Hyuk - this got modded down. I assume some moderator is allergic to politeness. But it makes some useful point to the overrated parent. Reposting...
-----
I'm not the poster above but...
> Wrong. RTFA. CYFM (Clean Your Filthy Mouth)
> Consumer gets to make final "accept/reject" on purchase after card is scanned. I didn't see that in the article (it is possible I missed it). Please post the phrase from the article that specifies this. The article actually talks about 2 seperate cards - one from Amex, one from Mastercard.
The article does say: In theory, the transaction could be intercepted without a consumer's knowledge by a technologically savvy thief intent on cloning a card. That's because RFID transmissions themselves are not encrypted.
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Also, the account number on the contactless cards is useful only in the RFID system -- it's not the same as a user's credit card number. A crook would thus not be able to use the card number to go on a fraudulent Internet shopping spree, for example.
> Also, card includes challenge/response authentication... Still susceptible to attack unless the customer gets to control a local UI *on* the card. (see my other post here).
Now who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
I appreciate your parable is nonsense. Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though. Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?). Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
So you can do your own washing.
You are correct about science -- I mixed up "proven" with "experimentally verified" (and in the same sentence too) Here's a good link that explains how science works:
-------- 5. The hypothesis triumphant -- a "Law" of science a. Some hypotheses offer such strong predictions and withstand testing for such a long period of time that they become generally accepted, first as "theories" and then as "laws." b. However, even these are not "absolute." A scientific law is just a "very strongly supported inference." We do not know that it will survive in light of new data or technology. c. The empirical sciences have several such laws (e.g., gravity, thermodynamics). The historical sciences have no or few laws because of the nature of their data. --------- [<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/event s/tiffney3a.html">link</a>]
Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this. If you have contradictory information, state your links.
I'm familiar with the talk origins site, and the page on the flood too. There are many places that rebut most of the points there - answersingenesis.org is one.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Pride does not suit anyone - whether or effort applied or not. In your case, your pride (which is obvious by your smart-alecky comments) makes you more foolish.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary definition - read the Bible).
Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world, *and their glory* - you don't see very much glory for a high mountain. How do you *know* it wasn't a sound and light show with the mountain chosen for it's 360 degree view?
Atheism is a belief system - just like any other. To actively disbelieve in God is itself a held belief. [top link on Google search for "atheist belief"]. In light of the snippet on science above, it could be said that you believe in the theory of atheism.:)
Again, in closing I say - who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
Looks like your pride is always two steps ahead of your logic.
I didn't say your inputs were unwelcome. I pointed out the context of the discussion. I was doing a reductio ad-absurdum on the argument with the other guy.
------------- ...
At this stage this baby is kicking, moving its arms and has likely urinated.
...
plunges a scissors into the neck at the base of the skull. This injures or severs the spinal cord and results in instant decerebrate rigidity, that is, a spastic arching of the back
...
We might note the happening at times, of what is called an "oops" delivery. This is when he has delivered all of the child except the head and is preparing to kill him, when the mother gives one big push and the head pops out. Now he has a living child in his arms, and he says, "Oops."
-------------
The real "Christian standpoint" is the mind of Christ himself. Anyone can figure that out, either by reading the Bible clearly, or by the God's spirit (the two don't disagree). So there is a real Christian standpoint, and the poster above you expressed it.
You're free to disagree - but note, that is just your opinion.
This post was labelled a troll, before the modertator presumably ran out of mod points. Reposting... ---- If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.... Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
From the article linked: ---- Naomi Wolf, the high-profile 32-year-old feminist author and Rhodes scholar, recently admitted that her morning sickness--and her seeing the baby inside moving on a scan--has helped her change her mind about abortion.
With her first baby due soon, Wolf said that she now rejects the abortion lobby's claim that a foetus isn't a human life but is merely a mass of tissue....
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
> You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered. No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
> > As a Christian... establish his rule on earth. > I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this. No, like every Christian, I live in hope. BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy of the person who made that claim. See my other posts if you are interested.
> The problem is that you equate embryos with children, > and this is inaccurate. >... > strawman on your part.
Eh? A strawman? Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such. That is my position.
