1. email bankruptcy n. choosing to delete, archive, or ignore a very large number of email messages without ever reading them, replying to each with a unique response, or otherwise acting individually on them. (I've considered this option myself after realizing I'm 30, 60, even 90 days late in responding to email from my friends. Although I'm regularly late, I attempt to catch up so don't give up on me if I owe you; I don't want it going on my credit-as-a-person report.) (HT: Kottke.org)
2. Cinematical has a list of the Seven Most Overrated Actors in Hollywood. (HT: Kottke)
3. David Gushee on being consistently pro-life:
Because I am a Christian, I am pro-life, pro-family, pro-creation care, pro-poor, pro-justice, pro-wholeness, and pro-peace. There are a variety of names for this ethic. I discovered a great one in the early 1990s – the consistent pro-life ethic. It emerged from the Catholic tradition and has been embraced well beyond that communion. No political party on the landscape today articulates this ethic in its fullness. But I believe that this is the moral vision that ought to govern the thinking, living, and voting of Christian people.
4. Dollars or Digits: A business card for a debt recovery agent in India displays an X-ray film of a broken finger. (HT: directdaily via MIT Advertising Lab)
5. After Wal-Mart came to Fort Frances, Ontario, a pair of grocers in nearby Emo found a way to compete with the "everyday low prices": cross the border, stock up on bargain-priced merchandise from Sam's Club (the warehouse chain owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.), and resell it in their store. (HT: Kottke)
6. Know Your Evangelicals Roman Catholics: Francis Beckwith, the fourteenth entry in my Know Your Evangelicals series, recently returned to the faith tradition of his youth. In a post at Right Reason, he explains his reasons for re-crossing the Tiber and his difficult decision to step down as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.
7. Quote: "The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow." Michael Pollan via Tyler Cowen
8. Evangelicals and other Christians aren’t the only religious people concerned about Darfur: "More than three quarters of Muslim respondents in six nations surveyed said they believe Arabs and Muslims should be equally concerned about the situation in Darfur as they are about the Arab-Israeli conflict, according to the results of a recent poll unveiled at the Arab Broadcast Forum in Abu Dhabi. Results ranged from a high of 95% in Morocco to 76% in Turkey." (HT: Instapundit)
9. Carnegie Mellon University researchers have developed a new series of robots that are simple enough for almost anyone to build with off-the-shelf parts, but are sophisticated machines that wirelessly connect to the Internet. Recipes, software, technical support and other information are available free at the TeRK website.
10. How to read a dog's tail: When dogs feel fundamentally positive about something or someone, their tails wag more to the right side of their rumps. When they have negative feelings, their tail wagging is biased to the left. (HT: BoingBoing)
11. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money, according to new research. A nationwide study found that people of below average intelligence were, overall, just about as wealthy as those in similar circumstances but with higher scores on an IQ test.
12. Michael Spencer has a problem with prayer.
13. Following up on my post on sex-selection abortion (The Global War Against Baby Girls), Josh Claybourn points out that there is a "different global war against the opposite sex, baby boys, for reasons far less evident." Thanks to high levels of air pollution and chemical toxins, the natural number of male births compared to female births is declining.
14. U of Minn. researchers find ceiling height can affect how a person thinks, feels and acts: "When a person is in a space with a 10-foot ceiling, they will tend to think more freely, more abstractly," said marketing professor Joan Meyers-Levy. "They might process more abstract connections between objects in a room, whereas a person in a room with an 8-foot ceiling will be more likely to focus on specifics."
15. In ten years the walking speed has increased by 10%. People in Singapore walk the fastest. (HT: Marginal Revolution)
When Kennedy refers to the gynecologists and obstetricians who perform abortions as "abortion doctors," he's repeating antichoice language intended to impugn the professionalism of these physicians and make it easier to disregard their judgment about how best to care for their patients.
In the New York Times Magazine, Eyal Press, a contributing writer to this magazine, writes of his father, a heroically brave and dedicated abortion doctor . . . .
(HT: The Buck Stops Here)
17. Why losing money may be more painful than you think: "Losing money may be intrinsically linked with fear and pain in the brain, scientists have discovered. In a Wellcome Trust study published this week in the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers have shown that during a gambling task, losing money activated an area of the brain involved in responding to fear and pain."
