Infanticide

[RCSaunders]

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian. Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

What a whopper!

First, the idea that scientific, "laws," are some kind of rules or mandates imposed on reality which it is required to obey is complete mystic nonsense taught by religion. Scientific, "laws," are the principles by which the nature of physical entities are understood and the description of how those entities behave determined by their own nature. Nothing makes them behave the way the do, they behave they way they do because they are what they are. There are no Mexwell's demons, no law giving spirits or beings dictating how reality must behave. That is pure mystic nonsense,

Second, there is no such thing as, "the scientific method." There is no one way any science must be done, because every aspect of science deals with different aspects of the physical world and it is the nature of what is being studied that determines what method will successfully discover the nature of that being studied. The methods of discovery in the fields mechanics, dynamics, electronics, chemistry, and biology, beyond the fact there must be actual observable evidence and nothing can be just assumed, the methods used will be totally different.

The so-called, "Christian," credited with the so-called, "scientific method," is usually Francis Bacon, (though Rene Descartes is also sometimes credited with formulating the, "scientific method") and the method referred to is called, "induction," which is not a form of reason or scientific investigation at all, only a tool that can be used as part of a scientific investigation. It is nothing more than observing that some kinds of phenomena are frequently observed repeating (the sun comes up every dry) or in close conjunction (water turns to ice whenever it is very cold), suggesting there is a reason for the repeated events or some relationship between the two phenomena. In the entire history of science no scientific principle or fact has been discovered or established by means of induction. As for bacon, there is not a single scientific fact or discovery attributed to him.

Science was being done successfully long before Bacon was born. Bacon's book was not published until 1620 and some of the most profound scientific discoveries in history were made before or contemporaneously with Bacon before anyone ever heard of his so-called scientific method.

Christians will say just anything to put over their absurd views.

[attofishpi]

Christians will say just anything to put over their absurd views.

Well. At least bacon was named after him.

[RCSaunders]

Christians will say just anything to put over their absurd views.

Well. At least bacon was named after him.

Yes, I suppose there is that. Perhaps we should refer to him as the pork belly of science suitable for a good roasting. I'll start with one of his Christian virtues, arranging to have a political opponent, and his wife, executed. Christians refer to that kind of thing as justice. Their God just loves people who do things like that which is why David, who arranged to have his best friend killed so he could take his wife is called "a man after God's own heart."

[attofishpi]

Christians will say just anything to put over their absurd views.

Well. At least bacon was named after him.

Yes, I suppose there is that. Perhaps we should refer to him as the pork belly of science suitable for a good roasting. I'll start with one of his Christian virtues, arranging to have a political opponent, and his wife, executed. Christians refer to that kind of thing as justice. Their God just loves people who do things like that which is why David, who arranged to have his best friend killed so he could take his wife is called "a man after God's own heart."

Whose David? Yes, it puzzles me how these likes think they can refer to themselves as Christian, after what Christ went through to promote the concept of love.

[RCSaunders]

Well. At least bacon was named after him.

Yes, I suppose there is that. Perhaps we should refer to him as the pork belly of science suitable for a good roasting. I'll start with one of his Christian virtues, arranging to have a political opponent, and his wife, executed. Christians refer to that kind of thing as justice. Their God just loves people who do things like that which is why David, who arranged to have his best friend killed so he could take his wife is called "a man after God's own heart."

Whose David?

Glad you asked.

David was the second king of united Israel described in I Samual and I Chronicles in the Old Testament. When the kingdom was taken form Saul (the first king) and given to David, Samuel said, "But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.” [I Samuel 13:14] Paul repeats the description [Acts 13:22] “After removing Saul, he [God] made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.‘”

Here are some of the things David, doing everything God wanted him to do, did:

1.He had multiple wives and children by them all, including Ahinoam;, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and of course Bathsheba, whose husband he had killed.

2. He was a muderer from the beginning of his career, beginning with killing the Philistine champion, Goliath going on to become a warrior king.

3. He waged continuous invasive war and aggression against the Geshurites, Girzites, Amalekites, Jerahmeelites, Kenites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Philistines and exercised what is today called ethnic cleansing and extreme ethnic prejudice against anyone not of the Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (Israel) bloodline.

Those are the highlights. That's the kind of man the God of Christians regards as one after His own heart. Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

[Age]

Is this like "cut and run"?