> Consumer gets to make final "accept/reject" on purchase after card is scanned. I didn't see that in the article (it is possible I missed it). Please post the phrase from the article that specifies this. The article actually talks about 2 seperate cards - one from Amex, one from Mastercard.
The article does say: In theory, the transaction could be intercepted without a consumer's knowledge by a technologically savvy thief intent on cloning a card. That's because RFID transmissions themselves are not encrypted.
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Also, the account number on the contactless cards is useful only in the RFID system -- it's not the same as a user's credit card number. A crook would thus not be able to use the card number to go on a fraudulent Internet shopping spree, for example.
> Also, card includes challenge/response authentication... Still susceptible to attack unless the customer gets to control a local UI *on* the card. (see my other post here).
Also, there is no way for the customer to control access to the card.
Seriously though, excellent point. I made a similar point here in the article on fake ATMs -- even smartcards (contactless or otherwise) with PK crypto are susceptible to attack by fake-front ATMs unless they present an on-board interface so that the buyer can control the transaction.
Otherwise, the buyer will just see the seller make a "big sucking sound".
> Yes, you cracked the secret code in my message. We try hard to please, O great sharp-tongued one...
> > Let me first say - you need faith to please God... > putting the cart before the horse... I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
A man is in a building that is on fire. A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump. Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump. "Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here. The man burns to death.
> > Firstly, read about the Bible - > > multiple scholar[s] were proven wrong > > and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered.
> Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? I don't have it handy. But I'll give you an example, quoting from here:
In the previous century, critics of the Bible had great fun mocking the story of Jonah and his preaching trip to Ninevah. They knew, of course, that Ninevah never existed,
Now we know it does.
> > How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. > > How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
> Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere > or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically > be non-fiction?
1. Spherical World No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
2. Supercontinent Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
Another thing I forgot to mention earlier: 3. The book of Job also claims God has "hung the earth (previously described as spherical) in nothingness"
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement:)
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, it's a theory we should follow.
> > Next look up at creation. > Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error. Eh, "Created" is a common word - as in: "Radon gas is created by the decay of U235". Stop being so sensitive.
> > Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, > > trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, > > and one more species evolved flight separately.
> Scientific theories are constantly refined; > this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers > that makes them think that scientific theories are required > to be absolutely correct Nothing. We accept that, many of us being scientists too. The problems are:
1. The rate at which evolutionary theories changing is notable.
2. The changes aren't refinements - like gravity at quantum scales - they outright replace the main mechanism of the theory it replaces (eg: punctuated equilibium v/s gradual change)
3. Theories of evolution (like the theory of punctuated equilibium) have not been proven. Newton's laws hold true and can be experimentally verified, unlike the theories of evolution, which can't be directly proven.
This is the point at which you're expected to provide objective evidence. Good luck.
Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence. Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
Next, let me next say - you'll never be able to disprove God. The evidence with either be neutral, or strongly suggest his presence.
Some evidence: Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Next look up at creation. See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm. Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately. How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists. Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you. In addition you'll see blessings about things you needed help in. You'll see chastisement that you didn't like, but that you required, and you'll appreciate it.
Who told you? Where exactly did you get this information? Did God tell you himself? Is it in all His marketing brochures? Do you really believe in truth in advertising?
God told me, and he's told you too. It's spelt out explicitly in the Bible. I won't call it a marketing brochure. More like a survival guide.
Tell me something. Are you going to take sides in a war of the scale to which the bible claims is going on without hearing what the other side has to say? Have you ever heard the other side?
Well. I *grew up* on the other side. I wasn't born a Christian (and no one really is born one anyway - it's a choice you make when you have the ability to choose). Besides Hinduism, I've dabbled in Buddhism, Wicca, and readup on Islam. But Jesus is the *only* true way - when it cuts to the bone, the competition is just plain wrong.
Since we've been under 2000 years of Christian oppression, I doubt it. Right. There have been centuries of oppression by the "Church system" - the inquisition, the crusades... but I won't call it Christian oppression (see below why).
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, except that it was an institution under direct control of the Spanish crown, which was in turn given the right to rule by God. Right? Wrong - where do you get that from? If that's what Catholics say, you should believe the definitive source instead. Jesus said that at the very beginning in the Bible: "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world, then would my servants fight". The Catholic church system is against God's word in the Bible. It's all spelt out in the Bible.
