BS: Church joins real world

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:56 PM

Your last comment Don.

You realise that is usually the point where pete and his mates give a self satisfied smirk and say they have won?

I just love the idea he reckons Saint Joe isn't a true Christian. Whilst feeling a sense of empathic hurt for Joe and every other rational person who enjoys the belonging and comfort of their faith, it serves to demonstrate the irrelevance of those within churches, mosques and temples who wish to impose their superstition on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:15 PM

Yes Don, you are - and heaven knows you have tried hard. This forum is a refuge for fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise. There is nothing you or anyone can say to which they will listen.   If they say you are a bigot then that cannot be gainsaid. If they say they are right then anyone who disagrees does not know what they are talking about.
The obvious response is to kick the whole Mudcat thing into touch, but I find myself drawn back by a morbid curiosity and the desire to see how much intolerance, intemperance and vituperation can be poured out by those who see themselves as models of reasonableness and empathy.
Much as Pete's intransigent refusal to answer uncomfortable questions may be infuriating he is probably harmless, he is certainly a lot less aggressive and verbally violent than some of our rational apostles of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:01 PM

One of the radio stations I worked in in the 1970s was a classical music station. Great job! Announce classical music records, read a little blurb about the music or composer, then sit back with my feet propped up with a cuppa coffee in my hand and listen to music I really like. Long cuts between records. And I got paid well for this!

Then, the owner sold the station and a couple of yahoos bought it. They decided to broadcast canned religion. Then, my job was to tape these self-appointed preachers who would come in, tape a six minute sermon, then spend the rest of the half-hour begging for money to keep their good works going, and/or support their missionary work in Africa.

But these clowns were failed used car salesmen who decided to make themselves a prophet! They didn't do any good works, nor did their church have missionaries in Africa. In fact, they didn't even have a church!!

After about two weeks of this, I got tired of up-chucking in the wastebasket and I quit!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:07 PM

By the way, that radio station is still going. But now it carries Rush Limbaugh!

(Where did I put that wastebasket. . . ?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:01 AM

Methinks Brendan confuses "verbally violent" with exasperation.

In reality, pete is perhaps the most insulting poster on such threads. He treats the whole genre of discovery and the benefits to society it gives with contempt.

Mind you, he does agree with me over the hypocrisy of boutique Christians, although he hasn't worked out that I see no problem with pick n mix. After all, if intelligent people had to believe in magic as part of their faith, that'd be a few thousand potential bingo halls in the UK alone....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:09 PM

it is hardly worth replying to assertions and suchlike, and as bill is trying to consolidate on to new thread that may be just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM

No Musket, I am not confusing verbal violence with exasperation. All you have on a forum such as this is words. You favour the aggressive and the scatological. When I read some of your posts I am alienated even though I may agree with your premise. Some of your posts read like naked hatred of people who have a religious faith. I suspect that you will deny that but your words undermine any such disclaimer.

I have a profound distrust of fundamentalism, if for no other reason than it denies the exercise of intellect. And yet I believe in God. This is not a choice, it just is. I struggle to align what I cannot help but believe with what my intellect leads me to know to be true. The Bible is an inspiration but not inerrant. It is not history. It is more a challenge which demands that one engages with it without accepting it as incontrovertible. My spiritual life is essentially a struggle; certainty must be nice but I don't have it. I don't claim to know how others should live their lives, I just wish them well. Nor do I seek to impose my beliefs on anyone else. You sit in judgement on others. You may take exception to that statement but some of your posts read very much like that.
No one has all the answers, not even you. So mock away Musket, mock away.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:58 PM

Don't really want to be part of this for fear of being struck down by divine lightning, but there's a bit of a to-ing and fro-ing going on in Ireland concerning pregnancy termination, following a sixteen year old having been raped, made pregnant, becoming suicidal, going on hunger strike, forcibly hydrated and finally having a caesarean section forced on her.
The grossly misnamed 'Pro-Lifers' are out in force demanding that that the meagre rights recently been grudgingly given to women following the death of Savita Halappanavar in 1912 after having been refused a life-saving operation because "Ireland is a catholic country, be removed frm the statute books.
This fascinating article by Fintan O'Toole explains the history of how refusal to allow pregnancy termination first became part of the Irish Constitution.
O'Toole is one of ireland's leading and most respected journalists and political commentators.
Jim Carroll

