Call for Comments: An Indictment of the Church

[Cynic Sage]

Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse"). He argued in favor of the Earl Doherty formulation of the Christ myth, which I hadn't at that time been exposed to. I suggested we debate with no outside help, but he didn't agree to that (I think in part because he was too familiar with Doherty to really be able to separate his arguments from Doherty's). But I debated my side with pretty much an RSV and a Strong's concordance (I'm not even sure I used BlueLetterBible.org), and I did ok (at least to demonstrate to my own satisfation that his position was untenable, which is I suppose the most that can have been hoped for). As I've read more on the subject, I've certainly learned more.

Could you link to it. I'm somewhat interested.

[jwarrend]

Could you link to it. I'm somewhat interested.

Sure, here you go: http://groups.google.com/group/talk....04a2284a003ab2

I should just point out once again that I entered the debate with no prior exposure to the Christ myth, a Revised Standard version of the Bible, and a concordance. If you're looking for a more rigorous refutation of Doherty's thesis, JP's work is much better! But it was a fun debate, I learned a lot, and Adam was a good adversary, as was Sarah Whippmann who took over when Adam fell out of the discussion.

-Jeff

[jpholding]

Yes, yes YES!!!

I'm sending pearls for that.

[jpholding]

I didn't say the problem doesn't exist, I said that your piece has as its motivation an unsubstantiated assertion. It doesn't matter that you in your mind believe it to be true, or that you have access to materials that support it.

Silver tray service? I'm not here for that or to grease the track for those who have not taken the same trip I have.

No, you cannot use the pulpit to innoculate people against every single possible challenge to their faith that they might encounter.

Why not? It's taken me only 8 years to compile my material; add on Glenn Miller, creationist/ID stuff, and material on cults from places like CRI and you get maybe 20 years of work. It would surely take far less than that to do all that I ask -- give at least summary material with references to that which offers more depth when needed.

Is there something wrong with not agreeing with you about the degree to which apologetics should be the subject of preaching from the pulpit?

I never disagreed with such. The problem remains that the level remains at ZERO in far too many cases, with pastors and churchgoers who think "apologetics" means "I'm sorry I'm a Christian" or that it is "of the devil" or some other such rot.

That's a very good point. I agree that there's no excuse for a mature Christian not to be conversant with these and many other basics.

That's apologetics as well -- in the original form.

I am suggesting that it would be more effective if stated as an exhortation or encouragement to your fellow believers, rather than as a chastisement to people who don't happen to have the same love of apologetics that we have. I guess it's ultimately a "more flies with honey than with vinegar" complaint.

After 9 years of effective use of "vinegar", I've found that the only people I turn away are those whose minds are already made up. On the other hand, people who truly and honestly seek -- and I include a number of Skeptics here, including some who frequent this board -- appreciate what I do.

So perhaps is it that taste buds need to be adjusted.

Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"?

It suggests, in light of the magnitude of the problem, that you're very much missing something that is all too obvious. But maybe it is only obvious in the foxhole and not out in the open air where the bullets flying by are being mistaken for a choir tuning up.

Why do you feel it is acceptable to argue in this way?

Why do you not want to answer the point? Mormons, JWs...they all praise, read the Bible, pray, la la la la, etc. If it's a loaded question, you saw the gun clearly enough to dodge the bullet if you could, no?

Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse").

Ebon Bon the Bungler? I'll let others check that debate and give their impressions -- I find the Google format of posting headache-inducing.

But that's neither here nor there, because you're erecting a straw man. I never said that those activities (prayer, worship, etc) should be engaged in and apologetics should be avoided.

I don't think I said you did either. The issue is one of depth. I see zero happening in most places, 10-20% of what is needed is most of the rest. You would seem to favor somewhere between 20-50. I want 50-70, with the note that "apologetics" doesn't mean just Mithra but also a proper understanding of the Bible itself. And again, THAT sorely lacks as well. And more. The bookstores are full of decontextualized nonsense. Sermons on radio and TV are full of such nonsense. And someone who sees the long term will see how it comes out, to wit:

1) Pastor interprets 1 Cor. 14 to say women can't teach.
2) Gifted female teacher denied post.
3) Gifted teacher is unable to teach students who would otherwise have gotten good from her teaching.
4) Would-be students are not as mature or prepared as they could have been; their dedication and service lacks. They don't need to become apostate, either...they can just lack confidence and assurance in evangelism, or in acting out the revolutionary principles of the Gospel.
5) The lives they would have affected....

