gadgetlady

In your sarcastic post above you were equating them.

A woman doesn't abort at 4 or even 100 cells.

I believe when I spoke for you I got it right. You got it wrong. I am not pro-capital punishment. I do, however, believe the government should take away the so-called "right" of any one person to kill any other person.

I believe BJean is being sarcastic, comparing the issue of spanking to abortion. She believes it is OK to rip a child limb-from-limb in abortion from conception to 9 months of pregnancy, but not OK to spank a child in discipline.

What about Creation Scientists who are PhD's and the like? Should we not listen to them simply because we disagree with their premise? What about scientists who used to believe in evolution and don't any more?

In other words, it is a theory which can never be proven, but which you also believe can never be dis-proven?

If the law changed, would you suddenly agree that a "fetus" is a human being? A fetus is a name for one phase of human development, just like toddler and adolescent and elderly. It's all a spectrum of development. A fetus doesn't "turn into" a human being. A fetus IS a human being at an early stage of development. For me personally, a black person is 3/5 of a human being. Therefore I can own a slave. Do you see the fallacy in this argument? Religious people are involved in both sides of the abortion debate. That does not make it a religious argument, any more than the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend made civil rights a religious issue. My position on the abortion debate is informed by the scientific fact that the thing growing in the mother's womb is a human being with human DNA and human body parts.

Isn't the test of science that it's repeatable under controlled conditions?

I disagree that those are transitional forms -- and I doubt we will ever agree on it. I know there's something we will agree on, though: science has NEVER been able to replicate in a lab any transition -- only mutation or degradation of an existing form.

As always, dictionaries provide several definitions. The main one in the Latin dictionary I used is "offspring". Colloquially it means "little one".

Why? Just curious here.

I LOVE IT! Where do I sign?

As are secular thinkers as well. But as for credibility within the Creation Science and Intelligent Design movement, they are not given the time of day. Darwin himself was extremely concerned with the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record, but felt confident that once more fossils were discovered, transitional forms would arise. Where are they? I'm not quite sure why you brought this up. I believe that MAN was responsible for Jesus' death, not one particular religion. I don't agree with the Vatican on a lot of things.

And you attribute all of this to the lack of spanking? BTW, we don't have any felons in my family and all of us are very accomplished as well. I think there is a non sequitur in the argument somewhere.

LOL! The reason "dinosaurs" are never mentioned in the Bible is because the word "dinosaur" wasn't coined until the 1840's. The Bible does, however, mention the Behemoth, Leviathan, sea dragons, and flying serpents. The description of the Behemoth in Job 40 is particularly reminiscent of a dinosaur. Curiously, in history we find old cave drawings that depict humans and dinosaur-like creatures together. Certainly these cave dwellers didn't have access to the modern reconstruction of dinosaur bones found in museums around the world. I don't know from where you get your information, but I've never heard of a young earth creationist who believes dinosaurs are fake. Credible scientists do, however, question long-term radiometric dating. For more information, go to Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis. It's very technical and might be a bit boring for a non-scientist, but there are plenty of other articles I can provide if you'd like.

My point was that not every question is asked with the questioner's not knowing the answer. And I don't think God's question was either hypothetical or rhetorical. He certainly wasn't hypothetically asking Cain where Abel was, nor was he asking Cain where Abel was hypothetically.

Um, have you never heard of a rhetorical question? And I presume based on your age (I could be wrong) that YOU are not a parent, but anyone who IS a parent understands asking a child something you already know the answer to. God didn't need Cain to answer Him because He, God, didn't know the answer. It was a prodding question.

Certainly not. I don't wish hell on anyone. Not even my worst enemies.

OK, I couldn't resist just one. GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is. PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. First of all, the author spelled Abel wrong -- which has nothing to do with the question but irks me no end because he is setting himself up as an expert. Second of all, clearly he isn't a parent. Isn't it just remotely POSSIBLE that God knew all along where Abel was but asked Cain to see if he tried to lie or if he were repentant about his sin? These really are not tough questions at all and don't demonstrate inconsistency, but rather lack of understanding and insight on the part of the reader.

Ahhh, would that I had time right now. I have a lot of problems with Catholicism based on my experiences and knowledge of the religion. Suffice it to say all my 3.3 years at a Catholic university (I graduated early) did was drive me away from the church.

Which says as a preface to all of the things you cut and pasted, IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by "inconsistencies" I do not necessarily mean "contradictions." Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions. :faint: There are answers to each and every one of these concerns. I can cut and paste from a website like the best of them. Would you like me to?

I don't have a lot of time right now to go into everything you've mentioned, but I do have a quick comment on the "murder" vs. "kill" issue. It all depends on the translation you read. I read the NIV, which I believe based on my studies is one of the best translations available. This version says "You shall not murder". I go to a wonderful church which spends a lot of time during sermons delving into the historical connotation of the issues being addressed. The things I learn every week are astonishing. They don't change what was written, but they bring it into clearer focus. If you are interested in this at all, later I can post a link for you so you can download some sermons. They're about 40 minutes long and absolutely fascinating.

I appreciate your honesty and understand your indecisiveness. I too struggled with my upbringing in the Catholic faith (not to bash Catholics at all) and the pieces didn't fall into place until I discovered a critical-thinking Christian church. I am also and often frustrated, annoyed, and concerned about the face that man places on God and how that presents to the outside world. I can tell you that I am quite well educated and very much a critical thinker and the Bible holds no controversy or ambiguity for me whatsoever -- so it is possible to resolve those conflicts!

I have a question for you. Was your original question in this thread serious? Or were you just trying to start a controversial thread? Because it seems like you are not seeking, that you have already made up your mind.

In the most unjust turn of events in the free world, the baby only has value when the mother decides he or she does. Up until the instant of birth, if the mother determines the baby has no value, she can abort for any reason whatsoever. This is the same as another time in American history when one people decided for another whether their lives had value: slavery. All the more powerful people did was define the less powerful group as 3/5 of a human being and voila! there was no moral or conscience-based issue with slavery! Oppression is a easy thing when the powerhouse simply defines the oppressed person as sub-human.