People are Christian (I understand the word means "christ-like". Countries or empires, by their very definition cannot truly be Christian. The bretheren, the baptists and other congregational assemblies are much closer to what Jesus specified his Church would be.
It's surprisingly easy to reject the Bible after you understand a few marketing basics. Simple. First, always make your product appear to be the best product. Second, lie about your competition, but don't get caught. Take another pass through the Bible with those two rules in mind and tell me what you come up with.
I used to hold notions very similar to yours. I knew of parts of the Bible used to think it outrageous that the Bible attempted to "impose" its morality. But it's opinion is true, and my opinion was wrong.
It's surprisingly easy to think you got something all figured out, but miss the main point completely. I hope you're not just making these statements for the sake of making them - if you search diligently for God without preconcieved notions of what he is like (and also without preconcieved notions of what he is not like), you'll see Jesus and the Bible are the path to God.
Your fiance is probably studying an outdated biology text based on Haeckel's work that was later proven fraudulent. Haeckel was to become "became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism".
And certainly don't screw up your own kids' shot at the inheritance. What's wrong with that?
Onan's kids would receive Onan's inheritance anyway. His dead brother's children were meant to receive their fathers inheritance. Children also had the responsibility of caring for aged parents (just as parents took care of them in infancy).
What's wrong with Onan's acts is that he denied his sister-in-law her children, while keeping her his wife. (She could have married someone else).
This way, she would stay childless and would die uncared for in her old age.
The property that belonged to her and her first husband, would pass to Onan's children by his first wife.
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings.
Unfertilized eggs are not human beings. Not trying to be offensive, but if they are, billions of women flush "human beings" down the toilet every month.
I agree with you that a fertilized egg (an embryo) is human - conception has occured.
If you are being honest about refusing to be helped by the tech yielded from stemcell research, then I respect your consistency. I believe a lot of knowledge was gained by doctors in illegal expirments in Nazi concentration camps, and Japanese POW camps. That is now public medical knowledge.
I don't object to the *knowledge*. I object to benefitting from the artifact of murder.
So yes, if someone came up to me and said - here we aborted a baby, harvested stem cells, so you could be helped. I'd refuse. But if someone said - here, we know that smallpox vaccines are dangerous in XXX condition, lets not give you a shot right now - I'd take the benefit of that knowledge.
Knowledge, by itself, isn't evil. It can be used to choose good, or choose evil.
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.... Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
I am selfish. I freely admit it. I want to live. A long, happy, healthy life. And I don't need you or your "god" in order to do that.
Selfishness is human nature. I am selfish too. However, we should always keep selfishness subsevient to the golden rule: do unto others as we would have them do to us.
A baby/fetus/embryo is an "other". Do you do to it as you want done to you? No. Would you really be OK with someone piercing your neck and having your brains sucked out? I don't think so.
Nor would I ever forbid you from believing what you want to believe. "...fight to the death for your right to say it" and all that.
Ah, the old quote from Voltaire. But I don't believe you. You are the same person who said: "given a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank."
But I will be damned before I let _anyone_ (you, the pope, whoever) dictate how long or healthy I can or should live due to his personal temporal interpretation of what they see as divine guidance. (Although if you're advising me to find truth at a URL containing "babykillers", I'm probably already damned in your eyes anyway.)
Yes. You're headed for hell. I was headed there too. But no, don't take spiritual enlightenment secondhand. Read the Bible, deal direct with God and find out for yourself. It's easy.
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
No. Because I used to be an athiest too. And I remember how ridiculous I though it was when that madman told me about Jesus.
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead. Here are some reasons:
God's wrath, eternal flames that don't go out, you on fire, in pain, from the everlasting burnings, held wrath forever... These sound like big enough sticks to you?
Peace, love, goodwill, a clean conscience, amity, mercy, forgiveness, friendship, everlasting life, the joy of really being beyong reproachable, of no misdeeds. These nice enough carrots for you?