WHY IRELAND NEVER FACED UP TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION
Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, 26.8.14

The most successful single issue movement in the history of the State, the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC), was established in January 1981 by 13 organisations: the Congress of Catholic Secondary School Parents'Associations; the Irish Catholic Doctors' Guild; the Guild of Catholic Nurses; the Guild of Catholic Pharmacists: the Catholic Young Man's Society; The Thomas More Society; The Irish Pro-Life Movement; the National Association of the Ovulation Method ("natural" contraception endorsed by the Catholic Church); the Council of Social Concern (COSC); the Irish Responsible Society; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; the St Joseph's Young Priests Society (young Catholic priests, that is); and the Christian Brothers Schools Parent's Federation:
The initial meeting was chaired by the head of the 14th organisation that was immensely influential on the campaign behind the scenes, the secretive, all-male brotherhood the Order of the Knights of Columbanus.
These are the bodies that made Ireland unique in the democratic world in having a ban on abortion in its Constitution. In spite of a great deal of revisionism, their sectarian character is obvious: 10 of these bodies were explicitly and exclusively Catholic. The other four were almost entirely made up of conservative Catholic activists. (By contrast, all Irish Protestant churches opposed the amendment.) For all of these groups, abortion was just one front in a wider religious war.

AMENDMENT
The meeting that established PLAC was called by John O'Reilly, described in Tom Hesketh's fine history of the amendment (written from a pro-amendment point of view), The Second Partitioning of Ireland, as "perhaps the main instigator of PLAC". He was vice-chairman of COSC and secretary arid co-founder of the Irish Responsible Society.
He seems to have been the person who first conceived the idea of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, as far back as 1974. O'Reilly generally kept a low profile but he broke the surface in an extraordinary court case.
In 1973, he got his daughters, aged 10 and 9, to write to the Irish family Planning Association in Dublin, posing as adults, enclosing money and asking for condoms and spermicide. He then succeeded in having criminal charges brought against the IFPA.
John O'Reilly explicitly regarded a successful anti-abortion amendment as a prelude to action against contraception and "illegitimacy": "The campaign for a pro-life amendment would enjoy widespread support now and the success of the campaign would serve to halt the permis¬sive tide in other areas."
For O'Reilly "pro-life" was the opposite of "anti-life", a term which incorporated the availability of contraception and (weirdly) the rising number of babies born out of wedlock.
But COSC's agenda was wide: its first attack was on the formation of a multi-denominational primary school in Dalkey in 1976. Its member organisations, such as the League of Decency, cut their teeth in campaigns against "dirty" TV shows, family planning clinics and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.
The Irish Responsible Society, of which five key PLAC leaders were members, was the Irish branch of the group led by the English right-wing Catholic activist Valerie Riches (now a papal dame). For Riches, the degeneration of society through sexual permissiveness was a conspiracy driven by International Planned Parenthood.
She and her Irish followers were especially obsessed with the dangers of sex education, especially that which "emphasises that homosexual activity is normal and natural".
The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation". All of this conjured an apocalyptic vision: "the issue at stake concerns the very fabric of society, the very future of the human race."

