Weekend question: Why is “abortion” googled more in pro-life states?
Our pro-abort friends are all a-Twitter this morning about findings of a new study “that Google searches on ‘abortion’ rise in areas with more conservative abortion policies or where the procedure is less available,” as recounted by the Boston Herald.
The reason pro-aborts are recommending this reading is because of the authors’ conjecture why, again quoting BH:
“In places where abortion access is readily available, people can go to their mainstream health care providers,” [study co-author Dr. Ben] Reis suggested. In areas with more abortion searches, he said, “people may be going on the Internet to find alternate routes.”
In particular I found the 1st assumption ludicrous. Mothers seeking abortions in areas where they are easily accessed don’t need to look up the address of their local abortionist because they already know where to go? They don’t need to search for the phone number either? They either have it memorized or would rather walk, drive, or take a bus to the mill to make the appointment?
And the authors assume people look up the word “abortion” solely to do it? Reis’s co-author’s mind followed the same unimaginative, lemminged track in a press release:
“One possible explanation for these inverse relationships is that people with limited access to local abortion services are using the Internet to find providers outside their health system or outside their region, while people with more access are able to go through standard local healthcare channels to find an abortion provider,” [Dr. John] Brownstein said.
Question: Can you think of other reasons why people would google the word “abortion” in states fitting the authors’ criteria: “where fewer than 10% of counties had providers, and in those with a mandatory waiting period, mandatory counseling, mandatory parental notification for minors, or mandatory parental consent for minors”?
The authors provided an interesting graphic (click to enlarge)…
Many of those states would have a lot of pro-life bloggers and activists; many of them would be searching the Internet for research. That’s what makes sense to me.
I agree that those seeking abortions already know where the nearest abortion mill is located. And the anti-life crowd is not nearly as active cause they are happy with status quo. I use the keywords ‘against’ and ‘abortion’ on the net seeking to network with people against abortion.
I google “abortion” daily to find the latest news stories and blogs related to the pro-life issue.
The BH’s assumption has to be one of the biggest stretches by PCers in recent memory. Guess they’re pretty desperate. :D I mean, that assumption is just so scientific.
I live in Mo. and I google abortion multiple multiple times a week, sometimes a day, while researching for a blog post and for citations, links, and references while debating and witnessing online. I wouldn’t be surprised if half that blue bar is me alone! :)
My computer’s history shows the word “abortion” to be googled the most in the last several weeks.
The proaborts become yet more and more desperate.
These morons would be equally shocked and awed by a story about the sunrising early in the morning…….in the East.
If anything is not readily available there will be more people using some sort of resource to locate what they want.
Why I bet pig farms are difficult to locate in the Dearbon[istan] region of Michigan.
[Might have something to do with concentration of muslims in that area, who would bugger their brother before they would eat pork.]
I am confident there will be many more google searches for pork in the Dearborn[istan] region of Michigan than say a liberal bastion like the Boston area.
pp probably uses federal tax dollars to pay ACORN personel to go door to door hanging flyers [while they are registering dead people, felons and undocumented aliens to vote] in ethnic enclaves so these people won’t be inconvienenced by cranking up their computer, netbook, iphone or even cracking the Yellow Pages.
The flyers probably contain a discount coupon. Pay cash for the first abortion, get the second for half price.
Oh wait! What was I thinking?!?
These folks don’t even have to pay for the first abortion.
We, the taxpayers are footing the bill and toting the note for these folks elective surgery.
I thought we were supposed to watch our language! Please do not use any name-calling – including ‘morons!’ Moderators – where are you?
If we are kind in our words, and make the point, that is very good. Let’s all try!
I have to agree – I think they are trying to make a point and stretching the ‘reasons’ to fit the facts. The Google-ing of the word abortion says nothing regarding the access to abortion or the reason why. Not a very good hypothesis or conclusion.
It’s difficult to make generalizations about a single broad keyword such as “abortion(s)” because it encompasses both prolife and proabortion types of searches. The authors, to make their case, would have to show that “find abortion provider” or “abortion clinic in [state or city]” and this kind of more specific search phrase is searched more frequently than phrases such as “abortion statistics,” “argument against abortion,” and other search phrases prolifers may be using. Where’s their specific keyword phrase data to back up the assertion that searches are related to abortion access?
Um…because abortion is an important topic to them and they want to keep up with the news? Hardcore vegetarians probably Google “McDonalds” a lot too.
Well in TN we do not have informed consent or waiting periods so if something is considering abortions and would like some information on risks, fetal development etc. they would be googling this information cause they sure won’t get it from the mill.
Also, many people google abortion daily for new updates.
For this to be meaningful, one would have to have some idea how many total searches there are. Anyway, Google searches indicate interest in the topic but don’t show why. As much as pro aborts claim they can’t get folks on their side interested and active, I would guess they are not so interested and not googling. Notice Utah is neither aborting nor looking for info. Probably correlates better to which states are currently considering legislation etc. A person interested in abortion might google it often. Someone seeking an abortion mill would probably only google a couple of times. I mean after you find the place, why do you need to keep looking?
Where’s their specific keyword phrase data to back up the assertion that searches are related to abortion access?
In thinking further about my own question, I’m not sure how one could prove that searches are related to abortion access. A search for clinics in a specific area doesn’t mean someone wants an abortion, they could be looking for directions to a 40 days for life prayer rally. That’s why I googled a specific clinic the last time. No matter what search data the authors present, it’s not going to indicate why people are searching for information, only that they searched for it. Anything beyond that is conjecture.
What a ridiculous assumption! Sheesh.
Gee, nobody would Google “abortion” unless they were looking to get one, right? *eyeroll*
Tangentially related: don’t use Google.com, use ProLifeInternet.com! It’s the exact same Google search engine, but ad impressions generate money for pro-life student groups.
Google searches are indicators of widespread interest in a subject. Like searches for “football” go up during football season because the subject of football is on a lot of peoples mind during the season. Apparently “abortion” is a higher interest subject in conservative states and not so much in liberal states. Anything beyond that is just speculation.
Let me speculate a bit, just for fun:
Perhaps people in conservative states are NOT googling abortion at unusually HIGH rates …maybe it’s the people in liberal states that are googling abortion at unusually LOW rates. I think the reason is that liberals are afraid of the subject. They run from intellectual thought on the issue of abortion because the whole thing scares them to death. Since they have their heads in the sand they end up googling abortion far less. It follows that liberals generally end up less educated on the issue. Since so many people in liberal states don’t think about abortion much and are generally uninformed on the topic…it’s no wonder those states haven’t been able to pass any kind of restrictions abortion. In their ignorance…the poor souls just don’t know any better and apparently don’t know how to improve their lot in life through Google. Obviously pro-life people are better informed, higher in intelligence and better looking.
This abortion Google search factoid is my proof…and I’m sticking to it.
joyfromillinois August 28th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
“I thought we were supposed to watch our language! Please do not use any name-calling – including ‘morons!’”
===============================================================
From the rules:
“No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.”
I did not specify an individual or race or gender, therefore not ‘personal. No race or ethnic group was mentioned.
Feminista is the spanish equivalent of the english ‘feminist’ which this collection of women has chosen to identify themselves.
The use of the word ‘moron’ was both accurate and appropriate. Therefore it can be NOT be ‘slander’, though it might be offensive to some senstive and sophisticated folk.
Origin of MORON
irregular from Greek m?ros foolish, stupid
1 usually offensive [but only to non-morons]: a person affected with mild mental retardation
[I apologize to persons affected with mental retardation for unintentionally equating or comparing them with feministas.]