18. Mohler Versus Piper on Singleness
Dr. Mohler: "I believe in the Scripture, the default position for adult is married, that it's a responsibility. It's not just an elective. And it's not just so we can engage in sexual relations. It's because God desires that we glorify him in the covenant of marriage and that he made us for that purpose and directs us to His Glory in that covenant. [Scripture] tells us that we should have children and welcome them and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. So there's business to be done in marriage to God's glory!" -- 9 Marks "Biblical Dating with Al Mohler and Joshua Harris"
Dr. Piper: "God promises you blessings in the age to come that are better than the blessings of marriage and children. And with this promise there comes a unique calling and a unique responsibility. It is not a calling to extend irresponsible adolescence into your thirties. It is a calling to do what only single men and women in Christ can do in this world, namely, to display by the Christ-exalting devotion of your singleness the truths about Christ and his kingdom that shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage." -- Desiring God "Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters"
19. From an article on NFL rookie Terreal Bierria in ESPN the Magazine: "If Bierria never played in the NFL again, he could handle it. He believes everything -- even the bad things -- happens for a reason. A phrase in the Bible echoes in his head. It goes: "It's only in the depths of silence that the voice of God can be heard." If that passage doesn't sound familiar its because it didn’t come from the Bible but from Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba.
20. According to a voluntary survey cited in the report, 48% of Caribbean adolescent girls surveyed described their own "sexual initiation" as forced. Cited in "Cost of Caribbean Crime Grows," 4 May 2007, The Wall Street Journal. Tyler Cowen notes that, according to the World Bank, the Caribbean is now the most crime-ridden part of the world.
21. Is Academic Freedom Dead in the 4th Circuit?
22. A survey of British urban areas reveals that more than one in three HIV positive gay men say they have unprotected sex and almost one in five HIV negative men said that they do the same.
23. Charles Colson on critics of the Court's recent partial-birth abortion ban who attributed the Justices votes to their Catholicism:
If you uphold a law approved by both parties in Congress and supported by most Americans, you are imposing your morality. But if you vote against the ban, you have nobly kept your religious views from interfering with your job. The ugly implication here is obvious: that it is not possible for faithful Catholic judges to carry out their responsibility to interpret and uphold the law. . . .
(HT: Mirror of Justice)
24. Why Remember the Martyrs? (HT: Justin Taylor)
25. S.L.A. Marshall's advice in Men Against Fire:
“When troops have been hard used in battle, and especially when green troops have taken heavy losses during their first engagement, talk itself is the easiest and most effective first step toward the re-establishing of a fighting morale.
Nothing is more likely to break the nerve of an intelligent and sensitive young commander in the aftermath of a costly and bloodletting experience than to leave him alone with his thoughts. That holds true also of the men under him. Men need to talk it out. The need of such a release is greatest when they feel they have been whipped.
It makes little difference how clearly the circumstances say that the fault was not one’s own. The shock of seeing one’s own men or comrades killed and of pondering one’s own hand in the making of their fate leads almost inevitably to a mood of self-accusation and bitterness – the tokens of moral defeat. The more able and conscientious the commander, the more likely it becomes that he will react in this way.” [p.118]
Although this advice is directed toward combat leaders, it could be applied to other, less dire, leadership challenges such as in business or ministry. (HT: Miserable Donuts)
26. CCM magazine is redefining what CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) is to include any music that involves a "Christian worldview." (HT: prosthesis)
27. 11 Great Color Legends (HT: Kottke.org)
28. S. M. Hutchens, and editor at Touchstone, provides some advice on writing:
If I were to identify what I think is the most frequent mistake of the writers of bad writing we receive, I would say that it is the same that most of us have with speaking: we express ourselves without first thinking clearly and carefully—and with brutal self-criticism--about what we are going to say and how we are going to say it. We have the impression that our minds are pregnant with valuable thoughts that really must be heard without recalling that unless exercise the labor and discipline necessary to put them in a form that can be understood by others, as thoughts-to-be-shared they remain sterile. This is why writing is an art--a rhetorical art--and a process that, while it depends on good thinking, should be thought of as another thing entirely. For while good thinking depends on the internal coherence of the thought itself, good writing, like good speaking, is the art of word-use and knowing the mind of one’s audience.
(HT: Justin Taylor)
29. Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.
30. Bread is Dangerous: "More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users….Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests….Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days….more
31. ComputerWorld: " "There is one unavoidable and fatal fact that will kill the nascent e-book market in its cradle: People love paper books." (HT: MIT Advertising Lab)
32. "We consider the "primitive" music of blues singers such as Leadbelly to be more authentic than that of the Monkees. But all pop musicians are fakes." Jeff Sharlett reviews Faking It: the quest for authenticity in popular music.
