world population

[Dr.Who]

All religion is conjecture, you have zero proof that God had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.

when I state my opinion you demand proof. When you state your wild accusations they are quite sound by your own analysis.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are being deliberately disingenuous here, you've posted this argument several times, but you have not supported it nor have you addressed my responses to the argument. You seem to be operating on the theory that a lie told often enough will soon gain the substance of truth.

Which is it? Have I posted these arguments several times or have I ducked them?

I've asked before, but I will ask again. What about the large number of children that gay parents have the same way that sterile heteros have them?

When a hetero sterile couple buys or borrows sperm and/or egg they create a new life from a sperm and an egg. It is an artificial heterosexual process. When a gay couple buys or borrows sperm and/or egg they create a new life from a sperm and an egg. It is an artificial heterosexual process.

I would also like you to delineate the "restrictions" that hetero suffer under and that you wish to rescue homosexuals from.

The biological father of a child must support it. That is not true for the children produced from gay sex because there are no children produced that way.

One spouse must support the other spouse in breeding couples because the demands of raising the children the union created often cause dependency.

When a spouse outlives his/her made the spouse automatically gets the inheritance unless otherwise specified. This is done for the benefit of children and dependent spouses.

If a couple adopts a child I think adoption laws should provide for what is needed.


Part of what makes your argument disingenuous is that you catagorically refuse to address the more than 1000 rights and privileges guaranteed to legally married people under US law. I'm waiting, Dr. Who.[/QUOTE]

I have already addressed this many times. I don't think that married couples should get special privileges.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, I quoted at least 12 different verses, none of which are inspired, and all of which are just downright silly, regardless of how they are read and interpreted.

You have read all the interpretations? If not then you have no basis to make that claim.

The Bible is a collection of ancient books, as I just said. They were written by men, mostly in languages now dead, and translated into modern tongues by the hand of man, and with the errors that are inevitable in human enterprises.

Yes that is true. It is my belief that they are also inspired and true.

Some of them are allegories (the great flood), some are accounts of legends (the raising of Lazerus) some are accounts of ancient myths (the garden of Eden), some have words to live by (love thy neighbor), some are accounts of actual historical people, but none of them were written by the hand of god. Like anything else, the Bible has to be read and interpreted for what it is, a collection of stories.

If you want to think that it is your opinion.

To think it is the word of god and to believe that all of it is correct, it is necessary to believe that people should be stoned to death for a variety of sins.

The six million Christians who do not stone people to death disagree with you. I would expect better of you. Clearly you know that Christianity does not require that.

All of which doesn't prove that there is no god, only that the Bible is a book written by his creations: Us.

If there might be a God then how can you say he might not have inspired the bible. Nothing there proves it was authored by his creations without inspiration.

 

[PLC1]

You have read all the interpretations? If not then you have no basis to make that claim.

It would be difficult to come up with an interpretation to the assertion that people who wear cloth made of two fibers should be stoned that didn't make the statement look ridiculous, but, then, if you know of one, by all means, let's hear it.

Yes that is true. It is my belief that they are also inspired and true.

That is your belief and opinion. If you want to think that Noah actually went all over the world, including the part that was unknown at the time, and collected two of all of the millions of species of animals to save them from a flood, then by all means, believe that. To me, it is a lot easier to accept that it was simply an allegory about being prepared and heeding the word of god.

The six million Christians who do not stone people to death disagree with you. I would expect better of you. Clearly you know that Christianity does not require that.

Then, the six million Christians who do not stone people to death must not take the Bible literally any more than I do.

If there might be a God then how can you say he might not have inspired the bible. Nothing there proves it was authored by his creations without inspiration.

I can say that he didn't inspire the Bible, because it is full of errors an impossibilities. The fact that it is is proof that it was written by humans.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Having a family is not at all the same as creating children. Adoption is a separate issue and I support gay adoptions.

Any gay couple that uses artificial insemination to create a child is still engaging in the straight breeding process because they still used an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man. The laws on marriage and breeding already cover these scenarios.

Wrong! No gay couple gets to marry even if they have children, children by artificial means by heteros are protected by the laws of marriage, but children by artificial means by homosexuals are denied the protection of marriage laws.

Even if you don't think that anyone should be given special rights, the fact remains that heterosexuals get them and homosexuals are denied them--children are irrelevant to the law when it comes to granting or denying marriage rights. And you support this denial of rights apparently.

