Why not explore beyond the religion you inherited?
Of course we can trust science. We live in this comfortable world (although there are still many poor, hungry ppl) today because of the advances of science. Without science, we would still have to walk to work, live without light at night, or even leave messages in this blog! --julnee
There are many wonderful things within science. I see no reason to dismiss it in and of itself. As with any other "entity" there is always room for users to misuse it. That should not take away from its many benefits.
HONEY ENDORSE’S SCIENCESomewhat deceitful of you isn’t it, to state on your Blog page that I condemned science. Let me make it perfectly clear for the record. I endorse science 100 percent. Science as it is defined at this link http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Science&r=66. What I don’t endorse is false science, and deception, which is in fact rife. I don’t endorse science manipulated to serve a hidden agenda (by anyone of any belief system) and I don’t believe science is a substitute for God. I offered a legitimate explanation as to why people use the information from AIG because of these quotes of yours.“The AIG site is aimed at lay people, but it presents claims that have not been submitted in peer-reviewed journals. Writing impresive scientific-sounding claims that fool the general public is not the way science is done. Scientists publish instead in peer-reviewed journals, where knowledgable independent scientists can reject the article before it is published.”“As I have explained, the real test of a scientific claim is whether it impresses those who understand the science behind the claim.”I then gave an example of a scientist who’s scientific claims did not impress the scientific community on repeated occasions until he demonstrated his knowledge using himself as the experiment. You said he was a good example of how science works. Um, lets check that - You put forward your theory, they kick you down, you crawl along for some time until you can get up again and present them with the facts. That doesn’t seem good to me. I think you misunderstood the article. The site I sent you to, about Nobel Prize winner Dr J Robin Warren was called “tallpoppies”. Maybe this is an Australian phrase so you were not familiar with where the article was coming from in the beginning. For those who don’t know, a tall poppy is a high achiever so they stand out. ‘Tall poppy syndrome’ is where people don’t like to see people who stand out because of their achievements (its jealousy), especially if they are younger, so they cut them down to size, which for a poppy means you're well, pretty much out of the running, and this can also be true for science. This is what Dr Warren experienced. The ‘Tall Poppy Campaign’ was created by the Australian Institute of Policy & Science and established to be of assistance to those in the scientific field who may suffer as victims of this syndrome. Its first objective is stated as: “Develop an Australian culture which celebrates achievement rather than cuts down the individual.” I first became aware of Dr Warren when I saw him being interviewed. What Dr Warren experienced was not the good kind of scientific skepticism, it was the kind that causes setbacks. The article ends with: “It is indeed fortunate for ulcer sufferers worldwide that Robin Warren and Barry Marshall possessed all the traits of outstanding scientific researchers: ability, persistence in the face of scepticism and setbacks, salesmanship and, not least, team spirit.”Here, here!Honey
Didn’t like my example of Dr Warren’s experiences? Here are the links to comments from interviews with two more, highly regarded scientists who both worked for the Australian CSIRO (The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), (both published) where they state their scientific opinions on evolution, and their difficulties experienced within the scientific community.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/research.aspDr Ian Macreadie is a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. He is also adjunct professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/firm.aspDr. Jones recently retired from Australia’s highly respected government scientific body, CSIRO, after 38 years of service. He was Officer-in-Charge of the Davies Laboratory, Townsville, and Regional Research Leader. He is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and the Tropical Grasslands Society of Australia. He has published about 140 research papers.Dr. Jones is best known for solving the Leucaena problem, which has earned millions of dollars for the Australian farming industries.This, combined with Dr. Jones’ other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. Honey
Your comments again were:“The AIG site is aimed at lay people, but it presents claims that have not been submitted in peer-reviewed journals. Writing impresive scientific-sounding claims that fool the general public is not the way science is done. Scientists publish instead in peer-reviewed journals, where knowledgable independent scientists can reject the article before it is published.”“As I have explained, the real test of a scientific claim is whether it impresses those who understand the science behind the claim.”And in final response to your comments I have this, taken from the link below.http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htmThe top of the page reads – International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Scientific Publication.Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but IndispensableJerome P. Kassirer, MD, Edward W. Campion, MD Opening Paragraph“PEER REVIEW is not perfect, and when it is done sloppily, journals publish research that is flawed. Even when peer review is rigorous, flawed research sometimes gets into the literature. Journals have long relied on peer review, yet concerns about its limitations have often been expressed. Critics point out that some reviewers are unqualified and others, because of personal or professional rivalry, are biased. Editors may even select reviewers on the basis of the reviewers' biases. Furthermore, two or more reviewers may have widely discrepant opinions about a study. Critics also make the point that peer review not only fails to prevent the publication of flawed research but also permits the publication of research that is fraudulent. Some have described peer review as arbitrary, subjective, and secretive. In addition, many critics (including some of the popular press) maintain that it is simply unnecessary and slows the communication of information to the public.” Then the article goes on with its analysis of the process, and then comes out with this paragraph “Before we begin to apply the methods of cognitive science to the study of manuscript assessment, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question. Even if we can study the phenomenon, is it worth the effort? We know that peer review is not perfect. It does not eliminate bias, on the part of either the reviewer or the editor. It does not weed out fraudulent research or even all flawed research. It cannot guarantee the truthfulness or the validity of the work. Although much has been written about the defects of peer review, its merits when directed and used by a thoughtful editorial staff are substantial. As Bailar and Patterson put it some years ago, peer review at its best can screen out investigations that are poorly conceived, poorly designed, poorly executed, trivial, marginal, or uninterpretable; it improves the quality of individual manuscripts, steers research results to appropriate journals, and helps people who are not experts to decide what to believe. The peer review system is not totally unscientific, arbitrary, or subjective, as some have proposed.”End of link take.My comments:Not TOTALLY unscientific (heaves a sigh of relief). Well thank goodness for that.But let’s review what it did say about the system. “We know that peer review is not perfect. It does not eliminate bias, on the part of either the reviewer or the editor. It does not weed out fraudulent research or even all flawed research. It cannot guarantee the truthfulness or the validity of the work. Although much has been written about the defects of peer review…”Many people choose to pass on the process of peer review, and the fact that some are excluded due to bias is acknowledged. This DOES NOT make their work ANY LESS SCIENTIFIC. And I will quote the article yet again. The peer review system DOES NOT WEED OUT FRAUDULENT RESEARCH OR EVEN FLAWED RESEARCH. IT CANNOT GUARANTEE the TRUTHFULNESS OR the VALIDITY of the work.Now of course it is indispensable, it is a way for genuine scientists to share their work with the rest of the scientific community and the world, and hopefully gain beneficial feedback, and further the study of legitimate science. There are so many benefits to be gained from it. But the peer review system IS NOT SCIENCE. It is merely a tool used by science for the above stated reason. Science would go on with or without the system, and often does without, and in other cases in spite of. To make the claim that some researched matter is not science if it has not been through the peer review system or on the other hand that because it passes through that system with seeming success, that it is guaranteed to be science, is an outright demonstratable LIE. Clearly you are a man of neither integrity or science, both of which you falsly portray.Honey