33. 5 Worst Candies in the World
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3583
1
I'm glad they included Circus Peanuts on the list. I would have put Peeps on there too.
posted on 05.07.2007 1:42 AM2
Regarding your comment on #25, I think I have to disagree. I have to believe that combat is fundamentally different from nearly any common human experience. Thinking that talking always helps is an American trait, and sometimes sober, individual reflection is the best way to handle things.
posted on 05.07.2007 2:17 PM3
On item #2;
posted on 05.08.2007 12:24 AMJeffrey M. Anderson doesn't know what overrated means. Who is he kidding anyway? Overrated actors don't last long when their movies keep flopping at the box office. If an actor is still making money, quite a few people somewhere enjoy seeing them in movies, no matter how good or bad their performances actually were.
4
Circus peanuts are phenomenal. They are like giant inflated versions of the marshmallows in Lucky Charms. Which, by the way, I cherry pick out of the box.
posted on 05.08.2007 5:37 AM5
On #23. “Charles Colson on critics of the Court's recent partial-birth abortion ban who attributed the Justices votes to their Catholicism:” This is an educational video that features Dr. Francis Beckwith: http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1126,filter.all/event_detail.asp (in the video) “If a motive is a type of belief that contributes causally to a person’s actions, Francis Beckwith asks, is not the religious motive analysis a type of “religious test for office” prohibited by the Constitution’s Article VI? When applied to citizens, doesn’t this analysis limit the political rights of citizens based on their beliefs, which is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent?”
On a different topic: the largest selection of video and audio Christian apologetics is at the Apollos.ws webpage http://www.apollos.ws/ Look at all these William Lane Craig debates: http://www.apollos.ws/philosophy-of-religion-audio-d/ http://www.apollos.ws/philosophy-of-religion-media/
posted on 05.08.2007 12:51 PM6
Re: Mohler and Piper:
They are both right in their mutually in-exclusive ways, except for Mohler's position that marriage is the default.
Piper is correct in that it depends on the particular gift God has given to each person.
Southern Reformed Christians--in my limited experience moving down here from the Northeast--have reacted to society's horrible degradation of the family by going to the opposite extreme and idolizing marriage/family.
At a practical level, I doubt some even realize that is possible.
posted on 05.08.2007 1:38 PM7
If a motive is a type of belief that contributes causally to a person’s actions, Francis Beckwith asks, is not the religious motive analysis a type of “religious test for office” prohibited by the Constitution’s Article VI? When applied to citizens, doesn’t this analysis limit the political rights of citizens based on their beliefs, which is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent?”
Not at all, if your 'religious motives' include ignoring the Constitution then you have no right to sit on the Supreme Court. You're free to have your beliefs but what you see above is nothing more than a really circular way of saying unacceptable behavior should get special treatment if the person dresses it up as religious belief.
Let me put this one in front of you. Suppose your religious beliefs include nepotism. Yet a state job has a requirement that you do not use your position to secure any benefits for family members. Are you, as a citizen, having your rights infringed because if you take this job you will not be able to use the position as your religion dictates?
If the justices voted for the partial birth ban because of their Catholicism then that is unacceptable. Their job is to read the Constitution, not the stands of the Catholic Church. If they voted for the ban based on their reading of the Constitution then that is acceptable even though some of us may disagree.
Now I find it interesting that Conservative justices discovered that the commerce clause of the Constitution suddenly now covers regulation of medical procedures that are performed inside of states and are not part of inter-state trade. Then again they also discovered the magic commerce clause also covers states that choose, inside their borders only, to legalize pot for medical reasons. This tells me that it is more likely they simply pay lip service to their ideas of close reading, original intent and so on.
posted on 05.08.2007 9:59 PM8
What exactly is a default scriptural situation? What most people will end up doing? The best that you can expect from most people? What most people should do?
Doesn't the Bible say chastity is the preferred over marriage and marriage only to keep you from getting yourself in worse trouble.
posted on 05.08.2007 10:16 PM9
Well first of all, chastity is also a component of marriage. Perhaps the word you are looking for is celibacy. But even there, one of the first things God told man was be fertile and multiply.
posted on 05.09.2007 12:35 AM10
While I intellectually realize that it is possible, I'm not sure I know what exactly it would look like, unless you are referring to the drive to incorporate married men into the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
posted on 05.09.2007 12:47 AM11
On #23
Opposition to elective abortion, for example, is not exclusively religious. Scott Klusendorf wrote: Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this. Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.
