Shila

Welll, when the Supreme Court has 3 of the dumbest judges to ever sit on the court, that can happen.

No, it makes us laugh. It is like watching people cheer for a boy band cover of a Beatles song. 

What rite of catholicism do you follow and which version of the Vatican documents do you adhere to?

Do you have a particular theologian you prefer? Is it Aquinas? Do you like a certain systematic theology textbook you prefer?

Should we start by pointing out that you responded with a non sequitur? Or just that you are using a rhetorical fallacy of appealing to popularity?

Does it matter to you that there are more Hindus than Christians so you are a minority?

When you are ever ready to have a productive conversation in which you deal with issues at hand and recognize your own ignorance about Judaism, let me know. Till then I'll just watch your ineffective trolling and giggle. 

So when in Kings a man is resurrected it became an actual thing in Judaism, well before Jesus was born, died and failed to fulfill anything akin to the role of messiah for so, so many reasons. And if Jesus was resurrected then he already had a second coming and failed twice. Great job.

And, yes, a prediction incorporates a concept. One cannot predict something which isn't an idea, so in Judaism, resurrection is a concept, the subject of many prophecies. You need to learn how to use words correctly. 

Contrary to very popular belief, on both sides, the 1973 Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision will not be overturned in a single court case, even with a clear conservative majority on the Court as it has at present. Personally, I am skeptical of politics on the Court. The evidence of this attitude is apparent when one considers that, in spite of the apparent “political” leaning of the Court, it arrives at unanimous decisions a full 59% of the time over its history since 1789, when established. No other split decision of the Court has this plurality. 

Further, note that when Roewas decided, the 7-2 split decision included four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for partisanship on the Court. It is a popular, but unwarranted myth. 

Roeis a much more complicated decision to overturn. Of nearly 1,900 cases taken by the Court in its history, there have been but 200+ decisions later overturned.  There are too many variables, all of which would require a perfect storm of a single case to come before the Court in order for this generation’s Court to overturn Roe.That is not very likely to happen. 

I perceive three major points, all three of which must be completely revised in current law, not just Roe,which did not establish any law; rather, it merely agreed with several state laws, while requiring other states to amend their law on the subject.

Those three points are:

1.     The fetus is a human being and a person.

2.     The fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues share unique DNA separate and distinct from the mother.

3.     Privacy of a woman’s body does not extend to the fetus as described by the privacy discussion in the Roedecision.

Fetus is human: Once upon a time, even as late as the Roedecision, this was little more than assumption. And, while some still argue the point that a fetus is not human until birth, thus defining, they think, what it is not,they do not alternatively define by explanation what it is.

However, science has stepped in to demonstrate that by every definition of “human,” except one, the fetus exhibits every single characteristic of humanity; by DNA, by form/fit/function, and by biologic systems.

Currently, by one statute, however, a “person,” by definition, does not necessarily accept a pre-natal condition, although 1 US Code §8 does come very close to it. This will be the easiest, and likely the first point to be altered, and it may not occur in a Roe-related case.

The sub-set question becomes, if the fetus is human, does it share equal personhood rights even if unborn? Here, again, 1 US Code §8 comes up to, but does not cross that threshold. 

However, there is another statute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which amended 18 US Code §1841 to recognize that any violence committed on a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of the fetus would carry a dual charge of murder, which is, exclusively, the malicious cause of death with aforethought to a human being, a person.  Therefore, this statute recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus.

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.This point, as well, was nebulous until the human genome was completely mapped by the close of the twentieth century, twenty-plus years following the Roedecision.  By that time, DNA identification was becoming commonplace, and it was demonstrated by empiric evidence that fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues shared common DNA that was separate and distinct from the mother.

It was secondarily determined that not even blood was shared between mother and fetus, but that, rather, in the cellular attachment of the placenta to the inner uterine wall, there is a blood barrier similar to that in the lungs such that nutrients pass through the barrier, but blood does not. In the lungs, the barrier allows exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide without internal loss of blood.

The separation feature is critical to a reversal of the Roedecision, which stipulates that a mother/fetal bond is physiologically and genetically cohesive and identical.

To tip that scale, the third point will require discussion: 

Privacy of a woman’s body. The privacy issue is nebulous, at best, even though the Roedecision cites amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14 as descriptive of individual privacy even though only one, the 14th, contains any description of “privacy” at all, and in that context, the amendment verbiage relates only to one’s personal protection against unwarranted government search and seizure. One might argue that since, in many cases, the government is funding the abortion procedure, at least in some cases, that is exactly what abortion is. The other cited amendments do not even contain the words, “privacy,” or “private,” but, nor does the 14A. The discussion of the application of “privacy” is interpretive, only.