And I just had a look at your debates page and the first one I clicked on - Can't God Count - the very first item on the list is not a Biblical error.It is from Choronicals 3:22. The site claims there is a numerical error counting the sons, but if either the person making the claim or yourself chose to do an ounce of research on what you so quickly jump to accuse, you would know that the Hebrew word for 'ben' used for 'son' is also used as the word for 'grandson'. I don't have time to check the others at the moment, or probably any time, but really you do demonstrate again that you don't in fact ask the simple question "should I check this before I link it to my site". It seems to me the only thing you do question is Christainity, and you do a pretty poor job at that.Honey
Ah yes, we call it bad science if it differs from our view of what the Bible says.Lets see.1. Insects have 4 legs.According to the Bible some had 4 legs, science tells us different.2. Rabbits chew the cud.The Bible says rabbits do this, but science told us different.3. The earth rests on pillars, and the earth has four corners, and the sun was supposedly stopped one day in its revolution around the earth.Of course thanks to science we now know that the sun doesn't go around the earth at all.4. The stars were created in the six day period.Of course thanks to science we know that starlight takes millions of years to reach us, so if God did it in six days, it was millions of years plus 6 days.Here are some other interesting things to me about God and the Bible, and science.God never told us how to fight infection.God never told us we should drink clean water and why.God never taught us how to defeat infectious diseases.God never told us how to eat healthy.God never told us how to make the things to make life easier, like homes, heat and air, and refrigerators.God never told us about good hygiene, running water, and disposal of hazardous wastes.God never told us about fire.God never told us about coffee in the morning.God never told us how to make clothes from cotton.It seems that God was OK for us to live in caves, poop in the woods, and kill animals with a stick, Just as long as we don’t Sin for Gods sake.Thank God for Science, or thank science for science.
I am able to answer clearly all four of your first questions, but I'm assuming since you elect to condemn the Bible, that you have at least read it, and from that assumption and your second list of “God never told us” it would appear that you pay no attention even when you are told. I would like to point out the truth of the matter, which is that man as a physical being is somewhat expendable. We all live different lives but all find ourselves eventually at the same physical destination – death. This is obvious to all, so clearly the preservation of physical life is not the Bible’s primary concern. The Bible is a spiritual book. It is not a science book although it does contain science. It is not a history book, although it does contain history. Its purpose is to demonstrate to us a higher order – that of Love. God did achieve that through Jesus Christ. God manifested Himself as man that he might demonstrate what true love is, ie. to give oneself in wisdom to the service of another (others), even unto death, which He did. When we understand this spiritual lesson, and the Bible’s spiritual context, then a lot of other things within the Bible become clear to us.Regarding your statement on drinking water,The Bible says in John 4:7-13“7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) 10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? …13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Is it better that the woman should have a drink of physical water or spiritual understanding to take her through to eternity?If we accept the Bible as our authority then we understand that God appointed men to be stewards of the Earth. Along with that stewardship comes responsibility. It would be easy to start blaming God for many of the situations that we create for ourselves. If people starve through war, through inability to cross man made boarders, through the self indulgent masses fulfilling their every desire at the expense of their brothers, if people die as a result of oppression, man’s greed, a lack of education and a lack of compassion, then the responsibility lies with every single person who has something they can give to their brother to improve his condition. If clean drinking water is your concern, then take a year off uni, spend six months earning money, then take that money overseas and put it to work where it counts. Instead of that trip to Europe take one to Africa, instead of staying in hotels sleep with the locals. Help them sink a boar with your accommodation money.There are so many instructions in the Bible relating to health issues that your points seem absurd, but of what use are they in countries where people are persecuted for owning a Bible, or where the people are illiterate? There is more than enough money in this world for everyone. There is more than enough people in this world to help meet the needs of the impoverished. God gave enough of Himself to demonstrate what is required of us to be the people He calls us to be, the people we should be striving to be. But where are the open hearts? Let’s see where our hearts are at:(The following estimates are taken from the www. and I found them to vary from site to site.)* The world betting and gaming industry is worth $425 billion dollars a year, so that’s the money we’re happy to throw away.* The world film industry is worth about $220 billion a year, that’s what we pay to entertain ourselves.* The world music industry is worth about $40 billion a year, that’s what we pay to get an earful.* The video game industry is worth $12 billion a year* Although the piracy problem is estimated at $360 billion a year, so seems we’re stealing more than we’re paying for.* The beauty industry is worth $160 billion a year, so we can fit in with what society tells us we should be.* The spa industry is worth $6 billion a year, to make us feel good.* The porn industry is estimated to be $57 billion a year.* The gulf industry comes in at $38 billion a year* And it seems we can actually get drinking water to anywhere in the world if it comes in a coke bottle, with 430 billion 8oz servings sold each year* And if you think that’s obscene $300 billion dollars worth of cigarettes are sold worldwide every year, with tobacco related deaths being 5 million a year as compared to 3 million aids deaths. * In the long run this then adds over $150 billion dollars world wide per year for medical expenses in treating tobacco caused illness (this figure may be understated, the US figure alone is about 75 billion). Imagine the kind of place the world would be if for just one year we put our less fortunate brothers and sisters needs before our own self indulgence.Actually I also stumbled across the statistic that 4 million women and girls are bought and sold each year – 4 MILLION, and we know that’s not to carry water to the needy.Do you really think we should hold God accountable for what in the most part we cause, and then choose not to remedy?What becomes obvious is that there are certainly a lot of people out there who need to discredit any possibility of God in order to justify their own actions. – Think about that next time you read a site trying to rid the world of a religion whose highest law is to 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and love your neighbour as yourself'. This one commandment, Jesus says, is the entire purpose of the Bible. Do you really think this is what needs to be eliminated from people’s lives?___________________________________The Bible states that God instructed man on things that have not been included in the Bible. In his wisdom he also withheld much information for we all know ‘a little knowledge in the hands of a fool is a dangerous thing’. And coffee in the morning is a habit that I’m better off without :).Honey