More people need to read the ditty that starts, "For the want of a nail..."

(As an aside, you do agree that they are an important part of the Christian experience, yes?)

In many of their current forms, I do have serious doubts. But that's another issue.

[jwarrend]

It suggests, in light of the magnitude of the problem, that you're very much missing something that is all too obvious.

What I meant it to suggest was that it's just good practice to support one's assertions. We can agree to disagree about how self-contained a piece of writing ought to be.

Why do you not want to answer the point? Mormons, JWs...they all praise, read the Bible, pray, la la la la, etc. If it's a loaded question, you saw the gun clearly enough to dodge the bullet if you could, no?

We were talking about what should be eminating from the pulpit. What does the fact that non-Christian groups pray, praise, etc, have to do with the fact that Christian pastors need to devote preaching time to instruct Christian believers in the correct ways to praise, pray, fast, give, serve, etc? Your question is a non-sequitur.

Ebon Bon the Bungler? I'll let others check that debate and give their impressions -- I find the Google format of posting headache-inducing.

That was my only debate with Adam, but I found him to be one of the most polite and respectful debaters that I came across. I couldn't comment too much on the cogency of his argumentation, since as he himself admitted, in that discussion he was mostly just using Doherty's arguments.

I actually like the thread format in Google; it's much easier to keep track of what post is in response to what.

-Jeff

[papabryant]

Howdy, Goth!

That's a sizeable number of people to quarantine.

At one time it wasn't. Political maneuvering by gay rights activists prevented quarentine proceedues from being implemented.

I still think it could be done today - although I reject William F. Buckley's call to tattoo a scarlet "a" on the bohunkas of those infected.

I cannot sanction such actions. Forcible removal of a populace that requires care, is hardly ethical.

If it is to provide care it isn't. Quarentine serves two purposes: preventing the spread of the disease and easing the burdon of those infected by keeping them close to medical care.

Out of sight, out of mind, no?
I fear for the rights of the quarantined, and the methods used to do such procedures.

Which is why I reject Buckley's solution. But I fear we threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. While the concern is legitimate, I think it was manipulated by gay leaders for political hay, and IMO, the deaths of every gay victim of AIDS I lay at their feet because they chose to use the fear of discrimination for political gain instead of treating AIDS/HIV as a disease.

Would you quarantine your wife? Your children?

If it was the best way to take care of them, and prevent others from getting sick in the process...

Yes.

Without hesitation.

To a point. Abstinance works, and I've got no qualms telling people to stop having sex. How they are told this, however, is in question.
Scare tactics from god, are not getting the A-ok from me.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that this is the manner abstinance is being taught there:

An article showing an abstinance program in Zambia is working

http://www.africafiles.org/article.a...20and%20Health

and a negative view on Uganda's program that STILL acknowledges its success, while trying to lay claim that condoms are the real hero (then why is Zambia beginning to succeed, when condoms are not part of the program there?)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...nly-africa.xml

You may find those interesting.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you clarify?

Sure. I have the potential within me to murder. We all do. But there is a difference between having the potential to murder and being a murderer.

Likewise, there is a difference between someone who doesn't have AIDS having gay sex and someone actually having AIDS and engaging in sex. I may disaprove of homosexuality, but that is a matter that effects only them, thus its a matter of conscience between them, their partner and God. But when they have AIDS, and they knowingly have sex with someone who doesn't, EVEN IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO CATCH THE DISEASE (for whatever reason) because at that moment sex becomes a weapon that can destroy another person's life, even if unintentionally.

IF this were true, then I would find it an extremely alarming practice. I've never heard of such things. Nor have I seen anything in any major media group that would indicate such practice. However, there are allready laws on the books to protect people that have been infected by someone intentionally.

In most states, it's classified as a felony, for attempted murder.

http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/arch...ug_chasers.php

And an article from Rolling Stone

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828217/posts

What sort of things do you think could be done to prevent such mind-sets?
Do you beleive these behaviors would stop if society didn't view homosexuals at large, as second class citizens?