But, even physiologically, it is a leap from current demand of understanding the science to consider that the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body. Once truly understood by the simplicity of the true science, it becomes much clearer that the Roedecision got it wrong.

As noted above, fetal… tissue DNA does not match the mother’s DNA. On that basis, alone, the fetal… tissue is not part of the woman’s body. Neither is food, one might argue. Organic food does not share her DNA, either, but it clearly becomes part of the woman’s body. More correctly, it is broken down digestively to its simple components, and is then either absorbed by her body, or evacuated, or, in the case of pregnancy, shared with the fetus until it comes to full-term.

It becomes apparent that the separation of mother and fetal tissue is elegant. It is intended that food be absorbed by the body as its first objective. Not so with fetal… tissue. The fetal objective is to become a separate, distinct, and wholly self-driven individual [or more in the case of multiple simultaneous births]. It is carried in the woman’s body, surrounded by it, much like a ping-pong ball is held in the closed fist, but, by birth, the fetal… tissue, all of it, is expelled from the mother’s body.

This point will likely be the last to change its paradigm, but it is certain to do so when the science, and the apparently conflicting legal statutes, are more generally understood and accepted as fact. The difficulty is that, during the nine months of gestation, the fetal… tissue certainly seems like part and parcel of the woman’s body.  The two previous points are going to have to change their paradigms before this third point is ever modified. Even then, to surrender a privacy that has been a part of society by Court precedent for two generations, and certainly interpreted as such for far longer, is a difficult legal demand, even for a scientifically-absorbed Supreme Court.

A couple of years ago, present and former Justices of the Court rendered commentary on the Roe v. Wade decision, including then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who determined that the Roedecision certainly warranted a re-examination by the Court, at least, and potential overturning for a variety of reasons, including some of the points reviewed here.

Some seem confused about the meaning of death preferring it to mean other than the ordinary meanings associated with the term.

Physical death- when the body no longer has breath and decays.

Spiritual death - when the spiritual relationship between God and man is severed.

Covenantal death - when the breach of the covenant brings the sanction of covenantal death within the limitations of the specific institution.

Some try and introduce another kind of death associated with ritual with higher orders with a secret society.

Please explain the different types of death you understand and the basis of this understanding.

I'm sorry, but no. I am not accepting "miracles still happen but no one notices them because of cellphones" as an answer. First of all, we got nearly 2000 years without geological scale miracles before cell phones were invented, and second, even people who are engrossed in their phones look up, especially if we're talking something as big as destroying a city with fire and brimstone or turning rivers into blood. That's not even bringing in the other 24% that don't have them, or satellite imagery recording the event.

OK, but if you ever want to explore the way a religious Jew thinks and learn about it by asking questions, feel free to let me know.

yes, that makes it a concept within Judaism. Thank you.

No, until then it is still a Jewish concept that Christianity lifted when it tried to appropriate Jewish concepts.

In Christianity it is still an unfulfilled prophecy also unless you see Jesus as being alive again. Is your argument that an idea within a system isn't a concept? 

Though, in Jewish texts there are tales of resurrection (such as 2 Kings 13), so that would make it something which happened within the Jewish system and therefore not only a prophecy of the future.

Your use of "concept" is very unclear. The fact that there has not yet been a 3rd temple built (something that Jews pray for every day) means that there is no "concept" of the 3rd temple in Judaism? That's absurd.

Why do you think that giant miracles like Elijah calling down fire and the parting of the Red Sea don't happen anymore? 

Polytheist-Witch: Atheists are only polar opposites of non-fundamentalist Christians. Atheists have the most in common with fundamentalist Christians. They argue the the Bible is if it's true. They argue the Bible as if it's fact and scientific. And they are as nasty and hate filled as fundamentalist Christians. 

Polytheist-Witch: The posts in this thread in particular are why atheists are so hated. They literally have no concept of what theists think, how they feel and after years of posting in this forum and talking to theists they still don't.

Bones: What argument convinced you of Gods existence?

I can't say any one particular argument convinced or even keeps me convinced. Cumulatively though I would say all the arguments put together are enough to satisfy someone looking for that kind of thing. I think God can be sought both rationally with the mind and experientially with the heart.

What attracted me was the historicity of the Catholic Church. Whether one agrees with the Church or not, it's incredibly old. That type of antiquity is lacking in so many expressions of Christianity today.

You refuse to discus your immoral views.

Regards

DL

Now you are wasting my time.

Regards

DL

To believe in miracles or the supernatural, is not the brightest way to think.

Regards

DL

My interest is in the garbage Christian morals.

We do not know if a Jesus ever existed, but we do know that Christian morals are garbage.