Thanks for that Sermon Honey, not.I was a saved born again believer in Jesus Christ. I had confessed my sins and believed in him, and had accepted him as my Lord and Savior. I believed that Jesus was the son of God, who was virgin born, lived a sinless life, took all of my sins upon him on the cross, died for me, and then rose again that we all might go be with him one day in heaven. I was as sincere a believer as there has ever been, or ever will be. I also know however that even Christians struggle from time to time with the things of the faith, and things in the Bible. I hear you and other Christians say things like: "I don’t understand this scripture, or why is this scripture even in here, or why does it say that, or I don't understand this, or these are hard scriptures to reconcile with my view of God and Jesus." I also know that you are indoctrinated each and every day that any doubt is of Satan, that continuing to doubt is a sin, and that if you follow this path it leads you straight to hell. So I know how scary it can be to actually start to think about the Bible problems for very long, and you know there are a lot of Bible problems. I know that for the most part Christians simply decide to ignore them. I know that it can be re-assuring when you seemingly find some small answer to the hard scriptures, no matter how far fetched it may be, if it offers you the chance to play it safe and keep the faith, then you don't have to be one of those doubters who the church tells you is headed to hell, which you have heard so much about. Did you ever realize that none of the people in the Old Testament ever had any idea or concept of a hell where the sinful would suffer for eternity and that it was never mentioned like this in the Old Testament. One day, I asked myself this simple honest question. What if my doubts are not really from the Devil? I mean I have doubts about a lot of things which I am presented with in life, and this is a good thing most of the time, because it keeps me from ending up drinking the purple Kool-aid of some cult, or being conned into the latest scheme, winding up a Mormon, or sending money to Robert Tilton, Paula, Ernest Aingly, or Jimmy Swaggert. Whomever created me gave me this ability, so maybe it isn't the Devil making me doubt, maybe these problems with the Bible are real, and I have just been believing these fairy tales, because I was scared not to. Well Honey, since that day I have discovered a new and better way to live. I am free from the fear of an eternal hell. (Scary ain’t it). I am free from the fairy tales of my past. I no longer struggle to make sense of new information, new science, evolution, or the light from the stars, or how the universe began, because now I don’t have to struggle to make it fit somehow into my old belief system, which explains none of it. Funny thing is, now that I am free of this stuff, I am still a moral individual, just like I was before. I still love people, and my family just like I did before. Life is good, and in fact better than it was before. Life in fact makes sense, because I now realize that God was not responsible for anything which happened to me, good or bad. Once I realized this, then all the WHY questions went away. Every Christian struggles with those questions. If you believe that God is in control, then you can’t help but wonder WHY, when some terrible things come into your lives. It is simple human nature. There is a better way to think, a better way to live, which actually makes sense of the world and the things which happen in it, and does not have to be constantly reconciled with what you have been taught is the truth. It is called the mind set free, (Just as this blog is titled), and it doesn’t come from the devil, or from some narcissistic view of my own intellect. Think about that, if you aren’t afraid to.The Bible writers believed that some insects had 4 legs, rabbits chew the cud, the earth was flat, women were property, slavery was ok, (and it wasn't just indentured servitude), that giving your concubine up to be raped was ok, that killing babies in war was Ok, that the rape of women in war was Ok, that kidnapping women during wartime and keeping them for your own pleasure was Ok, and even the New Testament never condemned these actions. You do not even know who wrote the Bible for sure. You don’t know who wrote the New Testament for sure. (neither was written by the names on the books) The Exodus from Egypt never even happened the way the Bible says it did, and David and Solomon’s Kingdoms were just small insignificant little outposts. Luke got the date of the census at the birth of Christ wrong. Matthew, Mark and John totally and completely overstated the effects of prayer. The reference by Matthew to a prophesy of Jerimiah, is not even in Jerimiah, and not even a prophecy. You don’t even know if Jesus really even said the things attributed to him. These things were written at a minimum 40 years after he died, and the stories came from oral traditions. You don’t even know for sure if the right books got selected for the canon of the New Testament. You don’t even know if this selection process itself was inspired, or why it took almost 300 years to come to some sort of concensus. The apostle Paul even said that women should keep their mouth shut at Church, do you know of any church which follows Paul’s directions, weren’t these the words of God, are they not divinely inspired. The Church cannot even give a single clear cut method to gain salvation. One church says it is this simple; just believe in Jesus, and ask him to be the lord of your life. Another church says wait a minute, it isn't that simple, and that you must repent of your sins first, then believe and ask Jesus to be lord of your life. Yet another says hold on, you must first realize that you are a sinner who deserves hell, confess your sin, believe that Jesus is God, and the Son of God, who was virgin born, lived sinless, died for your sins, rose again, will return, and then ask him to be the lord of your life. We are not done there however, because yet another church tells me that while you must do all of those things, that just believing is not enough, because there has to be the spirit of God who then moves into your heart and makes you a new creature somehow. It seems there are believers and then there are true believers. Then, just when you think surely we have heard all the variables, a church comes along which says you have to do all of those things, plus receive what is called the baptism of the holy Spirit of God who comes into your heart, and causes you to start speaking in an unknown language, and if you don’t get all of that you are not going to heaven. Then just when you think surely there can’t be any other versions of this, along comes a group which says that you must do all of the above, and be baptized in their church, or you will not make it. Of course there is the denomination which says that yes you must do those things, but then you have to live sinless to the end of your life, or you still will not make it. Then there is the church which says you must do all these things plus you must attend church on Saturday, the real Sabbath day, or your going to hell. Lets not forget the group which says that while you must do most of these things, that everybody is not offered this chance, only those whom God has chosen himself are offered or given the capability to believe. Then there is the church which says: You don’t have to do any of these things, just go to church, confess your sins, and you will be fine. Maybe it’s just me, but if the Christian Church can’t even come to an agreement on the one single most important tenant of faith, the one which is supposed to be the foundation of it all, why should anyone trust any of it? It just becomes a game of chance to choose the right path, and for me one more reason to know that God could not have written this book. So, why should I trust this book on the subject of science, over real science.Why do I care?I care because of all the abuse of peoples emotions. I care because some people have used scriptures as justification to abuse women, or treat women as second class citizens. I care because the same scriptures which are supposed to be our moral guide, never, even in the New Testament, speak against polygamy, or slavery, or genocide and in some instances commanded many atrocities. I care because there are so many churches, so many denominations, so many translations, so many different interpretations of what are supposed to be perfect words from a perfect God and nobody fully understands it. I care because scripture cannot be reconciled with the real world. I care because the church and the Bible have setup a up a false hope and when people, (usually at the lowest moments of their lives), find out that everything they had faith in is false, it drives them to even deeper despair, even sometimes clinical depression. I care because scripture is used like a club against believers and non-believers alike who are told that a God who created them and loves them is going to send them to burn in hell forever, if they don’t believe this word, or live their life according to a particular narrow brand of interpretation of the Bible, when none of it is true. I care because there is a better way to live. I care because there is freedom from this type of oppression. I care because people do not have to feel like they are lower than pond scum, and that God is the one telling them that they are this way, but yet somehow God still loves them. I care because so many things in the real world, which we had been told were all sins and evil, and made to feel guilty about, were all just made up. I care because the real search for truth has been crippled and held back by narrow-minded adherence to a book, which cannot possibly be from God, but was written by misogynists who also viewed slavery as normal, had no problem with genocide, or rape, who simply made up a Religion based on their narrow minded views. I care because we hate stupidity. I Care because we are human and care for other humans, and we all can be moral, kind, compassionate and loving without a book, (which is none of those things), to tell us do so.
