Theres no appropriate title

oh...zab zab zab...you can't keep saying that...i understand your beliefs and that you are very strong in it....you know my view...but to put it bluntly and not offend you....but no...i do not accept christ as my savior...my faith is my savior...MY soul...My love for mankind...and MY beliefs...if they fall in line with your Christs' beliefs...all the better for everyone...but my faith if it differs from yours...is not one to be put upon by bold statements like that...i accept what i accept...i have asked myself that question..and i have answered it...my question for you...where is this proof? in the writings? the miracles that happen? coincidence...strange things happen for strange reasons...and i suppose putting a name and reason for it...helps people deal with it....and thats all good and well for me...and getting back to the original topic...

is abortion a moral issue...or a governing issue?

 

I just ask the question because I'm not going to go all the way thru with the mathematics of it if your mind is already made up. That's the only reason I'm asking-not to persuade you one way or the other-but more to see if you are open minded or not =)

 

EDIT: Nevermind this post you beat me to the punch. Ban![/QUOTE]

U can't ban me - u love me

 

Uhhh...evolution is just that. We weren't the same as we are now back then. And I'm sure the ratio of birth and death was quite different. People live longer nowadays....quite a bit longer...even from several hundred years ago.

You do know about the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, and all those other dudes? You are taking them into account, aren't you?

Oh, and all the people who died BECAUSE of religion? Are they in those equations?

When the atomic bombs went off, was it still just every 10 seconds 18 die?

During the Holocaust, did the nazis wait every 10 seconds to kill 18, or did they spread it out along those lines?

During the Black Plague, was this thing using a stopwatch?

During times of unwritten history, did they still remain true to this 18 per 10?

So, if people are living longer, then the ratio of those still around is greater.

If I run a fish pond, and suck at first, but find the right way to do it, I can boost my population by huge amounts. Maybe the first year I produce a thousand, sellable fish...but as I get better, in 5 years could be producing hundreds of thousands.

And the thing about evolution...it doesn't have to take millions of years....creatures can evolve over a few generations.

A well known unintended example of evolution is when people studying silver foxes started to become friendly with them...petting and hugging them, like they were pets...after several generations, the fur of theses foxes began to become mottled...like those of a dog. Browns and blacks and whites...splattered like paint.

That won't happen in a natural environment for the fox. But here, as the fox adapted to this "new" invironment, began changing...perhaps a way to stand out, to be the one to get the most attention.

Never the less, it evolved to it's new environment. Stay kept in a cage and no affection, or change and get all the attention. Don't know exactly why it happened, but it did.

Evolution isn't just about changing everything about a creature. It's about changing to your environment.

 

(FYI, I started writing this reply about 2 and a half hours ago, but got distracted by the Black & White 2 demo, and the possibility of Modding it, so several posts have happened between start and finish, and this reply may seem out of place at the time it gets posted )

God is an Alien from another planet.

He's out there, somewhere watching us.

And he's laughing at YOU.



That being said, I'll answer Mani's post directed to me personally

Faith is defined as a "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Religion is defined as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

I can have faith in a Greater power, but not believe in anything that any one religion has to say or offer. Just because some person said that it's true, that doesn't mean I have to believe it.
I may believe in some sort of "God" but that doesn't mean I have to believe or even accept something like one of the oldest and most well-read works of FICTION in existance. i.e. the Bible. (Yes, believe it or not, by definition, the Bible is a work of Fiction)
Catholicism, Methodist, Baptist, Mormon, Lutheran, etc, etc. None of them do anything for me.

I haven't really answered your questions directly, but I hope I gave some understanding on how I came to my Fact.

Next.

That's just it. Because of the ability to have different interpretations, we don't have to use the same definition. Nor do we have to use the same interpretation. We can talk about "God" and be talking about different interpretations, and yet, still be talking about the same person.

As for the "only God" question, nothing we have said detracts from that statement that there is only 1 God. Interpretation, lets us believe in different things, and yet still believe in the same thing.

You define God based on your own Faith.
It is your own beliefs that define what God is to you.
It is your own beliefs that define your Faith.
You find His definitions in your heart... What you truely believe, to your core.

Since anyone that has actually met "The God" personally is not speaking up and saying "Hey, this is what God is like. Here's a picture of Him and me having a cup of coffee, and a doughnut", we have to go on what we believe.

See, the thing is, I'm not trying to say which is right, and which is wrong.
The only thing I am here to do is live my life while finding out more about those around me. Just as I do not try to force my views on other people, I would hope that others would not try to force their views on me. Like I said, I'm all for having civilized discussions about topics like this, but I don't like being told that what I'm doing is wrong, and that I'm going to hell because I don't think the same thing you do.
The questions one has to ask themselves are these: How do I KNOW that what I am saying is right? How do I KNOW that what I am saying is truth? How do I KNOW that what I am saying is fact?
If someone answers anything else than "They are true to me because I have faith that they are. They may not be true to you, because your faith differs from mine, but they are true to me." then they are lying to themselves.