2 : a very stupid person
[I rest my case concerning the inane blathering of feministas]
Prov 14:7-9 7 Go from the presence of a foolish and self-confident man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.
8 The Wisdom [godly Wisdom, which is comprehensive insight into the ways and purposes of God] of the prudent is to understand his way, but the folly of [self-confident] fools is to deceive.
9 Fools make a mockery of sin and sin mocks the fools [who are its victims; a sin offering made by them only mocks them, bringing them disappointment and disfavor], but among the upright there is the favor of God. [Prov 10:23.] AMP
Prov 1:32 For the backsliding of the simple shall slay them, and the careless ease of [self-confident] fools shall destroy them. [Isa 32:6.] AMP
Prov 10:21 The lips of the [uncompromisingly] righteous feed and guide many, but fools die for want of understanding and heart. AMP
Prov 13:19 Satisfied desire is sweet to a person; therefore it is hateful and exceedingly offensive to [self-confident] fools to give up evil [upon which they have set their hearts]. AMP
Prov 13:20 He who walks [as a companion] with wise men is wise, but he who associates with [self-confident] fools is [a fool himself and] shall smart for it. [Isa 32:6.] AMP
Prov 16:22 Understanding is a wellspring of life to those who have it, but to give instruction to fools is folly. AMP
Prov 26:4-5 4 Answer not a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes and conceit. [Matt 16:1-4; 21:24-27.] AMP [Which is it? 4 or 5?]
[It seems Solmon and Jeremiah and the LORD adhere(d) to a different set of rules of conduct.]
Prov 19:19 A man of great wrath shall suffer the penalty; for if you deliver him [from the consequences], he will [feel free to] cause you to do it again. AMP
[The same could be said of a ‘very stupid person/moron’]
A person who is affected with mental retardation is an innocent victim of ‘chance’.
Feministas have made themselves ‘morons’ by their deliberate rejection of the truth.
Jer 10:21 For the shepherds [of the people] have become like brutes, irrational
and stupid,
and have not sought the Lord or inquired of Him or required Him [by necessity and by right of His word]. Therefore they have not dealt prudently and have not prospered, and all their flocks are scattered. AMP
Jer 4:22 Their chastisement will continue until it has accomplished its purpose] for
My people are stupid,
says the Lord [replying to Jeremiah]; they do not know and understand Me. They are thickheaded children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge [and know not how]. AMP
The ‘good news’ is the LORD can fix ‘stupid‘.
Here – you might find the link below useful.
You can tweak a few advanced options to determine what’s being queried.
https://adwords.google.com/o/Targeting/Explorer?__u=1000000000&__c=1000000000&ideaRequestType=KEYWORD_IDEAS#search.none
Here’s another link – if you drive down into the Google stats for the “abortion” keyword:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=abortion&date=today+12-m&geo=US
Jill – after a somewhat quick check of the Google Keyword tool, with regards to state by state keyword usage, my impressions given the data (and additional keywords, as well as bar graphs provided by google) is that people were seeking information about abortion related to the health-care debates. The actual numbers searching for “abortion clinics” is nowhere near the number of searches for information about it in general. Overall it looks like there was interest in why people were “for abortion”.
Google keywords data is not like the stock market, where the price and volume are true indicators of the actual transactions. Additionally, keywords are merely single words, but are often comprehensive phrases.
Everyone knows that informed consent laws work to reduce the number of abortions. It is no surprise then that in more conservative rural areas of the country—where people actively contemplate what they are thinking of doing before they do it—fewer people choose abortion. This is evidenced by the striking correlation between the number of Google searches of the word “abortion” and the number of actual abortions per capita in any given part of the country.
There is no end to the number of ways one may speculate wildly.
The last line of the news release states, brilliantly:
One limitation of search engine data is that it may not be a representative sample of the general population, especially in poorer regions where fewer people may have Internet access, also known as the digital divide, the researchers said.
That’s a BIG limitation to leave for the last line.
I don’t know what the dates/years of the study were, but in addition to health-care debates, the abortion search data may have come before the Presidential election when interest in Obama’s pro-abortion record increased. I’m betting lots of school kids were writing papers on abortion and still are. Those would tend to be conservative, pro-lifers since pro-aborts rarely speak of the “A” word much less write about it. Let’s see how the pro-aborts try to spin that.
****
I wonder how much this study cost and if we, the tax payers footed the bill. Could we spend the money on better health care for poor families instead of another “google study”. Yikes.
The website http://www.mytruechoice.com gives women and girls support for resisting the pressure to abort. It gives tips, referrals to organizations that can help, and links to other helpful websites. Give it a read if you’re pregnant, do NOT want an abortion, and feel pressure to get one.
Another website http://www.ceeceemarie.com is just a general thing of my thoughts, plus some book reviews and links to buy books.
Chris Arsenault
August 28th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Correction – the last sentence in my last comment should read:
Additionally, keywords are not merely single words, but are often comprehensive phrases.
Chris, excellent point. The authors, to prove their theory, should have also googled “abortion clinics.”
I’ve googled abortion hundreds of times looking for an article or a statistic or whatever. I’m sure we all have. There’s no way to say what % of those searches come from pro-lifers like us.
I’d say that there are two factors:
1. Prolifers tend to educate themselves.
2. “Red states”, by proposing abortion laws, instigate public curiosity.
ok no mystery here guys.
Since when have proaborts NEVER stretched the truth, lied, misled or made crazy conjectures???
Since when?!!! :D
Google keywords data is not like the stock market, where the price and volume are true indicators of the actual transactions.
Well said, Chris. Another limitation not acknowledged by the article is that surfing by proxy contaminates regional data.
I didn’t read to see if anyone already said this- but people who search abortion on the internet and look around for 2 seconds are less likely to have abortions because they have encountered what an abortion is. Case in point, google abortion and see pictures of aborted babies. That would change minds.
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Exodus 31:15
You naughty people!
It’s great to see you reading your bible on the Sabbath, Cranium. Keep up the good work!
Someone want to explain the difference between the old and new covenants to our friend here who doesn’t believe in God’s word yet still uses it to condemn us?
Me, neither.
Haha, Jacqueline! Nope! And you gotta love a guy who brings up religion but then gets all bent out of shape when you actually RESPOND to him about that which supposedly means nothing to him. If it means nothing, then why even bring it up??
Just demonstrating your hypocrisy folks. That’s what condemns you.
All the ranting about homosexuals and other things then what do you do? You ignore the scriptures which don’t suit your needs or your prejudices.
What about Exodus 21:17, adhering to that one are we?
You’re not showing our hipocrisy; you are showing your own ignorance. I could fix it by educating you on the law of love (new vs. old testament, old and new covenant) but that would be pearls before swine to use another Biblical reference.
A book of dubious origins. A book with multiple ghost-writers as authors. A book which has been through multiple translations. Multiple interpretations. Parts added and deleted. Which contradicts itself. Which followers pick and choose pieces from according to their particular ‘brand’. Which theologians still debate the meanings of.
And you live your life by it?
The Dreamtime of the Australian Aboriginal people has been in existence for up to 50,000 years. Christianity/Catholicism won’t last anywhere near that long.
Cranium wrote:
The Dreamtime of the Australian Aboriginal people has been in existence for up to 50,000 years. Christianity/Catholicism won’t last anywhere near that long.
:) Nice, subjective comment there, friend! You do, of course, have objective data from the future to back up this empirical claim?
Christianity/Catholicism won’t last anywhere near that long.
You’re right – that’s too short.
Christ and his brothers and sisters live forever!
cranium – rather than trying to use the Holy Bible as a weapon, you might want to actually read it.