Noogatiger,"I care because of all the abuse of peoples emotions. I care because some people have used scriptures as justification to abuse women, or treat women as second class citizens. I care because the same scriptures which are supposed to be our moral guide, never, even in the New Testament, speak against polygamy, or slavery, or genocide and in some instances commanded many atrocities..."Those are good reasons to care. It is always good to see that other people care about such things.
NoogatigerI’m not here because I have doubts. I just stumbled across this site and was impressed with Merle’s Einstein quote, and asked what he though of a couple of AIG pages. I could see where he was coming from and knew that if I started to look into his site I would be here for some time. Of course I have had doubts in the past, but I find that like Peter walking on the water towards Christ, when I take my eyes off Christ, and look to the world for guidance I start to sink and I quickly remember to look back at Him. I look to God, and He reveals Himself through the Bible, through nature, through my experiences in life. I don’t rely on organizations for the decisions I make about what I believe. I listen carefully to what they have to say, and then make my own decisions about whether I feel they are consistent with the message of Christ. God gave me an enquiring mind and He expects me to use it, so I do. I see there is a difference between the spiritual church and the physical church. I see much of the physical church is like a disease ravaging the Body of Christ. But Christ is the healer. You know the saying, ‘what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger’. As for who’s way is wrong or right: Romans 14:1-81Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.These verses do not merely describe the observance of days or the consumption of foods but describe the openness of the Lord with regards to His expectations of people. The message is, are you doing what YOU believe to be the right thing. If you do what YOU believe is right and do it unto the Lord then what more can be asked of you?Matthew 1237For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned."Romans 214(… when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.And don’t forget Matthew 7 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.2 “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”It really is quite simple; you are not accountable for anyone else’s actions and neither are they for yours. You are only expected to do what you believe in your heart to be right for yourself. And if you don’t think you have been treated in accordance with this law, then you know to treat others better.I care about peoples emotions, and I find during my dark moments that my emotional strength is in Christ. I care that people will use whatever means they can to manipulate others. Is polygamy wrong? I have a friend who thought it should be legal because she felt the needs of both partners in her marriage would be better met by another female in the house, but the Bible clearly states that the original intention is that two become one. I certainly wouldn’t like to share a husband, but there may have been times where it was a blessing to a woman for her protection and wellbeing to be in a polygamist relationship. Is it wrong if it is to the benefit of those involved? As for slavery…you don’t think “do to others what you would have them do to you” covers slavery? And if not why not? I think we can be pond scum. Sometimes I know myself to be that, and yet God sees in us potential for so much more when we allow Him to guide us into that full potential. I care because God makes me want to help others in the way that he helps me. God doesn’t make me feel oppressed; He is the only thing that makes me feel free of this world full of hate and lies, of self indulgence at the expense of others, and of social oppression. He allows me to feel loved no matter what anyone else thinks I should look like or be.I don’t know your experiences, but forgiving the people who have made your way difficult, and realising their understanding of God's Love may be lacking in areas might help you to see things in a different light. I feel you don’t speak as though you are free. It sounds as though you are burdened down by these experiences you have had. I can't know of course if that is the case but I would encourage you to take a closer look at the Bible because we are clearly seeing different things. And you say we can do it without a book? I don’t see that at all. I see the world held under the control of very tight reigns. I see countries that don’t have that control, in civil war starving their own country men to death. I see riots that flare up at slight provocation. I see that natural disaster and the subsequent loss of the hand of the law allows wicked men to run free, and it is only a matter of time before people find themselves confronted with moral dilemmas they were not previously exposed to, testing even the strongest resolve. I see children and women abused, I see divorce rates at 50% and children with no direction out of control in our schools I see war, I see so much lying and cheating and corruption, and waste and self centeredness,. I see what is inside my own heart, and I know I am no better than anyone else, and I don’t like what I see. I thank God that He teaches me and offers hope to humanity for a better way, because I see the opposite for us in ourselves. I see us wavering on the brink, His clinging hand away from our own destruction. *I should clarify there are two aspects of me. The me I aspire to be in unity with God, and the me I despise to be who thinks only of me, me, me. Honey
3rd paragraph down, second sentence should read "I see much within the physical church is like..."so tiredHoney
Honey said: "I see the world held under the control of very tight reigns. I see countries that don’t have that control, in civil war starving their own country men to death. I see riots that flare up at slight provocation. I see that natural disaster and the subsequent loss of the hand of the law allows wicked men to run free, and it is only a matter of time before people find themselves confronted with moral dilemmas they were not previously exposed to, testing even the strongest resolve. I see children and women abused, I see divorce rates at 50% and children with no direction out of control in our schools I see war, I see so much lying and cheating and corruption, and waste and self centeredness,."The amazing thing Honey is that all of these things are happening even in countries which have had access to and used your book for centuries, and still the problems exist, even in so called Christian countries. Also if you want to marry a man who is already married ot another woman who am I to judge you, (the law will however). The point is that in the Bible polygamy was not a choice it was forced. These women had no choice in the matter, they had very little if any choices at all, and the Bible was Ok with this even gave rules on how to carry it out. Secondly the “do unto others” quote from the Bible obviously did not cover slavery, because they did not do this. There were different rules for indentured Hebrew servants and slaves captured in other countries as result of war, and how to treat them.OH, and I am free, free at last, if I may capture a phrase. I continue to speak out about it that I may be able to free others. I don't have to defend the indefensible anymore. I don't have to grasp at the smallest of straws to keep the faith that this stuff is from God. it don't have be dishonest with my feelings or my doubts. I can finally be totally and completely honest about what I see, what I reed, and what I feel.