HEADQUARTERS
Riches warned a meeting at the Knights of Columbanus headquarters in Dublin in 1980 of an ascending scale of moral depravity from contraception to abortion to homosexuality.
The first action of her Irish followers was to campaign against a small state grant to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Its next campaign was against the removal of the stigma of illegitimacy from children born out of wedlock.
This is the ideology - sectarian, paranoid, apocalyptic - that gave us the Eighth Amendment. It was utterly dismissive of any qualifications to its absolutist views and saw all "sob stories" as liberal conspiracies.
Bernadette Bonar, a leading PLAC and Responsible Society figure, warned of pro-abortion conspirators turning up at a TD's clinics: "seemingly respectable little women giving him sob stories about 12-year-olds being raped."
Loretto Browne, also a prominent PLAC and Responsible Society leader, told me in 1982 that rape very seldom results in pregnancy because "men that go in for rape are usually not fertile, they tend a be impotent".
She pointed, moreover, to the rising cambers of alleged homosexuals in Ireland as further evidence of conspiracy: "By natural law we couldn't have that many misfits... there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society."
These were the people who created the Irish abortion regime. Most of them are long gone from the public stage - COSC and the Irish Responsible Society no longer exist. Their world view is marginal. But their legacy abides for women not born when it was in its pomp.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:33 PM

Interesting extract, Jim. I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:-

'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"'

Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation".

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:39 PM

Pete, I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

In this day and age, we have a vastly different standard of "historicity" than that of ancient times. Philosophies are different, languages are different, methods of collecting information are different, everything is different.

Does this mean that ancient writings are unreliable, and of no value to us because they do not meet modern standards? Are Homer and Virgil, the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Celtic mythologies, the Histories of Josephus and Tacitus, all false and misleading? Certainly not.

These ancient writings are what they are. If they are read in the spirit the authors intended, they are of infinite value. And, though they maybe in part fictional, they are of extraordinary historical value. I think, my friends, that the line between fact and fiction may not be as clearly defined as we think it to be. Oftentimes, fiction may be a better conveyor of truth, than can be done by what we consider to be "fact."

Now, the absolutists on both ends of the discussion, will never understand this. The religious absolutists, or fundamentalists, will tell you that their scriptures (and only their scriptures) are incontrovertibly true from all perspectives, and therefore must be binding for all the world according to their most simplistic interpretation (although these fundamentalists may deny even the possibility of "interpretation"). And the atheistic absolutists will argue that these documents (particularly the ancient documents of their target groups) and incontrovertibly false and intended to deceive and control people - and thus they must be suppressed so they can do no further damage.

I don't think there's much value on either extreme of the discussion, but I do think there is great value in learning to study ancient documents, especially ancient sacred documents with a critical eye. We need to understand historical context, literary forms, the philosophies of the times, and the original intent of the authors. And in our critical study of ancient documents, we must always keep in mind that our interpretation may be wrong or only partially correct; so we must be open to alternate interpretations and perhaps a wide spectrum of interpretations in some circumstances.

But there are no absolutes in the study of ancient writings. If you think your understanding is absolutely correct, then I can tell you with certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:22 PM

Brendan. You ask me not to mock you, but when a person with the benefit of education and books, a few hundred years of scientific discovery and shared experience prefaces such debate with "I believe in God," we are not having the same debate.

Hey Joe! You describe me to a T! I don't see it as negative though. Religion fucks up vulnerable people. Not everyone has your intellect and ability to use faith rather than be captured by it. Worse still, those in control of organised religion prefer the petes of this world rather than the Joes.

At the end of the day, I can do more than smile and patronise when people say they believe in magic and expect me to respect it in the same way I may respect a differing political view.

Fundamentally, that's it. Not faith as a comfort blanket or moral compass, not even a sense of belonging and comradeship. But an elephant in the room based on magic and supernatural beings.

Asking rational people to respect such nonsense at any intellectual level is far more insulting than any god botherer, imaginary friend or other derogatory term I might use.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 12:57 AM

*peeking in.................slipping away back to the new thread*

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:06 AM

Yeah, Joe has already answered this debate in the new one.

I set this one up purely to discuss that The Church of England now allows women to hold senior management roles after a vote. I thought it good on one level yet hilarious on another. Biblical teaching being put to the vote and losing.

That debate got lost in the fog.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:25 AM

"I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:"
Me neither Mike - the Church and its hangers on's attitude to sex an procreation has always been beyond me.
I was quite fascinated by the suggestion that rapists tended to be impotent and the rising cambers (should have read numbers) of homosexuals were a conspiracy because "there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society."   
We are now seeing a rise in religious fundamentalism on the subject - perhaps time will reveal all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:48 AM

I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:-

'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"'

Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation".