We not only live by the Word of God, we also die by it – and live again. Those of faith who uphold the Word of God are impossible to stop, despite severe persecution.
Yes Paladin, it was a subjective comment, I freely admit that. But given the changes which have occurred in christianity over it’s relatively short life, compared with the consistency of beliefs such as the Dreamtime, I doubt it has much of a future. When you add in the current religious conflict it doesn’t look much better.
‘Christ and his brothers and sisters live forever!’ – what about the millions of years prior? Why would the future be any different? Christianity, a blink in the eye of history.
I’m not using the bible as a weapon, you are. I’m just pointing out that not all the bullets fit, let alone work. And sometimes it backfires on you.
‘Those of faith who uphold the word of god are impossible to stop’ – now where have I heard that before??
The Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday.
Cranium wrote:
Yes Paladin, it was a subjective comment, I freely admit that.
Well, there’s some progress, at least. Now, will you go further, and apologize to those at whom you scoffed, for their “subjective injections into an objective debate”–I mean, since you saw fit to do so, yourself?
But given the changes which have occurred in christianity over it’s relatively short life, compared with the consistency of beliefs such as the Dreamtime,
Oh, come, now! You have no reliable data whatsoever to describe any “consistency” in a hypothetical 50,000-year lifespan (I’d be very interested in a rigorous proof of that age-estimate, btw) of a belief-system which supposedly reaches well into prehistory (which, by the most generous estimates, was no earlier than 5000 B.C.)! How, exactly, will you demonstrate this “admirable stability”? By what records will you show its unchanging doctrines and disciplines? Have some sense, man!
I doubt it has much of a future. When you add in the current religious conflict it doesn’t look much better.
I’m going to regret this, but: what sort of “current religious conflict” do you have in mind, which would throw the continued existence of the Church into doubt? Do you see them as more dire than the persecutions of Rome, of Islam, of the Nazi regime, or of Atheistic Communism?
‘Christ and his brothers and sisters live forever!’ – what about the millions of years prior?
(??) What about them? This makes no sense at all…
Why would the future be any different?
You’ll need to give a coherent explanation for the bizarre statement, above, before I try to answer; right now, there’s no clear way to tell what you mean by it.
Christianity, a blink in the eye of history.
Er… history isn’t done yet, friend… nor is Christianity. It’s a bit premature to make pronouncements like that… and scandalously subjective, as well.
I’m not using the bible as a weapon, you are.
Ah. So you weren’t trying to throw out Bible verses in an attempt to prove “hypocrisy”? (And–forgive me–your attempt really left something to be desired, even by atheist standards. Professional atheists have read the book in question, at least; you, obviously, have not. Don’t run an experiment while ignoring your data set!)
I’m just pointing out that not all the bullets fit, let alone work. And sometimes it backfires on you.
Interesting metaphor. If you can attach it to some coherent point in a way that makes sense, we can move this discussion along rather better.
‘Those of faith who uphold the word of god are impossible to stop’ – now where have I heard that before?
:) Not from atheists, I’d wager.
I don’t think anyone mentioned a particular day Bobby, but thanks for your input.
No, I won’t apologize Paladin because those I ‘scoffed’ cite scripture as objective reference material when it is no less subjective than anyone’s opinion.
The rock paintings of the Aboriginals, accurately dated by various scientific methods, demonstrate a consistency to their legends over thousands of years. Some of their stories describe the formation of rivers and other geological formations. Originally they were thought to be about 30,000 years old but more recent finds and scientific analysis have raised this to 50,000 years.
‘No earlier than 5000BC’ – oh dear, you’re not a young-earther are you?
The current islamic based terrorism taking place has opened the world’s eyes to the inherent beliefs and behaviors of that religion as a whole. This has also caused eyes to be cast upon the other abrahamic faiths. Christianity presents a highly vocal and visual presence in society. The political, social and economic ‘activities’ of christians have also caused people to be alert. It also highlights the misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia etc. etc. which advancing societies do not want. Reason and science will prevail over high profile religions.
The world existed for multiple millions of years before any christ came along. People had existed for millions of years before any christ came along. So, after a few thousand years this christianity thing will sputter out and history will continue for millions of years without it.
You keep using scripture as a life guide. yet it is so fundamentally flawed in its construct and your use of it. Your behavior and citation of scripture is self-evincing of your hypocrisy. I have read the book, I even used to recite some passages.
No, not from atheists. perhaps from jihadists? Atheists existed long before any supposed christ, and will continue for long after people stop believing in ‘him’.
cranium August 29th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Exodus 31:15
==============================================================
Cranium,
Goodnews and bad news.
The good news:
The mosaic law concerning the sabbath only applied to God’ chosen people.
The bad news:
You are not yet one of God’s chosen people.
But there is hope for you, while there is yet life in you.
yor bro ken, thanks but I wasn’t exactly feeling under threat.
So what is going to happen to all the people I see when I drive past McDonalds who have stopped there after church? Or if saturday is classed as the sabbath, those I see at shopping malls?
I never will be one of god’s chosen people. Nor he/she mine. That’s not exactly bad news.
So what is going to happen to all the people I see when I drive past McDonalds who have stopped there after church? Or if saturday is classed as the sabbath, those I see at shopping malls?
God has told us to rest and not to work on Sunday, true. But he doesn’t forbid us to eat. (I actually stopped at MacDonald’s to eat after church today myself). Or to shop – which many people consider relaxation. Many people do gardening for relaxation on Sundays. Some Christians do interpret this law more strictly. But all are trying to rest and “Keep the Lord’s day holy.” Only petty little minds call any of this hypocrisy.
OK, so it’s the people who serve you at McDonalds or at the mall who should be killed?
Exodus 31:15 says they must be put to death, the same as Exodus 21:17.
Why not hot on this topic when you display such homophobia, which you claim to be biblically based? If killing people who work on Sundays isn’t ‘necessary’ why is homophobia necessary?
I don’t see what’s petty about it. Or is that you trying to justify selecting bits and ignoring bits to suit your prejudices?
cranium – tell us what you understand about covenants.
Cranium, where did I ever display homophobia? I disagreed with you about the history of “gay marriage” (way back on another thread). Disagreement with you about facts is not homophobia.
I do not think anyone who works on Sunday should be killed, nor does any Christian. You fail to understand that the O.T. is just one stage of the religious development of the people of God. (The Jews back in Moses’ time do sometimes sound like Muslims today). But this is because they had a destiny in which God was to give them an ever more perfect revelation of himself through sending His Son, the revelation that appears in the pages of the New Testament. You cannot understand the Old Testament without understanding this. You might not agree with it as truth, but this is in fact what the Bible claims to be about.
Jesus had a rather different understanding of keeping the Sabbath than in the Old Testament. He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. I’ll let you look it up for yourself, and get some actual acquaintance with the Bible (No, I do not believe you’ve ever read it).
cranium, no matter what the Bible says or how strictly various pro-lifers adhere to it, abortion is still the violent death of a human being. Period.
Cranium, the Bible is a WHOLE story. You cannot pull out bits here and there and understand it correctly without reading and understand the WHOLE Word of God. If you don’t get the context then how can you argue about the Bible without sounding foolish? Which, you do, because you are spiritually blind so how can you understand the Bible? If you read the Bible with a heart to understand God promises to give you spiritual sight. If you read it to scoff then it will be just words to you and you won’t understand anything you’ve read.
And back to the story on this thread….I google abortion several times a month. Have never had one, will never have one, so there goes the pro-abort’s theory out the window! I like to keep current on abortion news.
