Evolution ties in to the abortion debate because if evolved, human beings are not unique, with souls.

First of all, that doesn't follow. There's no reason that God, if existent, could not endow evolved beings with souls. I think that's the official position of the Catholic Church, in fact.

Second, why would you want to hamstring the pro-life case by making it dependent upon a particular religious belief (especially such an unsupportable one as "humans didn't evolve")? You're playing right into the pro-choicers' hands here.

This is one of the reasons I really like Mike Huckabee. This very video is what turned me into a Mike Huckabee fan.
Not to mention this one LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE

While most people believe in ghosts, spirits, souls, etc., I still have not, to this day, had an evolutionist explain it. They can explain evolution as a "natural", biological occurence, but have no explanation for the "supernatural".

I may be wrong here, but I would love some feedback from someone who believes in evolution and does not believe in any type of "ghost, spirit or soul".

I thought Huckabee's answer was great, and captures the key underlying Christian belief on the topic -- no matter how God did it, either through strict Creationism or through evolution, He created everything and everyone.

Jen R., I'm pretty sure that the Catholic teaching allows for belief in either Creationism or evolution, as long as we accept that God was the divine creator and guide in the process. God created Adam (perhaps through evolution or perhaps not) and gave him the first rational soul on this earth. If we do subscribe to the theory of evolution as God's way of creating man, each of us still has our own rational soul, has free will and is unique.

There is one important point to note. The Church teaches that even if we doe believe in the evolution of the human creature, there was no evolution of the rational soul. Adam was the first human. So if he was created through evolution, God endowed him with the first rational soul at the time of his conception -- his 'parents' were not human, did not have rational souls, and would not enter into either heaven or hell.

Sigh....I am almost certain that I am going to regret this.

AB Laura,

I believe in evolution and deny the existence of anything but the physical world. I do not believe in gods, devils, souls, ghosts, or spirits.

Enigma,
Then I believe that you are a true evolutionist!

I must emphatically disagree that the notion of evolution in any way nullifies the words in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The author specifically chose to say "self evident" that means by human reason, not religion. All humans are "created" at the moment of their conception by natural biologic process. The author again chose "Creator" not God, specifically to refer to anyone or anything that created. Some of course would say God, some wouldn't. Likewise some at the time of the writing some wanted the word to be written "God" but it wasn't. I think this was wise given that it also keeps anyone from using religion to deny rights.

Human rights are inherent and we are not entitled to them at the sufferance of our government nor by adherence to a particular creed. Rather it is the role of government to defend these "inalienable" rights.

Hi Jen R. I agree with you completely. There certainly is no dichotomy between evolution and God. Jeff E is correct about how the Catholic Church views this (see Humanae Generis by Pius XII or the Wiki article on Catholics and evolution.) Because the soul is immaterial, God could have fused the human soul into some pre-human creature and we would not be able to tell when this occurred scientifically. Even coming at this from a secular point of view,human exceptionalism states that humans have dignity and moral worth solely on the basis of our status as the most evolved beings. Look at people like The Raving Atheist, who does not believe (I presume) in a soul which gives human beings their dignity, yet still rejects abortion. Religion is not needed to see the horrors of abortion.

Hi Enigma! Nice to "see" you again!

Bobby,

Really? I think God was pretty clear on how He created Adam, and then Eve from one of Adam's ribs..I don't recall anywhere in the bible where God wanted us to think that we somehow evolved...again, pretty clear to me on how we were created!

I do, however, agree with you that you don't need "religion" to understand the horrors of abortion. However, I do feel that it's the nature, or conscience, that God gave us that allows us to view abortion as horrific! Monkeys don't reach into their own wombs & tear out their young..in fact, I don't know any other species but the human race that does this.

I know that we do have agnostics who are against abortion.

Thanks, Jen R, for those wise words.

I don't see why pro-lifers who believe in literal creationism want to alienate those who believe in evolution when we all agree that abortion is wrong. Unless this isn't really a pro-life blog, but an anti-anyone who isn't a Christian blog.

Hey AB Laura. Well, I think we need to be pretty careful when interpreting the scriptures. I think we can both agree that we want to understand the message that the author was trying to convey. So for example, if I were to write "it was raining cats and dogs," well, there are two ways to interpret that. One is that it is a 21st century expression which just means that it rained really, really hard. The other way is to say that the words that I have written down on the page mean exactly what they mean, and it means that the animals cats and dogs were falling out of the sky. But my intention in writing that is to convey that it rained hard.

Now to Genesis, I think the purpose of the creation account is to convey that God created everything out of nothing and human beings are the pinacle of creation. If one reads the accounts literally i.e. the words written on the page mean exactly what they say, then one runs into problems harmonizing the two creation accounts. The first account has man being created last, and the second creation account has man being created first. Am I saying I believe the bible is wrong or contains a contradiction? Absolutely not. I think the purpose of the first creation account is to show that human beings are God's highest creation, the culmination of creation. Everything else that God created on previous days was "good", but the creation of man is "great." The second account shows that God created everything else FOR man. The animals, plants, man is to have dominion over them. So rather than being contradictory, they are complimentary accounts.

I went off on a bit of a tangent there (that's what we do in calculus!) but my point is that I see nowhere in Genesis that the purpose of any of those passages is to give a scientific understanding of creation. I also try and put myself in the place of the reader at the time. So when reading Genesis, I need to try and think like a Jew from what, 1000 BC or so? When reading the Gospels, one must put themselves in the mindset of a 1st century Jew, not a 21st century American. Does that make sense?

I don't think Jill was actually saying that agnostics, atheists, people who believe in Evolution, etc cannot be against abortion.

I think what she is trying to say is that people who believe we have no creator, and who believe we simply evolved by chance, do not see people as being unique creatures, who have souls and have true, inherent value. Isn't that true?

