Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by vsp

Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?

And don't forget that entire sections of the bible were completely deleted by a few pea-brained popes who decided that "we don't need to know that."

[OnyxCougar]

As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG. This is what they say about hammurabi (keep in mind this is a literal creationist website, so that's why the reference it biased that way):

Morality and history
From very early records we see that man has shown a high degree of culture and understanding in law and moral/societal behaviour. Dating from the 17th century before Christ is the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king who, according to secular historians, came to power about 1750 bc. This set of laws, governing situations such as marriage, commerce and theft is generally regarded as one of the best and earliest written codes of law for a society. The proper functioning of law depends on the existence of an ultimate authority. Speaking of a society which was crumbling because of a lack of authority, the Bible says: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).

The Ten Commandments are considered, even by many non-Christians, to be a foundational set of rules for moral and ethical living. But if they were written by only a man, then they are no more ‘right’ than someone else’s opposite view. In rejecting Biblical absolutes, will modern law eventually cease from allowing criminals to be branded with ‘wrong-doer’ in favour of the more evolutionarily consistent concept of a ‘socially-unacceptable choice’? Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

[Happy Monkey]

Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG.

Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

Explaining Rape?

You're saying evolution explains rape?


You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Explaining Rape?

You're saying evolution explains rape?


You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.

I'm sorry, are you now attempting to associate explanation and excuse? When the very sentence you quoted says I don't? Any number of heinous crimes can be explained. Does that excuse them? No.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm sorry, are you now attempting to associate explanation and excuse? When the very sentence you quoted says I don't? Any number of heinous crimes can be explained. Does that excuse them? No.

She was saying that evoltuionists use evolution and genetics as a way to excuse rape.

[mrnoodle]

Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.

The fact that the case made it all the way TO court proves my point.

Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.

I linked to an atheist's site deliberately. It wasn't meant to prove that atheists are successful at getting roadside crosses removed, just that it's a common atheist whine. Two-click Google researching doesn't always yield the best results, but examples of what I'm talking about abound.

Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.

The wider controversy in this case (read the whole thing) was whether or not students could have faith-based clubs during their lunch hour. The school district had a policy that such clubs could exist only outside of the "instructional program" time. They ruled that lunch was instructional time, which of course is ludicrous.


HM - are you saying that because those things (money/pledge/etc) exist now, we are currently living under a system of government-mandated religion? Because that's what the constitution addresses, not the removal of all religious imagery or speech from anything to do with government. Like I said once already. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome, here.

[Kitsune]

They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

Wow, you must be referring to extremists groups (every side has 'em!) because I know most people who are for the seperation of church and state do not operate under those principles.

[OnyxCougar]

Agreed. That's exactly my point.

In this country, there are laws that say you can't do those things, and oh! just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??

So we agree then! Good! Yay!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Agreed. That's exactly my point.

Ah. You were saying that a few rules happen to match up between the Bible and the law. I assumed you were implying that those laws were there because of the Bible. Sorry.

[Kitsune]

just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??

Yeah, my buddy got arrested for boiling the calf of a goat in its mother's milk.

...oh, wait, you were talking about one of the other two verisons of the ten commandments...

But, hey, with the current set, at least disobeying your parents is punishable by stoning!

[OnyxCougar]

Hey radar did you read that brief I posted?

[Undertoad]

Via this blog, who got it from a copy of the full image via here

[OnyxCougar]

I quoted:
Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

You said:
Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

This indicates that you believe that "male's genes and less civilized evolutionary past predisopose them to such actions" as rape.

So let me ask you this way:
Do you believe that evolution explains, or is a reason for rape?

[Happy Monkey]

I'm worried that you will attempt to twist this into some sort of implied justification, since this is a subject that can be difficult to discuss without emotional tension. But yes, just about any behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom has an evolutionary basis, either directly or as a side effect of another strategy. However, humans have developed a more important (IMHO) strategy of empathy and cooperation, that gives us the ability to override any baser animal instincts, and those who don't do so should be considered defective and removed from society.