Well, I hope so, because this is the deal laid out before us - and virtually all of us, once we are no more children - have done enough bad things to warrant the big stick. We get to choose between the two before we die. Choose well.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that? Oh yes, absolutely. I have imperfect faith. And I used to be similar to you, an athiest. But you see - God is quite faithful and loving. All it takes is faith the size of a tiny mustard seed for God to do way way more for us, than we deserve. And God gives me blessing in this life too (see carrots above.) You can't beat it.
No matter how you want to spin it. If you follow that logic then every time a man masturbates he commits mass murder. No, its not. Jerking off is killing your own sperm - that's *ALL* you. A fetus/embroyo/infant is *another* *individual* human being.
Even a very young fetus is not fully human since it has no capacity for abstract thought. Neither do many severally mentally retarted people. However, they're still human. Remember the Nazi euthanists and their purging of the mentally retarted - you have a common basis of thinking with them.
Once that capacity exists (with the formation of the neocrotex in the brain) then we could grant a fetus all the same rights as a fully formed human, as longs as those rights do not enter in conflict with the mother. What do you mean, as long as those rights don't enter into conflict with the mothers. Is the mother God, to give life and to take it away? Can the siamese twin murder his weaker brother?
This is clearly a moral dilemma, and as such, it should be left to individuals to decide what to do according to their own values. Oh, some cultures value infanticide, or female genital mutilation, or slavery.
A goverment in a democratic society should not be dictating values in an issue in which there is patent disagreement. Like slavery?
God put governments in place to protect human life. You are free to disagree, as long as you only physically damage yourself.
------------- ... At this stage this baby is kicking, moving its arms and has likely urinated.
...
plunges a scissors into the neck at the base of the skull. This injures or severs the spinal cord and results in instant decerebrate rigidity, that is, a spastic arching of the back
...
We might note the happening at times, of what is called an "oops" delivery. This is when he has delivered all of the child except the head and is preparing to kill him, when the mother gives one big push and the head pops out. Now he has a living child in his arms, and he says, "Oops." -------------
Unlike your conscience is irredemably seared, you'd agree the fetus above is human.
The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud!
Now, at what point did the embryo become human? Answer: it always was - leave it alone.
Personally, if I truly believed that I was immortal (in the sense that I would be magically teleported to heaven at the point of my death) I would beg people to kill me, and I would refuse all lifesaving medical treatment.
Hah - You're not far off from the Christian position.
The only difference is that don't beg to be killed, but strive to do good works to please God.
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife.... Judgement Day while I'm still alive... I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
You can sheath that knife bud - your unclean blood won't do you any good.
All you have to do, and all you can do, is believe on Jesus. Do it while you still have life - you could be dead in an instant and after that is the judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
Hyuk - this got modded down. I assume some moderator is allergic to politeness.
...
But it makes some useful point to the overrated parent. Reposting...
-----
I'm not the poster above but...
> Wrong. RTFA.
CYFM (Clean Your Filthy Mouth)
> Consumer gets to make final "accept/reject" on purchase after card is scanned.
I didn't see that in the article (it is possible I missed it). Please post the phrase from the article that specifies this. The article actually talks about 2 seperate cards - one from Amex, one from Mastercard.
The article does say:
In theory, the transaction could be intercepted without a consumer's knowledge by a technologically savvy thief intent on cloning a card. That's because RFID transmissions themselves are not encrypted.
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Also, the account number on the contactless cards is useful only in the RFID system -- it's not the same as a user's credit card number. A crook would thus not be able to use the card number to go on a fraudulent Internet shopping spree, for example.
> Also, card includes challenge/response authentication
Still susceptible to attack unless the customer gets to control a local UI *on* the card. (see my other post here).
I appreciate your parable is nonsense. Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though. Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?). Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
So you can do your own washing.
You are correct about science -- I mixed up "proven" with "experimentally verified" (and in the same sentence too)
Here's a good link that explains how science works:Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this.
If you have contradictory information, state your links.
I'm familiar with the talk origins site, and the page on the flood too. There are many places that rebut most of the points there - answersingenesis.org is one.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Pride does not suit anyone - whether or effort applied or not. In your case, your pride (which is obvious by your smart-alecky comments) makes you more foolish.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary definition - read the Bible).
Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world, *and their glory* - you don't see very much glory for a high mountain. How do you *know* it wasn't a sound and light show with the mountain chosen for it's 360 degree view?
Atheism is a belief system - just like any other. To actively disbelieve in God is itself a held belief. [top link on Google search for "atheist belief"]. In light of the snippet on science above, it could be said that you believe in the theory of atheism.
Again, in closing I say - who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
I didn't say your inputs were unwelcome. I pointed out the context of the discussion.
I was doing a reductio ad-absurdum on the argument with the other guy.
For evidence, consider this old post.
Embryos and fetuses aren't just clumps of cells. Note how this fetus behaves when you kill it:
link The plural of fetus is not fetii, it is fetuses.
The real "Christian standpoint" is the mind of Christ himself. Anyone can figure that out, either by reading the Bible clearly, or by the God's spirit (the two don't disagree). So there is a real Christian standpoint, and the poster above you expressed it.
You're free to disagree - but note, that is just your opinion.
This post was labelled a troll, before the modertator presumably ran out of mod points. ...
...
Reposting...
----
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
From the article linked:
----
Naomi Wolf, the high-profile 32-year-old feminist author and Rhodes scholar, recently admitted that her morning sickness--and her seeing the baby inside moving on a scan--has helped her change her mind about abortion.
With her first baby due soon, Wolf said that she now rejects the abortion lobby's claim that a foetus isn't a human life but is merely a mass of tissue.
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
... establish his rule on earth.
...
> You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered.
No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
> > As a Christian
> I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this.
No, like every Christian, I live in hope.
BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy
of the person who made that claim.
See my other posts if you are interested.
> The problem is that you equate embryos with children,
> and this is inaccurate.
>
> strawman on your part.
Eh? A strawman?
Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents
Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such.
That is my position.
Adding to my post above...
this link has a good collection of of facts in the Bible that were considered fiction, but were then backed up by archeological discoveries.
I'm not the poster above but...
...
> Wrong. RTFA.
CYFM (Clean Your Filthy Mouth)
> Consumer gets to make final "accept/reject" on purchase after card is scanned.
I didn't see that in the article (it is possible I missed it). Please post the phrase from the article that specifies this. The article actually talks about 2 seperate cards - one from Amex, one from Mastercard.
The article does say:
In theory, the transaction could be intercepted without a consumer's knowledge by a technologically savvy thief intent on cloning a card. That's because RFID transmissions themselves are not encrypted.
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Also, the account number on the contactless cards is useful only in the RFID system -- it's not the same as a user's credit card number. A crook would thus not be able to use the card number to go on a fraudulent Internet shopping spree, for example.
> Also, card includes challenge/response authentication
Still susceptible to attack unless the customer gets to control a local UI *on* the card. (see my other post here).
Also, there is no way for the customer to control access to the card.
Seriously though, excellent point.
I made a similar point here in the article on fake ATMs -- even smartcards (contactless or otherwise) with PK crypto are susceptible to attack by fake-front ATMs unless they present an on-board interface so that the buyer can control the transaction.
Otherwise, the buyer will just see the seller make a "big sucking sound".
We try hard to please, O great sharp-tongued one...
> > Let me first say - you need faith to please God
> putting the cart before the horse...
I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
A man is in a building that is on fire.
A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump.
Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump.
"Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here.
The man burns to death.
> > Firstly, read about the Bible -
> > multiple scholar[s] were proven wrong
> > and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered.
> Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds?
I don't have it handy. But I'll give you an example, quoting from here:
Now we know it does.
:)
> > How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere.
> > How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
> Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere
> or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically
> be non-fiction?
1. Spherical World
No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible
describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
2. Supercontinent
Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
Another thing I forgot to mention earlier:
3. The book of Job also claims God has "hung the earth (previously described as spherical) in nothingness"
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, it's a theory we should follow.
> > Next look up at creation.
> Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.
Eh, "Created" is a common word - as in: "Radon gas is created by the decay of U235".
Stop being so sensitive.
> > Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux,
> > trying to account for new information - how bats, birds,
> > and one more species evolved flight separately.