I do not think that Jill was speaking of people who are Catholic and believe that people could have evolved but also were given souls by God their Creator.

I think she was speaking of people who believe there is no creator, and use evolution as a way to explain the world without God. Does that make sense?

Bobby, from what I can tell, there is no contradiction in Genesis regarding the account of Adam and Eve, even when taking it literally... This article is one of many that can help explain why that is...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513

Folks, it's terribly important to remember what items belong on the Non-Negotiables List and which don't.

Evolution doesn't.

Jen R.'s, Jeff's, and Bobby's comments are on-target (it seems to me, at least; I skimmed some of them).

I'd also recommend G. K. Chesterton's masterful essay, "The Unimportance of Evolution". Written in 1930, it's just as relevant today.

Bethany,
Great link! It seems pretty clear to me, but I guess it's because I believe that God' word is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow...whether or not it was written in the time of the Jew (1000 BC).

*sigh*

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

There is absolutely NO basis to the claim that we are somehow not unique because of evolution. Do I need to explain theistic evolution again for you?

News to Huckabee: we ARE primates! Guess who did the classification? A creationist!

" They can explain evolution as a "natural", biological occurence, but have no explanation for the "supernatural"."

"evolutionists" can't explain supernatural events scientifically. But evolution does not go against supernatural things at all, it is completely neutral about it.

Jen, hippie, bobby:
You said it better than I could!

"I do not think that Jill was speaking of people who are Catholic and believe that people could have evolved but also were given souls by God their Creator."
If she was only directing the comment on a certain group, why would she say broadly that evolution means we aren't unique? It's the same theory, the evidence is the same, it's just the interpretation. If you want to perceive science as a threat you are welcome to, but making the mistake like Jen said, of putting it in the middle of the abortion debate, AGAIN like many other things, does nothing to unite people for the cause.

Yay. alienation. Good job, Jill.

By the way, people here and elsewhere were telling me "so what? just because Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution says nothing about his leadership." But knowing what was said here, about voting FOR him based on that...I'm pretty sure I'm just as justified in what I think.

"Great link! It seems pretty clear to me, but I guess it's because I believe that God' word is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow...whether or not it was written in the time of the Jew (1000 BC)."

I think most modern theologians will disagree with you there. Interpretations of the Bible change as more information about history, different modern situations, etc. come to light. This is also pretty obvious looking at the history of Christianity itself.

Ah yes, Bethany. Your article mentions Norm Geisler. I just read his stuff on Genesis about a month ago. Shame on me for not remembering. He does do an excellent job of reconciling the two accounts. I guess I didn't mean above that I thought that there was a contradiction, just that it does take some work, and that I don't see any reason in Genesis to interpret it as strict chronological account.

PIP,

I disagree. God's word never changes. Religious interpretations ALWAYS do, yes...the Catholic church changes their stance on a regular basis. However, God's word doesn't change.

Maybe that's why I seem so stubborn in my views regarding God and His word..I don't question Him...if I don't understand something, I ask Him.

If you want to perceive science as a threat you are welcome to, but making the mistake like Jen said, of putting it in the middle of the abortion debate, AGAIN like many other things, does nothing to unite people for the cause.

PIP, how is evolution Science, when there is absolutely no way to test or study it happening, since it's supposed to have been over a period of billions of years? It's not observable or testable, PIP. It's philosophy, not Science.

PIP,
Please read my 8:01 post...I'd especially like your feedback on it.

If she was only directing the comment on a certain group, why would she say broadly that evolution means we aren't unique?

I could have been wrong. She may have meant it in the broad sense. I agree with that point, if she did...I think if we were evolved from animals, how are we created in God's image? God never said animals were created in His image and likeness.

Hi Laura.

"I guess it's because I believe that God' word is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow...whether or not it was written in the time of the Jew (1000 BC)."

I do believe the word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but when the word of God was written, it was not written for or by a 21st century American. We read and write differently than people did 2000 years ago. They were an oral people. I believe that there is no quotation mark symbol in Koine Greek. So they weren't writing down exact quotes from people, and being very careful to site their sources like we do. But a universal test for trying to understand the writings of any culture is to ask yourself what was the author trying to convey? And I just don't see a scientific, chornological, historical account being offered in Genesis as we would understand a scientific, chronological, historical account today. So another way to say this is how did people 2000-3000 years ago write history? How did people then understand history? It is not the way we understand it today. Don't get me wrong- history is history (I am by no means a post-modernist) but how we communicate that history to eachother has changed dramatically.

AB Laura,

With all due respect, and I mean that, the Catholic Church does not change all the time when concerning articles of faith. Customs, rites, adding saints, communion by hand, communion by mouth...all of these are "changeable law"...but articles of faith, dogma, doctrine...these DO not and HAVE not changed.

A good example is the priesthood. Only men can become priests. Yesterday, today and tomorrow, this is "UN"changeable law. But priests getting married? This is changeable law. They did until the 3rd century or so.

If anything, the protestant churches change all the time and no two protestant churces believe or interpret things in the same way. Clinging to Sola Scriptura is not really rational, since there was no scripture except the old testament for 100 years or so after Jesus died. So by your reckoning, the first apostles were not "proper" Christians as they did not adhere to sola scriptura (because it didn't exist) It was the Catholic Church that chose the scriptures that the protestant churches use today...

Anyway, just had to explain why we think what we think...don't want to start a Catholic/Protestant war...that's already been done and it would be redundant.

Hey Laura.

"the Catholic church changes their stance on a regular basis."

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. What are you thinking about?

Bobby,
Do you believe that the bible was written by people, or inspired by God? In other words, were they the words of actual people's thoughts, or did God "tell" them what to write?

You're my dawg, MK!

I do believe the word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but when the word of God was written, it was not written for or by a 21st century American.