Cranium, you say you will never be one of God’s chosen people. I hope you will someday reconsider that. I hope you will get the chance to reconsider it. Because the Bible, which you mock, is full of God’s words that tell of His intense love for you. Not just for all mankind, but for YOU personally. He loves you Cranium. He does exist. He desires to have a personal relationship with you and bless your life in ways you couldn’t even imagine. Just remember that even when you mock Him, He still loves you.
Do you support gay marriage Lori?
‘religious development’ – does this not align with my statements regarding translations, interpretations, additions and deletions? Perhaps the bible should be written in pencil to make it easier to change and update. The point is that you pick and choose which sections of scripture you adhere to. I’ve read versions of the bible which state that homosexuality is only ‘different’, not blasphemous or punishable by death.
No Marauder, it is not the ‘violent death of a human being’. Is miscarriage an example of god being a violent abortionist?
Sydney M. it is the ‘followers’ who are guilty of pulling out bits here and there, as I have demonstrated. Context? You don’t even apply ‘context’ on a consistent basis.
Which god Sydney M.? How do you think you’d go if you tried to tell a devout muslim what you’re saying to me? I can no more mock god than you can mock santa claus. I mock the belief.
So, let’s see, in order to not be hypocrites in the eyes of a non-christian, we should all stop eating ham sandwiches and oh, dear, no more Cheezburgers!! Haha! For someone who claims to have read the Bible, he sured missed that part where Paul and the Apostles corresponded and came to an agreement about Jewish law and how that applies to converts of the Way.
I have written an outline for my “Top Ten Archeological Proofs of the Bible” and when I publish it, I will for sure put its link as a signature on my posts. One very staunch atheist went out on a dig to prove the bible wrong. Guess what? After digging and finding, he became a believer and founded a church!
And those people who ‘ghost’-wrote the Bible, they had names. Some of them were Moses, Shawsha, King David, King Solomon, Shaphan, Baruch, Shimshei, Ezra, Matthew, John-called-Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the gentleman who translated all of it into latin (back then the common language) was named Jerome. Boy, those ‘ghosts’ sure got a lot o’ substance, huh?
Cranium wrote:
No, I won’t apologize Paladin because those I ‘scoffed’ cite scripture as objective reference material when it is no less subjective than anyone’s opinion.
Suit yourself. If you don’t want to live up to your own standards, you have the legal right to be inconsistent.
The rock paintings of the Aboriginals, accurately dated by various scientific methods, demonstrate a consistency to their legends over thousands of years.
(*smacking forehead*)
You’re serious, aren’t you?
Let’s explore this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all of the said paintings are exactly as old as the methods claim. Suppose also that there are some similarities between them. Now, let’s try out your hypothesis: “But given the changes which have occurred in christianity over it’s relatively short life, compared with the consistency of beliefs such as the Dreamtime, I doubt it has much of a future.”
First, your descriptions of both Christianity (of whose history you really seem to lack much knowledge) and the presumed “dreamtime” mythos are so wildly broad and vague as to be almost meaningless. Second, neither you nor anyone else has any solid knowledge of the views, beliefs or changes in view or belief of anyone (whether in Australia or anywhere else) from times before recorded history. Please tell me you understand this. If there’s no recorded history, then the history of a culture’s beliefs is simply not available… and trying to guess at the change or constancy of that prehistoric culture is about as reliable as your horoscope in the New York Times. Thus, all talk of “constancy of belief” of the Aboriginals is all stuff and nonsense; you have no more idea of what they believed than I do.
Some of their stories describe the formation of rivers and other geological formations. Originally they were thought to be about 30,000 years old but more recent finds and scientific analysis have raised this to 50,000 years.
And I’ll say this again: even if such vague estimates had any accuracy at all, you’re trying to conjure a whole sow out of a sow’s ear (if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphor). The presumption involved in conjuring up detailed descriptions of culture and belief from a vague (though interesting) set of cave-paintings (and the like) is impressive only in its display of creativity on the part of the scientists… who’ve lapsed (perhaps innocently) into what can best be called historical fiction. One might as well try to reconstruct the diary of a dinosaur, based on the other fossils found by its bones!
Here’s one quick, off-the-top-of-my-head alternative rendering: suppose artist [x] painted an image of a deer looking over its left shoulder, in the year 30,000 B.C.; suppose artist [y] painted the same type of image in the year 10,000 B.C. You would seem to be tempted to say, “Aha! Look at the remarkable consistency in teh belief-system and views and practices of these people, which has endured for 20,000 years!” In which case, I would be tempted to say, “Um… do you have additional information that I don’t have? I see two similar paintings!” Seriously: one might more reasonably assume that deer had perdured for 10,000 years (and even that would be an uncertain guess: could not the second artist have copied the first, long after the legendary deer became extinct?). The “fill-in-the-blanks” type of “science” really doesn’t seem to hold water… at least, not in the way that you’d want it to hold.
Please try to understand this. If you have a collection of primitive art–none of which contains a coherent written language–then, unless you’re lucky enough to go back in time and watch it painted first-hand (and if you’re lucky enough to read the mind and feelings of the artist, whose language you probably wouldn’t know), you can only make wild guesses as to what each picture SYMBOLIZES… to say nothing of what deeper message the artist was trying to convey. You’re showing raw credulity, here, friend.
‘No earlier than 5000BC’ – oh dear, you’re not a young-earther are you?
(LOL!) No, but thanks for asking. I was referring to the generally-accepted starting date of written history. Before that, any guesses about beliefs and theology are just that: wild guesses in the dark. The painting of a deer on a wall might mean something religious; it might also mean that the artist was hungry for roast venison; it might also mean that the artist was trying his hand at a drawing that challenged his artistic skills. Can’t you see that there’s simply no way to know anything, other than the fact that the artist felt it worth his while to draw a deer… and that retrojecting our own theories on that fact is simply a vain effort? Feel free to do so, if it amuses you, but it really isn’t “fact” in any sense of the word.
The current islamic based terrorism taking place has opened the world’s eyes to the inherent beliefs and behaviors of that religion as a whole.
Hm. I’d thought that the 20th century’s bloody encounters with anti-theism (in the Nazi party, the tens of millions killed under Stalin, the Millions killed under Mao and Pol Pot, and so on) had opened the world’s eyes to the inherent beliefs and beliefs of that worldview as a whole. Or maybe–just maybe, mind you–it might open our eyes to the intrinsic fallenness of man and his tendency to try to drag down every religion, political system, and worldview on which he sets his hands. For you to condemn theism because of the abuses of Islam is utterly foolish of you. You wouldn’t even be justified in condemning Islam as a whole, for that (as if it were all of a piece–which anyone with even a scrap of knowledge of Islam could disprove to you, in a few moments. Try merging a Shi’ite and a Sunni nation together, to see the practical effects of such an experiment.).
This has also caused eyes to be cast upon the other abrahamic faiths.
See above. You’re spitting into the wind, friend.
Christianity presents a highly vocal and visual presence in society.
Unlike atheists and homosexual activists, I suppose…
The political, social and economic ‘activities’ of christians have also caused people to be alert.
Ah. “People.” Gotcha. I suppose you didn’t mean to imply that Christians can’t possibly be “people”?
It also highlights the misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia etc. etc. which advancing societies do not want.
Oy. And you had the nerve to scoff at others for their “subjectivity”? I don’t see any disclaimers on this, saying, “Hey… this is only my opinion, mind you!” Is it?
Reason and science will prevail over high profile religions.
Of course, you didn’t mean to imply that religious people are bereft of reason and incapable of science, right?
The world existed for multiple millions of years before any christ came along.
Perhaps. If so, you can be sure Christ knew that.