 

[Dr.Who]

It would be difficult to come up with an interpretation to the assertion that people who wear cloth made of two fibers should be stoned that didn't make the statement look ridiculous, but, then, if you know of one, by all means, let's hear it.

I believe there is a very important lesson for you here. Maybe several. Did you hear that from someone? Maybe on an anti-theist website? Don't believe everything you hear. Check things out for yourself. If the people who have studied the bible all their lives are telling you that it's main message is one thing and the people who wrote an anti-theist website have demonstrated time and time again that they put in a lot of effort but little thought it might make more sense to listen to the one group and not the other. And of course to evaluate everything first hand.

Somehow you have internalized a set of beliefs about the bible that lead you to reject it wholesale and to think that it is full of ridiculous stuff. And as a result you have posted the statement above. You might want to reconsider all of what you think.

So, the explanation for that passage is very simple. I found it in Leviticus 19:19 and in it there is absolutely no instruction to stone people who mix cloths. Is that good enough?

Regarding the rule itself: consider the context. Just about every rule in that chapter points to two things that must be kept separate (which is another word for holy).

For example:

Do not make idols; I am the Lord. The contrast is between false gods and a real God. They are separate.

When you make an offering do it in an acceptable way not an unacceptable way. The contrast between holy and unholy is obvious.

When you harvest a field take the center but leave the edges for the poor. the contrast is between a part for self and a part for others.

You can read the whole chapter and see for yourself that just about every verse in it makes a very clear contrast pointing to a separation. Some are not so obvious; I wonder if the pattern faded in translation.

Another thing that seems to be a pattern to me is that some of the verses are short and direct but then the next verses follow up with more detail.

For example, verse 11 is:

'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.

And then it is followed by several verses that expand the concepts with more detail. "'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. " Again the contrast between holy and unholy is still there.

So why is there a short and direct verse about 1) mating animals, 2) mixing seeds, and 3) mixing cloths? Do you suppose the verses that follow will add more detail?

(I have added numbers)

1) Don't sleep with a girl promised to another [the obvious unspoken contrast is to only sleep with girls promised to oneself]
2) When you enter a land do not eat the fruit there until three years later [to allow the trees to mature and reproduce] so the harvest will be increased.
3) Do no eat meat with blood still in it. [shows the contrast between death and life]

I propose that the visible signs that could be seen in ones flock, ones field and ones clothing would reinforce the other laws of separation. Every time one put on an article of clothing one would be reminded that the Israelites were not the same as the people living around them; they were a holy or separate people. They were charged with and chosen to keep the written law that pointed to Christ so that in future years everyone would be able to see how Christ was pointed to in advance. But if as a nation they became just like the nations around them they would never be able to fulfill their charge. All the holiness laws can be seen as separating the Israelites from others. A good Hebrew woman would never marry a man who was not circumcised. A good Hebrew family would never eat with those who did not prepare their food Kosher. And it would be really easy to know who was who based on how they dressed and conducted their lives.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is your belief and opinion. If you want to think that Noah actually went all over the world, including the part that was unknown at the time, and collected two of all of the millions of species of animals to save them from a flood, then by all means, believe that. To me, it is a lot easier to accept that it was simply an allegory about being prepared and heeding the word of god.

Hmmm? I don't believe that either. Did someone tell you that is what the story says? Actually I know they did. The interpretation above is such a common one that it would be hard to live in America and not to have heard it.

But it is one of those examples of an interpretation that got started a long time ago and is still common today despite parts of the bible that clearly contradict that interpretation.

I know I have discussed the Ark story here. I thought you have been around long enough to have been a part of that. If so, you should at least know that that is not the only way to read the story. Do you think that if you researched it you might find that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation?

 

[Dr.Who]

Then, the six million Christians who do not stone people to death must not take the Bible literally any more than I do.

Or maybe they take it very literally when the Law is understood to be fulfilled and the greater law that it pointed to is embraced instead.

Much more likely they take some parts to be literal and some to be figurative and with effort and discernment they work out for themselves how to interpret things. Christianity is for thinkers; those who will not think about it will have a limited understanding.

 

[Dr.Who]

I can say that he didn't inspire the Bible, because it is full of errors an impossibilities. The fact that it is is proof that it was written by humans.