Bobby, as much as I would like to say something different, I have to disagree with that...I think the Bible was indeed written for everyone, in that time and today...The scriptures were intended for all of our benefit.

God inspired the scriptures, they were not written by the work of man but "holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Don't you think that God is capable of making his words lasting and meaningful, even to people centuries from the time it was written?He promised that He would preserve His word for us. I don't believe that man is able to do that, but I do believe God can and does.

Ah, darn, I have to go. I'll catch up on this later. God love you, Bobby!

Aaaaaah Huckabee...

In two days Huckabee has been ruined for me.

It turns out that in 1992 - long after it was known that HIV wasn't spread by casual contact - that Mike suggested that HIV patients be "isolated" from the general public.

Then there was THIS little gem:
Huckabee: ‘Wives should serve husbands’

Dec. 10: Worst person: Mike Huckabee signed a full page ad in USA Today in 1998, under a “statement on the family” which said "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband."

Hi Bethany.

"PIP, how is evolution Science, when there is absolutely no way to test or study it happening, since it's supposed to have been over a period of billions of years? It's not observable or testable, PIP. It's philosophy, not Science."

I used to think this too, and I'm not saying I necessarily believe in evolution, but there are many things that fall into that category. For example, how do we know what chemical makeup of the sun is? Well, we can't go to the sun and take a sample of it and test it. We make observations, look at the evidence, and come up with the best hypothesis to fit the evidence. Similar to evolution. True, we can't come up with a scientific experiment that shows one species becoming another (I think). But how can we "prove" that the big bang happened? Again, we can't go back and observe it, but all the evidence points to it. So one may not agree with the conclusion of the evidence, but I think we can't dismiss it just because we can't observe it. (We're still buddies, though, right?)

"the Catholic church changes their stance on a regular basis."

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. What are you thinking about?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 11, 2007 10:22 AM
-----------

Bobby,
I was actually responding to PIP, when she said, "I think most modern theologians will disagree with you there. Interpretations of the Bible change as more information about history, different modern situations, etc. come to light. This is also pretty obvious looking at the history of Christianity itself."

The Catholic church's views change as civilization becomes more modernized and "new" issues come up, no?

I'm going to town in just a sec, but just had to come back to say, of course we're still buddies! :)

Here's another interesting thought...

If you believe in sola scriptura, and that if it's in the bible, spoken by Jesus, you MUST accept it, then how do you explain the fact that the single most important thing that Jesus gave us is totally ignored by protestant churches...

"This IS my body, This IS my blood..."

These words were so powerful, so life altering that many of the Jews who were following Jesus up to that point, left Him. They could not accept His words. He didn't say "This represents my body, This represents my blood" but "This IS my body..." If he had only meant that from now on you are to "think of me" then the Jews would not have deserted. He ackowledges how difficult this belief will be.

Also Galileo proved that the earth moved around the sun, and he was silenced because it was feared that sola scriptura followers would get upset since it clearly states in the bible that the sun revolves around the earth...How do you reconcile this contradiction.

Not to mention the contradictions of the facts of Christ's birth.

Or the parables...are we to believe that there really were 7 virgins who didn't have enough oil, or do we understand that this was simply a story to teach us with...a teaching "tool" if you will?

Laura,

"Do you believe that the bible was written by people, or inspired by God? In other words, were they the words of actual people's thoughts, or did God "tell" them what to write?"

The bible's primary author is the Holy Spirit via writing through men. So it was inspired by God. It is infallible, free from all historical, scientific, and moral error. My contention here is the interpretation. We do see human elements in the scriptures, though. Paul tells Timothy to drink a little wine because it is good for the stomach.

Going back to my cats and dogs analogy, let me ask you this. Let's think about the phrase "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" from Exodus. Is that a Hebrew idiom? Because if it is, then it doesn't mean that God literally made Pharaoh's heart more dense. I would understand that as meaning that God allowed Pharaoh to continue in his sinful ways, not that god took away Pharaoh's free will. If you take it literally, you must believe that God took away Pharaoh's free will. This is all I'm trying to say, that in that culture, at that time, they had different phrases with different meanings and communicated differently than we do today, and that this needs to be taken into account when reading the bible. God love you, AB Laura.

Laura-

Oh, nice. That statement about the wives submitting to their husbands is disgusting. I'm really struggling with choosing a candidate this election. :(

To me, evolution makes much more sense than being poofed into existence "as is" 10,000 years ago when there is evidence to the contrary.

However, this does not prevent me from thinking that God may have easily "started it all" by making the first organism which then evolved into the diverse flora and fauna that we have on earth. I do not have trouble with allowing the fact that God could have "gotten the ball rolling" in some way shape or form.

God works through natural law, correct? Well what if evolution is the method in which God works through natural law? What if evolution is the "how" but God is the "why"?

*sigh*

Just sayin'.

Rae,
and saying it quite well at that...

MK
Wow! I wasn't starting anything! I think you guys read WAY to much into the very small post that I made.

Didn't mean to offend, or even start the "inkling" of any type of war. BTW, I'm not Protestant or Catholic, and never claimed to be an expert on either.

Bethany,

"Bobby, as much as I would like to say something different, I have to disagree with that...I think the Bible was indeed written for everyone, in that time and today...The scriptures were intended for all of our benefit."

I agree with this completely. I also agree with everything you wrote below this, BTW. But my point is that it is not God who changes or the interpretation that changes, but us and our culture that changes. Let me make something up to try and illustrate what I mean. Actually, no, something just came to mind. Let's think about the phrase "to know someone." If I use that phrase now, I say that I know my sister-in-law, we mean that I have met her. But (in the proper context) the phrase "Abraham knew Sarah" means that they engaged in the conjugal act. So if we read the bible from our 21st century perspective and come across something like "Abraham knew Sarah" we would not get sexual relations from that. Only in understanding it as a Jew would i.e. that to know someone in that culture means to have sex with them, do we properly interpret that passage. Right? But I agree with everything you say about the bible. Word of God, for all ages, all people. It's just that language changes even though God does not. God love you too, Bethany!