People had existed for millions of years before any christ came along.
Ah. But apparently, to qualify as “people”, they must have been atheists, right? :)
So, after a few thousand years this christianity thing will sputter out and history will continue for millions of years without it.
So says reason and science! I see. Silly me: as a lowly logician and mathematician, I lack your powers to predict the distant future with such accuracy.
You keep using scripture as a life guide.
I do. I’m morbidly curious as to what you use.
yet it is so fundamentally flawed in its construct and your use of it.
You do realize that this is your raw opinion, right?
Your behavior and citation of scripture is self-evincing of your hypocrisy. I have read the book, I even used to recite some passages.
Ah! Mirabile dictu! You once quoted Scripture! :) Sorry… couldn’t resist…
I think I’m safe in saying that–with all due respect–you don’t understand it very well, despite your Scripture-scholar history.
No, not from atheists. perhaps from jihadists?
Er… you might want to invest in a basic comparative religion course; you’re sounding rather confused. I realize that “all religious people look the same” to militant atheists, but there really are some noted differences.
Atheists existed long before any supposed christ,
Well, yes… and they were called “fools” (cf. Psalm 14). Theists existed long before Christ came to earth, as well… so, by your reasoning, won’t they also persevere?
and will continue for long after people stop believing in ‘him’.
…so sayeth the atheist with the crystal ball. Right.
That’s your problem ninek, not mine. Just don’t expect me to take a lot of notice of anything you try to support with scripture. I would be quite interested to read your brochure when it is available. Who was this ‘convertee’? Hm, umpteen authors of one book. That creates a flexibility of it’s own.
Ah Paladin, recorded history is delivered in more formats than just a book. You talk of a ‘resumed “dreamtime” mythos’ yet expect the bible to be taken seriously? Who’s being vague? The aboriginal history is recorded back to about 50,000 years. Long before christianity.
They are not ‘vague’ estimates, there is no ‘conjuring’, and you fail to see the historical narrative. Your diary/fossils analogy is spurious and invalid. You can’t just ignore the evidence to suit you.
Your ‘alternative rendering’ is ludicrous in its attempt to deny and deride the evidence. The Dreamtime imagery is vast in both it’s quantity and it’s geographical and tribal spread. It’s not two paintings in 20,000 years.
‘…a collection of primitive art…..you can only make wild guesses…..what deeper message the artist was trying to convey…’ – did this littel diatribe originate from ignorance or arrogance?
‘wild guesses in the dark’ – when it’s one painting of a deer, yes. But not when there are vast quantities of imagery with consistent themes which can be matched with numerous other archeological methods and samples.
You save yourself from the moronity of young earthism only to plunge headlong into the sheer foolishness and intellectual turpitude of the whole Hitler, Mao and Pot lie. Wars and genocide have been based on religion, wars and genocide have been based on political or economic ideology – they have never been based on atheism. None of the people you cite operated under ‘anti-theism’.
I didn’t condemn theism because of the abuses of islam. I condemned all religions because in their own way, so many display the same attributes as islam. I’m not ‘spitting in the wind’, why do you think atheists are becoming more outspoken? Because christianity in the USA is itself attempting to confer at least a partial theocracy.
Yes, even some christians are concerned about the social and political ranting and lobbying conducted by the fundamentalists.
Where’s the “subjectivity”? Most christians demonstrate misogyny, patriarchy and homophobia – especially the types trying to control the political, legal and social agendas.
Only if they believe in Genesis, then they have acknowledged that they are bereft of reason and science.
If christ new that, why did he take so long to visit? It’s all just conveniently adjustable isn’t it.
I don’t care if you are a nuclear flamin’ physicist with twelve degrees in other fields. The fact that you are a ‘believer’ means you are limited scientifically.
I didn’t say I ‘quoted’ scripture, I said I ‘recited’ it. As in reading it often enough to be able to speak it without the book in front of me.
Do you really think that the activities of the fundamentalist evangelical christians aren’t being seen to some extent in the same light as the jihadists? ‘We are the one true religion’ – ‘our way is the only way’ – ‘our book is the way everyone must live’ – sound familiar?
Wow, one book says atheists are ‘fools’! A book which is recognized in any capacity by what percentage of the worlds population? Theism will probably persist for a while after christianity, islam etc. fade away. But the same causes will snuff them all out eventually.
Cranium,
It is good you do not work on Sundays. That is correct. Sharing pro-life thoghts is the Lord’s work though. Understand that it is ok to do the Lord’s work on Sunday.
“A book of dubious origins. A book with multiple ghost-writers as authors. A book which has been through multiple translations. Multiple interpretations. Parts added and deleted. Which contradicts itself. Which followers pick and choose pieces from according to their particular ‘brand’. Which theologians still debate the meanings of.”
The single most meticulously preserved, scrutinized and studied collection of writings in history.
You don’t even have to be religious to know that.
I think cranium is just jealous that there is nothing else quite like it.
Why are some anti-Christian types so goofy? Get over it.
The book is what it is.
This is the difference between intelligent atheists and insecure folks who just have to bash anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Atheists used to be the overly rational types. These new post modern irrational atheists who are just doing it to be cool are annoying.
Cranium,
It may help you see better what is permitted on a Sunday if you look at that passage with reference to other scripture passages about Sunday. Here is an explantion from the Catholic Catechism that may help you to better understanding.
2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day.98 He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”99 With compassion, Christ declares the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing.100 The sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God.101 “The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”102
In your dreams hippie. There are books like it – the Iliad, Lord of the Rings or Shakespeare. The ‘book’ is fiction. The insecure folks are those who rely on a deity rather than accept responsibility for themselves. Your pointless little assertions have no value.
truthseeker, it would not matter at all if I worked on Sundays or not. If you think sharing anti-choice thoughts is the lords work, go preach it to people who believe in that lord, not everyone else.
Cranium,
The Lord’s work is not anti-choice thoughts. The Lord’s work is spreading the word about the blessings that come from following our Lord’s teachings and choosing life for ourselves and for our children. It is no more anti-choice then one’s choice to take the life of another human being.
Whatever it is truthseeker, preach it to the believers. Let the rest of the world get on as they wish.
Gee, Cranium, if you want the believers to preach only to each other, why do you keep coming back and engaging? Methinks you doth protest too much! You love us and want to be one of us.
And I’m not writing a brochure, but you can convert my work into one after its published if you like. Adam Zertal.
The fact that the Seventy jewish scholars and the fathers of the early Christian church took the canon of books they had and compiled them into what would become a single volume for each, does not in any way lessen the books’ value. Back in the day, books weren’t written on pages like leaves and sewn together; back in the day they had a scroll for each part and a bible was a collection of scrolls. If I took the correspondence of CS Lewis and Tolkien and put them in a single volume, would you say the book has less value because it had 2 authors plus 1 editor? The Bible is no less a treasure for having many authors and editors. It is the priceless inheritance of humanity.
Cranium:
1) The Old Covenant (Old Testament) has passed away, replaced by the New Covenant (New Testament). Christians are not under the Law as the Jews were. Therefore, your comments about “working” on the Sabbath are irrelevant and so are you accusations of hypocrisy regarding homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality was forbidden in the Old Testament as was working on the Sabbath, but the crucial distinction here is that homosexuality is also forbidden in the New Testament. Christians live by the New Covenant, not the Old.