No, because I don't think gays are concidered second class citizens, at least not by the cultural "elites". (I also think the fact that this behavior isn't limitted to places hostile to the gay lifestyle is a telling sign - Amsterdam and San Fransisco are gay friendly and it happens there.) Larger society may be different in this regard, but larger society doesn't set the standards of the culture, except at the ballot box and occasionally at the theater turnstyles.

I think evangelical Christians are concidered second class citizens by those elites. "Persecution" seems to make the same point.

The elites are the ones pushing the Gramsciist agenda, IMHO. There is no "smoke filled room" where radical atheists, gay rights leaders, Howard Dean followers, marxist college professors, and environmentalists get together to plan and plot against Christians and Jews and Joe Sixpack. They simply share an Ideological principle to "think globally and act locally".

Then I beleive it would be even harder to substantiate his existance in the first place.

Actually, no. This relates to your discussion on the Big Bang. I wrote a research paper for a philosophy class that you might be interested in - particularly the appendix: a side by side comparison of science's decription of BB and formation of life on Earth with Genesis 1.

It converted my professor.

The Paper: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.co...ements-as.html

The appendix: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.co...eological.html



I will finish my response later, when I have more time. I have birthday money to spend! (Call of Duty for the PC!) Peace!

[Goth_S]

Howdy, Goth!
At one time it wasn't. Political maneuvering by gay rights activists prevented quarentine proceedues from being implemented.

I still think it could be done today - although I reject William F. Buckley's call to tattoo a scarlet "a" on the bohunkas of those infected.

I dissagree...highly.

33.4-46.0 million people were estimated to be living with AIDS in 2005, with the number of newly infected people ranging between 3.4-6.2 million people.

Quarantine at this point, is not an option. Not in any manner that could possibly be considered humane by any stretch of the imagination.

If it is to provide care it isn't. Quarentine serves two purposes: preventing the spread of the disease and easing the burdon of those infected by keeping them close to medical care.

Uh-huh....
Why bother curing anybody when time will do the trick?

Which is why I reject Buckley's solution. But I fear we threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. While the concern is legitimate, I think it was manipulated by gay leaders for political hay, and IMO, the deaths of every gay victim of AIDS I lay at their feet because they chose to use the fear of discrimination for political gain instead of treating AIDS/HIV as a disease.

I agree completely that AIDS wasn't given the respect it deserved. However, I place blame on the religious right for catagorising AIDS as "gods answer to homosexuals."

Weren't they surprised when AIDS turned out to be an equal opportunity killer?

If it was the best way to take care of them, and prevent others from getting sick in the process...

Yes.

Without hesitation.

That, in a word, terrifies me.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that anybody that went into quarantine would not come out alive.
AIDS is struggling as it is to get funding for research and results have been slow in coming. Getting an entire risky demographic behind walls that's doomed to die as it is, is hardly a money generating sympathy machine.

Not to mention, with an incubation period of 7 years, forced incarceration of victims would be a very costly process, and I dare say the methods used to root out carriers of the virus would bend the constitution to it's breaking point.

There is absolutely no way that any quarantine procedure would ever be carried out in a manner that could ever be laughingly reffered to as "ethical."

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that this is the manner abstinance is being taught there:

An article showing an abstinance program in Zambia is working

http://www.africafiles.org/article.a...20and%20Health

and a negative view on Uganda's program that STILL acknowledges its success, while trying to lay claim that condoms are the real hero (then why is Zambia beginning to succeed, when condoms are not part of the program there?)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...nly-africa.xml

You may find those interesting.

I beleive that abstinance is the best and most effective manner of containment. Condoms come in a close second. I just don't want it done under the flag of the cross.

Sure. I have the potential within me to murder. We all do. But there is a difference between having the potential to murder and being a murderer.

Likewise, there is a difference between someone who doesn't have AIDS having gay sex and someone actually having AIDS and engaging in sex. I may disaprove of homosexuality, but that is a matter that effects only them, thus its a matter of conscience between them, their partner and God. But when they have AIDS, and they knowingly have sex with someone who doesn't, EVEN IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO CATCH THE DISEASE (for whatever reason) because at that moment sex becomes a weapon that can destroy another person's life, even if unintentionally.