See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29. (citation finished)
1) Intentionally killing an innocent human person is a moral wrong.
2) Elective abortion is the killing of an innocent human person.
3) Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.
We are talking about establish scientific facts that show that the unborn are human beings.
posted on 05.09.2007 1:31 AM12
But even there, one of the first things God told man was be fertile and multiply.
New Testament, New one....it seems to be very clear. It says you should live a celebrite life (thanks for the correction). That is best. IF YOU CAN'T, then marriage is second best. It doesn't say how we are supposed to accomplish the multiplying if we all opt for the best choice but I don't think the author thought that was a serious risk.
One could also read the multiply command as one to Adam and Eve and maybe to humanity in general. It doesn't mean to force it on every individual human no matter what.
Kyl
Opposition to elective abortion, for example, is not exclusively religious.
True but that's not relevant to a Justice's job. They are supposed to decide the question of where gov't regulation of abortion stands in relation to the Constitution. Whether they oppose abortion for philosophical reasons or religious reasons or just because they flipped a coin doesn't matter.
We are talking about establish scientific facts that show that the unborn are human beings.
You're pushing science beyond its limits here. If you provide a definition of a human beign or human person science may be able to tell you if an unborn baby meets that definition. Pat Buchannan, for example, often says 'abortion stops a beating heart'. Well science can do a pretty good job of telling us when a beating heart is there and when it isn't. If you're definition is a bit more vague such as 'is endowed with a soul'...well science won't help you much. Where science cannot offer any help at all is deciding what definition should apply. No observation or experiment is going to tell you whether 'beating heart' trumps 'has soul'.
posted on 05.09.2007 9:57 AM13
You are taking what was said in the Bible out of context. Did you forget what that was a response to? Jesus did not say marriage was second best. What was really said was that God never intended to allow divorce, and that if a man were to divorce his wife (and the converse is also true) and marry another they would be committing adultery. The disciples said that if that were true, then it would be better not to marry. Jesus then agreed, meaning that celibacy was better if a person could not make a marital commitment for the rest of their life. He was also saying that not everybody could do it, only those for whom the vocation of celibacy was granted. So there are the two sides, rock and hard place. Either stay married if you can't stay celibate or stay celibate if you can't stay married.
posted on 05.09.2007 5:37 PM14
Actually I'm talking about Corinthians:
http://ebible.org/web/1Cor.htm
Note the use of the word concession. Marriage is not the ideal here, maybe the default but only the default because Paul thinks most people are too weak to not have any se at all.
This has nothing to do with whether the person is willing to make a lifelong committment. It is clearly being presented as second best to what Paul considers the ideal ("I wish that all men were like me"...i.e. unmarried but not sexually active). For those older people with a Catholic background, you may remember the Baltimore Catechism once had a section of choices labeled "Good, Better, Best". I remember the picture of the couple getting married labeled "Good" while the picture of the man taking HOly Vows (and woman likewise becomming a nun) labeled "Best".
Sorry, believe it or not the Bible does not endorse the modern default status of most middle-class Americans as the ideal.
posted on 05.09.2007 8:48 PM15
The concession applies to the previous sentence, meaning that Paul doesn't want to tell married people how to conduct their sexual relations, but he thinks that the overuse of ascetism is not a good thing.
While it may be true that Paul considers the celibate life more spiritually rewarding, he by no means supplants Jesus' teaching, and in fact remains deferential to it, as he says in verse 10. So in truth, the Bible does not endorse either marriage or celibacy as the ideal, but chastity in either case, whichever their vocational calling may be.
posted on 05.09.2007 10:10 PM16
Boonton,
This is from Making Abortion Unthinkable: https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/1747585457?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=3161&store_id=1161
posted on 05.10.2007 4:51 AMScientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this. 1)They change the premise “It’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being” to “It’s wrong to intentionally kill a human person.”
2)The unborn is a human, but not a person.
3)Therefore, it is okay to kill the unborn.
History is strewn with the wreckage of the decision to classify some humans as non-persons…Three justices also held that a Negro descended from slaves had no rights as an American citizen and thus no standing in the court.1 Judith S. Levey and Anges Ggen.eds., The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (New York, Avon Boks: 1983), 241.