Laure,

"The Catholic church's views change as civilization becomes more modernized and "new" issues come up, no?"

Ah, okay, I see. BTW, what do you consider yourself if not protestant or Catholic? God love you, my friend.

@Samantha: Vote Colbert! :D

Bobby,
I see exactly what your saying, and there have been SO MANY times that I had to read a verse or chapter over & over & still had no clue! Finally, I just decided to pray to God before reading the bible, and ask Him to have the Holy Spirit guide me to understand it the way He wants me to! If I still have no clue...I belive it wasn't "my time" to have that understanding.

God bless you to!

Bobby,
Just a humbled, blessed child of God through the love of my Lord Jesus Christ!

Sorry, I hate to keep pushing labels if you don't want them, but you would call yourself a Christian?

Laura,

Mike Huckabee signed a full page ad in USA Today in 1998, under a “statement on the family” which said "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband."

Posted by: Laura at December 11, 2007 10:25 AM

I think you may be reading into this a little more than is actually there. The "servant leadership" of the husband is the religious notion of a man who is a good and faithful follower. In as much as he is doing his part to love her and lead a proper life, she should cooperate with that endeavor. She is not obliged to follow him if he is doing something wrong and contrary to decency.

Bobby,
By whose definition of "Christian"? I tend to always state the above about my "label", because, yes, as you assumed I don't like labels - they're too general!

Anon,-
I don't know about Laura, but it wasn't the "servant leadership" part of that statement that bothered me. It was the "submitting" part. Yeah.

Okay Laura, I understand. I gotcha :>

Bobby,
You have so got to post some updated photos of your little bundle of joy! They change so fast!

Oh, well, I'd be glad to! Let's see, I'll post a link that goes to an album an my facebook page, but that anyone can access. http://dartmouth.facebook.com/album.php?aid=11853&l=6ba52&id=614529961
Enjoy!

"PIP, how is evolution Science, when there is absolutely no way to test or study it happening, since it's supposed to have been over a period of billions of years? It's not observable or testable, PIP. It's philosophy, not Science."

Actually I posted many videos on the subject. It seems pretty obvious if you actually watched them. They do a good job at explaining how such is happening.

"I disagree. God's word never changes. Religious interpretations ALWAYS do, yes...the Catholic church changes their stance on a regular basis. However, God's word doesn't change.

Maybe that's why I seem so stubborn in my views regarding God and His word..I don't question Him...if I don't understand something, I ask Him."
Actually the Catholic church is pretty solid. But they, and many theologians, can recognize context if they have new information about it.
Gods word, e.g. the Bible of course is the same (I mean, relatively, there are different versions), but most interpretations are not, especially as new technology, etc. arises that calls for different perspectives on the text.

"lease read my 8:01 post...I'd especially like your feedback on it."
There can be no scientific explanation of the supernatural, because that is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. "Evolutionists" (not quite sure I understand the term), if you are referring to evolutionary biologists, have a personal spiritual understanding, like I do, but they recognize how subjective spirituality is, so of course they wouldn't bring it into their science.

"I think if we were evolved from animals, how are we created in God's image?"
I've posted an article about this before.

"I do believe the word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but when the word of God was written, it was not written for or by a 21st century American...But my point is that it is not God who changes or the interpretation that changes, but us and our culture that changes."
Bobby you are awesome :)

"Don't you think that God is capable of making his words lasting and meaningful"
God didn't lecture his people about science, the bible is about spirituality. Trying to make the Bible into a scientific document is foolish, even older theologians have said this.

"The Catholic church's views change as civilization becomes more modernized and "new" issues come up, no?"
Everybody's theologies change a little bit. Every person has their own "theology" in a sense. I can guarantee you don't look at the Bible the same way that they did 200 years ago.

"Or the parables"
Yeah, apparently allegories are meant to be taken literally...

"God works through natural law, correct? Well what if evolution is the method in which God works through natural law? What if evolution is the "how" but God is the "why"?

*sigh*

Just sayin'."
lol Rae, that's exactly how I see it. And the science helps point to that assertion. But as has been demonstrated by this blog, people ask for the "proof" (evidence), and when it is shown, they refuse to read or watch it, or even consider it because they have some problem with it theologically. Sigh.

"I'm not Protestant or Catholic"
err....what are you then? I always thought if you weren't a Catholic Christian, you were a Protestant one of some kind.

@Bobby: You're daughter is so adorable! I love the pictures of her in her Eeyore hat! :D

@PiP: No kidding. ::headdesk::

Thanks, PIP!
Your last question, I answered to Bobby in my 10:52 am post.

Anon,-
I don't know about Laura, but it wasn't the "servant leadership" part of that statement that bothered me. It was the "submitting" part. Yeah.

Posted by: Samantha at December 11, 2007 11:00 AM

The bible has been translated and retranslated. I am not an expert on the bible, but I know a lot about translation and language change. As language changes and words change meaning and then you come back and read them the connotation is different. Someone in linguistics class pointed out that "meat" was a synonym for food about 400 years ago at the time of the King James translation. So clearly that example would be confusing. Sometimes we get hung up on the translators phrasing. It would be interesting to see a contemporary translation as well as look at rabbinical commentary to see what is really meant before getting in a wad over and emotionally charged word like "submit". Anyway submit just means give or send like submitting and application. Submitting to some authority doesn't make you someone with no rights. I submit to the crossing guard in the school zone that doesn't me she owns me. In this example from the bible, I bet most rabbis would agree just means respect. I sure think spouses should respect each other.

Laura,
Do you go to church? If so, what kind of church?