I think it is fairly clear, if lacking in precision. Let me give a clipping from a guide to pregnancy site:

After completing its six-day journey through your fallopian tube, the blastocyst you'll one day call your baby reaches its ultimate destination and begins to attach itself to the uterine lining. About 30 percent of the time, implantation bleeding will occur as that bundle of cells burrows its way into the uterine wall. Implantation bleeding, which is usually very scant and either light pink, light red, or light brown, occurs earlier than your expected period. Don't mistake it for your period, and don't worry about the bleeding — it's not a sign that something is wrong.

Now, if you want to have a clear definition of when life starts, as pro-lifers do, conception is nice and easy. However it is a simple fact that many fertilized ova do not implant in the womb for a variety of reasons, and we do not say these women were pregnant, if only because for most of human existence we simply had no way of noticing, (and even today it would be pushing the bounds of possibility).

So the next point you might consider is you wanted a definition is implantation. The 'morning-after' pill worked by preventing implantation. But if you can get the general population to think the best point to say life starts is at implantation rather than conception then Pro-Lifers have lost a vast amount of ground. Also since they typically believe life starts at conception, they regard the fertilized ova as killed exactly as much as by an abortion. Which is why the idea fills them with horror.

You don't have to agree with people to understand them!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:12 AM

When I was involved in regulation and termination of pregnancy came up, I objectively heard evidence from all sides and technical input from obstetrics specialists. The UK position from both The Abortion Act 1968 and The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (and complimentary acts for Scotland and Wales) is the interest of the woman up to the cut off date and joint her and the foetus thereafter.

Many religious views put forward dismissed the interest of the woman and concentrated on the potential child. The reasoning given was that their religion taught them that life begins at conception. There was no room for "that's your view but may not be the view of the patient." To which I was told, "you nor anybody else has the right to challenge God. "

If ever you want to see sensitive subjects dealt with insensitively, look no further than such awful people. Then they want to be respected?

(Perhaps they also are of the opinion that sex is purely for procreation. Wrong. I for one have enjoyed shagging over the years, and so have my partners. Only my first wife and I ever thought of procreation, and then at a time of our choosing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:25 AM

DMcG -- Many thanks for that explanation. I get all the technicalities now.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:47 AM

This whole line of debate is a "red herring", of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet.

In more difficult times males fertilised as many females as possible to ensure species survival, but as we have advanced in food production, social structure etc, contraception has become a necessity.
This has no bearing on wither or not we "enjoy" sex, or on the issue of "God" or religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:33 AM

I especially enjoyed the word "wither"

The species survival bit doesn't explain that DVD you lent me called Lesbian Lusts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:47 AM

of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet

As with almost everything else in biology, 'life' is a much more evasive idea than it first appears. There are a huge number of species that reproduce asexually, so the generalisation is at the very least too sweeping. There have been many debates on whether things like viruses are alive or not, there is continuing discussion in the medical world what constitutes death ... when it comes to 'life', there are few instances of 'of course' in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:23 AM

joe, matt 12 vs 38 - 41. sounds like he thought it historical, actual persons and events.
"for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" v40.
as far as study of ancient ms is concerned, I agree that they expressed their thoughts different to modern western modes, but as in origins debate, worldview colours interpretation , at least to some extent. but as a layman just looking at this passage in English [while noting ancient expression] , I think he meant it to be understood as historical......
of course, you might think that jesus did not rise after 3 days, in which case your suggestion might work....for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:26 AM

Must have been that shot of adrenalin they gave him..

Most accounts show the Romans were pretty good at executing. I doubt they took a bloke down when he was still alive. One way to check is to take the nails out of the hands first and see if he shouts "FFFUUUCCKKK!!" as he shows us how to touch his toes without bending his legs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:34 AM

Sorry DMG, I was referring to ovulating species and should have made that clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:05 PM

Normally I'd drop the conversation at this point, ale, but as it is crucial to the pro-life argument I will post again on this sub-topic. We have reasonably clear idea what it means for a creature post-birth to be alive (although even that is not easy in the case of severe comas, for example). But there's no clarity at all what we mean be life when we are at the cellular level. Of course we may adopt the convention that we will call something alive in certain situations, but we are rarely consistent. Are the unfertilised ova and sperm alive? Is the DNA sample the police have just taken alive? On what grounds is a cell in one situation alive while another cell is not, even if both are stem cells?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:32 PM

Too many big words, not enough massaging of his ignorance.