> Scientific theories are constantly refined;
> this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers
> that makes them think that scientific theories are required
> to be absolutely correct
Nothing. We accept that, many of us being scientists too. The problems are:
1. The rate at which evolutionary theories changing is notable.
2. The changes aren't refinements - like gravity at quantum scales - they outright replace the main mechanism of the theory it replaces (eg: punctuated equilibium v/s gradual change)
3. Theories of evolution (like the theory of punctuated equilibium) have not been proven. Newton's laws hold true and can be experimentally verified, unlike the theories of evolution, which can't be directly proven.
4. They a
> But he was right, and I was wrong.
This is the point at which you're expected to provide objective evidence. Good luck.
Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.
Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
Next, let me next say - you'll never be able to disprove God. The evidence with either be neutral, or strongly suggest his presence.
Some evidence:
Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Next look up at creation. See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm. Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately. How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists. Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you. In addition you'll see blessings about things you needed help in. You'll see chastisement that you didn't like, but that you required, and you'll appreciate it.
And you'll miss out on hell.
Who told you? Where exactly did you get this information? Did God tell you himself? Is it in all His marketing brochures? Do you really believe in truth in advertising?
God told me, and he's told you too. It's spelt out explicitly in the Bible. I won't call it a marketing brochure. More like a survival guide.
Tell me something. Are you going to take sides in a war of the scale to which the bible claims is going on without hearing what the other side has to say? Have you ever heard the other side?
Well. I *grew up* on the other side. I wasn't born a Christian (and no one really is born one anyway - it's a choice you make when you have the ability to choose). Besides Hinduism, I've dabbled in Buddhism, Wicca, and readup on Islam. But Jesus is the *only* true way - when it cuts to the bone, the competition is just plain wrong.
Since we've been under 2000 years of Christian oppression, I doubt it.
Right. There have been centuries of oppression by the "Church system" - the inquisition, the crusades... but I won't call it Christian oppression (see below why).
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, except that it was an institution under direct control of the Spanish crown, which was in turn given the right to rule by God. Right?
Wrong - where do you get that from? If that's what Catholics say, you should believe the definitive source instead. Jesus said that at the very beginning in the Bible: "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world, then would my servants fight". The Catholic church system is against God's word in the Bible. It's all spelt out in the Bible.
People are Christian (I understand the word means "christ-like". Countries or empires, by their very definition cannot truly be Christian. The bretheren, the baptists and other congregational assemblies are much closer to what Jesus specified his Church would be.
It's surprisingly easy to reject the Bible after you understand a few marketing basics. Simple. First, always make your product appear to be the best product. Second, lie about your competition, but don't get caught. Take another pass through the Bible with those two rules in mind and tell me what you come up with.
I used to hold notions very similar to yours. I knew of parts of the Bible used to think it outrageous that the Bible attempted to "impose" its morality. But it's opinion is true, and my opinion was wrong.
It's surprisingly easy to think you got something all figured out, but miss the main point completely. I hope you're not just making these statements for the sake of making them - if you search diligently for God without preconcieved notions of what he is like (and also without preconcieved notions of what he is not like), you'll see Jesus and the Bible are the path to God.
Best wishes.
I remember what it was like when I first heard about Santa too. What a great guy, gives presents to all the good kids. Then I grew up.
:)
Your analogy doesn't quite hold water does it?
Your fiance is probably studying an outdated biology text based on Haeckel's work that was later proven fraudulent. Haeckel was to become "became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism".
And certainly don't screw up your own kids' shot at the inheritance. What's wrong with that?
.
Onan's kids would receive Onan's inheritance anyway.
His dead brother's children were meant to receive their fathers inheritance.
Children also had the responsibility of caring for aged parents (just as parents took care of them in infancy).
What's wrong with Onan's acts is that he denied his sister-in-law her children, while keeping her his wife. (She could have married someone else).
This way, she would stay childless and would die uncared for in her old age
The property that belonged to her and her first husband, would pass to Onan's children by his first wife.
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings.
Unfertilized eggs are not human beings. Not trying to be offensive, but if they are, billions of women flush "human beings" down the toilet every month.
I agree with you that a fertilized egg (an embryo) is human - conception has occured.
If you are being honest about refusing to be helped by the tech yielded from stemcell research, then I respect your consistency.