I think Pius XI properly explains that passage from Ephesians 5: 25-26 in his encyclical Casti Connubii. It's worth looking into.

Hmmm, I suppose writing "that passage" and then citing exactly the passage is a bit redundant...

PIP,
No, I do not attend a church at this time. I did, in my past, a variety at that! (my parents "religion shopped" when I was younger. However, as I got older, I got very frustrated with the contrary beliefs and interpretations. Therefore, for now at least, I am content with just reading the bible, having a relationship with God & most importantly, praying for guidance in both!

Bobby,
Thanks for posting the link to your pictures! I'll have to take a closer look at them when I get home! Page 1 is pretty adorable!!! **cyberhugs**

Anon-
Well, since it is an "emontionally charged" word, as you say, than perhaps a person pursuing a career in politics should have thougth twice before signing their name to something that sounds so archaic and sexist. Anyway, it's not a "statement on the family" that I agree with.

http://dartmouth.facebook.com/album.php?aid=11853&l=6ba52&id=614529961
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is an unnaturally lovely child. I especially liked the fifth photo.

Do me a big favor.
Don't post your child's picture on any site with your name on it. It seems like many of the freaky baby snachers find their targets on the internet. Having your name and the name of your school on the same page makes you really easy to find.
(I don't want to freak you out, but my sister just spent 3 1/2 - 4 years straightening out the damage done by an identity theif. It's made me kind of paranoid...)

"It turns out that in 1992 - long after it was known that HIV wasn't spread by casual contact - that Mike suggested that HIV patients be "isolated" from the general public."

For some segments of the gay community,

sexual contact=casual contact

For some segments of the gay community,

sexual contact=casual contact

Posted by: Anonymous at December 11, 2007 1:23 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's true of the straight community, too.

The fourth and fifth pictures are just amazing.

I had my daughter's picture on my blog shortly after she was born, but took it down because I got paranoid. There are some crazy people out there. :(

Your baby is just too cute!!

Aww they make me just wiggle with joy when I see them. That's why I always love passing through the maternity ward.

Bobby,

It's good to "see" you again too.

How's fatherhood treating you?

Ab Laura,

"Enigma,
Then I believe that you are a true evolutionist!"

Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionist," I do not know what you mean. I believe in evolution, but it is not my religion. I used to have one of those and found no use for it.

I'm a very strong proponent of evolutionary science. I also actively believe in certain aspects of paranormal phenomena- for example, 'ghosts'. I am also sure that these kind of phenomena have scientific explanations. I'm not an expert on the precise physics, but I have some friends who delve into this type of thing extensively. The basis of it is energy- energy of all different types. I also view that as the basis for any psychic phenomena. If there is a god, I would expect that it would be more of a non-sentient form of pure energy more than anything else.

Oh, fantastic, Enigma! Did you see the link to the facebook pics I posted above of her? Hmmm, ya know, you can see even more if you befriend me on facebook :) hehe, I'm just giving you a hard time. Talk to you later, Enigma.

Hey Erin.

"I also actively believe in certain aspects of paranormal phenomena- for example, 'ghosts'. I am also sure that these kind of phenomena have scientific explanations."

That's interesting. So by definition, science is concerned with the observable. So you think that ghosts and stuff can be observed with the 5 senses, but that we haven't been able to do it? I'm not questioning or judging or anything like that; I'm just curious how you understand it. Excellent.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Evolutionists

Enigma,
This may help you understand what I meant. I'm pretty sure that it is just someone who believes in biological evolution, but you can check the above link to be sure.

I hope this clears up a confusion as to what I meant. I never did think that it was a "religion"

This guys is a nut. Woman's role. Aids patients. What is next? I predict he will tell us God told him to run for president.

Bobby- a lot of phenomena are observable. Psychic ability has been measured via a Geiger counter, and 'ghostly' activity can be observed often through electromagnetic devices and so on. The same way that we know radio waves and particles beyond our visible spectrum exist.

Erin, I should make the point that what you are talking about takes it outside the realm of biology (where evolution resides). You already know this, but just putting it out there for everyone.

Definitely, Pip. It's not even in a common science perspective yet. It's still a very theoretical and abstract area, but it is SO cool to study!

AB Laura,

"I hope this clears up a confusion as to what I meant. I never did think that it was a "religion.""

It does indeed. Most people who use the term "abortionist" as you did use it to denote evolution as a religion.

Bobby,

"Oh, fantastic, Enigma!"

Glad to hear it.

"Did you see the link to the facebook pics I posted above of her?"

I did indeed. Your daughter is adorable. And when I say that, know that I don't say that about most children.

"Hmmm, ya know, you can see even more if you befriend me on facebook :)"

There is value in anonymity.

"hehe, I'm just giving you a hard time."

I know.

"Talk to you later, Enigma."

Likewise.

Hi folks,

maybe I should weigh-in here with a few points ... the first person to be called a Christian was one of the people condemned to die in the Roman amphitheater ... until that time, Christianity was just a sect of the Jewish faith. Please note that the word was applied to someone of this faith by a non-believer.

A good friend of mine is a scripture scholar, who did some of his doctorate in Rome. One day, he told us it was kind of difficult to narrow God's revelation too much. A 'stack' is often used to find scholarly texts in a university library. Often books of a single theme are placed together ... so picture the stacks of the library in Rome ... double-sided rows and rows of books ... 50 feet long and @10 feet high. The single word "Father" has 9 whole rows ... not shelves, but ROWS of books elaborating this single word.

Much too often we severely restrict God via a very narrow interpretation of God's word. A small mind number is the use of the word "Word" to refer to Jesus. Humans use such in speech, but when we are talking about God's Word, it is much more tactile/real than human words. So, AB Laura's advice to seek understanding from God Himself is superb .... another closely related 'trick' of Ralph Martin is to pray to the person who penned the document for insight into what he wished to express. ((This makes scripture texts more rounded somehow (experience) because scripture is not only God's Word but God's Word among us and living in us.))

