[Edward Bradshaw]

For b) I can say - how do you know it's not concious even in a small part?
Just a lump of "parasitic cells"? A brain is nothing but a bunch of cells.
Heck even trees and grass have some level of conciousness, at least according to the latest scientific research.
Is it then possible that a fetus does have some level of conciousness?

If thats the definition of conciousness then it evidently means nothing. If you cared about killing something with the consiousness of a tree and above you would have to kill yourself, as part of being human (and therefore an animal) is having in ingest and digest other organisms in order to survive.

A bunch of cells is not a baby. Chopping a tree down is not the equivalent of killing a dog.

[Ghostavo]

Herra Tohtori, if you had put

We are starstuff, we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out.

somewhere in that post, I would have thought that I was watching the Minbari in Babylon 5.

[Edward Bradshaw]

do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)

but that's just the point - I don't need any evidence (at least not anything you would accept as evidence).
Have you ever looked at what the wrod faith means in the dictonary?

Thats right. That is what faith means. Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence or when theres evidence to the contrary. Its believing for no reason against all reason.

You're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven (by basic logic - God is above the laws that govern this universe) and that is in a way illogical by itself

Isnt that rather convienient?

[NGTM-1R]

Isnt that rather convienient?

Isn't that rather irrevelant?

[Edward Bradshaw]

Isnt that rather convienient?

Isn't that rather irrevelant?

No?

[Goober5000]

That's how you interpret it. But then again you can point to other parts of the bible where you're saying God says one thing and the bible quite clearly states another. For instance you have claimed repeatedly that abortion is basically murder yet the bible doesn't claim this anywhere and in fact appears to give the underlying principle that until birth a baby isn't worth anything.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Explain to me how the underlying principle there isn't that the death of a foetus isn't considered murder by God? Cause as far as I can see you simply twist the underlying principle to fit whatever you want it to be.

That passage says nothing directly about whether it's murder or not; it merely describes the punishment.  In the same chapter, it specifies that the penalty for murdering a fellow Israelite is death, but the penalty for murdering a slave is merely "punishment" (probably a fine, in accordance with the other slavery examples).  So although they're both murder, they warrant different penalties.  I would assume the same would apply to the passage you quoted.

Other passages in the Bible, such as Psalm 51:5 and Luke 1:41, indicate that the unborn child counts as a human being even from conception.  So my interpretation is that deliberately killing an unborn child is murder.

And here was me thinking that God's Laws were meant to be God telling his people how to live not some politician who has to compromise based on what was the prevalent attitude at the time.

God is always described as working through a process.  Things happen over time, according to God's schedule, which is often much longer than humanity's schedule.  If God demanded perfection immediately, many people would view it as impossibly hard and give up before even trying.  God works by growing people (and civilizations) into maturity over time.

[TrashMan]

FYI, a brain is a bunch of cells with significant and unique EEG patterns indicating neurological responce (cognition) in response to stimuli.  Of course, we can ignore EEG readings and regard and clump of cells - say a mould infection, or a tumurous growth, as being the same as a human being.

I would note we can measure consciousness and cognition through EEG readings and also the physical capacity. Trashman, please try and form a semi-scientifically coherent arguement next time you attempt a ridiculous strawman.

Again, are EEG patterns == consiousness ? Are you really sure that this is the relation? Or are EEG patterns merely one of the visible sideeffects of human conciosuness (by adults)?đCan you realyl say that other types/forms of conciousness don't exist?

[TrashMan]

...

On another note, people allways seem to firget that everything written in the bible isn't a commandment from God.

The 10 Commandments are. The teachings of Jesus are.

Let's see how you react to this:

I don't think so.


See? I just made just as valid an argument as you did. You say they are god's commandments, I doubt it very much since I find the whole existence of such a being in the first place very much a doubtable thing, and so do quite a few other people. Actually

That some people belive that bible/parts of it are word from God doesn't necessarily make them so. If they are, they are, but they might as well not be. I have no knowledge of such a thing, just a word from some people who say that the commandments are what they claim to be...