Hmmmm.....

Like I said, suicide is fine by me, provided there aren't any perepheral victims.
But....that's me.

However, I'm more concerned with mutation cycles. The more people get infected, the more cycles the virus is allowed to progress through.
There may come a time when AIDS is bred with something as easilly transmissable as the Flu virus. Then we're all going to die.

This by itself, is the sole justification that I could see for forced quarantine.
But that would be a major undertaking, and only advisable in the most severe circumstances.

http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/arch...ug_chasers.php

And an article from Rolling Stone

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828217/posts

The first link yeilded this:

Whereas fear, depression and a severe lack of intimacy seem to be some of the reasons that infection is being sought out,

What causes this? Society at large, DOES view homosexuals as lesser citizens I assure you. It doesn't take more than 5 seconds to find anti-gay polemic. Heck, I bet it would take less than that if you stayed on these forums.
The arguments presented against homosexuality are typically juvenile, derogatory, and based highly on assumption and intolerance dressed up as pious virtue.

I hold that more accountable than anything.

As for the intentional spread of disease....well...

Their only killing themselves. I really don't care about suicide. I figure everybody has a choice to live or die. Either get busy with one or the other, but don't get in my way.
However, such intentional transmission is indeed putting a cramp on humanities attempts at destroying the disease.

I agree that something should be done. What that would be however, I don't have the experience to say.

No, because I don't think gays are concidered second class citizens, at least not by the cultural "elites". (I also think the fact that this behavior isn't limitted to places hostile to the gay lifestyle is a telling sign - Amsterdam and San Fransisco are gay friendly and it happens there.) Larger society may be different in this regard, but larger society doesn't set the standards of the culture, except at the ballot box and occasionally at the theater turnstyles.

Mmmmm....

A challenge then.
Go somewhere you'll likely never return and act homosexual for a day. The results might surprise you.

I think evangelical Christians are concidered second class citizens by those elites. "Persecution" seems to make the same point.

The elites are the ones pushing the Gramsciist agenda, IMHO. There is no "smoke filled room" where radical atheists, gay rights leaders, Howard Dean followers, marxist college professors, and environmentalists get together to plan and plot against Christians and Jews and Joe Sixpack. They simply share an Ideological principle to "think globally and act locally".

Err......

A quick look around tells me it's quite the opposite. Christians are the majority, and so far, have been able to weild a considerable amount of power.
I hardly see any valid evidence for the claim that christians are somehow treated as "second class citizens."

Actually, no. This relates to your discussion on the Big Bang. I wrote a research paper for a philosophy class that you might be interested in - particularly the appendix: a side by side comparison of science's decription of BB and formation of life on Earth with Genesis 1.

It converted my professor.

The Paper: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.co...ements-as.html

The appendix: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.co...eological.html

You cannot honestly contend that this converted a professor! What was this, Bob's technical community college of refrigerator repair?



This, is fallacious in it's construction. It depends upon the assumption that god is a viable answer in the first place. It does not, however, prove god's existance.

(9) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.

This assumption is fallacious, as it is the assumption that the universe:
A) must have had a beginning
B) could not have had an infinite regression, due to an endless existance.

Also the assumption that the universe is not necessary in its existence, the Big Bang is not necessary in its existence, and that god is "uncaused."
Especially considering that the variables that god is based on, are based on religion, which is based on.......?

It's a brilliantly over-played use of circular logic.


Also, that it only takes refference of what god is, by two (?) religious references.

It operates on entirely too many assumptions, none of which are substantiated. This does not prove god, it merely proves that you can plug in data, to a fabricated equation based on undefined variables.

Something that comes into existence displaying intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.

Define "inteligible order" and can it be substantiated?

Any conclusion you wish to come to, is entirely your own perception, rather than truth. The human body after all, is TERRIBLY designed! Any engineer would kill the designer on sight!

-A back designed for 4 legs, not two.
-A terrible construction of the eye

etc. etc.

"Intelligable order" is inherrantly a disengenous statement. Is a snowflake, which is mathematically perfect, "intelligable order" or is it merely what had to happen, based on the variables?