So Mani, I think I have found the answer to all of your questions in this thread, and they can all be answered by 1 word.

Faith.

The only objective truth is this and the only thing Certain is this:
Faith is subjective, and open to interpretation.
Be true to your faith, and you will be true to yourself.
But also know this, Faith evolves over time. What you may believe today, you may think is hogswallop this same time next year.

(FYI, if you read this to the end, and you didn't figure it out already... the Alien comment at the beginning was a joke.)




(Or was it? )

 

I can follow the math just fine. It's too bad that you can't.


Zabdiel, have you ever heard of the term "Exponential Growth" ?

Lets start with 1 person.
He tells 2 people a secret.
They all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.
Who in turn all each tell 2 people the secret.

How many people know the secret now? (I'll give you a hint... it's more than 1000)

Do you honestly believe that the Birth and Death rates have remained constant over the last 2000 years?

Do you honestly believe that they have been constant over the last 100 years?

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT YOUR MATH IS FLAWED AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?????

 

1536? Unless I misunderstood the question.

1 tells 2 = 3 now know.

3 people tell 2 each. = 6

6 people tell 2 each. = 12

then 12 X 2^7 = 1536 People Know the secret.




And yes. You cannot use the current Birth and death rates backwards to go back in time. Fully agreeing with Hamma, Chuk and Arglaar, Exponential Growth is what happens when there are far less Crusades, Raids, Pillages, Vikings, Pirates, Plundering, Slavery, Wars, Expeditions, and so on and many worldwide mass deaths so forth. When humans are allowed to 'settle', they will do just that, as well as reproduce much faster. That is why we have over 6 Billion people in the world today, there is much more Peace than there used to be.

 

Okay, lots of information to cover and it's early, so bear with me. I will try to deal with a few main points as best as I know how.

First, because it is one of the easiest to answer, is the question of evolution. I picked a few points from different people:
Chuk, you said -
"Oh...and as for Who made man.....Evolution is far more provable than who Cain went out and did to make a family. Oh wait, they don't really talk about that, now do they.

And that evolution occurs is a fact.

And who did the other children of Adam and Eve do to procreate? Isn't incest against this book some of you love to thump?"

Rayzer, you said -
"Evolution is not the introduction of new information into the genetic code, it is the combination of normal genetic makeup and genetic mutation that produces beneficial traits. And there are millions of examples of natural genetic mutation."
Evolution is not provable, and therefore is NOT a fact.
Let's make sure we have the correct definitions here first. Remember, matter cannot produce information or code on it's own, that is a proven observable fact. Natural selection, which is something different from molecules to man evolution, is an observable fact and is proved. But natural selection does not introduce new information, it simply adapts current known and available information within the DNA to the conditions it is experiencing. There is no added information. Evolution, molecules to man, requires new information. Thus, evolution is different than natural selection. Genetic mutation is generally harmful, although there may be mutations that are beneficial - but the key point here is whether there is any added information. For example, the fruit fly. "Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly." (AiG) No additional information. (Besides the fact intelligent manipulation is occuring.) "One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr. Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’ His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published." (AiG)

As for the very popular question about Cain's wife - he either married his sister or a close cousin. Those "Bible thumpers" are right about incest, but the laws for incest weren't written until later in human history. The reason they were written is to prevent the duplication of genetic errors which would cause birth defects (not that the early Hebrews knew genetics when writing their laws). If you support a creationist cosmology then you would accept the fact that Adam and Eve would have been created perfect genetically. No genetic defects - after their rebellion God cursed them and allowed death to enter His creation, thus introducing genetic defects. But this would take a while to manifest as the DNA copies were made through procreation. Eventually enough errors would be present that it would be dangerous for humans to marry close relations due to similar defects arising in the genetic code, thus the law prohibiting incest. (If you subscribe to a creationist cosmology, then all humans are related.)


testflight, you said -
"you are accepting of the death penalty then?"

Hamma, you said -
"You bring up a good point test on the death penalty. It's a bit hypocritical from my point of view to be against one but not another."
Why is it hypocritical? The death penalty is a sentence handed down by the courts as a penalty for one's illegal actions. Abortion is killing a human being who is not capable of any crime warranting the death sentence. (Granted we are in the debate over whether the baby is human or not.) If I support the death penalty as a just penalty for one's crimes, but also oppose aborting who I think are innocent human beings how is it hypocritical?

 

Hamma,

I will write it out tonight for you guys. How many proofs would you like.



Groundchuck
If I run a fish pond, and suck at first, but find the right way to do it, I can boost my population by huge amounts. Maybe the first year I produce a thousand, sellable fish...but as I get better, in 5 years could be producing hundreds of thousands.

So if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that we are trying to get better at repopulating the earth? & succeeding???