Just maybe all the errors and impossibilities are examples of you not thinking about it enough to understand. You appear to be a smart cookie. Don't believe what you have heard - from the dolts in the anti-theist camp as well as from the dolts in the Christian camp.

I suggest a challenge for yourself. Start three threads each about a concern you have with a passage that appears to be ridiculous. Pick the three largest and greatest concerns and let them be representative of the whole bible. Then if you find, with prayer and genuousness, that there are three reasonable and plausible answers for the three concerns, promise yourself that you will re-evaluate the whole of Christianity.

 

[Dr.Who]

Wrong! No gay couple gets to marry even if they have children, children by artificial means by heteros are protected by the laws of marriage, but children by artificial means by homosexuals are denied the protection of marriage laws.

I said that the marriage laws cover the situations for breeders. Any gay person that has a child biologically can marry the biological parent of that child. If a single woman donates an egg and a single man donates a sperm they can get married. Why? Because they are the biological parents and they are not already married. See the laws are about breeding not about orientation. Ones orientation is irrelevant. Paternity and maternity are important.

Even if you don't think that anyone should be given special rights, the fact remains that heterosexuals get them and homosexuals are denied them--children are irrelevant to the law when it comes to granting or denying marriage rights. And you support this denial of rights apparently.

The fact that children are the result of hetero unions is the whole reason that the laws on marriage exist.

The priveleges that come with marriage should be eliminated. It is not fair to singles of any sort.

 

[PLC1]

I believe there is a very important lesson for you here. Maybe several. Did you hear that from someone? Maybe on an anti-theist website? Don't believe everything you hear. Check things out for yourself. If the people who have studied the bible all their lives are telling you that it's main message is one thing and the people who wrote an anti-theist website have demonstrated time and time again that they put in a lot of effort but little thought it might make more sense to listen to the one group and not the other. And of course to evaluate everything first hand.

Actually, I am not in the habit of believing everything I hear, and I do check things out, which is why I don't take everything that is in the Bible literally. I got the prohibition of wearing two fibers from Leviticus 19:19, to wit:

19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

It's easy to see the wisdom in the first part: Don't let your cattle breed with another kind, as the genetics of the herd could be compromised. Sowing different kinds of seed could result in the same thing. The third part can't be interpreted literally, so it has to have either been in error, or is the result of a mistranslation. I'm guessing it was the latter. Either way, a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't make sense.

Somehow you have internalized a set of beliefs about the bible that lead you to reject it wholesale and to think that it is full of ridiculous stuff. And as a result you have posted the statement above. You might want to reconsider all of what you think.

Actually, I didn't say I wanted to reject it wholesale. You were the one who said it was either all correct, or not. I did reject the all or nothing premise, calling it a collection of ancient writings.

So, the explanation for that passage is very simple. I found it in Leviticus 19:19 and in it there is absolutely no instruction to stone people who mix cloths. Is that good enough?

Regarding the rule itself: consider the context. Just about every rule in that chapter points to two things that must be kept separate (which is another word for holy).

For example:

Do not make idols; I am the Lord. The contrast is between false gods and a real God. They are separate.

When you make an offering do it in an acceptable way not an unacceptable way. The contrast between holy and unholy is obvious.

When you harvest a field take the center but leave the edges for the poor. the contrast is between a part for self and a part for others.

You can read the whole chapter and see for yourself that just about every verse in it makes a very clear contrast pointing to a separation. Some are not so obvious; I wonder if the pattern faded in translation.

As I said above, I'm pretty sure that is what happened.

Another thing that seems to be a pattern to me is that some of the verses are short and direct but then the next verses follow up with more detail.

For example, verse 11 is:

'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.

And then it is followed by several verses that expand the concepts with more detail. "'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. " Again the contrast between holy and unholy is still there.

So why is there a short and direct verse about 1) mating animals, 2) mixing seeds, and 3) mixing cloths? Do you suppose the verses that follow will add more detail?

(I have added numbers)

1) Don't sleep with a girl promised to another [the obvious unspoken contrast is to only sleep with girls promised to oneself]
2) When you enter a land do not eat the fruit there until three years later [to allow the trees to mature and reproduce] so the harvest will be increased.

All of that makes some sense. Perhaps the chapter was meant as a kind of yin and yang, contrast between good and bad. Most societies frown on sleeping with girls promised to someone else. Eating fruit of immature trees doesn't keep them from growing more fruit, so that one makes no sense. I'm guessing that was either a misconception or a mistranslation.