Erin, Rae and PiP,

there is a professor at Laurentian U in Sudbury, Canada who has found a strong magnetic field in one section of the brain in people who pray. This observation was so repeatable that he wondered about inducing a magnet field to the same region. He found that such a field not only produced strong meditation experiences, but that 'hearing God's voice' or having paranormal experiences could be replicated on demand.

AB Laura: I may be wrong here, but I would love some feedback from someone who believes in evolution and does not believe in any type of "ghost, spirit or soul".

Laura, while evolution isn't in doubt - it's been observed so much via fossil evidence, etc. - that isn't saying there isn't a "creator" nor supernatural stuff. Can't prove the non-existence of a thing, after all. The idea of a soul is interesting, but there's no proof of such. Who knows what's "out there"?

Doug

John M: there is a professor at Laurentian U in Sudbury, Canada who has found a strong magnetic field in one section of the brain in people who pray. This observation was so repeatable that he wondered about inducing a magnet field to the same region. He found that such a field not only produced strong meditation experiences, but that 'hearing God's voice' or having paranormal experiences could be replicated on demand.

John, that's Persinger, right? Interesting stuff, and he has said:

"God is an artifact of the brain."

"religion is a property of the brain, only the brain and has little to do with what's out there."

It has been suggested that there are evolutionary reasons for a tendency to believe in a supernatural creator/god (hence all the world religions).

@Doug,

right, his name is Persinger. And his conclusions do make an enormous amount of sense. When I first heard of this it challenged every notion of what I understand as faith and an active relationship with God.

There is an answer to this dilemma but I won't give my 'solution' because faith IMHO is worth struggling for ... and does not tolerate intellectual spoon feeding nor comparison shopping too well (which so-called modern tolerance is all about)!

John,
You can also induce the smell of strawberries by stimulating a specific part of the brain...but that doesn't mean that strawberries don't have an odor.

Being able to stimulate a part of the mind that will then produce a certain response doesn't negate the reality of the thing.

You can only produce things that the mind can already conceive. So if you have already produced a "pathway" to faith, you are only stimulating what is already there, no? If you're born with a natural connection to God then stimulating that part of the brain is not "creating" a connection to God, only activating a connection that already exists...I'd think, anyway.

Mk and John,

"here is a professor at Laurentian U in Sudbury, Canada who has found a strong magnetic field in one section of the brain in people who pray. This observation was so repeatable that he wondered about inducing a magnet field to the same region. He found that such a field not only produced strong meditation experiences, but that 'hearing God's voice' or having paranormal experiences could be replicated on demand."

"You can only produce things that the mind can already conceive. So if you have already produced a "pathway" to faith, you are only stimulating what is already there, no? If you're born with a natural connection to God then stimulating that part of the brain is not "creating" a connection to God, only activating a connection that already exists...I'd think, anyway."

How do those types of experiences say anything either way about the existence of a God or not? Isn't it possible that that type of effect (the feeling one gets) is due solely to something internal, and not external?

I've had experiences that other people would classify as spiritual and yet I don't believe in God. So, what's your personal interpretation: can one have "spiritual" experiences without sharing a connection with God (I would like to not, I am NOT implying that God exists) or are these "spiritual" experiences simply a sign that one does have a personal relationship with God and simply refuses to acknowledge the fact?

this?

@Enigma,

feel for ya! This whole thing about Michael Persinger is that hardwired(evolution) religious experience is 'internal' and the theory fits nicely with those in a Cartesian-box.

There IS a way out but to answer your question, I cannot because I do not live in your skin. But the answer can come for and to you. The next time you wish ... understand that God can and does exist quite apart from us whether or not I've relegated him to the church a mile away. (He could be a million miles away for all you know.)

Just tell Him that you ain't gettin nothing! And furthermore, 'I don't really even know You even exist. So, its Your call!' He'll let you know very quickly ... just do not expect His answer to be a whisper in your ear.

(True: I was waiting for a bus to take me to work. A panhandler with very dirty clothes walked behind me. It was as if someone grabbed me by the shoulders and spun me around .... and said LOOK! There was no outside sign, but I knew in my heart it was God .... He's stuck with me since!)

John,

I think you might have slightly misinterpreted my question. I'm perfectly satisfied being an atheist; I don't feel that there's anything missing in my life. My original reasoning may not have been the best, but I did what I had to do and I have made peace with my decision.

Really, all I meant to ask was the general question of whether or not you feel as though spirituality is one with religion or if it is possible to separate the two. I used the Christian God only because I know that those I addressed believe in Christianity.

"There IS a way out"

There's a way out of the box only if one is in the box to begin with. How do you know that your conceptions of confinement, freedom, faith and truth are correct?

"The next time you wish ... understand that God can and does exist quite apart from us whether or not I've relegated him to the church a mile away. (He could be a million miles away for all you know.)"

In theory, I am aware of this principal.

"Just tell Him that you ain't gettin nothing! And furthermore, 'I don't really even know You even exist. So, its Your call!' He'll let you know very quickly ... just do not expect His answer to be a whisper in your ear."

You know, you raise an interesting point. I will never ask, because I do not believe that there is anyone out there to answer.

I say that I need proof and yet, when a friend asked what kind of proof I would accept, I was forced to admit that nothing would be enough. If I hear voices, I'm either delusional or having a temporary break with reality. If God or Jesus suddenly appears before the masses, we're all suffering from mass delusion. Freud would be proud…

Enigma,
My mother was a DEVOUT atheist for many, many years. One day, when she hit absolute bottom, she said, "fine....God, they say you are real. If you are, please show me". She left well enough alone, and just as John stated...He showed her & she never has never denied Him since! I believe that you are only 21? You have (hopefully) so many years ahead of you. One day, if you ever feel the need, hit bottom and need a hand out...just remember John McD's and this story...I am certainly not saying that you MUST do this...only if you want. If your contentment in atheism ever ceases...please don't take this as shoving anything down your throat, OK?