Noogatiger,First, mine was an accurate description of the condition of the world. Yes the world is this way because many of its people do not follow God's golden rule, OBVIOUSLY, or where we live would be a lot closer to paradise. I am very grateful to live in the freedom of a 'Christian' country as opposed to many of the countries struggling under very oppressive cultures. Don't you agree that if everyone lived according to the Golden rule the entire world would be a much different place to live in? One of the problems with evolution is that the unspoken rule is 'there is no greater authority over man than man himself, so I may serve myself', this wouldn’t improve the situation the world is in and you know it.Secondly, the Old Testament times and New Testament times are distinctly different eras. Why do you insist on coalescing the two? Do you forget what God had brought Israel out of? Do you not realise what was going on in the nations surrounding them? God took them morally, an enormous step up from where they had been and where everyone else was. There is a very important reason why God took Israel where he did, but I do not feel I can discuss this on a spiritual level with you when your heart stands in opposition to God. What God did for Israel on a physical level was much higher in all regards than where man had taken himself. And likewise where He took humanity in the New Testament I have not found matched anywhere. Luke 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.God gave the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah before Christ, of the coming change in era: IsaiahSee, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."Jeremiah 31:31"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.Jesus revealed himself to be the fulfillment of Gods prophecy as the initiator and the essence of the New CovenantLuke 22:20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.You do nobody any serve to continue to ignore the fact that there is a major difference between the Old and the New TestamentOn Old Testament Slavery:ImagineI am a business man. I live in Old Testament times and own 4 house slaves, the last 2 acquired by me were sold by their families from an adjacent land during a period of famine to save other family members from starvation, (the mother of one of the slaves had already passed away). I paid a more than fair price to assist the families. These two slaves were from uneducated poverty stricken families. They work hard for me, just as I too work hard (my busy business has many subcontractors and there are many times I actually work harder). They are well fed, well clothed and they live in far more comfort and safety here than the two families from which they were bought. Our first slave who works with our elderly parents and younger children has taught the 2 newer slaves much. All 4 are grateful to be with us. Apart from some minor discontent expressed towards one by my mother-in-law, I have experienced no difficulty with them (I cannot say the same for some of the contractors). One of the newer slaves is very bright and demonstrates a keen desire to learn. My youngest son has said nothing but exhibits a noticeably cool attraction towards the girl; unlike I have seen from him in the presence of any other. She is very witty in his company. If a relationship develops it is a possibility she may join our family in the future. Now if this were the situation would anyone be jumping up and down? If all slaves were better off with their masters (as many have been) than on the side of the road starved to death, would we be bringing it all down on the Bible? No. Of course we wouldn’t. So then is slavery the real problem? No it is not. It is the hearts of men. When the hearts of men are slaves unto darkness the outcome is only more darkness. When the hearts of men are slaves unto the light then that light will shine forth from them. It is a matter of who you are a slave to that is the real issue here.And if you still insist that Old Testament slavery has implications for today then you must take into consideration:Deuteronomy 23:15 15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.You really, REALLY need to look at the Bible in the context in which it is intended, and try to understand the message with your heart. Don’t take each reading only at face value (and especially not at your DEFACED value); look for the spiritual truth that God is portraying. Honey
And regarding the original post from one of my comments, what I meant to say was“Also the scientific proponents of the global warming evidences/theory/FACT were quite the minority…”Sorry :-S.Honey
I have heard that argument so many times. The Old Testament was in an old dispensation, and Christ came to set us all free from those laws. However the thing is that Christ approved of the Old Testament, and the New Testament quotes from it often. So how is it that Christ approved of the following:Slave owners were allowed to beat a male or female slave, but they had to avoid injury to the eyes or teeth. They also could not beat them to death, (nice of God to allow that restriction huh?) You were however allowed to beat them so bad that they were disabled for a couple of days:Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."If a man raped, or had consensual sex with a female slave who was engaged to be married to someone else, all he had to do was sacrifice an animal in the temple and he was forgiven. If it was consensual sex, then the woman slave would be whipped, (no sacrifice for her). Now if the slave girl was not engaged to be married, it was apparently all OK, you could rape them all you wanted, there were no such restrictions.Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."Now if there was a war going on in another country, they could capture any woman and make her a slave wife. If the owner dislikes her later he can set her free, but can’t sell her because she is damaged goods.Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."Deuteronomy 20:14"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"Female slaves could also be required to have the slave owners child against their will, or father the child of some other man of your choosing.Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son." Now Honey, I admit maybe I missed the truth that God is portraying in these verses. Maybe you can help me out with that. Maybe to you, being kidnapped, beaten, and raped at will is better than being left alone to try an make it on your own, I mean times were hard back then. This was God's plan?