If it pleases you to think so: do.

Okay. But I am NOT 'thinking' either NOR any way. I was just asking you a CLARIFYING QUESTION.

BUT, by the way, you are NOT answering the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and asked, to you.

SEE, what you WERE DOING, and are AGAIN NOW DOING, is what 'you' ACCUSED "another" of DOING.

So, if you do NOT answer the ACTUALLY CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to 'you' here, then some would SEE and SAY that this is, in fact, "cutting and running" AS WELL.

[Age]

Conscious evolution is a nonsense term. The scale at which evolution occurs is exponentially larger than the scale at which human activity can produce changes, even as we ramp up our ability to make exponential changes. Also, we don't have remotely close to the knowledge required to choose how to evolve effectively.

'Effectively' is a word in relation to some particular 'thing'.

If the word 'effectively' here, was let us say, in relation to living to our True POTENTIAL, then the knowledge for this just comes from learning and KNOWING what 'our' True PURPOSE in 'Life' REALLY IS. Which, by the way, comes about VERY QUICKLY, SIMPLY, and EASILY once one LEARNS HOW-TO FIND this 'knowledge'.

But, for example, if people want to evolve 'effectively' into becoming Truly SELFISH and GREEDY 'beings' then the knowledge of this is just KEEP DOING what 'it' is that 'you', adult human beings, have BEEN DOING, hitherto, when this is being written.

[Age]

I'm sorry, Nick: I must have missed the expression "conscious evolution" in the passage. Maybe you'll help me out.

Conscious evolution isn't a biblical term but the idea it represents is. Consider 1 Corinthians 15. Paul describes the evolution of the natural body into the spiritual body or a higher quality of being. Natural Man doesn't understand what respect for life means. Yet It would be natural for spiritual Man

The difference, Nick, is that you suppose there IS such a thing as a spiritual man who is secular. The Bible, by contrast, refers to all such as "dead in trespasses and sins," as in Ephesians 2. It is only those who receive Christ who even have a live spiritual nature, according to Paul.

There is no "natural" evolution into the "spiritual."

So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'one' get to or into 'spiritual' if NOT through a 'natural' process?

There is also no Christless "enlightement."

LOL Talk about a PRIME EXAMPLE and absolute PROOF of just how BLIND one is when they are TRAPPED under a BELIEF.

That's where the Gnosticism goes wildly off the Biblical course.

'you' say this, "immanual can", as though the bible is the ONLY source of true, right, and correct knowledge in the WHOLE of the Universe. Which is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to WATCH and OBSERVE.

[Age]

Age

So, to you, the WHOLE POINT of this thread called "Infanticide" is to SHOW and REVEAL that 'you', personally, do NOT KNOW what 'respect for life' ACTUALLY MEANS, although it is 'you' who goes on about 'respect for life' as though you DID KNOW, correct?

The purpose of philosophy

LOOK AT just how QUICKLY these people, back in those days, would 'TRY TO' TURN 'things' AROUND.

I ASKED 'you' what the POINT (or purpose) of 'this thread' IS?

'you', VERY QUICKLY, TURN 'this' AROUND TO; What the purpose of 'philosophy' IS.

isn't to argue answers but rather how to find and contemplate the essential questions.

What the word 'philosophy' IS, MEANS, or REFERS TO, is DIFFERENT for EVERY one. Therefore, THIS MEANS, that 'What the purpose of 'philosophy' IS, to 'you', is DIFFERENT to someone else, like 'me', for example. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

HOW TO FIND the ESSENTIAL ANSWERS just comes from being Honest, Open, Wanting to change, for the better. So, this is HOW to FIND the ESSENTIAL ANSWERS. As to HOW TO FIND, or HOW TO, CONTEMPLATE the so-called "essential questions", then this comes from just asking the QUESTIONS, which ARE, OBVIOUSLY, 'ESSENTIAL'.

This goes against the grain for those with imagined answers and why Socrates had to be killed. The question of the thread concerns respect for life.

Considering you use the 'Man' word a far bit, would you be "Man" enough to SAY, what 'The question of the thread' ACTUALLY IS?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, 'you' have ALREADY CLEARLY SHOWN and PROVED True that do NOT even KNOW what 'respect for life' even MEANS, nor REFERS TO.

Like Socrates I also admit that "I know nothing" concerning this great question.