If an apple falls from the tree, was it designed to fall? Or is that merely a cause and effect relationship between gravity and mass?

Hint: It couldn't happen any other way!


I welcome the possibility that I simply didn't get it, but from the outset, the conclusion (as well as the formula) is inherrantly flawed.
Please correct me if my conclusions are not warranted.

I will finish my response later, when I have more time. I have birthday money to spend! (Call of Duty for the PC!) Peace!

Groovy!


EDIT:

P.S.

Would you mind terribly, if I sent those links you gave me on god's existance to a few friends? I've got a pal at Raytheon that would probably be able to point out any errors or merits better than I could.

[A Cup of No]

This is actually not true. The universe goes through periods of speeding up, and slowing down.

:)

Can you explain what you mean by "the universe speeding up and slowing down", and how it relates to what I posted above concerning the problems with an eternal universe and its implications for your idea about the first law of thermodynamics?

Thanks Goth, and nice avatar!

[OU812]

I suppose an apology (or at least, a reduction in further snarkiness) was too much to hope for. Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"?

Because, why would you ask for justification, if you believed that there was a problem?



jwarrend, Holding knows what he's talking about. I've been to many Baptist and 'non-denominational' churches here in California, and his list of problems are dead-on........

[jpholding]

What I meant it to suggest was that it's just good practice to support one's assertions. We can agree to disagree about how self-contained a piece of writing ought to be.

I assume an informed readership. My bad. Giving too much credit is a mistake I make regularly.

We were talking about what should be eminating from the pulpit. What does the fact that non-Christian groups pray, praise, etc, have to do with the fact that Christian pastors need to devote preaching time to instruct Christian believers in the correct ways to praise, pray, fast, give, serve, etc?

It means that it is all ultimately meaningless prattle unless one's doctrinal and exegetical house is in order (save the grace of God to those who are ignorant in innocence). What's the warning that ended with, "Depart from me, I never knew you..."?

Hence, an aspect of apologetics (defense of doctrine, in particular the identity of Christ) lies at the base of any properly directed service. No non-sequitur there. Just a wake up call.

[jpholding]

Thanks Goth, and nice avatar!

Guess how YOU can get one.

[papabryant]

There is a difference between dogma being in tandem with logical thought, and trying to bend logical thought to dogma, which is what I see most often.

I agree with the principle, although I do not see logic bent to dogma as much as you do, although that may be due to perspective for both of us.

And if we're going to follow the bible, and make rules off it, what's to stop you from enforcing your beleif in god?

The same that protects us from the John Birch Society or MoveOn.org... the Constitution. Which was created by a society adhering to the principles found in the Bible, namely the principle of free will.

See, God may call for us to follow Him, but it is our choice whether or not to do so. This is unique among ALL of the world's religions, since even Judaism has a tribal aspect to its practice. And while there are rewards for following God and punishments for the actions we commit when we don't (which is a complete oversimplification, I know), ultimately its our choice to do with our soul what we wish. It's ours.

The same principle, applied to the political realm, is at the heart of the inalienable rights of man to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We have the choice to do with our lives what we wish. It's ours.

And this principle, rooted in the Biblical worldview, is at the heart of the Constitution.

I dissagree with your example, for the reason that none of these atrocities were rooted in logical thought. The jews did not pose a threat to germany as hitler stated, nor did blacks as we did in the 50's.

The premise upon which these things were based, was illogical, hence my argument still stands. Xenophobia follows no intelligent formula.

You are incorrect here, since Hitler's view of the Jews was a threat to his racial purity goals. The principle wasn't illogical, it was immoral.

Logic can be used to justify ANYTHING. It is logical in economics to limit expenditure and get maximum production out of the labor pool. Old people and the maimed and insane cost more money to take care of when infirmed than they can produce wealth and economic spending when they are healthy. The Nazi answer was euthanasia. Logical, but immoral.

This does not mean logic has no value, just that it is a tool in the hands of whoever uses it. Thomas Hardy said that intuition was the logician's first piece of evidence. Intuition is hardly logical by itself, but coupled with a sound reasoning strategy it can lead to a "logical" conclusion. The Socratic method of learning is the most logical form of education, yet it can just as often lead to pooled ignorance as to logical insight.