Noogatiger,Im sorry I haven't posted a reply yet. Your subject matter demands more thought on my part. I am working on it. Honey
Noogatiger,It is very difficult for me to reply to your comment. The nature of the topic of which you speak is of great spiritual significance. I feel however that I cannot speak to you on a spiritual level. I think you want me to either condemn or condone slavery, so that you can return fire. I do neither. As I said previously, slavery could often be of benefit to a slave. The Bible attests to this fact when it says: Exodus 21 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.In such a situation who can condemn it?If on the other hand we think of the African slave trade in the U.S. or slaves in Australia chained together, well no one can rightly condone that.As I said, the real issue of slavery lies in a man’s heart. This Exodus 21:26-27 law on slavery is probably the most important of the ones you have listed. Exodus 21:26-27 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.Hmm. Eye...tooth. Sounds familiar, where have I heard that before…Leviticus 24 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' The first thing that needs to be kept in mind when looking at verses pertaining to law is that God had established a judicial system within Israel where the cases would be heard and then a judgment made, not unlike in our own judicial system today. These laws lay the foundation for the judicial system. What God, in his infinite wisdom has given here in the scriptures in certain instances, is the law and a precedent, i.e. the law in a first, second, third (as the case may be) case scenario. We use precedent to interpret and determine our own laws today. Anyone who suggests that God should have included every single possible scenario is being ridiculous; the books would be infinite. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth represents justice. Now if the irate neighbour knows that his every connecting swing, could by way of the law be coming right back at him he may think twice before raising his hand. God didn’t just lay out a forgettable law, He added a real life demonstration to the law so that it would stand out in the minds of the people of Israel as a deterrent. The tooth and the eye make a very effective impact. You can readily see and almost feel both just in the saying. That’s why when it is read by people it turns their stomach. What a clever God to include a little foresight for the people when laying down the law. With regards to the slave/servant law, what is being laid down is the law of compensation, in again the same form of precedent. If an owner strikes his slave in an unjust manner and makes any form of permanent loss to the slave, he is to let the slave go free by way of compensation for the injury. This is signified by the two extremes within the law, certainly there is little significance in the loss of a tooth, (the Australian Aborigines would remove a front tooth for aesthetic reasons) as opposed to the loss of ones sight. Because there is also a law of justice it is imaginable that the slave may also under some circumstances cite the ‘eye for an eye law. In fact this eye, tooth link implicates the two laws one to the other. Likewise a neighbour might come to court with a grievance, a judgment of justice may immediately be made, and then the neighbour might cite the law of compensation for slaves. Now if a slave is to receive compensation how much more a neighbour? If he loses a month’s wages because of a broken wrist, he is entitled to compensation for the injury. So we can see that in a judicial system more than one law may come into play, a law of justice and a law of compensation. I speak here in the hypothetical, but this is the way the law works; claims are presented and a judge makes decision based on the existing laws as to what is fair treatment of the case. Many victims would suggest that we should have a much stronger system of justice in our courts today. If we understand how laws and judicial systems go hand in hand, then these verses become much more elaborate than on initial appearance. Exodus 21:20-21"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.This law implies that sustainable injury is permissible to use against slaves, but not to the point of loss as we have seen. But it is imperative that we keep in mind God’s view of justice, which demonstrates that the punishment should fit the crime. Imagine.A wealthy slave owner traveled away on urgent business. He had left a new 14 year old male slave working down in his horse stables. The slave had recently been bought from the slave market in a neighbouring land where life was significantly different (for the worse) from that of life in Israel. He had bought two slaves from there before and both had been not only very good in his service, but both were very pleased to be living in Israel, where they enjoyed a safe and happy existence. The owner returned early from his trip when messengers were sent to inform him that his dearly loved and very talented ten year old son was laid up in bed with injury. The despairing father (who does not raise a hand to his son) was told by a female slave that she witnessed the new male slave retaliate to his sons words of impatience, with a severe beating. The slave likewise was severely punished with the rod, and relocated to another of the slave owners properties a distance from the family home. He remained in the slave owner’s service and despite a first year of difficult transition he went on to the successful management of one of the slave owners larger properties and became happily married to one of the slave owner’s female slaves.EndI could probably think of unlimited situations where a beating with the rod would be quite appropriate treatment for a slave that was determinably guilty. It must be remembered though that the punishment must fit the crime. Exodus 23:31. Do not oppress the alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt. – This is a law. I will have to address the other verses at a later date, but felt I needed to post some response in the meantime. Hope it gives you some food for thought.HoneyPS. I must specify that I do not believe there is any place for slavery in modern society. We have security systems to deal with poverty, we have prisons and rehabilitation to deal with wayward behaviour, we have God’s demonstration of Love through Jesus Christ, to administer such to our neighbours. I believe that Christ has brought us to a point where it can be determined and defended that each and every man is created equal under God and that each and every man should have the dignity of freedom. Unforunatly not all follow Christ, (or God) and thus slavery is as oppressive today for those who find themselves in that position as it ever was throughout the worst of man's history.Honey
Honey, when your explanations, (for what are pretty straight forward verses), take longer than a Bible Chapter in itself, that should be your first clue that something just isn’t right here. My, My My, how we bend over backwards to defend our God and the Bible from the inconsistencies painfully obvious in them. Your last paragraph is the most condemning of your own position. “There is no place for Slavery in modern society.” I ask why would God have a place for it in ancient society then? If it was a good thing then, it would be a good thing now. Don’t you see what you are doing Honey? You are putting God in the position of having situational ethics. You are saying that God could approve of beatings, forced slavery, polygamy, or forced rape back in the day, just because the economic times were different. Now surely your rational mind would not agree with this would it? If this is an all powerful and perfect God, surely his ethical behavior toward man would always be consistent. Your most incredible statement was; “That Christ has brought us to a point where it can be determined and defended that each and every man is created equal under God and that each and every man should have the dignity of freedom.” I know you thought you were giving praise to Jesus here, but what you have really done is tell me that beforehand God did not view all men as created equal, nor did he allow men to have the dignity of freedom, nor did he allow women to be treated as anything but property, so basically God did have a double standard. No matter how much you tell me that Jesus came to set us all free from the cruelty of the past, to give us some human dignity finally, and to set the slaves free, the fact is that God stood around and did nothing for 4000, to 6000 years or more and allowed humans to treat other humans like cattle, when he could have stopped it all with just one or two more consistent little laws. Thank God you didn’t live back then Honey. I mean for God’s sake Honey, you just told me basically that beating a slave was OK with your God. You just told me that forced sex with slave girls was OK with your God. You just basically told me that before Jesus came, God had no respect for human dignity!This scripture did not come from any God Honey, and if you take off the blinders it is sooooo easy to see it. It clearly came from slave owners. It clearly came from men who viewed women as property like cattle to do with as they please, sexually or otherwise, and yet you tell me that this was God’s plan. Doubt is not some power magically imposed upon you from Satan, it comes from a logical thinking brain. Don't be afraid to use it.You know in your heart this crap doesn't make sense. Usually the simple answer is the correct one.