AB Laura,

"My mother was a DEVOUT atheist for many, many years."

You mean I'm not the only one that uses that term?

"One day, if you ever feel the need, hit bottom and need a hand out...just remember John McD's and this story"

Hitting rock bottom is why I origonally became an atheist in the first place. Since I soon realized that there was no higher being looking out for me, I decided that I had better look out for myself. But that was a long time ago, and even I admit that I can no longer support my origonal reasoning. I'm an atheist because of everything that's happened since.

"If your contentment in atheism ever ceases...please don't take this as shoving anything down your throat, OK?"

Don't worry, I won't. Have a good night.

John and AB Laura, thanks for the great posts.

Heather,
Give all kudos to John McD...there's just something about his posts that activate brain activity in me that triggers my memory & thoughts!

Enigma,

I wasn't using my example to prove that God exists, only to say that the fact that you can "artificially" produce the "sensation" of God doesn't prove that He's all in your head.

I would say that yes, if you get those feelings you are indeed experiencing God, in spite of the fact that you don't accept His existence as truth. And a while ago I tried to share my notion that Religion and spirituality, while tied together, are definitely separate things. I express my spirituality through the Catholic Religion...Satan expresses his through lies and deceit...no religion involved. Since we are spiritual as well as physical beings, it stands to reason that we will have all sorts of spiritual experiences...

John,

"... and it's even more strange because He usually answers in distress ... but it is often His answer & not the expected one."

And how do these people know that this is God working in their lives and not simply random circumstance?

One of my philosophies is life is that things tend to work out for the best. I don't credit with this tendency, I'm simply observing that, in my own life, generally circumstances have a way leading somewhere that I never could have imagined and that often work out better than the original plan.

"I have to chuckle a bit at your incredulity."

Yep, that's me. I enjoy questioning everything. It only gets annoying when I start critiquing my own thoughts and values.

"It is the path we all travel ... at any age. Emotions do have a pattern ... I call it a logic, but the pattern is a different 'way' than the path the intellect follows."

I'm going to have to disagree about this. Based on what I've seen others do and what I've experienced, there is no logical pattern of any kind. Logic implies that there is an order that one can explain rationally. Emotions leave no room for rational explanation.

Don't get me wrong, they're amazing and they have their place in the world, but logical and rational they are not.

"(Typically the 'intellect' centers on the 'self' ... so 'rationality' and truth is about MY-truth. Whereas the emotions primarily are about 'the-loved-other'. And the two do not jive especially in concepts of sacrifice ... as in a parent toward his/her child.)"

I think you've simplified things here a bit too much. Emotions can be about 'the-loved-other,' but they do not have to be. Emotion can be purely selfish and wholly disinterested in anything that anyone else wants. Emotions can also be centered solely on the self (think the personal joy in creating something beautiful, ect.) Likewise, the intellect can center upon the self, but it does not have to. Intellect can allow one to transcend one's self and realize that what is in one's own self-interest is not mutually exclusive with what is in the self-interest of others. Intellect can also be centered upon others and not focus on the self at all.

"A good high school buddy of mine got married but their firstborn had a strange disease. When David had an 'attack' his blood cells would literally fall-apart and dissociate. After rushing him to hospital numerous times, at about 2-3 years old David did die."

That's very sad...I hope both your friend and his wife are doing alright (from one of your comments it seems like they are) and they have found the sanctity and peace which they most surely deserve.

"Almost everyone I know is confronted with such a difficult call. When (not if) it happens to you, where are you going to be?"

Where I have always been.

MK,

"I wasn't using my example to prove that God exists, only to say that the fact that you can "artificially" produce the "sensation" of God doesn't prove that He's all in your head."

I know, I just wanted to take it in a different direction.

"I would say that yes, if you get those feelings you are indeed experiencing God, in spite of the fact that you don't accept His existence as truth."

Do your beliefs on the topic come down to that religion and spirituality are separate things but that spirituality and God are not?

"Since we are spiritual as well as physical beings, it stands to reason that we will have all sorts of spiritual experiences..."

I'm still going to disagree that we are spiritual beings...I said feelings that others would consider spiritual, not that I feel are spiritual (or if I left this out I mean to since it is my position). I believe that we only are physical beings and that everything else is simply a construct of the mind.

Is it just me, or did John's post, that I've replied to above, disappear?

"Evolution ties in to the abortion debate because if evolved, human beings are not unique, with souls."

I believe the following three things: Human beings are the product of evolution. God exists. Abortion is immoral and should be illegal. I don't know why you would want to marginalize those of us who acknowledge that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming while still agreeing with you in other, more important matters.

Brian,
I think at least what I was trying to say, is that evidence of evolution may be overwhelming, but it is not proven. God's Word has been proven.

AB Laura,

God's word has not been proven. It can never be proven. That is why religion is taken on faith.

So not true, Enigma, it has been proven time and time again through archeaological findings, not to mention all of the prophesies that have come true - especially Israel! If you studied it hard, you would see. Trust me, people have tried to prove it wasn't true, and have not. Still the best-selling book! If it weren't true, and PROVEN, it would make headline news and pulled from bookstores everywhere. Hasn't happened, and never will!

AB Laura,

Archaeological evidence is not proof of God's existence. All that it means is that some of the places and events that are mentioned in the Bible really did exist; this does not mean that every single word is true. It does not even mean that everything the Bible said happened at a particular place or at a particular time actually occurred.

The prophecies in the Bible are so vague that is it possible to interpret them in any way that you wish; basically, this renders them inconsequential.