This could be interesting. I'll get the pork scratchings.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:03 PM

Hmm, interesting points DMcG, but how do they effect how we define the construction of a human embryo?....Which is surely what the pro lifers are promoting?

Whether DNA has a "life" of its own, is surely incidental to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:07 PM

Ian, I realise that DMcG is probably an expert and I am certainly not, but I like to be informed and am not quite as closed minded as you.
The purpose of debate is to inform......that's why you always try to close it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:04 PM

DMcG is probably an expert

Most certainly not. I am a mathematician by training and a computer scientist by employment. I have never had any more to do with the medical profession that anyone else with occasional sniffles, check ups and injections.

No-one should assume I am an authoritative source on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:48 PM

*sneaking back in to comment on this*:

"of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet" (yes...in ovulating species)

That may or may not be the case, depending on certain subjective definitions of biological status. Obviously, something relevant & important occurs. When an egg is fertilized and cell division begins, a zygote is produced and begins mitosis.... and if not interrupted, can eventually become a new living individual.
   However, agreement on these terms and the sequence is not really what the controversy is about. It is not even mostly about the stage at which a fetus (my spell checker's spelling)could survive outside the mother's womb, although that is important for certain decisions.
   What is really being question is when...and whether something called a 'soul' enters the zygote/fetus. IF there are such things as souls which are 'automatically' inserted by some divine process into each zygote, the argument goes, then interfering with the process amounts to 'killing' a human being.
   What is usually not discussed is the specific premises that are implied by this viewpoint. To shorten all this, the very concepts of 'divine being' & 'soul' and what it means to interfere with them is a major item for debate and discussion. We see zygotes and measure them and photograph them - we have no way to document the addition of 'souls.

   Because the very basic concepts are a matter of differing opinions, each individual must come to a decision about how to decide the issue, and it makes no sense for someone who believes one thing to have any right to interfere in the decisions of anyone on the other side!
   There are LONG philosophical arguments about explicating this situation, but a practical view would be that "mind your own business" is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:03 PM

Trust me, if there is hope for you I am the last person to close down a debate, considering I started it.

Forgive me if I see an uphill battle all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:36 PM

Bill, It would be impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "soul", just as it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of "God", that is where faith comes in and as you say that is nobodies business but yours or mine or pete's.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:38 AM

Or those pete and his mates try to convince, disregarding what has been proven already.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:38 AM

and what has been proven already, musket ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM

Occams razor.

If you understand probability at any academic level, we can discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:26 PM

as I understand it, occams razor means favouring the solution that needs the least bolstering or supplementary support.
wrong or not, what does that prove?. certainly not the complexity of Darwinist dogma.
the only thing that I reckon has been proven here, is that there are a lot of atheists and skeptics here that like to engage in abuse, vulgarity and mockery, rather than mature discussion.
so, musket, what has been proven ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM

If either of you get into a discussion about Occam's razor, you need to be clear it says nothing about proof at all. It merely says given a choice between two theories that cover all the facts, the simpler is to be preferred. Nothing about it being right. Indeed, given a new piece of evidence, the 'simpler' theory it preferred may no longer cover all the facts and we might need to move to the one previously rejected as over-complicated.

The essential problem with the creationist view is that it doesn't cover all the facts (actually a really strict creationist view would, but since creationists usually want to believe the bible as well, that's a problem.)