2) You are basing your assumptions on old earth theories (millions of years), which are not fact. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation Scientists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, in which case, Judaism and Christianity have existed for, guess what, all of earth’s existence to date. :)
Cranium;
You accuse us as being hypocritical merely because you have a lack of true understanding of the scriptures that you like to quote. I was merely speaking the truth of the passages you referenced and correcting your false assertions about our Lord’s teaching. It was you who were first to begin a dialogue about our faith when you quoted scripture to us and proposed what that scripture meant to you. I acan assure you that the Lord’s words will not return to him empty so I would encourage you to continue meditate on scripture even if you consider yourself a non-believer.
Do you support gay marriage Lori?
Since I’ve been accused of homophobia already just for pointing out the fact that the majority of historians throughout history have not supported gay marriage, does it really matter to you what I think of it myself? You have a definition of homophobia so malleable that everyone will fit it. The fact is that no, I do not support changing a definition of marriage as a union between man and woman that has already existed for thousands of years. This does not mean in any way that I either fear or hate homosexual people (which is what homophobia means), though I’m sure you will twist it to mean that.
‘religious development’ – does this not align with my statements regarding translations, interpretations, additions and deletions? Perhaps the bible should be written in pencil to make it easier to change and update. The point is that you pick and choose which sections of scripture you adhere to. I’ve read versions of the bible which state that homosexuality is only ‘different’, not blasphemous or punishable by death.
The fact that there are bad or inaccurate translations of Scripture made by some people to suit their own purposes does not affect the original text of Scripture in the slightest. Bad translations are always recognized as what they are by good linguists. The fact that there are different interpretations does not affect the text either. There are Christians who do not recognize some books of the Bible as inspired. But that does not alter the actual text that has come down to us. The fact is that the whole text is there. Or perhaps you’d like to let me know which parts of the text of Scripture you believe have actually been changed or altered over the centuries? Please support your statement with references to the original Greek text, so I will be sure you know what you’re talking about.
Why ninek? Because I disagree with the public activities of the anti-choice movement. So while they continue to campaign, so will I.
The bible is no priceless inheritance of humanity. The bible inherited it’s content from priceless humanity.
Bekah
1)the translations, interpretations, additions and deletions – even the change to the KJV all amount to dubious clarity. Not to mention the variations in emphasis driven by different denominations.
2)yeah, evolution is a theory the same as gravity is a theory. The facts outweigh creationism by multitudes. The term ‘creation scientist’ is an oxymoron.
No thruthseeker, it is the circumstances I have described which dictate the dubious nature of anything proscribed from the bible. I would no more meditate on scripture than I would meditate on The Hobbit.
Lori, you change your wording again. You asserted that homosexual marriages were not an accepted part of some cultures at some times – and you provided not a single drop of evidence.
My definition of homophobia is not malleable, you don’t get to duck and dodge like that. The definition of homophobia includes fear, hatred, prejudice and discrimination. I have three links ready to supply if you feel the need. So you do appear to be homophobic.
It would not be changing a definition of marriage which has existed for thousands of years – that’s already been disproven.
‘The fact that there are bad or inaccurate translations of Scripture made by some people to suit their own purposes does not affect the original text of Scripture in the slightest’ you’re kidding right? The statement itself is contradictory.
‘The fact that there are different interpretations does not affect the text either’ – say what? Ever heard of etymology?
‘But that does not alter the actual text that has come down to us’ – given your two statements above, this amounts to 2 plus 2 equaling 3.
‘The fact is that the whole text is there’ – no it’s not.
The Greek text? What about all the others? Or do they not suit your case? The change to KJV contains enough alterations on its own.
Wow, your academic fraudulence is getting out of hand.
The Greek texts were the original language of many of the New Testament’s letters, or didn’t you know that? I guess you didn’t. It is YOU coming over to lecture to US: I think you DO protest too much. You envy us our treasure. It’s ok, you can love it too, no one will think less of you. Some of our greatest saints were once non-believers.
Yes, most of the new testament is believed to have been originally written in Koine Greek under the old Roman Empire. How does that change the nature of what I have observed?
Your treasure is fools gold. Envy? Nice try.
Cranium, your ignorance is so hilarious it’s hard to know where to begin. But here goes:
‘The fact that there are bad or inaccurate translations of Scripture made by some people to suit their own purposes does not affect the original text of Scripture in the slightest’ you’re kidding right? The statement itself is contradictory.
No, I’m not. the statement is in no way contradictory. We have the text in the original language, in the case of the New Testament Greek and the Old Testament Hebrew. And then something on separate sheets of papyrus parchment, made a translation. The original text on the original piece of papyrus or parchment is still there. Get it now?
‘The fact that there are different interpretations does not affect the text either’ – say what? Ever heard of etymology?
Sure I have. But what of it? Etymology — the study of the history of words and their origins — is an immense help in translating and interpreting texts. But none of that means the text has been re-written, which is my whole point.
‘The fact is that the whole text is there’ – no it’s not.
The Greek text? What about all the others? Or do they not suit your case? The change to KJV contains enough alterations on its own.
Wow, your academic fraudulence is getting out of hand.
Cranium, I know it’s difficult for you, but please try to pay attention to an actual argument. We do indeed have the entire Greek text of the New Testament, in the original language, in a large number of manuscripts, some of them on papyrus that date back to close to the time of composition; the Bible is the best-preserved ancient text in the world. The earliest papyrus fragment that we have of St. John’s Gospel (the John Rylands papyrus) dates to only 30-40 years or so after the work itself was written (accepting the traditional date of 90-100 A.D.). There are a multitude of other papyrus manuscripts from the second century as well. There are also later parchment manuscripts. But comparing them, scholars have been able to arrive at a very accurate version of the text.
The Greek and Hebrew texts are the original languages of the Bible. All others are translations from them. The texts are not affected at all by someone translating them or interpreting them; they are still there. (I feel like I’m talking with a five-year-old here).
You don’t give any indication of what changes there are in the KJV that are so damaging to Christianity; perhaps you’d enlighten me about them. At any rate, scholars can always check them for accuracy against the original. At the very least, while interpretations of what was said may differ, we do know with a good degree of accuracy what actual Greek or Hebrew words were written by the original author.
I don’t see why this is so difficult for you. You have no trouble believing that the Aboriginal mythology has been preserved for 50,000 years intact, but you insist (without any evidence whatsoever) that the Bible has been hopelessly corrupted in a much shorter space of time. Well I’m sorry, but it just isn’t so.
I have the flu and much to high a fever to go on with this. Cranium, please get yourself some kind of education. It hurts too much when I laugh.
Ignorance is basing knowledge, decisions and beliefs on one dubious book.
Actually, I didn’t say I believed the Dreamtime. I pointed out that it is purportedly significantly older than christianity and has an equivalent weight of evidence. And the evidence is out there that the bible has been corrupted, despite your assertions.
Ah, last time you were too busy, now you have the flu. What’s it going to be next time?
You are a bit amusing.
If you don’t believe me cranium, just say the word and I’ll come over to your house and cough on you.
And in all your ramblings, you never gave a shred of actual evidence to tell me in what way you think the text of the Bible has been corrupted.
Glad I can be of amusement to someone, since I’m feeling really rotten.
“Some of our greatest saints were once non-believers.”
Pray, pray, pray. Often, hard and sincerely for him. We don’t understand and Only God Knows Why he keeps coming back here.
The infamous verse Leviticus 20:13, often used to condemn homosexuality, is about a married-man with another male, in the “marriage-bed” as with his wife. See the Latinized Greek for Leviticus 20:13 below:
“Kai hos an koimEthE meta arsenos koitEn
gunaikos, bdelugma epoiEsan amphoteroi;
thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin.” [Lev 20:13 in Greek Septuagint LXX].