I believe a lot of knowledge was gained by doctors in illegal expirments in Nazi concentration camps, and Japanese POW camps. That is now public medical knowledge.
I don't object to the *knowledge*. I object to benefitting from the artifact of murder.
So yes, if someone came up to me and said - here we aborted a baby, harvested stem cells, so you could be helped. I'd refuse. But if someone said - here, we know that smallpox vaccines are dangerous in XXX condition, lets not give you a shot right now - I'd take the benefit of that knowledge.
Knowledge, by itself, isn't evil. It can be used to choose good, or choose evil.
I am selfish. I freely admit it. I want to live. A long, happy, healthy life. And I don't need you or your "god" in order to do that.
Selfishness is human nature. I am selfish too. However, we should always keep selfishness subsevient to the golden rule: do unto others as we would have them do to us.
A baby/fetus/embryo is an "other".
Do you do to it as you want done to you? No.
Would you really be OK with someone piercing your neck and having your brains sucked out? I don't think so.
Ah, the old quote from Voltaire. But I don't believe you. You are the same person who said: "given a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank."
Yes. You're headed for hell. I was headed there too.
But no, don't take spiritual enlightenment secondhand. Read the Bible, deal direct with God and find out for yourself. It's easy.
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
No. Because I used to be an athiest too. And I remember how ridiculous I though it was when that madman told me about Jesus.
But he was right, and I was wrong.
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead.
Here are some reasons:
God's wrath, eternal flames that don't go out, you on fire, in pain, from the everlasting burnings, held wrath forever...
These sound like big enough sticks to you?
Peace, love, goodwill, a clean conscience, amity, mercy, forgiveness, friendship, everlasting life, the joy of really being beyong reproachable, of no misdeeds.
These nice enough carrots for you?
Well, I hope so, because this is the deal laid out before us - and virtually all of us, once we are no more children - have done enough bad things to warrant the big stick. We get to choose between the two before we die. Choose well.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that?
Oh yes, absolutely. I have imperfect faith. And I used to be similar to you, an athiest. But you see - God is quite faithful and loving. All it takes is faith the size of a tiny mustard seed for God to do way way more for us, than we deserve. And God gives me blessing in this life too (see carrots above.) You can't beat it.
You are too stupid to be allowed to live.
:)
pls die, thx.
Not just yet - sorry.
Good for me that my life is not in your hands, but God's, eh?
No matter how you want to spin it. If you follow that logic then every time a man masturbates he commits mass murder.
No, its not. Jerking off is killing your own sperm - that's *ALL* you. A fetus/embroyo/infant is *another* *individual* human being.
Even a very young fetus is not fully human since it has no capacity for abstract thought.
Neither do many severally mentally retarted people. However, they're still human.
Remember the Nazi euthanists and their purging of the mentally retarted - you have a common basis of thinking with them.
Once that capacity exists (with the formation of the neocrotex in the brain) then we could grant a fetus all the same rights as a fully formed human, as longs as those rights do not enter in conflict with the mother.
What do you mean, as long as those rights don't enter into conflict with the mothers. Is the mother God, to give life and to take it away? Can the siamese twin murder his weaker brother?
This is clearly a moral dilemma, and as such, it should be left to individuals to decide what to do according to their own values.
Oh, some cultures value infanticide, or female genital mutilation, or slavery.
A goverment in a democratic society should not be dictating values in an issue in which there is patent disagreement.
Like slavery?
God put governments in place to protect human life. You are free to disagree, as long as you only physically damage yourself.
They are... [ link]Unlike your conscience is irredemably seared, you'd agree the fetus above is human.
The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud!
Now, at what point did the embryo become human? Answer: it always was - leave it alone.
Personally, if I truly believed that I was immortal (in the sense that I would be magically teleported to heaven at the point of my death) I would beg people to kill me, and I would refuse all lifesaving medical treatment.
Hah - You're not far off from the Christian position.
The only difference is that don't beg to be killed, but strive to do good works to please God.
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife. ... Judgement Day while I'm still alive... I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
You can sheath that knife bud - your unclean blood won't do you any good.
All you have to do, and all you can do, is believe on Jesus. Do it while you still have life - you could be dead in an instant and after that is the judgement.