So when a creationist is faced with a difficult problem - let's say pete on the question of how many species of beetle on the ark (see past threads) - he either has to say he doesn't know or say they weren't on the ark but survived by another mechanism despite these two verses of the bible:

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Notice the all-inclusiveness of those verses. Pete puts all his store in this verse, which precedes the second of those above:
"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

So despite two verses saying everything was destroyed, pete insists it is only those with nostrils that died. This is of course a logical error on top of everything else. Because everything with property A died, it is erroneous to assume it means the not-A survived.

And pete, as we went through on another occasion, the (neo)Darwin theory is breathtaking in its simplicity. That it explains a vast amount of the complexity of the world does not make it complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:25 AM

And, pete, please note I do not mock or abuse or indulge in vulgarity. I do, however, ask you to give explanations of how your theory fits observations I make, such as the large number of species of beetle.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Thank you D.

I can't prove any of the God stuff to be bollocks but neither can I prove hobgoblins don't hide my socks.

Over the last three hundred years, biblical explanations of the world have been found to be bollocks though. Not proven of course, but nothing is proven if you apply the test and logic pete is applying.

Including his god delusion....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:43 AM

We all have delusions Ian, You, more so than anyone I have encountered.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 07:35 AM

True. I like to think people in general are nice and don't despise strangers for falling in love with people they wouldn't fall in love with.

I will have to remain delusional till bigotry is dead and buried eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:33 PM

dmcg- no I was not thinking of you as abusive, you have been absent for awhile, neither, bill. but you got to admit there are definitely a few it does include.
you would have a point if there was no qualifying in the text, but full points for being a clever debater.
if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."
seems logical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM

"Nostrils" is a poetic term. Whether you choose to treat it as literal and inspired or not, it was penned and transmitted by human scribes with 'opinions' and fish to fry.. (another poetic term). It is logical only if YOU can demonstrate its premises are true.

...and.."every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,.. seems to override 'nostrils' as a general category. Bugs, as 'creeping things' don't have nostrils.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."

Actually, you know, you are the one who sets great store by the verses being interpreted literally!

I am sure everyone knows the story in general terms, but it is clear throughout the whole passage that Noah and family are to be safe. It would be unnecessary for every single verses to be followed by "(except Noah and his family)": this is implied by the context. The repetition for the specific verse makes sense both in context and in the art of storytelling.

No such special dispensation was given to beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

Also I see you are still assuming the declaration about nostrils means beetles are exclude from the destruction. But that not the case. If I said to you "It was a terrible battle. All Mrs Jones' sons were killed" it say not one jot about the fate of Mrs Smith's sons. Similarly telling you what happened to things with nostrils says nothing at all about the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

when I say that you set such store by that verse, I am obviously not implying you believe it. I was merely answering in your own phrasing, to point out that you are trying to counter my argument by pointing to 7v4. other vs in same passage qualify, including v23 where the word "substance" is qualified as to what is included.
yes, bill, nostrils is a poetic Hebraism, but that does not mean the account is not historical, anymore than if I said the sun rose today. should I be more scientifically precise [and boring!] to convey that information?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:17 PM

I can see why you would like it to be a qualifier of the following verse, but I see it as emphasising the destruction. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but I am saying your assumption is just that: an assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:09 PM

This has turned into a fascinating discussion.
I wish we could debate all subjects in such a manner....well done

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Pete - I've just looked up v23 which you called in your defence:

"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Again, I can't see that helps your argument. I would read that 'Every living thing' as the dominant phrase. By comparision, omit the text before the semicolon: "people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth". My understanding is that is what you believe the verse means - the part before the semicolon is entirely superfluous. But the part before the semicolon makes sense if the terms after it are not qualifiers but instead emphasise the extent of the destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Oops, me above.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

well ,I can see the argument from your side, and admittedly where there might seem to be an uncertainty I am going to choose what I consider best. the whole chapter considered though, seems to qualify rather than be all encompassing. but then, I can see that you might say it rather gives some specifics of the whole.
just noticed too, bill, your comment on "bugs" and admittedly "creeping things" might be taken as bugs, but in theology the rule of thumb is to compare scripture with scripture, esp when in the same passage, so unless we grant your poetic nostrils to bugs, I take it that any bug on board were stowaways and not requisite passengers !.