauseam)

 

Until you learn that in debate you  have to offer up sound argumentation, you will continue to offer many words of rhetoric.

 

The Bible clearly allows abortion if the mother was cheating on her husband as seen in Numbers 5. The point of the Exodus passage is that biblical law works under the assumption that the fetus is not a living soul like you or me; destroying a fetus is not "murder".

 

The Bible doesn't say that abortion is good or anything, but it does contradict your assertion that abortion is "murder".

 

I use the understanding of traditional Judaism because whether you like it or not the Torah was written by the Hebrews for the Hebrews. I submit that they know what their own holy text means better than modern day Christians following a different religious tradition which is far removed from traditional Judaism in both culture and language.

 

Firstly and indeed logically, if men don't live forever and God wants them to write the bible over centuries, then it's tautologous that there will be many authors, especially if God wants to establish the bible over a period of time for His own purposes.

 

Secondly, it wouldn't matter if they were Jewish. Our belief as Christians is that the bible is the word of God, meaning you can't use any other Jewish book to argue that the bible says something, without us assuming your atheism for you.

 

The books of the bible, being written by Jewish people, and the talmud being written by Jewish people, is of no consequence, for if the pharisees had written the New Testament saying Christ wasn't the Messiah then their version of history would be false, despite them being Jewish.

 

1) I have no idea what you are trying to argue; I was saying that it requires far less mental gymnastics to say the authors of the Bible actually wrote the Bible rather than having it dictated to them from God as if they were some mindless secretary because of things like the authors' personalities coming through the text.

 

2) So in order to use the Jewish Oral Torah which was explicitly made to explain and expand the Jewish Torah, in which Jewish tradition states the Talmud was originally given to Moses from God as the Oral Torah, we must assume atheism?

 

Are you saying that Jews who use the Jewish Oral Torah are atheists?

 

You go on these long tirades to hide the logic you are using, but you haven't succeeded - abortion, by definition is murder, and a Godless society has committed it. Killing a pretty well formed child in the womb, is no different from outside the womb. Do you think if you put a one year old child in an opaque sack and kill him, that it isn't murder?

 

Abortion, by definition, is not murder according to your God.

 

I do not support late term abortions except for legitimate medical reasons. If someone attacks a woman late in her pregnancy and the fetus dies I wouldn't mind if the attacker was charged with murder. Ironically, that means you are closer to my position than to God's.

 

Sorry, but you are all too ready to say God has committed atrocities in the O.T as atheists. Now you are saying it is okay to kill and commit atrocities because God does. He doesn't because God invented life so has the right to take it, and His motives are righteous.

 

I haven't said any of those things in this thread; the whole point I've been making about abortion is that you accuse atheists of "murder" due to abortion, yet abortion is not "murder" according to your own God.

 

How do you not see that by saying "because God invented life so has the right to take it", you are saying it is okay for God to be as evil as he wants?

 

Imagine, hypothetically, I am a mad scientist and in my lab I invent a new life. This new life is sentient, intelligent, and feels pain and pleasure. Do I have the right to kill these beings at my whim simply because I invented them?

 

Conclusion: if atheists are going to talk about atrocities as the killing of innocents, then they have the largest number - billions of unborn, formed children a lot of the time.

 

At the very least Goku, you should see that is isn't fair to lay the blame at the foot of, "religion", and just justify and make excuses for the killings when they come under "Godlessness/atheism". Conspicuously trying to wriggle out of this, is only going to make it worse for you, not better, because you can't win this debate, by arguing a double standard where it's okay for atheists to kill and it not be atrocity, but any killing from religion, is atrocity.

 

Define, "atrocity" specifically, please. Then we will compare it with the common usage.

 

Why do you think abortion is an atheist thing? Most people that get abortions are religious.

 

I don't know what blame you think I am laying at the foot of religion; past all the laborious rhetoric my point is that you can't accuse atheists of murder due to abortion because abortion is not murder according to your God - i.e. it is an internal inconsistency for your world view.



#17 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 05 April 2017 - 12:49 AM

Galileo

LOL Which means you don't think you think. Ridiculous. Make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear!
"I am not saying what I am saying." Everyone has a belief system (philosophy of life or relgion by another name).

I don't think you or anyone is qualified to say who can't exist as our information base is finite. For example I have three brothers. If you can't name them why should I believe you somehow know who can't exist in the whole universe? What are their names? You know people I don't know. I know people you don't know. Just because you don't know someone does not mean they don't exist. Think! You would have to be all knowing (a god) yo know who can't exist. Your claim "no God" is therefor self refuting.

 

No, all that meant was that I have no ambiguity of whether I am religious or not. As regards to religion I have no belief system.

 

I made no claim of "no god" I simply have no belief in any god.