This, however, does not really lead to anything because there are quite a few different opinions considering the Bible, and even more considering every other holy book ever written/inspired/whatever. These opinions are also called beliefs or perceptions and they are difficult to change, so I just say that you may have your belief of what Bible is and I have my own, and as long as it keeps between our ears it's just that - our own opinion.

However, when we start debating some matter (subject not relevant) and start making arguments and counter-arguments based on those personal beliefs, things get more difficult to define.

My opinion is that authorities and dogmae are a worse thing to have in your head than ability to think through things yourself. Even if they came from God, which I doubt very much.

Your opinion is (apparently, correct if I'm very wrong) that some of the claimed commandments from God are guidelines that should be followed because of the factoid that they came from God.

I think most of the "commandments" areImmanuel Kant completely with reason just a bunch of applications of common sense. And as I've said, there is even a philosophical formalization of moral/ethic principle that practically equals the core of christianity, and it was derived by ing. Basically it says that you should always act according to a way that could in your opinion become a common moral guideline.

Which is excactly the same thing Jesus said about doing to others what you would like to be done to yourself. It's just philosophy, granted it's a good idea but I don't see the point in following rules just because they exist.

No, I'm not an anarchist; I understand the need of laws and happen to agree with both of them, and even if I don't agree with them I still do as they say... but I don't understand why there should be any kind of a common set of moral rules as absolute truths. People should figure out those things themselves. After all, looking back at history, telling people what to do or how to think has not worked nearly perfectly. People tend to do what they feel to be right, regardless of what they're told to be right.

There are reasons for most of the rules mentioned in the Bible, but many of those rules I don't agree with, because I don't agree with the reasons behind them. If there are no reasons specified, I don't see any point of agreeing with the rule, unless I can think of good enough reason by myself.

Well, you certanly are intilted to your own oppinion.

You don't have to agree with the Churches interpretation of some things, especially if you're not Catholic - indeeed it is your perogative.
The Church however did not make those interpretations lightly - a lot of research, time and debating was undertaken before they were made. So I belive the Churchs version and not only becouse they make perfect sense... If you want to belive that makes me a mindless drone without a oppinion, fine. I really couldn't care less..


Consequently, trying to apply you faulty logic to God is doomed to faliure.

If God is above the universe (he created it) how can you prove his existance unless he wants you to? He can change the laws of physics at whim and leave no trace of his deeds if he wants to.

then again, what would you accept as proof? Practicly anything can be illusion made by someone else - you will ALLWAYS be able to find another explanation for it (if anything else, mass halucination)

[aldo_14]

FYI, a brain is a bunch of cells with significant and unique EEG patterns indicating neurological responce (cognition) in response to stimuli.  Of course, we can ignore EEG readings and regard and clump of cells - say a mould infection, or a tumurous growth, as being the same as a human being.

I would note we can measure consciousness and cognition through EEG readings and also the physical capacity. Trashman, please try and form a semi-scientifically coherent arguement next time you attempt a ridiculous strawman.

Again, are EEG patterns == consiousness ? Are you really sure that this is the relation? Or are EEG patterns merely one of the visible sideeffects of human conciosuness (by adults)?đCan you realyl say that other types/forms of conciousness don't exist?

Yup.

Read up on EEG.

[karajorma]

That's how you interpret it. But then again you can point to other parts of the bible where you're saying God says one thing and the bible quite clearly states another. For instance you have claimed repeatedly that abortion is basically murder yet the bible doesn't claim this anywhere and in fact appears to give the underlying principle that until birth a baby isn't worth anything.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Explain to me how the underlying principle there isn't that the death of a foetus isn't considered murder by God? Cause as far as I can see you simply twist the underlying principle to fit whatever you want it to be.

That passage says nothing directly about whether it's murder or not; it merely describes the punishment.  In the same chapter, it specifies that the penalty for murdering a fellow Israelite is death, but the penalty for murdering a slave is merely "punishment" (probably a fine, in accordance with the other slavery examples).  So although they're both murder, they warrant different penalties.  I would assume the same would apply to the passage you quoted.

So in other words God attibutes a lesser value to the lives of slaves and unborn children. He doesn't condone slavery but he thinks that the life of a slave is worth less than that of a fellow Israelite.