P.S Honey, click on my name and go to my website. I think it will help you. You need to see the truth. You need to come to the light of freedom which is the mind free of the repression of these old superstitions and fairy tales.It is scary at first because people have told you for so long that your going to burn in hell forever and forever. It's just not true Honey, and God will not get you for seeking the truth.
Noogtiger,The very first thing I said was that the slavery issue had a spiritual significance. You asked me nothing of this but totally ignored the comment. This demonstrates to me exactly what I suspected of you, that you have no interest in the facts of the matter, or in what I believe.Second, I explained it in such great detail because you seem to have difficulty grasping what God puts simply. I bent over backwards so that you might understand.What’s not right here is your lack of understanding on the matter. I can see from your response it is a front for something more insidious.You said: “You just told me that forced sex with slave girls was OK with your God.”This is a lie. I did not say this anywhere or imply any such a thing.What I said is“I will have to address the other verses at a later date”I also quoted the Bible text:Exodus 23:31. Do not oppress the alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt. – This is a law. I repeat what I stated previously. Slavery itself is not the real issue. The issue is the hearts of men. Slavery was a matter of circumstance. The circumstances have changed.If you can manipulate the words I write, and even straight out lie about what I write, then you need to focus your attention towards your own heart.And what ‘hell’? As far as I am concerned hell is only for those who knowingly tell lies to lead people astray and are unrepentant. Matthew 12:37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."I will not discuss the matter with you any further. You know where your knees are when you feel you are ready to bring your issues before God. Honey
Honey,I must have forgotten to link to my response to you. I responded at Can we trust science? part 2
Honey says:“The issue is the hearts of men. Slavery was a matter of circumstance. The circumstances have changed.”Honey, the fact of the mater is that you claim this to be the words of God. God’s word is telling us how to beat our slaves, when it is ok to force yourselves sexually on your slave girls, and that it was fine with God that women and slaves were second class citizens back then. It was fine with God that people were not treated with common human decency for 4000 years. How can that be a loving and just God?It was not just a statement of the poor conditions or the circumstances. This was the word of God about how to carry out these atrocities. Funny that God only became conscious of treating people with common human decency after the New Testament was written. Well actually this didn’t happen until the 19th century. It took God a hell of a long time to come around.
Noogatiger,You blatantly lied about what I had said. I will not discuss the matter with you. Honey
"the very first item on the list is not a Biblical error.It is from Choronicals 3:22. The site claims there is a numerical error counting the sons, but if either the person making the claim or yourself chose to do an ounce of research on what you so quickly jump to accuse, you would know that the Hebrew word for 'ben' used for 'son' is also used as the word for 'grandson'"Huh?I Chronicales 3:22 says, "the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat, six." That verse lists five people, but says there are six. It doesn't matter if these five people are sons, grandsons, "bens", nephews, or whatever. There are not 6 people on that list.It is surely a mistake to say there are 6 "bens" if there are only 5.
Honey, I lied about nothing. You told me you had no problem with those scriptures, so you agree with what they say ipso-facto. This means you are fine with God allowing forced sex of slave girls? If you do not approve of it, then you must agree that God was wrong to allow this.You, Honey, decline to debate it further because you simply have no argument to defend these scriptures. They cannot be defended, and are patent proof that this is not God's word.
1 Chronicles 3KING JAMES VERSION22And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION22 The descendants of Shecaniah: Shemaiah and his sons: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat—six in allHere I have given the two most common translations. The NIV which is translated from the original Hebrew makes it very clear.The KJV translated from the Latin is still very clear.The fact that it is speaking about the sons (sons and grandsons) of Shechaniah is made clear by the use of the plural ‘sons’. Shechaniah only has one son listed, and that is Shemaiah. Shemaiah has five sons listed. That makes a total of six sons (son+grandsons)of Shechaniah, as was being demonstrated.It is surely a mistake to read a verse out of its context. Honey
Noogatiger,No verse in the Bible condones what you are claiming.You lie about what the Bible says. You lie about what I say.And if you believe what you are saying you lie also to yourself. No legitimate debate can be continued under such circumstances.I will not directly respond to you again. Honey
Honey, you can just kiss my big ole ass for calling me a liar. I am not a liar. I just read them as they are writen. All I did is give you the very scriptures which condone exactly what I said it does, and what you ignore. You have not addressed those scriptures at all.Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son." Even if this is sex by consent of both parties, it is adulty at the least Honey, and if it is not by consent, then it is rape. So, which is it Honey, rape or adultry? Either way God did not seem to have a problem with this.I did not make any of these verses up, God wrote it, as you would say.