“They may be human, but they’re not persons.” What’s the difference between a human and a person?
1)If they permit the killing of a human being who’s not a person, but not the killing of a human who is, then they must be clear on the difference between the two.
2)What are the specific reasons for disqualifying some humans from protection? Why should we accept the notion that some humans are not persons? The distinction seems arbitrary. Humans are personal kinds of beings. In short, we used to discriminate based on skin color and gender. Now we discriminate based on size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. We’ve simply swapped one form of discrimination for another. In sharp contrast, pro-life advocates believe that no human being-regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence-should be excluded from the community of human persons. Our view of humanity is inclusive, wide open to all-especially to those who are small, vulnerable, and defenseless…It is not adequate to disqualify a human’s value simply by labeling her a non-person. All human beings have intrinsic value…Human beings are valuable in themselves, not for anything else they can be or do.
17
1)They change the premise “It’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being” to “It’s wrong to intentionally kill a human person.”
Your premise is that these are scientific statements but they are not. At one time many Christians believed an unborn baby became a human beign at the moment of quickening (when the baby's first kicks could be felt). They believed this was the soul entering the baby's body.
You may dismiss that belief as scientific ignorance but you would be wrong. There is no scientific way to determine when, if ever, a soul enters a body. No DNA has never been shown to be the same as a soul. It very well may be the first kicks. The belief then becomes "It is wrong to intentionally kill a human body that has a soul". While abortion was not accepted as good back then it wasn't equated to murder either (and while we are at it it has never been equated to murder in all of human history as far as I know).
Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.
Scientifically inaccurate, or I should say selective. Yes there are distinctive pieces of a fertilized egg but every sperm and egg is unique in its own way before fertilization. Yes a unique DNA code is created at fertilization but that actual human beign that will result from that code is not. For example, the environment in a mother's womb can determine obesity. If a mother has poor nutrition genes that set a slow metabolism will activate otherwise they won't. The same DNA can create two very different human beigns depending upon which genes get turned on or off. It's science fiction to think even in theory you could produce an image of what an unborn baby will look like at 25 years old from his DNA code.
What you call 'distinct, living, and whole' is as arbitrary as any definition a pro-choicer might use. You simply assume unique DNA is sufficient to fit but you ignore the long process of genes being switched on or off. How about twins that form from a single egg? If a 'distinct, living, and whole' human exists at fertilization where did the two come from? Joe once tried to resolve this by jokingly calling twinning a type of asexual reproduction that we lose very early in life. But that is a joke, humans do not asexually reproduce and a twin's parents are the mother and father; not his or her fellow twin. Yes cells are living but so are sperm and egg cells. AHhh you may counter, sperm and egg cells are doomed to die unless they become fertilized. True but so what? All cells are doomed to eventually die. 'Whole' is equally strange here. At fertilization there are no internal organs, no ability to think, all things we consider things that make us human beigns. In what sense is this 'whole'. In many ways the sperm and egg before fertilization are more whole because their life is independent.
History is strewn with the wreckage of the decision to classify some humans as non-persons…..
Actually there are very few times when humans have classified other humans as non-persons. What you are talking about is classifying some human persons as inherently better than other human persons. In the south, for example, it was illegal to teach blacks how to read during slavery. Why did they make this aw if they didn't think blacks were persons? No one thinks a dog is a person yet would anyone care if you tried to teach one to read? No there was no decision to classify blacks as non-persons (there was to classify them as non-citizens but that's a different topic). They were classified as persons who were slaves and as such they were assumed to have the traits other persons have such as the ability to learn, think, and act on their own volition. This is why numerous special laws and rules were put into place for slaves that were never put into place for creatures people honestly thought of as non-persons such as farm animals, hoarses and beasts of burden.
posted on 05.10.2007 9:24 AM18
Kyl,
That's rich! You managed to get Boonton defending slavery laws in his misguided effort to show that treating everybody including the unborn as persons is arbitrary. Do you think he realizes how goofy that sounds?
Boonton,
posted on 05.10.2007 1:12 PMDid you forget that it has been scientifically proven that embryoes move around long before the mom can feel the movement? The Church teaching has caught up to the scientific basis of the beginning of life. Past Church teachings are past and not applicable to today's standards. Why don't you give up on that Strawman?
19
You managed to get Boonton defending slavery laws in his misguided effort to show that treating everybody including the unborn as persons is arbitrary. Do you think he realizes how goofy that sounds?