Other passages in the Bible, such as Psalm 51:5 and Luke 1:41, indicate that the unborn child counts as a human being even from conception. So my interpretation is that deliberately killing an unborn child is murder.

And that's the thing. It is an interpretation. It isn't a hard and fast rule. I could use the verse from exodus to interpret the bible as saying the exact opposite thing to what you're saying. The bible doesn't say abortion is wrong. It doesn't say that abortion is murder and it doesn't say that that the unborn child is even alive.

You believe those things and have interpreted the bible to reinforce that view. That's your choice but it does mean that you can't use the bible as evidence that your position is in any way correct as the same evidence can just as easily be read to mean the exact opposite of your point of view. 

God is always described as working through a process.  Things happen over time, according to God's schedule, which is often much longer than humanity's schedule.  If God demanded perfection immediately, many people would view it as impossibly hard and give up before even trying.  God works by growing people (and civilizations) into maturity over time.

Fair enough but how many of the things currently in the bible are still wrong. How many are against God's Plan? Had someone claimed during the time of the OT that slavery was wrong all the Jews would have been up in arms about it. The bible quite clearly stated God's views on slavery and it was okay as long as you enslaved the right kinds of people.

You now say that God is against slavery but because humans weren't ready for that yet it was regulated. Fine. But how do you know that other views you currently believe are also true and fully endorsed by God aren't actually similar regulations? And that at some point in the future God won't clarify them better too? It's quite possible that things you believe to be part of God's plan were actually simply included just because it would be too hard to get people not to accept them.

[Herra Tohtori]

TrashMan, it's quite obvious to me that you are no more a mindless drone than I am. Sorry if I gave out that impression.


What I was saying is that people who accept the teachings of the church as is without considering the option that the church in all its wisdom might yet be wrong, are more of such. Not completetly mindless in every day actions, of course, but rather in perspective of moral/ethical thinking.

It's easy enough to do what you are told if you just believe it's right. But the problem is that not all churches can be "right". When churches disagree with each other, I don't really see how anyone could prefer one singular teaching just because they think their church has made the one correct interpretations of things so obscure that they could literally mean anything one wants them to mean.


It's completely different if and when you think that the teachings of the church make complete sense. That obviously means that you have spent at least some time figuring out the reasons behind the rules. Well, that's a good thing, and if you really think the rules and guidelines preferred by your church have solid arguments - other than "it's God's word", "church says so, so it must be so", and "it's just the right thing", that is - so be it. In that case it's no more dependant of beliefs than my perception, because you've made your own choices on to what believe.

But can you really "make complete sense" out of all teachings of church? Can you back up all the teachings of your particular denomination by logical basis? Because that's what you're effectively saying by this?

So I belive the Churchs version and not only becouse they make perfect sense...

Remember that three things I said I do not consider valid arguments as themselves. They were

-I think church is right, so I believe in their perceptions (authoritarian belief, making you more of a mindless drone)

-That's what God told us (one form of the latter, thinking that your perception of what God meant is the correct one)

-I think that's just right thing to do (applying your personal moral beliefs [most likely greatly affected by the rules and guidelines of church] to matter without further thought)


These arguments I would never want to see in a debate like this, because no one can basically say anything against these. The church may well be wrong, considering there are thousands of different kind of church in the world. Therein, the things you believe God told us may be misinterpreted, misused and even invented. And applying your personal moral set of beliefs to a stiuation involving other people is not really a good basis for arguments.

So, the difference between us would be this:

-I agree to any church's teaching, if it makes sense to me. But I don't see any reason why one would need religion to tell one how to think.

-You, as you said, believe the Church's version not only because it makes complete sense to you. So, instead of choosing to agree or disagree based solely on reasoning and logics, you seem to have an underlying principle saying that this Church is most likely correct in their interpretations.


About the concept of God and proving her existence... Well, what can I say? If a powerful being came into my house, talked things to me and did seemingy physically impossible things, I would have two options.

-I could think I've gone mental, but that's unlikely.
-I could note that there seems to be a powerful being existing in the universe, capable of seemingly altering the laws of physics as we know them.