CORRECTION RE:1 Chronicles 3 CommentOoops! Sorry, I stated "The KJV translated from the Latin is still very clear"That should read The KJV translated from the MASORETIC TEXT is still very clear.(Masoretic Text is in a later form of Hebrew- from 9th century AD.) Honey
Can We Trust Science - Part 2 ReplyI read what you said Merle, and here are your exact words.“As I have explained, the real test of a scientific claim is whether it impresses those who understand the science behind the claim.”Then I gave you examples of cases where the science didn’t impress those who understand the science behind the claims.I am not going to chase your tail on this Merle. I have clearly demonstrated instances where you are incorrect in what you say. I don’t have a website up claiming to have been ‘set free’, but I have read some of your site and I see that you are not as free from bias as you portray to be. I could spend night and day on your site pinning your arguments down, but you just rehash what has been said and you are no more right than you were the first time.Let’s look at the photo example for a min. I fully understood what you were saying, and I built on your illustration to demonstrate the reality of the larger fossil record situation you so strenuously defend. When different animal skeletons of varying characteristics are taken from different places in the world and lined up next to each other regardless of their other unknown systems, in an attempt demonstrate progression when there is no evidence they are related to one another, well I consider it more of a stretch than the example I actually supplied. My illustration only serves to prove that there is a lot of speculation taking the place of real science, and I am not the only one who thinks this. Many scientists, even some evolutionists have spoken of just such problems in the evolution record. I acknowledge that you don’t see there are such difficulties, but that is only because you have jumped on the evolution band wagon and stopped questioning. Talking about the rocks, you suggest I should read up on what some scientists think.I have. I don’t pretend to understand it (I don’t have time to get into it), but it’s the same problem there Merle; where respected geologists disagree with the claims made by other scientists about the dating of rocks. Then what is this you say?“Yes, of course they have problems convincing scientists that the earth is 6000 years old and that creatures did not evolve”.They have demonstrated themselves to be not only legitimate scientists, but highly regarded in their positions. If they have some scientific contribution to make that goes against a scientific theory, then they should not be shunned for their science. And what about this little beauty! You say:“science is not based on what an authority figure says. It is based on facts.”The whole theory of man coming from the sea is just that! A theory! Ok so let me see if I’ve go this right.The scientists may present their scientific opinions but if it gets in the way of a theory, well they had better expect to have some problems. Sheesh!Then you said:“Would you allow all sorts of pseudoscience to be published as science, with no discrimination as to the validity of the claim?”Well if you read the article you pasted properly you would see that already happens.“We know that peer review is not perfect. It does not eliminate bias, on the part of either the reviewer or the editor. It does not weed out fraudulent research or even all flawed research. It cannot guarantee the truthfulness or the validity of the work.”Text books are full of pseudoscience (in the broader sense)Then you said I misunderstood what they said, that peer review was not ‘totally unscientific’. Apparently I had that out of context. Ok well let me put that back into context, here is what came a short way before it….again. Quote from Peer Review Article“WE KNOW THAT PEER REVIEW IS NOT PERFECT. IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE BIAS, ON THE PART OF EITHER THE REVIEWER OR THE EDITOR. IT DOES NOT WEED OUT FRAUDULENT RESEARCH OR EVEN ALL FLAWED RESEARCH. IT CANNOT GUARANTEE THE TRUTHFULNESS OR THE VALIDITY OF THE WORK”. I can read exactly what they are saying and my statement was more than justified in the context of our discussions. Then you quote me:“To make the claim that some researched matter is not science if it has not been through the peer review system or on the other hand that because it passes through that system with seeming success, that it is guaranteed to be science, is an outright demonstratable LIE. Clearly you are a man of neither integrity or science, both of which you falsly portray.”Then you say:“But I have never made either of the above claims, nor does the scientific community make these claims. So why are you making up false claims, and pretending that somebody believes them, and then joyfully shooting them down? Why attack a straw man?”Here Merle, let me help jog your memory. Here is what you said about the scientific research used by AIG. “The AIG site is aimed at lay people, but it presents claims that have not been submitted in peer-reviewed journals. Writing impresive scientific-sounding claims that fool the general public is not the way science is done. Scientists publish instead in peer-reviewed journals, where knowledgable independent scientists can reject the article before it is published.”And as you would know from reading their site and also having been told here by one of your readers, AIG have what is called TJ (technical journal), from which many of their lay articles have been comprised.Oh and I forgot to mention Dr. Warren. The article you sent me to had the audacity to condescendingly call him a “self-promoter”. In the article Kimball Atwood, asserts that the claims made by Dr. Tess Gerritsen seem to be of no substance and only help to perpetuate the myth that Dr Warren was ostracized. Kimball Atwood tries to contact Dr Warren, who doesn’t reply, so the article DOESN’T have his endorsement. Now who am I more likely to believe under the circumstances…Dr Warren, or Kimball Atwood…um…sorry, Dr Warren the Nobel Prize winner wins again. Also I explained to you exactly why Dr Warrens story was on the tall poppies site. And why do you think the Kimball Artwood article has been written? What did you think he is trying to defend again? Maybe you didn’t read this article so well. Look what Dr Tess Gerritsen says!“Believe me, they were ridiculed by the medical establishment. I recall my colleagues,and even my own physician-husband, scoffing at the idea ofpeptic ulcers being an infectious disease. For the next thirteen years, most of the “medical mainstream” refused to let go of their calcified notion that the only treatment for ulcers was to combat gastric acid secretion. After all, that was what we all learned in medical school. Therefore, it had to be the truth!”And here is what Kimball Artwood says of Dr WarrenA bit of digging reveals that Marshall himself has had a hand innurturing, if not creating, the myth.Yeah right. If you have ever had to work with architects you soon find out that what looks good on paper doesn’t always work in real life. Kimball Arwood can say what he likes, but he has to dispute the claims of two other professionals in this article to do so, and he does in what I consider to be a rather rude manner.I know that what Dr Warren claimed in his T.V interview and what is demonstrated on the website I initially cited is true because he is far from the only scientist/medical professional I have seen make the claim. He has just gained more ears because of his Nobel Prize. The problem here is Merle, you can throw that ball back at me with a bit more spin, and I can bat back with a bit more force, and we can send the ball off in all sorts of directions, and you think that because someone drops the bat and walks away that you have won the game. What a conundrum. People don’t like to waste their time on games, but at some stage it needs to be pointed out that you are not actually the winner because they don’t have time to play anymore. I have seen you wrong on science, I have many significant things to say, but I don’t have the time to attend to the matter with the commitment it needs. I believe I have cleared up the ‘Peer Review Issue’ demonstrating from the article I cited that it is not the true measure of science, but a tool of science. Honey
Post a Comment