I can manage to do many things, except it seems get you to actually read the posts you think you're responding to. I never defended slavery laws. I observed that they were designed to oppress persons and the people that wrote them knew that they were oppressing persons and not non-persons and they acted accordingly.
You would be hard pressed to find a case in history where people honestly believed the people they were oppressing were not persons. So try again. (I have to say, though, your skill in both not paying attention to reality and in twisting other people's words you may find poitics a good career move).
Did you forget that it has been scientifically proven that embryoes move around long before the mom can feel the movement? The Church teaching has caught up to the scientific basis of the beginning of life.
Try again. Sperm cells move around long before there is even an embryo. How can you describe an embryo as the 'beginning of life' when sperm & egg cells are undeniably alive? I thought you guys asserted that you speak clearly and that it's only pro-choicers who manipulate words to trick all us poor folks.
The old belief about souls was not about measuring movement. It was simply a belief that personhood came into beign at a certain moment. The only difference between them and you is that they put that moment in a different place on the line. The problem is that you seem to feel your preferred position has been proven scientifically when all you've done is cherry picked a few facts and arbitrarily declared that proves the case. While those people did not know about DNA they certainly knew that pregnancy didn't begin at the moment of quickening. They certainly knew it was associated with intercourse & while they didn't have observations of sperm and eggs they knew there was a causal relationship. The mechanics of fertilization has been a more recent scientific discovery but that fertilization happens has been known since the beginning of history.
Your attempt to assert that science somehow proves anything about this belief appears to be based on an assumption that they believed having a soul = moving around. But people who are very sick or asleep don't move around yet they believed they had souls so I doubt they were as ignorant as you imagine.
posted on 05.10.2007 1:44 PM20
Right, there's no way to determine that a soul ever enters a body. Of course, that also means that you cannot say the soul is not directing the development of the embryo from the moment of fertilization of the egg by sperm. Consequently, killing a fertilized egg is as gravely immoral as killing any man, woman or child. That is exactly what the Church teaches, and that is exactly what I say. What is so ambiguous about that?
posted on 05.10.2007 9:43 PM21
Of course, that also means that you cannot say the soul is not directing the development of the embryo from the moment of fertilization of the egg by sperm. Consequently, killing a fertilized egg is as gravely immoral as killing any man, woman or child.
You're absolutely right except for the word 'consequently'. The soul doesn't direct anything regarding development. If my soul did my body would be getting younger and better looking rather than older and flabbier (granted I have the advantage of starting from a high base so I have a ways to go ;) ). As far as we can tell development is directed by the environment and genes and is a process...not a moment in time.
More to the point, though, 'consequently' is wrong not because of that but because your argument is in a bad form:
You can't say A isn't true, Consequently B.
Try putting some silly things in for A and B and you'll see the problem.
posted on 05.10.2007 10:59 PM22
Oh, I really think you should apologize for accusing me of defending slave laws.
posted on 05.10.2007 11:41 PM23
After all the things you have accused me of without apology? Don't hold your breath.
Yes, I can, and I did. It's metaphysics, which defies worldly logic, otherwise a whole bunch of atheists and secularists would have long ago given up their religions.
You're out of proportion to a fertilized egg.
posted on 05.11.2007 2:13 AM24
After all the things you have accused me of without apology? Don't hold your breath.
I accused of not paying attention to the stuff you respond too, which is true.... If I didn't do that how would you have known that you owed me an apology? I'll apologize for any untrue things I say about you and you should apologize for untrue things you say about me. That seems fair and I'm even letting you go first!
Yes, I can, and I did. It's metaphysics, which defies worldly logic, otherwise a whole bunch of atheists and secularists would have long ago given up their religions.
Really now, try to remain calm. You're going to hurt yourself .
posted on 05.11.2007 9:26 AM25
Oh, there's a splinter in my eye you say?
posted on 05.11.2007 12:51 PM26
Indeed there is, but feel free to look for a beam in mine. I may even, finally, get you to pay attention to what you respond too! A rare win-win!
posted on 05.11.2007 1:57 PM27
What, and have you dictate the conversation? No way, Jose!
posted on 05.11.2007 3:55 PM28
Very well, then you dictate it. We await your wisdom.
posted on 05.11.2007 9:40 PM29
I'm no Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro son. You'll have to look somewhere else for a dictator.
posted on 05.12.2007 4:07 PM30
well, i have a little more time to surf today...
posted on 05.14.2007 11:25 AM