betsy

By any chance did you read why I posted that? Umm....Christian values?

The most common reason I hear - from some of the ex-Christians here - is their disillusionment with the hypocrisy of men. A co-worker used her alcoholic Catholic father as the reason who beat the daylights out of them as children whenever he came home drunk. A lot of anger in her when we talk about God or religion. Among the younger set, if you dig deeper and peel away, you'd find that the root of their rejection of religion is having to follow rules. Let's face it.....Christian laws are not that easy to follow. It means basically giving up most, if not all wordly pleasures. They are the ones that usually welcome the likes of Dawkins.

Atheists and most leftists really want to take away the rights of parents. The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution. Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children. 2 year old or 12 year old, that doesn't matter. When the child reaches adulthood, he can then decide if he wants to leave his religion. A lot of information and disinformation everywhere enough to confuse them later on that a lot of them do. A lot of them eventually return to this same religion, too.

I won't bother because that doesn't matter. This topic is showing that at least, with these listed facts, their oral tradition is evidently reliable. According to science.

If you say Genesis is nowhere that old....how old is do you say is the Book of Genesis? Cite your reference(s).

There are also those who came to God because of science. Some prominent ones who not only recanted atheism and converted to Christianity - but gone on to write books about it. Check out the thread Rejoice On This Day. I doubt that science is the primary one why former Christians turned away from Christianity.

Michael Hardner is right as to the oral tradition before the information got wtitten in the Bible. I hope the point I'm trying to make is not lost. There are several information in the Bible that pertains to creation and origin - information that could only come from someone with an intimate knowledge of it. The fact about mountains and deep trenches under the ocean is one such information that is bang-on! And the description of the stretching universe is another.... That all these information in the Bible written by different authors, from different walks of life, from different time lines....and yet, are now supported by modern science, is just quite so incredible! Perhaps one or two or three such information can be just "coincidental." But, we're talking about all these right now, not to mention others that can be discovered as technology keeps improving. As I've stated sometime ago, it does seem that the information given in ancient times is actually meant for the modern times. Could it be that since there wouldn't be any more major miracles in the modern times (as indicated by Jesus), could it be perhaps that science's purpose is to serve as the tool that is meant to open our eyes? I am a believer, and I do understand your skepticism as a non-believer. All I ask is to just consider these with an open mind, and just chew on it.

Aristotle existed somewhere between 465-399 BC. Genesis is a thousand years older than Aristotle. Aristotle's book is nowhere near as ancient as the Bible.

deleted.

You're the one who brought up "team!" Team Jesus you said. When you're reduced to calling people names - that means you've got nothing else. Didn't you suffer from paranoia, thinking religious folks are judging you? If you think I'm nuts, then why do you follow me around and insists on arguing with "the nut?" You're much more nuttier than I! So you speculate on other Christians on this forum too? Anyway, what's that got to do with the issue? Again, it is so interesting that religion topics - especially my topics seem to be getting to you. You're like a pin to the magnet - can't keep away. Obviously you don't want to debate at all. You want me to shut up. Why is that, I wonder? Nada, You didn't answer anything. At all. Read what I've said in this topic. Understand what you read. I can't help you if you don't. Bye-bye. I don't have much time to waste.

But of course that's according to you. Here's the thing though, AW: See the topic you're in? The Bible facts? Science is actually supporting these facts.....whereas just only recently, atheist guru Richard Dawkins admits he "can't be sure God doesn't exists!" Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1vFO9iBij Bible facts supported by science - Dawkins saying he's not sure God doesn't exists. Belief that there is no God has been just blown to smithereens by Dawkins. There's the big difference between the two!

Perhaps you should let Canadien speak for himself. My questions are quite specific. I think he's got a mind of his own. It's a bit weird with you reading his mind....like you're staring at your own crystal ball. And it's quite interesting that your reply suggests you consider him to be on your team! I actually thought about that too way back, in fact I thought he is a new atheist....until he explained himself. Well perhaps he should come out. Either he agrees with you and discredit the wonderful things that science had proven: that the Bible is not just a collection of ramblings by simple, primitive men of ancient times....or that science - by the grace of God - is proclaiming (in its own humble way) that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. I don't care about your derision. You can do a somersault of derisions all you want. You can deride till you're all purple in the face. Because you know why? It's all you have! You're just regurgitating the same thing! I'll keep throwing you the same challenge! We're talking about things that were written in the Bible which were later proven as facts by science! Some even dealt with origin! Give an ancient book along the same caliber! Come back to me when you can actually put your money where your mouth is.

It is irrelevant when exactly it changed. What's relevant is the way it is now vis-a-vis the discussion. The fact is it doesn't matter how long or how consistently that society had existed. The fact that it exists now is the problem. I guess I'm just shocked by some of the responses here that practically says, "yes I know it's human, but so what?"