The translation of the Greek term ‘gunaikos’ is interpreted to mean: wife. Hence, the verse actually forbids male-male adultery, pertaining only to a married man.
Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination.” [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version]
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:
“We-et-zakar lo’ tishkav mishkevey ‘ishshah” [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
(“And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman”) [Lev 18:22 literal translation]
So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way.
Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.
When many aspects of Biblical issues are considered, there is no textual basis for misinterpreting & mistranslating Bible verses to condemn homosexuality: the original Hebrew & Greek texts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today’s society.
Finally, the question arises: In 1611, did the Bible translators/scribes for King James purposely mistranslate Bible verses into English because they had intensely resented King James, with his open homosexuality & various male lovers?
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/130207-being-gay-against-bible-6.html#ixzz0yEyaMk00
Cranium, I’m sorry, but this is more ludicrous than anything you’ve come up with yet. Are the authors you are citing here completely unaware of all the many translations and interpretations of these passages that were made BEFORE the King James Bible? And they ALL have the same interpretation as the KJV.
Let’s look at just one of the passages, because I haven’t got strength for the rest: Leviticus 20:13.
For starters, the Jewish Talmud and its commentators (centuries before King James), in their interpretation of these passages firmly condemn all homosexual intercourse. They never heard of the “wife” interpretation.
http://www.lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf
St. Jerome (late fourth century) has this in his Latin translation, which, if I remember right, he made from the original Hebrew
qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos.
If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.
(More strictly literal: whoever lies with a male in the manner of having coitus (intercourse) with a woman . . .)
Both femineo and gunaikos, by the way, have the primary meaning of “woman,” not “wife.”
Then there are the English translations of the Bible that pre-date the King James Version.
Wyclif’s Middle English translation from the 1380’s, reads:
If a man slepith with a man, bi letcherie of a womman, euer either hath wrouyt vnleueful thing, die thei bi deeth; her blood be on hem.
And on and on. The obvious reason that all these authors are translating the passage the same way is because that is what the passage means. King James and his homosexuality have nothing to do with it.
The pro-homosexual translators are desperate; they will not convince anyone who has any knowledge of the original languages or the history of the Bible. I know quite a bit about both.
Now, stop the nonsense and let me be sick in peace.
cranium, everything you’ve been saying here leads me to understand that you must really have a huge stake in the homosexuality debate. If you are struggling with homosexuality yourself, then please understand that I am not intending to be harsh here. In fact, I have compassion on everyone in such a situation. But you can’t solve your problems by listening to lies.
You have eloquently demonstrated my point regarding the variances and disputed origins of the bible. Here are some more examples:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-errors-in-king-james-version-bible.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
I freely admit they are a weird and varied range of sources, but then that’s the bible isn’t it.
Oh dear, the old ‘you must be one if you defend it so strongly’ ploy. Grow up! I have a huge stake in the truth debate. On homosexuality, on abortion, on equality, on the hypocrisies of religion.
I only hear lies when I listen to you.
and the other couple which wouldn’t allow posting in the one post:
http://thechristianity.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/how-errors-crept-into-the-bible-and-what-can-be-done-to-correct-them/
http://gracebibleny.org/what_s_emerging_the_errors_of_post_modern_theology
Cranium
You provided ZERO dialogue back to my counter-argument that not all work is prohibited on the Lord’s day. Is your real purpose just to get a rise out of believers by mocking scripture? About all you have expressed to me in your responses so far is a pre-disposition of anger towards God. And I am beginning to see a pattern of avoiding responses to my counter-arguments. If you are not able to blog with intellectual honesty then quit wasting so much cyberspace…not to mention wasting my time.
Typical troll tactic to fire lies about scriptural meanings or about the teachings of Jesus or to mock God.
Hi truthseeker. My point was the selective adherence to scripture by people. I don’t actually care if all work is prohibited or not. I’m not mocking scripture. I’m pointing out the incongruities. I’m not telling any lies about scriptural meanings, I’m pointing out that that’s what the people who espouse scripture do.
I have the same anger towards god that you have towards santa claus, or the tooth fairy. Unless you have ‘issues’, that’d be none.
I’m not avoiding your ‘counter-arguments’, you’re not counter-arguing the actual points.
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Exodus 31:15
You naughty people!
posted by Cranium Aug 29th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
cranium,
Your point was the selective adherence to scripture by people as it pertains to the passage about keeping the Lord’s day holy.
At least that was the post I replied to you about.
Oh dear, the old ‘you must be one if you defend it so strongly’ ploy. Grow up!
Actually, cranium, I wasn’t trying to use any ploy, I was just trying to be nice.
Interesting how you abruptly dropped the whole subject of homosexuality in scripture once I pointed out how wrong the analysis the quoted is. Have you do defense to make of your pet authors on this subject?
‘…you must really have a huge stake in the homosexuality debate. If you are struggling with homosexuality..’ -is you being nice?!? Sounded a lot more like trying to cast aspersions rather than deal with the facts.
How do you get the idea that I have dropped the whole subject? You haven’t provided any rebuttal at all, in any way, apart from your own opinion. The authors don’t need defending.
So now I’m “casting aspersions” by saying you are homosexual? Wow, cranium, are you homophobic or something?
I “got the idea” that you dropped the whole subject, because you didn’t mention it again. I provided a lot more than my own opinion, I provided the facts. I would say at this point anyone who says that the only reason anyone ever translated those passages in Leviticus in an anti-homosexual sense is because of King James needs a lot of defending.
You keep asking for facts in rebuttal, but when I provide you with them, you call it “my own opinion.” If this is the way you’re going to conduct an argument, I might as well stop answering you.
No, you are trying to create a distraction by alluding to a spurious basis for my citing of the truths about homosexuality. You have already proven yourself to be the homophobe.
You did not provide facts! All I saw was your own words. I’m the one who provided sources, four of them.
You have a very clear habit of making nonsense claims then repeatedly failing to support them. So yes, you may as well stop answering.
I provided you with both sources and link, cranium. Not only my own words, but those of the Talmud, Wyclif, St. Jerome. This is historical source material. So far you’ve said nothing to refute it. Unless you do, I am going to have to assume that you can’t.
You provided one link - a religious one – and a few claims of interpretation.
I provided four links. So I have, did and can refute it.
Providing links is not a refutation. Let’s hear your argument as to why the homosexual interpretation of the passage rather than the Christian one is right.
I have certainly caught your side in a huge historical error regarding King James — the precise reason I provided the religious link was to show that the Christian and Jewish interpretation long predated him and was not invented in the seventeenth century, as your sources said. You do get that much, at least? Nor, as I have pointed out, does gynaikos mean what your sources said. And this comes from someone who personally knows New Testament Greek.
Never in my life have I met someone with so little capacity to understand an argument, much less make one. Or are you doing it on purpose?
Let’s see you throw a few sentences together, not to sneer, but to argue.
I’ve already done so, to a greater extent than you have.
All you do is come up with pernickity little lines mainly based on your own interpretations. You also have a tendency to supply five cents worth of information and later claim it was a dollars worth.
The fact remains that the historical translations and interpretations of the bible call elements of scripture into question. Then there’s the whole selective approach taken by different people and groups.
I’ve already done so, to a greater extent than you have.
No you haven’t. So far you haven’t given me one coherent word about my refutations of the question about Leviticus. In fact, you are avoiding the subject because you don’t have any answer.
From what I’ve seen in the content of the other links you’ve posted, none of these writers has a clue about ancient literature or languages or how Christians have read the bible, and their errors are as ridiculous as the one about King James.
But since you’re evidently not capable of understanding such things, I guess I’ll have to quit. Good night.