3) Do no eat meat with blood still in it. [shows the contrast between death and life]

Yin and yang, again, perhaps, but eating meat with blood still in it doesn't harm anyone, so long as it is well cooked.

I propose that the visible signs that could be seen in ones flock, ones field and ones clothing would reinforce the other laws of separation. Every time one put on an article of clothing one would be reminded that the Israelites were not the same as the people living around them; they were a holy or separate people. They were charged with and chosen to keep the written law that pointed to Christ so that in future years everyone would be able to see how Christ was pointed to in advance. But if as a nation they became just like the nations around them they would never be able to fulfill their charge. All the holiness laws can be seen as separating the Israelites from others. A good Hebrew woman would never marry a man who was not circumcised. A good Hebrew family would never eat with those who did not prepare their food Kosher. And it would be really easy to know who was who based on how they dressed and conducted their lives.

So, it was meant to keep the Israelites segregated from everyone else, so that Christ could make his appearance?

 

[PLC1]

Hmmm? I don't believe that either. Did someone tell you that is what the story says? Actually I know they did. The interpretation above is such a common one that it would be hard to live in America and not to have heard it.

But it is one of those examples of an interpretation that got started a long time ago and is still common today despite parts of the bible that clearly contradict that interpretation.

I know I have discussed the Ark story here. I thought you have been around long enough to have been a part of that. If so, you should at least know that that is not the only way to read the story. Do you think that if you researched it you might find that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation?

Well, the Bible does say that there was a universal flood, and that Noah went around and gathered up all of the animals and put them on the Ark. Of course, it doesn't give the details of going to all of the continents of the world, but if there was really a universal flood, then it follows that is what he would have had to do. There are three possibilities, the first of which is impossible:

The deluge was an actual, historical event, and Noah actually did save the animal life on this planet.

There was a big flood, and Noah saved some of the farm animals.

The story is meant as an allegory, not to be taken literally.

Perhaps there is a fourth possibility I haven't thought of.

I'm betting on the allegory hypothesis as the most likely.

Not that I mean to take anything away from the story, as it does have a good moral: Be prepared.

 

[PLC1]

Or maybe they take it very literally when the Law is understood to be fulfilled and the greater law that it pointed to is embraced instead.

Much more likely they take some parts to be literal and some to be figurative and with effort and discernment they work out for themselves how to interpret things. Christianity is for thinkers; those who will not think about it will have a limited understanding.

Exactly what I've been saying all along! Christianity is for thinkers, some parts of the Bible can be taken literally, while others can not.

I'm not sure if I convinced you of anything, or if that was your opinion all along, but you did say something about the Bible being either all inspired and to be followed, or not inspired and therefore worthless. Did I misunderstand your point?

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, the Bible does say that there was a universal flood, and that Noah went around and gathered up all of the animals and put them on the Ark. Of course, it doesn't give the details of going to all of the continents of the world, but if there was really a universal flood, then it follows that is what he would have had to do. There are three possibilities, the first of which is impossible:

The deluge was an actual, historical event, and Noah actually did save the animal life on this planet.

There was a big flood, and Noah saved some of the farm animals.

The story is meant as an allegory, not to be taken literally.

Perhaps there is a fourth possibility I haven't thought of.

I'm betting on the allegory hypothesis as the most likely.

Not that I mean to take anything away from the story, as it does have a good moral: Be prepared.

That's not the way I see it. And I have some strong reasons for thinking my interpretation is better than the traditional one. Partly because the traidtional one does not jive with geology and partly because it does not jive with the rest of the bible. There were really just a few words that could easily have been translated a different way and were not. Those few words change the whole plot of the passage.

Try reading the passage inserting the word "region" every time you see the word "world".

 

[Dr.Who]

Exactly what I've been saying all along! Christianity is for thinkers, some parts of the Bible can be taken literally, while others can not.

I'm not sure if I convinced you of anything, or if that was your opinion all along, but you did say something about the Bible being either all inspired and to be followed, or not inspired and therefore worthless. Did I misunderstand your point?

I don;t know if you missed it.

I think it is all inspried and to be taken as a whole but also interpreted and parts to be understood as figurative. Even the figurative parts are still inspired and useful for teaching.