I would probably do the latter option. But accepting that this creature would be of divine origin...? No, I wouldn't probably think so. After all, a creature is a creature, and as such any sentient creatures are worth the same in my books. God-like creature may have more power, knowledge and skill and in different things than humans, but that still makes him nothing more than a powerful sentient creature.

What would this powerful being have to do that you would accept it to be God? Say so? "Hi, I'm your God. Kneel before me." Would that suffice to you? I don't think it would suffice to me... It would just be a powerful being saying those words. In other words, I not only disbelief in God, but also think that the very concept of God is flawed to the roots.

But that's just me...

[Goober5000]

So in other words God attibutes a lesser value to the lives of slaves and unborn children. He doesn't condone slavery but he thinks that the life of a slave is worth less than that of a fellow Israelite.

Apparently so.  But then, wouldn't murdering a king carry a greater penalty than murdering a civilian (for example)?  Graduated punishment isn't unheard-of.

God is always described as working through a process.  Things happen over time, according to God's schedule, which is often much longer than humanity's schedule.  If God demanded perfection immediately, many people would view it as impossibly hard and give up before even trying.  God works by growing people (and civilizations) into maturity over time.

Fair enough but how many of the things currently in the bible are still wrong. How many are against God's Plan? Had someone claimed during the time of the OT that slavery was wrong all the Jews would have been up in arms about it. The bible quite clearly stated God's views on slavery and it was okay as long as you enslaved the right kinds of people.

You now say that God is against slavery but because humans weren't ready for that yet it was regulated. Fine. But how do you know that other views you currently believe are also true and fully endorsed by God aren't actually similar regulations? And that at some point in the future God won't clarify them better too? It's quite possible that things you believe to be part of God's plan were actually simply included just because it would be too hard to get people not to accept them.

The same sort of situation arises when the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce:

Matthew 19:3-9
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Because the people weren't ready for a complete ban on divorce, the OT law allowed divorce with certain regulations.  Because OT (and NT) people weren't ready for a complete ban on slavery, the OT law allowed slavery with certain regulations.

Your last point is quite right... I don't know that there are or aren't things that are permitted currently but which aren't God's true intentions.  However I'm fairly sure that there would be hints to point the way.

[karajorma]

Apparently so.  But then, wouldn't murdering a king carry a greater penalty than murdering a civilian (for example)?  Graduated punishment isn't unheard-of.

But the punishment for killing an unborn child is actually non-existant in this case since beating a woman who wasn't pregnant carried pretty much the same sentence.

To use your analogy if the punishment for killing a king was death but the punishment for killing a civilian was a £10 fine wouldn't you be forced to conclude that whoever made the laws considered the life of a civilian to be worth very little?

Because the people weren't ready for a complete ban on divorce, the OT law allowed divorce with certain regulations.  Because OT (and NT) people weren't ready for a complete ban on slavery, the OT law allowed slavery with certain regulations.

Your last point is quite right... I don't know that there are or aren't things that are permitted currently but which aren't God's true intentions.  However I'm fairly sure that there would be hints to point the way.

Thing is though if you look at the OT people weren't ready to worship only one God either. I don't see any examples in the bible of him letting that one slide. Looks like God is willing to lay down the law when it concerns him personally.

[Mathwiz6]

So in other words God attibutes a lesser value to the lives of slaves and unborn children. He doesn't condone slavery but he thinks that the life of a slave is worth less than that of a fellow Israelite.

Apparently so.  But then, wouldn't murdering a king carry a greater penalty than murdering a civilian (for example)?  Graduated punishment isn't unheard-of.

So... god ain't democratic? Communist!

[aldo_14]

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "

[Wobble73]

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "

Dave Allen right?

[aldo_14]

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "

Dave Allen right?

Nope.

[Kazan]

carlin

[aldo_14]

Nope.......

ok, no more 'nope' replies unless someone gets it   Very interesting to see who it's being attributed to, though.

[Wobble73]

It's definately Dave Allen, I remember it vividly, I can even hear his lovely Irish brogue as I read the lines!! I'm sure!!