…none of these writers has a clue about ancient literature or languages or how Christians have read the bible…’ – why, because they don’t agree with you? I’m afraid the evidence is overwhelming for my base assertion. Look at the differences between Mormons and Catholics for instance.
All your attempts at refutation have been opinionated, unsubstantiated denials of the facts. So yes, you may as well quit. Sweet dreams :-)
Cranim said ‘”Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today’s society.”
Cranium, you must have missed this passage when you read the Bible.
“Therefore God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Romans 1:24-27
This passage clearly states that homosexual relations are unnatural and against the Word of God.
Or 1Cor 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. – the KJV version
The Message – MSG
Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men – all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it – emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.
or this – http://www.godrules.net/para/rom/parallelrom1-27.htm
you might want to have a look at this too – http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2291
If it is ‘unnatural’, then it can’t physically be done. And the ‘word of god’ counts for what percentage of the world’s population?
“If it is ‘unnatural’, then it can’t physically be done.”
Like my hair color. . . . .
Or my friend’s pack-a-day Camels. . . . .
Cranium,
By “unnatural”, we mean not in accord with the nature of the being in question. It is unnatural for man to be alone for long periods of time. By our very human nature, we desire company of others. Now, of course, you CAN be alone for a long time, even against your will if you’re on a desert island or something. Or consider bulimia. It is unnatural to force yourself to throw up, yet this sadly happens often. It is not part of properly functioning man to gag himself to the point of vomiting. But the idea is that man (or whatever) has a nature, and the term unnatural refers to an action which does not cohere with that nature.
Cranium,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 makes a specific distinction between adultery and sodomy as being seperate sins, but both are sins and will keep one from the inheritance of God’s Kingdom. It really could not be any clearer no mater which translation you use.
Its all a bit ‘pick’n’mix’ isn’t it truthseeker.
Just the opposite Cranium. It is quite clear.
Clear as mud.
It is true that our sins are not always clear for us to see; and it is difficult for people to follow many of Jesus teachings; but the Holy Spirit is here to guide us and help us to see where we all fall short. Seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit helps us live more closely in line with those teachings.
.
Cranium,
Do you believe you have a soul or any kind of a spiritual existence?
Wow… do some actual work for a day or so, and look what happens…!
Cranium wrote:
Ah Paladin, recorded history is delivered in more formats than just a book.
It certainly can be… and I’m not particular about books, of course. Papyrus scrolls, cuneiform tablets, hieroglyphs on a tomb wall, granite stelae, etc., will all do nicely. My point was that primitive paintings, while interesting (and perhaps even rich with symbolic meaning) really don’t take the place of concrete history (whether in a picture LANGUAGE–my mian point, you’ll note!–or in written words), since there’s no clear way to interpret and translate them, much less extrapolate what the rest of the people in the nation happened to be doing over several thousand years.
BTW: a 10-second Google search came up with this:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279784.htm
The “dreamtime mythos” is a theory… and a rather foggy one, at that. The actual people who researched this (as opposed to the hyperventilating fans of the idea who ran with it) were really much more modest in their suggestions as to what the paintings meant, re: the culture. In other words: you’re quite welcome to be as enamoured of the Australian Aboriginal art as you like; just be aware of the true limitations of the actual data on the subject.
You talk of a ‘resumed “dreamtime” mythos’ yet expect the bible to be taken seriously?
Er… the Bible is written in–well–written languages, friend. That’s one difference. Of course, I don’t expect someone with your rabid anti-theist bias to take the Bible “seriously” (whatever that means); but that–with all due respect–says far more about you than it does about the Scriptures. I’m also a bit mystified as to why you take the Aboriginal “message” so “seriously” (whatever that means), for that matter. You seem enamoured of it, though I’m not sure what appeal it would have for an atheist, save perhaps as convenient “ammo” which you might cherry-pick to attack Christianity…
You save yourself from the moronity of young earthism
:) Really? Heavens… it was that close of a call, was it?
Sorry, Cranium… but I think I’m going back to my original diagnosis: you’re a troll, you’re attempting to throw anything and everything (no matter how incoherent) at the wall in the hopes that something will stick (the strident different between “quoting” and “reciting” truly made me shake my head in disbelief), your arguments are scattered to the point of incoherency, and your penchant for insults in the heat of debate seals the diagnosis. I tried. You’re welcome to believe what you wish; the cost-to-benefit ratio of debating you is far too high, and I’ll gracefully bow out of my chat with you, from this point onward. Feel free to have as many last words as you like. :)
Ah, the ‘scatter gun’ approach Paladin. Lay out a diatribe of spurious claims and critiques of the message then state that you’re no longer participating. How droll.
di·a·tribe/?d???tr?b/
Noun: A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
So far, I’m thinking the only one who’s been throwing out “diatribes” (your favorite word, it seems), is you, cranium.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe?show=0&t=1283556335
di·a·tribe
noun \?d?-?-?tr?b\
Definition of DIATRIBE
1
archaic : a prolonged discourse
2
: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3
: ironic or satirical criticism
You need to look a bit further Kel. Like I keep saying – don’t grab the first thing you find just because it may suit your purposes. I was referring to the long discourse bit, although there is a bit of an element of the others in Paladin’s discourse.
“Like I keep saying…”
Yep, here you still are. Saying the same things over and over, dismissing the views of others (not to mention actual facts) as “diatribes” humorously missing the fact that you have written your own “diatribes” here. You really have hijacked this entire thread, which is the definition of an online troll. The weekend question was, “Why is abortion googled more in conservative states?”
You’ve already claimed to be in agreement with Peter Singer and other proponents of infanticide, and you’re obviously an atheist/anti-theist. We get it. You think believers in God are idiots and pro-lifers are stupid, too. That pretty much sum it up? What more should we know about you, cranium? Anything else pertinent you’d care to share? Anything new?
‘You’ve already claimed to be in agreement with Peter Singer and other proponents of infanticide’ – putting words in my mouth and gilding the lily!
All I ever said was that he may have a point.
Believers in god are either idiots or liars – like Paladin with the whole Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot – atheism rubbish.
So, saying Singer “may have a point” means… what, then? Perhaps it’s the difference in the way we use those sayings across the pond from one another.
And well, I do believe in God, and I’m not lying about it, so I guess that would make me an idiot.
What makes Paladin a liar about Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot?
I really likedreading your post! I love all things antiques, but in particularly engagement rings.
Kel, it means that he has said something that is worth consideration. That doesn’t mean I would necessarily agree.
I wasn’t meaning lying about your faith. I was referring to the lies about the evidence, proofs etc. that people claim in support of a belief in a deity.
Every now and then someone pops up with the assertion that atheism was the cause of the acts perpetrated by Hitler, Mao and Pot. This has been fundamentally disproven over and over. In fact Hitler made references to god and christianity in his words about the evils of judaism.
Kel, it means that he has said something that is worth consideration. That doesn’t mean I would necessarily agree.
Ok, but perhaps I’m still just not getting it, cranium. You are saying that Peter Singer’s belief that born babies should not be considered human until an arbitrary age is “worth consideration.” You are saying that if a child is born disabled (mind you “disabled” can mean many things, from incurable diseases to things that are very much repairable with surgery/treatment), his/her parents should have the right to kill that child (since he/she isn’t considered “human”) without any repercussions, up until that child is a certain arbitrarily determined age (no doubt subject to the opinions of those like Singer, who believes certain animals are to be valued more than human beings). These beliefs are “worth consideration,” in your opinion, as possibly being valid, good, and scientific opinions?
Yes I do Kel.
What do you base ‘who believes certain animals are to be valued more than human beings’ on?