Check out my boldened statement. I am saying that sovereignty over a woman's body is not a right. As for the way I made my statement with the usage of the word "allowed," I stand corrected. I should've been more precise. However, though my statement was poorly articulated, it still doesn't alter the fact that there is no such right. With the safe injection site that was allowed to continue, the reason why it was allowed to continue was not due to "having the sovereignty right to your own body." Let's not forget the reason we're talking about suicide: SOVEREIGNTY OVER WOMAN'S BODY. If you've got the right to do anything to your own body, I'm sure you'd be entitled to give your consent to a doctor to assist you, should you want to terminate it. But, apparently not.

When? What do you want to determine? When society was relatively absolutist or when it became absolutely relativist? I think it was June 27, 1984...exactly! It may be an honest question (IYO) but surely it's not a serious one.

Suicide is not a crime in Canada. But that does mean it is a right? Of course not. Big difference there. You don't even have that entitlement - let alone the right - to give consent, to have someone assist you! As for safe injection site(s), it seems there's only one which the government had tried to shut down! Again, just because it remains open does not mean shooting up heroin had become a right? Of course not. "Sovereignty over one's body" was never the factor why the court granted it to remain open. That's what I mean. See? Everything suddenly becomes a right!

Well you've got faith! So do I! We both got faith! You and I have no problem in accepting the Bible as the Word of God. But what about those who don't have it? Those who are searching for it? Those that are confused. Those that are skeptics about the truth in Christianity? Those are the ones this topic is trying to address.

Anyway, what does this have to do with being humane? We can be humane now to cats and dogs.....what's stopping us from being humane to our own flesh and blood? Care to explain your point?

Although perhaps our educational system needs to be examined and re-organized - that it doesn't compete with and not try to usurp the role of a "parent," and let parents be the ones teaching values to their children? But all the rest, we've provided. What more can you do? Everyone gets the same PS3? Prada handbags? Hot-pink condoms for the teeners? That the problem still exists, and worse.....with the rising stat of repeat-abortion, obviously this needs to be re-examined too. Perhaps the fault is more so on the mindset of society that helps create a disensitized, narcissistic future generation so self-absorbed with ENTITLEMENT? We gotta fix what's broke. And really....time to remove those tinted glasses. A narcissistic, disensitized (un-caring) and relativist society spells big-time disaster for everyone. Relativism messed up our kids.

Since you abhor dishonest discourse, I can only assume that you've made a typo error which resulted with my statement being taken out of context....or that the heat in this debate has gotten you a bit light-headed.....so let me just clear up this misunderstanding on your part. Check out the lameness of your rationale. Your argument on this particular segment centers on only one thing: Wiith AIDS, HIV and other STD - which should be enough to strike fear into her little heart - not to mention pregnancy....the "sensible" woman would rather choose not to go see the doctor because of the "STIGMA"? C'mon! Baloney! What about the stigma later on when she is forced to seek medical help? And then she is diagnosed with STD. So she's back facing the very same "stigma" she was so worried about in the first place. Not only that! She'll be dealing with an added stigma -whether real or imagined - when the health authorities or anyone who knew about it for that matter, shake their heads and say, "what a dim-wit!" In Hitler's delusional reality, she'll be gassed along with all the rest!

Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists. No such right. Otherwise they'd be allowed to shoot up ....or commit suicide if they choose to do so. That's the thing these days, everything seems to easily be seen as a "right." The right not to sniff bad odor. The right to a high standard of living. Probably a culture of entitlement is to blame for this. Call it their law-granted special "privilege." "Lives it involves are not equal as one is a developing dependent, "unproductive" being." See, I've got a very big issue with that statement. That "developing being" can just as easily be said about dependent or unproductive beings - young children, handicapped people, senile people, mentally-challenged people, etc.., Hitler did not stop with the Jews. So who decides? Planned Parenthood and its avid followers? Listen to what you're saying. I'm not attacking you personally since I know that there are so many who think and rationalize like you. It's this collective mentality that makes it so scary. Your reasons are all anchored on purely one basis: NARCISSISM, self-centeredness. Scary rationalization. Neat re-packaging cannot hide the obvious though. We're thrown back farther than the 60's or the 50's! We're really back to Nazi Germany! It's not that they don't want to waste their time on a debate. With science as we know it now being asked to get involved, surely It's more like they don't want to lose this entitlement. Because it's quite posible, you know. Is that the propaganda Planned Parenthood's been feeding you? Never mind your assumptive stats! When Hitler was gassing millions of people that included Jews, and other "imperfect" and "undesirables" and "unproductives," would you have argued about the stat of how the world would've benefitted more with these people gone? No, you're not going by so-called "reality." You're going by the same path of Hitler's delusional "reality." You're just looking at the tip of your nose and repeating the same hateful and bigotted propaganda - only worded differently - and you refuse to look any farther to see the whole big picture.

Finally. Something I agree with.

deleted. double posting.

Very well said.

Where did I say the Bible is a science book? Show me. Lasting merit than the facts listed here? Let's see what examples you have. Be specific. Get back to me when you've got something.