I say they should dictate the course of action. Altruism is a logical system after all.

And who wouldn't want our laws to have to go through the scientific method considering some of the bizzare laws on the books, and the reasons behind them.
hehe

Well, not by the logic of Ayn Rand, who saw altruism as nothing more than a system by which social Darwinian "survival of the fittest" could be thwarted.

Although by your last sentence here, you may be on to something!

I'll look for it on Amazon. Thanks :)

Its an excellent book on the subject. You may also want to google Mike Adams, a professor at UNC-Willmington who writes columns on the subject of anti-Christian bias in academia.

I have no problem with protected speech however. I'm more than willing to take a bullet for your right to have religion. But I expect you to return the favor, for my right to freedom from religion.

Agreed, although I'd prefer neither of us get shot.

There is a considerable difference between comparing viewpoints, and arriving at a conclusion, than taking the word of an intangible being that cannot be challenged.

The problem is I get accused by the media/academia/the Democratic Party/ACLU/FFRF etc. of imposing my viewpoints just by wanting to participate and offer my views for comparison.

And who said God's word cannot be challenged? Certainly not God, who commanded "come and reason with me". What been found is that when we do reason with Him and ask questions, His answers have been right every time. Remember the definition of Biblical Faith - pistis - is "Trust based on verification or trustworthiness", not "belief in something that cannot/has not be proven."

No, because they are concepts not dieties of supposed substance.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5213

The article would go further to answering this objection than I could.

And the nation will vote against god? Uh-huh.
Logic is the only infallable.

Are we after fairness or results? Its your job to convince people to vote your way, just as it's my job to convince people to vote my way.

Would it be fair to say that only Christian views are allowed to be aired on the evening news? Skeptics are not allowed to express their views lest someone be convinced and vote the opposite of how I want the results to go? The reverse is just as bad.

You cannot silence a viewpoint opposite of your own simply because you want the results to go your way. At that point you have become what you fear - a totalitarian who will not allow dissention from a dogmatic point of view.

Its a logic trap that far too many people fall into because of its seductiveness.

There's a difference between a church with a large congregation (and thusly, a large pool of resources) and a church with a multi-million dollar swimming pool, complete with jacuzi and wetbar.

I personally think that money could be better spent. However, I'll not complain about a private institution using funds as it pleases.
I will however, take offense when they tell me I'm a "bad person" because I used my pocket change to buy bubble gum, instead of giving it to the red bell-ringing santa during christmas.

I don't begrudge the swimming pool, just how its used. If its is STRICTLY for the members, hey, you have an "amen, sister" outta me! But if it is also used to teach children how to swim, or made available to a local orphanage, or for physical therapy for the VA hospital, then the pool is a blessing for the community in keeping with the highest of Christian morals and ethics. Simply because there are other needs that you and I both would call more pressing doesn't mean the pool is wrong.

Nor is the sound system or video screens - if you have 2000 members you want them to hear the sermon, and screen are probably more cost effective than 2000 hymnals. But bragging that you have the best sound system, but not having a prison ministry, or food bank... As I said - Preach it, sister.

Quarantine at this point, is not an option. Not in any manner that could possibly be considered humane by any stretch of the imagination.

Here we will have to agree to disagree - I think it is not only unethical NOT to quarentine, it is medically unsound - we quarentine all other infectious epidemics as standard medical practice.

Uh-huh....
Why bother curing anybody when time will do the trick?

How you read THAT out of my post I won't begin to try and explain.

Quarentines are used to stop the further spread of the disease and put those suffering close to medical care until a cure can be delivered. Period. It is the most humane thing you can do for both those who suffer and those who might if nothing is done. Your own numbers speak to the truth of this - had we quarentined HIV when it first became epidemic would we have 46.0 MILLION people infected? We spend more on AIDS research than on colon cancer research, and that kills more than AIDS - the fact that the cure so far eludes us doesn't mean we abandon sound medical practice.

I agree completely that AIDS wasn't given the respect it deserved. However, I place blame on the religious right for catagorising AIDS as "gods answer to homosexuals."

Weren't they surprised when AIDS turned out to be an equal opportunity killer?