WHAT 'question'?

Are you even AWARE that there is NO 'question' here "concerning the respect for life"?

The reason 'you' KNOW NOTHING regarding this IMAGINED "great question" is because 'you' have NOT YET even ASKED 'A question' here.

ALSO, if 'you' REALLY ARE "like socrates", (which you would LOVE TO BELIEVE), then WHY do 'you' NOT just be Honest and answer the question I posed to 'you' here, in this reply of yours, that 'you' REALLY do NOT KNOW 'what respect for life' ACTUALLY MEANS?

If you CLAIM 'you' also ADMIT 'you know NOTHING', then 'you' would have NO issue AT ALL in ADMITTING that 'you' KNOW NOTHING in regards to 'respect for life'. But, you appear to NOT be ABLE to ADMIT 'this'. Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN WHY?

Yet it is possible for people including me to "understand" why we are as we are and unable to have respect for life. You prefer to argue what you believe you know and I find it more beneficial to admit I don't know.

LOL And you are BLIND.

I do NOT 'believe' NOR 'disbelieve' ANY 'thing' here.

I have NOT be 'arguing' 'for' NOR 'against' ANY 'thing' here.

I have just been CHALLENING 'you' on what 'you' BELIEVE and CLAIM by just asking 'you' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which 'you' DEFLECT from answering, as PROVED True AGAIN, in this reply, and which 'you' PERCEIVE is 'arguing 'for' some 'thing'.

In "Apology," Plato describes Socrates at his trial in 399 B.C.E. where Socrates tells the court how his friend Chaerephon asked the Delphic Oracle if anyone was wiser than himself. The oracle's answer — that no human was wiser than Socrates — left him bewildered, so he embarked on a quest to find someone wiser than himself in order to prove the oracle wrong.

This is what you don't appreciate. Philosophy as the love of wisdom is not about answers but the quality of questions.

SO, ANSWER the QUESTIONS posed to 'you'.

if 'you' did Honestly, then 'you' and "others" will SEE just how MUCH 'quality' was in those questions of MINE.

'Philosophy' of the 'love-of-becoming wiser' is just ACHIEVED through answering Honestly, which involves just answering, 'I do NOT know', if that is the Honest answer to ANY question posed to them.

[Age]

...the spirit brought to Man by Jesus' life and death.

Except the Spirit was not "brought to Man." The Spirit is for those who love Christ.

The Spirit is for EVERY one, and NOT just for those insignificant and little miserable number of human beings, who have existed since some HUMAN baby who was named and labeled "jesus christ" was born. And, to then ASSUME and/or BELIEVE thee Spirit is ONLY 'for' the even SMALLER number of 'you', human beings, who 'FOLLOW' and 'BELIEVE' in just one of the MANY religions' named and labeled the "christian" religion, is just TOTAL ABSURDITY and LUNACY to say the least.

"Man," considered as a species, is a lost cause, apart from salvation.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If only 'you' KNEW.

If only 'you' KNEW.

[Age]

...the spirit brought to Man by Jesus' life and death.

Except the Spirit was not "brought to Man." The Spirit is for those who love Christ.

"Man," considered as a species, is a lost cause, apart from salvation.

Humanity is on the verge of verifying that religion and in this case the essence of Christianity is complimentary with science. It is far more extraordinary then just speaking of belief without understanding why we don't believe. Man is not lost. The human condition, the result of what is called original sin, has corrupted Man. Man can awaken and become normal but needs the help of the spirit. The Christ has returned to his origin.

ALL religions are 'complimentary' WITH 'science'.

In Fact ALL 'things' is 'complimentary' WITH "them" "selves".

It is only through UNIFYING ALL 'things' together, that thee One Truth can be FOUND, and SEEN.

And, it is BELIEFS, which is what STOPS and PREVENTS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth from being SEEN, and FOUND.

[Age]

No need for you to fret about going to hell NA, because it will be more like heaven to the likes of you (and you won't even need to remember your 'safe word' because you will be dead anyway )

When Jesus said "forgive them for they know not what they do", no truer words were ever spoken.

This is PROVED True by 'Me' just asking 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, the 'essential' question, 'WHY do 'you' do what 'you' do?'

Are ANY of 'you' able to answer this question, properly and correctly?

If yes, then WILL 'you'?

