Religion II

[boxcar]

Be sure to let us know when murders-within-the-womb reaches 0 under a Dimwit president. Besides, this is non sequitur. Presidents don't exercise control over abortions.

The real issue is that abortion became legal by a rogue majority of jurists who exercised judicial tyranny.

So...when you're going to talk about crimes of violence, make certain you factor in abortions. After all, it is a very violent and fatal procedure.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Tell us about all the other religions you "accept" but never practice! (You're sounding like Light who believes in Jesus but never believes him.)

I love Jesus. Are you kidding me? Jesus has been one one my main teachers in this life. But unlike you, it's in real time, not Biblical time. When I am troubled, I ask Jesus and I get answers. Not like in a conversation, but some time will pass, maybe minutes, maybe days, and I suddenly know the answer. Above all Jesus has taught me that if I want to be successful in anything, I must come from the love in my heart. If I come from anger, hate, etc, that's instant Karmic results as it is when one comes from love. Law of attraction. He knows.

The reason I don't believe a lot of that negative stuff you post about Jesus and saying it is in the Bible, is that I actually have enough of a relationship in the here and now with Jesus since my childhood to know he is much wiser and loving than the low life quotes you associate to him. He is wise and loving beyond this world. And your stupidity in believing that such an advanced being can have the standards of an idiot is basically beyond science fiction.

My position is corroborated if you read some of the history of the creation of the Bible and the early Christian Church. You will find that there were many nefarious characters who interjected their own self serving ideas of Jesus and God and used their power to inject it into the Bible. At the same time they rejected other more Jesus friendly texts such as the Gospel of Thomas. Do you really think the Bible is uncontaminated by the narrow minded stupidity of man? It is your duty as a human being and a soul of God to separate the Wheat from the Chaff and have a real relationship with God, because it is happening all the time. It is your consciousness that needs to become aware of it. Your unconscious quoting of a book doesn't cut it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I love Jesus. Are you kidding me? Jesus has been one one my main teachers in this life. But unlike you, it's in real time, not Biblical time. When I am troubled, I ask Jesus and I get answers. Not like in a conversation, but some time will pass, maybe minutes, maybe days, and I suddenly know the answer. Above all Jesus has taught me that if I want to be successful in anything, I must come from the love in my heart. If I come from anger, hate, etc, that's instant Karmic results as it is when one comes from love. Law of attraction. He knows.

The reason I don't believe a lot of that negative stuff you post about Jesus and saying it is in the Bible, is that I actually have enough of a relationship in the here and now with Jesus since my childhood to know he is much wiser and loving than the low life quotes you associate to him. He is wise and loving beyond this world. And your stupidity in believing that such an advanced being can have the standards of an idiot is basically beyond science fiction.

My position is corroborated if you read some of the history of the creation of the Bible and the early Christian Church. You will find that there were many nefarious characters who interjected their own self serving ideas of Jesus and God and used their power to inject it into the Bible. At the same time they rejected other more Jesus friendly texts such as the Gospel of Thomas. Do you really think the Bible is uncontaminated by the narrow minded stupidity of man? It is your duty as a human being and a soul of God to separate the Wheat from the Chaff and have a real relationship with God, because it is happening all the time. It is your consciousness that needs to become aware of it. Your unconscious quoting of a book doesn't cut it.

I'm always conscious when I quote scripture.

So by what OBJECTIVE standard do you distinguish between the real sayings of Jesus and the so-called contaminated words "by the narrow minded stupidity of man"?

And what "standards of an idiot", specifically, have I or others attributed to Jesus?

What amazes me is how small you think your god is. If God had the ability to reveal himself in scripture through his chosen prophets, apostles and his only begotten Son, then how is preserving the integrity of his revelation beyond his power?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The real issue is that abortion became legal by a rogue majority of jurists who exercised judicial tyranny.

Rogue majority? Surveys over the decades since Roe v. Wade indicate that a majority of Americans support abortion rights at least in some circumstances. I suspect that if we had a nation wide referendum abortion on demand would pass.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Rogue majority? Surveys over the decades since Roe v. Wade indicate that a majority of Americans support abortion rights at least in some circumstances. I suspect that if we had a nation wide referendum abortion on demand would pass.

A non sequitur. The fact remains is that Congress did not write legislation to make abortion a legal activity. Tyrannical, activist jurists did by creating a law out of air.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

Not I or Actor have demeaned anyone but boxcar and his pseudo-scientific pile dreams. Why has he demeaned me for accepting other religions?
Why does he venture into subjects he does not know?

You are fond of false equivalencies

I was not talking about you or Actor. I was talking about radical elements on the left that hate religious people.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

You tend to believe traditional conservative religious households "produce demonstrably superior result" although the USA in general has lowered all violent crimes since the advent of a more non religious set of beliefs.

I believe whatever the data says, but I insist on data that is controlled so I can isolate the impact of whatever it is I am interested in.

I have this debate over stats everywhere I post when controversial issues come up, including horse racing. Most of the time, there are a lot of factors contributing to a result. If you see some trend, some of the factors could be positive and others negative within that trend. Unless you can isolate them you can't know the individual impacts.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fact remains is that Congress did not write legislation to make abortion a legal activity.

The rule of law is that anything not forbidden is permitted.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Tyrannical ...

Tyranny involves oppression. Jane Roe (Roe v. Wade) was the one oppressed.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... activist ...

Activist? The judges did not seek the case. It was brought to them.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... jurists did by creating a law out of air.