Why then, is there abortion?-seems like this would defeat the purpose

 

Hamma, you said -
"Because a life is a life is it not? Regardless of weather said life is -4 years old or 25 years old. That person still is a life according to what some tend to believe hm? Regardless of the circumstances it is still hypocritical."
Yes, life is life regardless of how that person has decided to live theirs. (Life as defined here can also be argued further because some say the unborn child is not a life at all. We are in the midst of this debate right now.) But, the circumstances are relevant. Depending on your view of human history, be it secular or Biblical, this will present different axioms from which to argue this point. I choose the Biblical one because that is the history I prefer to base my presupposition on. But even using a secular axiom, you still are faced with different definitions here.

If someone who has chosen to break the established law of the society they are in is caught and placed before the court system and given the due penalty for their actions, how can that be compared to someone who is not capable of breaking a law yet? The two are separate.

Now, using my axiom, any death in this world is an intrusion - it is something that was not meant to be originally. Death is a violation of life.
Using your axiom, or the secular, naturalistic one, death has always been here and is not an intrusion. It is a part of life and not an enemy.

 

so...from what im getting from this...these laws that we are making are morality and religious based? tho shalt not kill....church and state...whatever happend to keeping them seperated...yet we still have other laws that kill people...an eye for an eye (old testament i believe)...i may not believe that way yet i am forced to obey the laws from your religion? this reminds me of a point in history a loooong time ago...thought we took a boat to leave all that shit behind....

*sigh* what i wouldn't give for my own little island...

 

Wow, all the interesting points being made here make me realize why I enjoy CDL so much. We're such a diverse group of people, all with different opinions and stances, and yet we work pretty well together.

To those who are saying that if you're against abortion but for the death penalty then you're a hypocrit, I beg to differ. The death penalty is sentencing those to die who have ignored the laws and bi-laws that have been set before us by our legislature. Abortion is killing an innocent child who has not had a chance to do anything right or wrong with his/her life.

With that being said, my POV is this:

I agree with the death penalty...in theory.

I think that if a person is found guilty of taking another's life, then said person should, most certainly, be sentenced to death. However, we are human. We make mistakes. You can say the science is infallible (the DNA testing, and so on) but it is humans who are inserting the data by which we are using to send this person to death. You can't guarentee anything.

I would hate to know that I sentenced a person to death on evidence that was wrong. Therefore, I'd rather sentence a person to life in prision rather than make the mistake of sentencing them to death.

So I guess what I'm saying is the death penalty is a great idea gone horribly wrong. I'm going on the record here saying that in certain circumstances, yes I support the death penalty...in others, absolutely not.

 

Nicely said =)

 

I am pro-choice and against the death penalty.

 

The laws are not religiously based, although they are based on societal norms and prinicipals.

As far as your arguement, and others here, of the seperation of church and state here a few misconceptions about that cleared up.

There is nothing in the constitution which states "seperation of church and state". Because this phrase doesn't appear, the principle also doesn't appear within the constitution.

What everyone refers to when they discuss "seperation of church and state" is the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercixe thereof..."

I have never seen the government try to force any religion on anyone, nor have they established laws saying how you have to practice your religion.

If you want to get in a discussion about seperation of church and state, bring it. This is something that hits close to home for me seeing as I am a law student (hubby says I'm a lawyer to my very core) and once finished with law school, plan on continuing into politics. So if you want to discuss this point, we'll take it to a new thread so as not to clutter this one.

 

Thank you.

It's amazing how well my thoughts get put together when I've had some sleep.

 

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8).


You guys are philosphizing and practicing "empty deception" with someone who's belief is to ignore any thought other than Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. No matter what.

The mantra (while using the shout to get across or appear louder than all other posts) WOULD YOU ACCEPT CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOR????? defines the need or the "fingers in the ears" to your questions or your ideas.

Zabs belief tells him that he is right because he believes...he has faith. Not concrete evidence, not mathematical equations. Faith. He might come out and have some cool parlor tricks that might substantiate some of his claim but unless he brings out a picture of him and God sharing a beer at the local tavern - we will get nowhere with this discussion because even that would be refuted.

I know I don't have to define faith to you guys but I'm going to give a little insight into how I finally realized what faith was for me and finally understood the meaning of the word:

You ever play the game where your friends stand in front of you and you stand alone on a desk? You are told to close your eyes and fall then fall backwards? You are told your friends will catch you. But you didn't see them move behind you. You are unconditionally believing in something that is not there - you didn't see it so it must not be there for you people out there that need concrete evidence. You are told though...over and over that you will be caught. You know the pain if you fall, you realize the embarassment of humiliation if it really all was a cruel joke or prank. That is the fear.
So you make a choice right then and there - fall unconditionally hoping to be caught or opening your eyes and stepping down yourself.

 

BD, it is interesting you quote that verse. I stand by that verse in my life as well, and that is why I have taken the time to study the Bible to see what it is Christ really said and why He said it and who He said it to.