Would you also be surprised that many of those same idiots in the "religious right" also opened the first care centers for AIDS victims? Went in to comfort the dying when others even in the Gay community were afraid to comfort their own? Read the news stories from back in those days.

How admittedly stupid statements like "AIDS is God's answer to homosexuals" can POSSIBLY compare with the active lobbying of gay leaders NOT to quarentine the infected to stop the disease from spreading when the numbers of infected was under 20 thousand... maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that anybody that went into quarantine would not come out alive.

We do it for many other infectious diseases today, like viral menengitus, and the viral forms of TB. IF caught early enough we can save those infected AND prevent further spread of the disease, while comforting those who suffer until they are cured.

AIDS is struggling as it is to get funding for research and results have been slow in coming. Getting an entire risky demographic behind walls that's doomed to die as it is, is hardly a money generating sympathy machine.

This is not true. It is the propaganda of the gay leadership in order to illicit sympathy for an agenda. AIDS research recieves more funding than ANY other disease research.

In terms of numbers of people in the U.S. who die due to various diseases, figures from 2001 show heart disease (700,142), cancer (553,768), and stroke (163,538) topping the list. HIV/AIDS, which is ranked 22nd on the list of causes of death, killed 14,175 people in 2001.

However, when CDC funding in 2001 is examined, HIV/AIDS tops the list by far with $854.06 million. Funding for diseases like heart disease, cancer and stroke lag far behind.

NIH spending also seems out of whack. Based on 2003 budget figures, that agency allocated roughly $194,000 per death caused by HIV/AIDS. For heart disease research, the NIH spent approximately $2,871 per death.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

http://www.fairfoundation.org/news_l..._01january.htm

I beleive that abstinance is the best and most effective manner of containment. Condoms come in a close second. I just don't want it done under the flag of the cross.

Why? Who cares who gets credit for it, as long as the lives are saved.

What causes this? Society at large, DOES view homosexuals as lesser citizens I assure you. It doesn't take more than 5 seconds to find anti-gay polemic. Heck, I bet it would take less than that if you stayed on these forums.

I didn't say anti-gay rhetoric doesn't exist, I said the elites that drive our culture are gay friendly and Christophobic. And they are the ones in the position of power I mentioned in an eariler posting. Its why they are the dangers to freedom as I see it.

The arguments presented against homosexuality are typically juvenile, derogatory, and based highly on assumption and intolerance dressed up as pious virtue.

I hold that more accountable than anything.

Probably as juvenile, derogatory and based on assumptions, intolerance and misinformation as most "Christian crimes against humanity" websites I run accross. What is unfortunate is when principled opposition is lumped in with the bigots; one can oppose homosexuality without hating gays just as much as someone can be a nonbeliever without hating Christians. But as I've said before, the bad guys make it hard on the good guys.

Certainly in gay unfriendly places the attitudes can be a factor, but it doesn't explain the same behavior in gay friendly places.

As for the intentional spread of disease....well...

Their only killing themselves.

That's a more cavalier attitude than I have. We are our brother's keeper, there are just limits to how far we can go to protect someone.

I agree that something should be done. What that would be however, I don't have the experience to say.

Here here.

A quick look around tells me it's quite the opposite. Christians are the majority, and so far, have been able to weild a considerable amount of power.
I hardly see any valid evidence for the claim that christians are somehow treated as "second class citizens."

That's why I suggested Limbaugh's book. A meaningless example would be the flap over "season's greetings" at Target. A more meaningful one would be the 4th grade school girl who read her Bible at lunchtime quietly, only to have a teacher take the book away from her, rip it up, stomp on it, throw it in the garbage and call the girl an "idiot" and "Stupid" for "reading that trash" in front of all the other kids in the cafeteria, then had the kid expelled and the mother threatened with arrest. The teacher was NOT fired.

You cannot honestly contend that this converted a professor! What was this, Bob's technical community college of refrigerator repair?

No, The University of North Florida, a state-run school, where I am a Philosophy/ancient near eastern history double major with a 3.8 GPA and a 3 time National Dean's List nominee (only .5% of all college students make the list once.)

This, is fallacious in it's construction. It depends upon the assumption that god is a viable answer in the first place. It does not, however, prove god's existance.