Jurists create law all the time. It comes with the job. You can't avoid it. The facts of the Roe v. Wade required the court to decide when life begins. Their decision was that life begins when the unborn child is able to live outside the womb.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The rule of law is that anything not forbidden is permitted.
Tyranny involves oppression. Jane Roe (Roe v. Wade) was the one oppressed.
Activist? The judges did not seek the case. It was brought to them.
Jurists create law all the time. It comes with the job. You can't avoid it. The facts of the Roe v. Wade required the court to decide when life begins. Their decision was that life begins when the unborn child is able to live outside the womb.

Murder is forbidden under the rule of law.

Their decision as to when life begins was arbitrary and unscientific to boot. If life begins only outside the womb, then why do so many still still have late term restrictions in place?

And jurists' duty is to interpret law, not create it. The writing of legislation is the job of duly elected officials, usually known as congress.

Finally, look up the definition of "activist". It doesn't require that jurists be ambulance chasing-types.

All human lives within the womb are the ones who ultimately are oppressed.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Murder is forbidden under the rule of law.

So one of the questions they had to answer was "is abortion murder?"

Originally Posted by boxcar

Their decision as to when life begins was arbitrary and unscientific to boot.

How so?

Originally Posted by boxcar

If life begins only outside the womb, ...

There decision was that life begins when the fetus has the ability to live outside the womb. Not that it be outside the womb.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... then why do so many ...

So many what?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And jurists' duty is to interpret law, not create it.

Whenever any law has more than one possible interpretation those on the losing side will accuse the court of creating law. It is often impossible to interpret law without creating it.

Do you have the right to be represented by a lawyer if you are the defendant in a criminal case. Yes, you do. If you cannot afford a lawyer do you still have that right. For almost 200 years the answer to that question was "no". The right to a lawyer applied only to those who could afford a lawyer. In the 1950s the Supreme Court changed that. Now you have the right to a lawyer and if you cannot afford one the state has to pay for one. See the Miranda warning.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The writing of legislation is the job of duly elected officials, usually known as congress.

And the job of interpreting those laws is the job of the courts.

[Actor]

I will be off line until March 30. I'm going to Washington to participate in the march.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was not talking about you or Actor. I was talking about radical elements on the left that hate religious people.

Anyone you care to point out? You realize for every so-called progressive you can name, there are many more radical literal minded "Christians" who seem to be mad at everything. For instance the 2,000 year old wrong Christian meme that the Jews murdered Christ. I am Jewish and experienced that prejudice both traveling in the US, and right here on this thread. by guess who?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So one of the questions they had to answer was "is abortion murder?"

How so?

There decision was that life begins when the fetus has the ability to live outside the womb. Not that it be outside the womb.

So many what?

Whenever any law has more than one possible interpretation those on the losing side will accuse the court of creating law. It is often impossible to interpret law without creating it.

Do you have the right to be represented by a lawyer if you are the defendant in a criminal case. Yes, you do. If you cannot afford a lawyer do you still have that right. For almost 200 years the answer to that question was "no". The right to a lawyer applied only to those who could afford a lawyer. In the 1950s the Supreme Court changed that. Now you have the right to a lawyer and if you cannot afford one the state has to pay for one. See the Miranda warning.

And the job of interpreting those laws is the job of the courts.

You've already contradicted yourself. You said earlier that a job of the courts is to also make law, i.e. legislate from the bench. If you don't understand the distinction between interpreting what is clearly there in the law and reading ideological presuppositions into the law to make up things that are not there, then shame on you.

This conversation is over. I'm done with your duplicity and your ignorance.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Anyone you care to point out? You realize for every so-called progressive you can name, there are many more radical literal minded "Christians" who seem to be mad at everything. For instance the 2,000 year old wrong Christian meme that the Jews murdered Christ. I am Jewish and experienced that prejudice both traveling in the US, and right here on this thread. by guess who?

The pot calling the kettle black. No one exceeds your bigotry.

And there is no such "wrong Christian meme". The bible is crystal clear everywhere that the Jews delivered Jesus up to the Romans to have him unjustly murdered.

Acts 7:52-53
52 Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."
NIV

Acts 2:23-24
23 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
NASB

Acts 3:14-16
14 "But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
NASB

Acts 4:10a
10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified...
NASB

Acts 5:30
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
NASB

And a host of other scriptures as well. And all the above words and accusations were leveled by Jews against their own!

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't magically make this inconvenient truth disappear.

[boxcar]

This following article was written by a scientist who explains why quantum mechanics does NOT violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Does Quantum Mechanics Invalidate the Law of Non-contradiction? Part 2

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...iction-part-2/

Key words in article is "observed", "observation" and also how a particle changes form into a wave.

The quick answer is: if a particle could actually be observed as A and not A at the same time, that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Since that cannot be done, even in the quantum world, there is no violation!

And,

When the quantum system is observed, it is observed in the context of a particle with specific location and it can only be A or not A, it can’t be both. But when the system is not being observed, it is not in the form of a point like particle, it is in a wave form where the quanta of energy is spread across the possible states as a wave. It is in the wave form until it is observed. The observation collapses the wave to a point like particle where the law of non-contradiction is also observed (like popping a whole balloon by a pin at only one point on the surface of the balloon).

And the writer then offers this excellent analogy:

It is like saying a potato is mashed potatoes, French fries, and a baked potato all at the same time, when it is not any of them when it is a potato in the garden. The potato has the potential to be any of those forms of potato, but isn’t any of them until one takes the potato and does something with it. The same thing applies in the quantum world. A wave has the potential to be observed at slit A or slit B (since a quanta of energy must be observed at one point), but while it is still a wave, it cannot be observed at both slits at the same time because an observation would cause it to no longer be a wave, but a particle.

In principle, all this applies equally to the Casimir Effect.