#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:48 AM

How "religious" you are is a measurement of how intense your belief(s). "No" is about as negative as can be! It definitely is not a "maybe"!  LOL



#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 April 2017 - 04:00 AM

Goku has done it again--misused the term "group". His failure to see everyone as an
individua hides the fact that neither I nor Mike are responsible for what someomne else does. I have never aborted anyone! Mike can speak for himself.

Claiminng a person "belongs" to a "group" as if there is some universal control that a group has over individuals results in discrimination. It is a misuse of the term.
Each person controls themselves based on the mental constructs they use at the time they process individual choices. A religion does not control us. That's why pesonification is so pernicious. "It" allows everyone to be guilty based on what some people choose ro do.

"Beliefs" or religion is mediated by cognition. Religion is not an entity which "always" causes someone to act in a consistant manner.

What Goku is doing is the same as me claiming Goku has killed people because he alleges atheism. I think it is best to see people as individuals. Goku seems to have a "religious" belief that states if one "member" of a group is guilty everyone in the group is guilty. Haven't we been here before? Isn't that what the civil rights moovement was all about--failure to see each of us as individuals?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#20 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 April 2017 - 10:04 AM

I cannot express how absurd it is to me to say that the Jews didn't write the Torah. I understand the belief that "God dictated it all", I've heard that belief before and I am still in shock that people seriously believe that.

 

Goku, you could have stopped right there and saved yourself a lot of time and trouble with the rest of the post. Since you don't believe that God is the author of his own words then you have totally nullified any argument you can make about what those words mean. All you can do is join the ranks of skeptics and debunkers who believe the Bible is fiction, written by mortal man.

 

Point of fact is that God has not given us Scripture for the enlightenment of non-believers. In fact Jesus explicitly says in Matt 13:11 that only believers can understand his teaching. To all others it is merely foolishness.

 

However, I would like to address one of your points.

 

Your example of the heptatic structure of Edgar Allen Poe's first line from "The Raven" doesn't even come close to refuting the fact of God's heptatic structure of the Bible.

 

To do so, you'd have to do the heptatic rendering for the whole first stanza. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering of the second stanza, and then one spanning the first two stanzas, where any breakdown in the structure ends the heptatic integrity. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering spanning the first, second and third stanzas. Then do a heptatic rendering spanning all the stanzas in the whole "The Raven" poem.

 

Once you have successfully accomplished that, do a similar paragraph by paragraph and chapter by chapter heptatic rendering of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart." Then do a heptatic rendering spanning both "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart," where the integrity of the sevens only works if both stories are included.

 

When you have successfully done that, repeat it for 28 of Poe's works. Be careful to find sevens that span all of those works where the integrity breaks down if even one of the works does not play to the count.

 

If you have successfully accomplished that then you have done what God provided in just one book of the Bible. The heptatic integrity holds for the entire book of Matthew, with its 18,345 words, 1,071 verses and 28 chapters. Congratulations. You have done what no human author (like EA Poe) could possibly do.

 

But, we are not finished.

 

Now, do a similar heptatic rendering of 16 of the novels and short stories by another author, say, Charles Dickens. That should be easy, right? You've already proven the heptatic integrity of 28 works of EA Poe. But, then you must do a heptatic rendering of those 28 Poe's works and those 16 Dickens' works, where the heptatic integrity depends on spanning both authors' works. Good luck with that. It should be easy, right? Especially since both authors lived relatively contemporaneously.

 

If you succeed at that, then you have just equaled the heptatic integrity that God gave us in only the first two books of the New Testament ... Matthew and Mark, with Mark's 11,304 words, 678 verses and 16 chapters. No sweat, right?

 

While you are resting after doing that, go ahead and do the same thing with the works of 25 more authors. I'll make it easy by letting you choose works by authors who lived and wrote within one lifespan's time in modern history. Please by sure that your heptatic rendering spans all the works from Matthew to Revelation, where each book's sevens integrity is dependent on each other book.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, don't count only vowels, consonents, syllables, and other grammar elements. Also count people's names, place names, elements of doctrine, number of miracles, etc. Don't leave anything out.

 

We're not done yet.

 

Before you can prove that the heptatic structure of all of the Bible's 66 books is man-made and not inspired by God, you'd have to do one more thing.

 

Do the same heptatic thing for about 49 ancient writers that you did for modern ones. Admittedly this will be a little more difficult because you'll have to find authors who penned their works spanning several thousands of years time, and dealing with different languages. Nothing newer than 400 BC. I'm thinking Homer, Virgil, Pliny, Aesop, for example.

 

Having accomplished that. We're almost finished now. All you have to do to refute God's inspiration in the writing of Scripture is do a heptatic rendering of vowels, consonents, syllables, words, names and place names that span all of the ancient works from the first to the last with all of the modern works from the first to the last, from the first ancient work to the last modern work.

 

(Sarc) Should be easy, right?(/Sarc)

 

Goku, if you don't finally admit that it can't be done by the human hand, then you just plain aren't thinking right. However, God did it with more than 40 authors who penned 66 books over thousands of years time.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users