If the Bible truly was proven, as you say, the Muslims would never have split off from Christianity and Jewish people would believe in Jesus.

Even others who believe in the truth of the Bible don't make the argument that it has been proven true. That is why they stress the importance of faith. Indeed, one would not need faith if everything in the Bible had been proven true because one could accept it as fact. So, if the Bible has been PROVEN to be true, why do preachers/ministers/believes constantly stress the importance of faith? Why would they claim that faith is the highest virtue if faith itself was not needed to believe?

If the Bible truly was proven, as you say, the Muslims would never have split off from Christianity and Jewish people would believe in Jesus.

Where do you get that idea?
Have you not heard of Isaac and Ishmael?

Enigma,

"The prophecies in the Bible are so vague that is it possible to interpret them in any way that you wish; basically, this renders them inconsequential."

They really arn't that vague when you cross-reference them with the same prophesies of other books in the bible. And when 1/3 of the bible is prophesy, and all have came to pass except the end times one's, it just seems like a no-brainer to me.

I think it takes alot more faith to not believe than it does to believe. When I read the bible, it is so clear, so I guess I cannot comprehend it when someone says they don't. Granted, it wasn't always like that for me, but I read Halley's Bible Concordance, Les Feldick's books, and other reference books that detail each book to the time it was written, what was going on during that time period, the author, archaeological digs, pagan beliefs and rituals during those times ,etc., so you can actually feel like you're there during that time period! Once you understand how the bible was put together, it's so much easier to understand! Also, asking God for knowledge & understanding of His word brings it to crystal clarity!

Faith, at least for me, is simply believing that God loves me and wants the best for me, and that all things work together for the good! Hard sometimes, but like I said, that's where faith comes into play for me!

I really don’t feel that God made the Bible difficult to understand. It’s easy to say, “well, it’s too hard to understand, so I don’t believe it or I don’t want to read it”. It just takes a little bit of work and studying, just like you would do for a subject in school, only on a massive scale! So I guess I don't understand the notion of having faith to believing that God's Word, the bible, is truth!

@ Enigma,

a 'problem' AB Laura & I (& likely others) have, is attempting to understand by what you mean as 'proof'. Early Christian apologetics attempted to show that Jesus was the long-awaited messiah (proficied about for at least 50 years). It was a strong 'proof' of faith.

Cynics (living primarily in their head ... they presume to know-all) refute accumulated evidence as mere superstition. But they assume a 'conspiracy of thought' that just wasn't there. Why (to you) was Freud correct and Isaiah far-fetched? Was it that Freud was ???

Hi John!

:)

Bethany,

"Where do you get that idea?
Have you not heard of Isaac and Ishmael? "

Of course I have. Sons of Abraham. Isaac was the son of Abraham's wife and Ishmael was Abraham's son though a concubine (I think her name starts with an H, but I'm not sure). At the urging to Isaac's mother, Ishmael (who was older) and his mother were sent out into the desert to die.

Ishmael supposedly started Islam and Issac was involved with Judaism.

The part of that split that I was referring to was the part where the Muslim holy book says that both Jewish people and Muslims have lost the way. If the Christian bible was, beyond any possible shadow of a doubt PROVEN to be true, Islam should not exist since it is supposed to correct the flaws in Christianity.

AB Laura,

"They really arn't that vague when you cross-reference them with the same prophesies of other books in the bible."

This is one way to interpret them. But you are interpreting them and interpretation can be problematic.

"And when 1/3 of the bible is prophesy, and all have came to pass except the end times one's, it just seems like a no-brainer to me."

Again, this is your interpretation.

To me, it's the same as the Zodiac. If you've ever read the list that supposedly applies to people born at certain times, the terms are so vague and so broad that we could interpret them any way we wanted to.

"I think it takes alot more faith to not believe than it does to believe."

Let's just agree to disagree.

"I really don’t feel that God made the Bible difficult to understand. It’s easy to say, “well, it’s too hard to understand, so I don’t believe it or I don’t want to read it”."

Ease of reading (or lack thereof) is not a defining characteristic of truth.

John,

"It was a strong 'proof' of faith."

Faith cannot be proven; that's why it's called faith.

"Cynics (living primarily in their head ... they presume to know-all) refute accumulated evidence as mere superstition."

And why do you assume that I am a cynic? I am, I don't deny it, but I do not believe that I know all. If I have learned nothing else on this world, I have learned that it is impossible to find ultimate truth except that which you define for yourself.

"Why (to you) was Freud correct and Isaiah far-fetched? Was it that Freud was ???"

My exposure to Freud has actually been fairly limited; I'm only familiar with some of his early works. Parts of his theories I like, other parts strike me as frankly bizarre. I agree with him on religion (the part where it's mass delusion, not the whole "extension of childhood helplessness in relation to the father" thing). His theories on human suffering as written in Civilization and its Discontents are simply brilliant. Other than that, I don't buy most of what he says.

John,

I realize I didn't fully answer your last question, so I'll elaborate briefly. (Really, I'm just procrastinating because I don't want to write my paper or pack up my room).

I believe nothing blindly; I evaluate and decide what I can accept based primarily on what I've seen and what I've experienced. If I believe something that I find later to be false, I simply reject it at move on.

John M: right, his name is Persinger. And his conclusions do make an enormous amount of sense. When I first heard of this it challenged every notion of what I understand as faith and an active relationship with God.

There is an answer to this dilemma but I won't give my 'solution' because faith IMHO is worth struggling for ... and does not tolerate intellectual spoon feeding nor comparison shopping too well (which so-called modern tolerance is all about)!

John, again I get that sense from you of wanting "more" - and that's fine - it's just a difference between us.

It'd be interesting to have a group of people grow up without exposure to religion and see what they came up with.

Doug