Regards

DL

Sorry but Finkelstein is just wrong. Why Would Egyptians depict a failure committed by their own Pharaoh? Remember that artisan painters in Egypt were under strict jurisdiction of the central monarchy, so why would they risk their lives by painting an Egyptian defeat?

Also, Jericho has been inhabited since the early Bronze Age, so another lie from Mr. Finkelstein. He's disproving his own religion how sad

Arguments against God, how about this one.

 

God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist

That is because science doesn’t deal with absolute proven facts or truths, such a concept would be unscientific. Science is driven by enquiry and if you have a proven fact then you have the answer and having the answer would mean you need look no further, this would limit enquiry. That is why science only has provision for hypotheses and theories rather than proven facts, science has to keep an open mind that even the most accepted theory may be wrong.   

How do you define religion, I would say it is basically a belief system that usually relates to a god or gods and that includes a cultural and social system designed to standardize the behaviours, practices and morals of its believers, and sometimes unfortunately those who don’t believe.

 

So I don’t see how you can have a fake one.

I don’t really understand why God requires worship, as this would mean it fulfils some need and if God has needs then he is less than perfect, as a perfect God would have no needs.

I was raised as a Christian and educated in a Church of England school. As to why I stopped believing was simply down to a loss of evidence for God’s existence. This was probably down to my mother who was slightly reticent on discussing sexual matters. I remember at the age of about five asking her how women became pregnant and she said God puts the baby inside them. Then at the age of eleven I had now become familiar with the biological process and on discovering how babies are conceived my one bit of evidence for God had vanished and he went the way of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

It has been interesting talking with you but we seem to be communicating at cross purposes, so I think I am done.

Yes. Quite the master of the non answer, wasn't he. Just like many Christians are.

For sure.

Hence mythology.

Men who ejaculate often may have a lower risk of prostate cancer than their peers who don't do it as frequently, a U.S. study suggests.

Jesus tempter was the Devil we are told.

Mathew4:1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Right off the bat this story falls apart if it is to be taken literally?Because immediately the “devil” begins his test by saying;

4:3“If you are the Son of God.” [?]command that these stones be made bread”.

When that didn’t go down as the devil thought it might, he had another go:

4:6 “If thou be the Son of God” [?] cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee”….

When this didn’t appear to bare fruit, the devil changed tactics by trying a bribe.

Mathew4: 8 Again,the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me”.

IF!? It appears then that the devil didn't even know who Jesus was.

It should be noticed too that, just like there was no witness to the conversation between Pilate and Jesus, or Nicodemus and Jesus, here too there wasn’t a single witness to this meeting in the desert, so how do the gospel writers know what was said? I do hope the Christians here will explain that for us?

Anyway,Jesus, you may not be surprised, refused the bribe and passed the test! And why wouldn’t he have? He was god and the son of god also wasn’t he, and everybody knew it didn’t they………. accept the devil it seems.

So how come that old devil Satan didn’t even recognise god when he seen him!?

After all, didn’t he exist with all the other heavenly beings even before mankind?      Doesn’t Luke's gospel speak of Satan falling from that heavenly abode? Luke 10:18

Didn't god once tell Satan to his face that he would be on his belly eating dirt for the rest of his days? Genesis3:14

We know too that the devil had wagered face to face with god that ended with in the deaths of all of Jobs 10 children. Job1:6-7. (Christians have never explained how it came pass that Satan came to be “walking here and there”, roaming around the earth.” after being sentenced to crawl and eat dirt for ever?)

How is it that the “demon” calling himself legion recognised god/son of god and Satan didn’t?   “He shouted at the top of his voice,“What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Mark5:7

It appears that this ambiguous story of Satan testing god is beyond absurd, it is outright stupidity at its worst that only a child or the cretinous adult would believe.

actually, I said that it is explicit in Judaism (check post 97). If you read through this thread you will see that my position is that the claim isn't evidenced by the texts cited in the original post, not that the concept isn't in Judaism.

"the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, -  that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son,  for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.

More over, if the Son is the Father what of  Mary getting pregnant?  Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"... 

It's  all very -  Oedipus, isn't it ?

Oedipus c 450 BC, was a mythical Greek king of Thebes. A tragic hero in Greek mythology, Oedipus is believed to have  fulfilled a prophecy (accidentally) that he would end up killing his father and marrying his mother, thereby bringing disaster to his city and family. 

Why Don’t We See Religious People Debating in the Science and Nature Forum?

What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.

Undeniably many people suffer and it appears to be a given that some people suffer in ways they do not necessarilly deserve. Just as clearly not all suffering is the direct result of human actions. 

That in mind and most especially if you believe in some god(s) that can be defined as both all powerful and also loves us all how do you resolve the problem of suffering?

Why does God want to be worshipped?

Is it ever talked about in the Bible?