Oh, and by the way, WHEN 'you' discover, and/or learn, WHY 'you' do what 'you' do, (which, by the way, is REALLY SIMPLE and EASY to learn or discover), then 'you' will CLEARLY SEE and UNDERSTAND what was Truly MEANT and INTENDED by, "forgive them for they know not what they do".

[Immanuel Can]

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian. Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

What a whopper!

You don't know? Go and look up "Francis Bacon" -- the scientist, not the painter of the same name. You'll find that even secular sources say it was he, a Christian" who invented the scientific method. That's not even questionable, historically. As for the rest, it's known formally as Whitehead's Hypothesis. As one commenter puts it, For him [i.e. A.N. Whitehead] God is primarily the principle, i.e., source, of "limitation," and thereby God is the "principle of concretion." God as this principle, in Whitehead’s words, "constitutes the metaphysical stability whereby the actual process exemplifies general principles of metaphysics, and attains the end proper to specific types of emergent order" (PR 54/64). And, as he has alternatively put it, God is that "in the world, in virtue of which there is physical ‘law’" (PR 402/ 434).

Second, there is no such thing as, "the scientific method."

Now, that's pretty funny.

There is no one way any science must be done,

Yeah, actually there is.

The discipline and sequence of hypothesis-test-observations-conclusions is what makes science real science, and not guessing or superstitition. And it doesn't matter what field you refer to in this: the method must be used, or it's not, by definition "science."

the methods used will be totally different.

I can see you don't even know what "scientific method" means, when you say this. Yes, chemistry uses one kind of test, and physics another, and so on. But all of these tests have to follow the epistemological procedure known as "the scientific method," or they are simply not scientific, not part of the discipline of science, and not its product -- even when they may sometimes turn out, by accident, to be "right" in some way.

Science was being done successfully long before Bacon was born.

Actually, it wasn't. There were technologies and inventions of various kinds, traditions, and so forth. But there was no distinct methodology to make "science" distinct from these things. The field lacked it's core epistemological "rules".

If you understand what the field of "science" actually means, you know that.

[Age]

Humanity is on the verge of verifying that religion and in this case the essence of Christianity is complimentary with science.

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian.

LOL 'you' are CLEARLY BLINDED by 'your' BELIEFS "immanual can".

Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Man is not lost.

God says he is. And unless he knows he is, he will not know salvation. People who don't believe they're sick don't seek a remedy. And people who don't know they're lost see no need for the Saviour.

SO, are 'you', "immanual can", 'lost' or 'saved'?

SEE, by 'your' OWN so-called "logic" here if 'you' are 'saved', then 'you' BELIEVE 'you' are NOT 'sick' NOR 'lost', and so 'you' do NOT seek a so-called 'remedy'. And then, 'you' are NOT 'sick' NOR 'lost' have NO need for some so-called "Savior". Or, if 'you' are 'lost' or 'sick', then 'you' SURELY do NOT KNOW what 'you' NEED.

So, what is 'it' 'you' ARE, (AGAIN?) "immanual can"?

[Age]

Humanity is on the verge of verifying that religion and in this case the essence of Christianity is complimentary with science.

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian. Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

Man is not lost.

God says he is. And unless he knows he is, he will not know salvation. People who don't believe they're sick don't seek a remedy. And people who don't know they're lost see no need for the Saviour.

Simone Weil has become known as the Patron Saint of the Outsiders. This means that there are a great many who have felt the depth an purpose of Christianity but doesn't find it in the corruptions of the church. These people know they are sick and starved for meaning. They need what the church as a whole doesn't offer. It isn't that they leave the church but that the church has left them. You may say that the person interested in Christianity must believe. But in realty the Christian must understand. But since we don't know what understanding means or what respect for life means, belief in idolatry means nothing.

But 'we' do KNOW what 'understanding' and what 'respect for life' MEANS.

It is ONLY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, who did NOT know what these two 'things' REALLY ARE.

But then there were a LOT of 'things' that 'you', adult human beings, did NOT YET KNOW, back in those days.

The apostles asked Jesus to increase our faith. Apparently they didn't have it so how deep was their belief? Faith IN Christ is easy.

What does this even mean, to you?

But it is completely different than the faith OF Christ capable of a few. But who knows the difference?

Do 'you' KNOW the 'difference'?

If yes, then what IS the 'difference', EXACTLY?