It does nothing of the kind - it does assume one of the basic principles of philosophy - the principle of causality. And, I hate to inform you, because you really are a nice person and this is going to sound so mean (unintentionally ) - but if you still adhere to the notion of an eternal universe you're 55 years behind the times. The idea of an eternal universe is dead.

As to the variables God is based on - note it is SCIENCE that describes how the universe is constructed, not religion. We simply compare the two most likely religious stories AS SUGGESTED BY SCIENCE with what science says happened. The Biblical story fits perfectly.

You can repeat the process with other religions to see if you get a closer fit-which would be a great way to invalidate the hypothesis - in fact, it would be the only way.

Define "inteligible order" and can it be substantiated?

Sure thing; Intelligble order is a series of criteria in which both the mathematical probablility of each individual criteria occuring AND the probability of all of the criteria as a whole occuring are so mathematically remote as to render chance the least likely reason for their occurance.

Would you mind terribly, if I sent those links you gave me on god's existance to a few friends? I've got a pal at Raytheon that would probably be able to point out any errors or merits better than I could.

Sure! A philosophical work like this is never complete, so any problems I haven't thought of that might need rethinking... With my blessings, dear!

Peace,
Tom

[Goth_S]

As it's 5am here in texas, I don't have the mental stamina to reply in depth, so I'll have to do that tommorrow. Been up all night studying, and I'm a bit brain dead at the moment.


However, I would like a rebuttal to my challenge of your paper concerning proof of god.

I do not beleive that it is a logical paper for a few reasons:

-It relies on the judeo-christian explanation of god
-It uses this explanation to tie it into big bang
-my question was for proof of god

One cannot use an unproven variable to prove itself.
Your paper (IMO) only provided a somewhat logical explanation for how god could coincide with Big Bang theory.
While I concede, that it is a well thought out paper, concerning god and his possible relation to big bang under the assumption that the judeo-christian explanation for god is correct, it did NOT prove god's existance which was the question I asked.

One cannot use a variable that has no substantiation, to prove itself.
I see the paper as an excersise in circular logic in that vein.

IF god truly exists, and IF god is portrayed accurately in the bible, then your statements would appear to be a logical extention.

But again, this does not prove the existance of god, nor does it support such assertions that such a being exists. Furthermore, it relies entirely upon the assumption that the Judeo-christian verison of god is correct.

I will be forwarding it to my professor of physics, my professor of philosophy, and a few friends in the Navy and Raytheon for further inspection, if you don't mind. I don't consider myself an expert in such matters, so I defer to the experts.

I want to get a few opinions, before I either mount a full scale assault on it, or applaud it for it's merits.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

This assumption is fallacious, as it is the assumption that the universe:
A) must have had a beginning
B) could not have had an infinite regression, due to an endless existance.

Since we're bringing this up now, I'll just state my problems with Infinite regression. The main problem I have with ig is that it can never be proven, how can we know that there are still an infinite more number of causes, as opposed to one more?

Further, if you apply Octam Razer, ig loses out to every other possibility out there(including God).

[papabryant]

As it's 5am here in texas, I don't have the mental stamina to reply in depth, so I'll have to do that tommorrow. Been up all night studying, and I'm a bit brain dead at the moment.


However, I would like a rebuttal to my challenge of your paper concerning proof of god.

I do not beleive that it is a logical paper for a few reasons:

-It relies on the judeo-christian explanation of god

The Kalam arguement is a Muslim arguement to start with, but remember this paper takes the concept of first cause - whatever that may be - and assigns it the name "God" - it doesn't start with the Judeo-Christian God.

-It uses this explanation to tie it into big bang

Again, all that is done is compare the effect of that cause to two different religious texts creation stories - stories that scientists already see parallels to - and see which fits closest to the facts as defined by science. What I have done is in effect tied the scientific method of observation to philosophy.

-my question was for proof of god
One cannot use an unproven variable to prove itself.

Which is given, because I did not use an unproven variable - I observed what science already knows and compared.

Truthfully, philosophers have been trying to refute the Kalam arguement (and Aquinas' admittedly inferior take on it) for centuries. It has never been refuted, but was ignored for a long time until William Lane Craig picked it back up.

Let me know what your friends say!

Peace,

Tom