So, you were intellectually convinced? Or do you like the aesthetic of Catholic churches and church services?

Though I don't remind anyone of anything at every chance (for example, I have posted on this thread many times and have not reminded anyone of anything regarding my background in most situations so your blanket claim is wrong) when it is a relevant point I mention it.

As to your other claim that my status does not make me "correct," I never claimed it did. However it does mean I have the requisite knowledge to represent the codified teachings of a larger group and not simply state a personal belief.

Your statement that "I have insight into the text in question" does not answer what I asked.

How do you distinguish a real religion from a fake one, i.e. a satirical joke (pastafarianism) or even cult? L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who brought Scientology to the world, and Scientology has been fighting many legal religious freedom battles in defense of their practices and privacy. How do you, or do you not, distinguish someone like L Ron Hubbard from someone like Joseph Smith, Siddhartha Gautama or the prophet Mohammad? Is there something in particular that makes someone or something a "legitimate" religion or religious leader that deserves recognition, rights and respect, vs. something that makes it a clear joke or something not to be taken seriously? 

What attracted you to Catholicism?

A question for atheists.  

How many of you have come from a religious background? And what was this background? And what convinced you to become an atheist? 

Was it a journey or an epiphany? Did it cause problems with your family or partner at the time? 

And are you still connected somehow with the people from your old religious affiliation? 

The ribcage is bigger, the liver is way too far up and too big, kidneys too far up. Looks very unproportional to my eyes. Eyes have bone i the back where they used to be hollow. It is just very "wrong". It is like there was an"upgrade" over night. Although it doesn't seem like an upgrade, more like a down grade to a more robotic, fake like appearance, there is no harmony to it, no beauty like there used to be.

There are many other changes to the world as well, and we can get into those if you would like.

Another change I'd like to mention is dozens of new words I keep finding for the last month or so. And I have always been good with English, there are just way too many new words lately, that are supposedly not new.

Changes in Bible.

Changes in world map (big, noticeable changes)

The Museum of the Bible announced recently that at least five of its Dead Sea Scrolls, among the most valuable and historically significant items in its collection, are fakes. 

Does it make any difference, since the information contained in all the scrolls is fake anyway?

There was no death wish but I agree there is a failure in communication.

Suppose you are talking to a Holocaust survivor that renounced their faith after their time in Auschwitz. How would you go about trying to reconvince them that there is a god, or that this god loves them? 

Why is the LDS considered a cult and not a proper Christian denomination?

What are the primary points of similarity that put it in the Christian camp? And what are the points of doctrine which distinguish it from the traditional Christian position? And what are the unique and distinct perspectives of the Mormons that radically uplift it into weird territory?

Please do not use this as a slanging board against the LDS.  Use it as an opportunity to compare and contrast and analyze the Mormons and the veracity of its doctrines. 

My comment about being executed for blasphemy was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but the only thing I would risk my life for would be my family and certainly not some belief or lack of, or any ideals.

A possible misunderstanding, the term “tongue-in-cheek” refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner.  I don’t know what nationality you are but I’m British and it may be a British idiom.

Science Agrees With The Bible:Earth's Water

Please ignore me when I get too strange. 

This is just a rough concept I was playing around with.   

The religion is called Triune of Fate.

The Triune of Fate consists of three androgynous/hermaphrodite deities:

The deity of mischief and joy, also known as the god of future. 

(Depicted as an adolescent).

The deity of beauty and nature, also known as the god of present. 

(Depicted as middle aged).

The deity of wisdom and reflection, also know as the god of past.

(Depicted as elderly).

To worship all three and to pay your respects, you have to at least once a week:

•  Make someone laugh from joy.
  
• Give a compliment of sincerity.
  
• Improve ones life by giving advice.
  

Oldschooldummy: Quite the opposite. I was raised anti Catholic, and my family is mostly devout Protestant.

RationalMadman: Then I have like 0 understanding of how you became Catholic. I will go silent as I will not be able to respect it on a genuine level (taboo to say nowadays but guess what, it is a lie to respect a faith that makes 0 sense to you).

If you'd like to dispute or discuss the context and explanation I put forward (which is obvious from the context of the quote itself) then I'd be more than happy to do so. If you're simply going to double down and keep repeating your erroneous assessment of what the holy father said, without even acknowledging any context or nuance, than I'm not interested. 

Hindsight is always 20/20, and we know the story doesn't end there. But from the disciples point of view? The one who you thought would be the redeemer of Israel, the promised, long awaited Messiah, is now dead on a cross at the hands of the Romans. I couldn't think of something that, at that moment, looked more like a failure.

The Pope wasn't saying Christ's sacrifice failed to redeem us or something. I think you're reading into it.