10.13.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:48 am by Administrator
There’s a rather strange claim that is running around the world these days. It’s one that really doesn’t make sense to me, and I can think of only one real reason for someone using it. The claim is basically that science is separate from and does not include the supernatural (more often it is stated in the form of “religion is not science”, but the form I presented is more accurate to the intent). It’s just so very strange that a person could say such a thing. Let me explain.
Science is supposed to be our knowledge of reality, right? It is from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”. It is our understanding of what our world is and how our world works. So, quite simply, if there is a supernatural aspect to the world, then the supernatural should be a part of scientific study.
The above proposal is considered absurd by a sizable number of people. The basic reason behind this is that they do not believe in the supernatural, or they do not want to acknowledge its existence. This sentiment is also the root of the claim that religion is not science. Taking the statement literally, it means that there is no supernatural. Of course, not everyone who uses the claim “religion is not science” believes that there is no supernatural, since many who use it do not really understand its literal meaning. The more naïve lot tend to believe that science and religion just occupy different planes of existence. But is this valid?
Let’s go back to the reason behind the claim. It is a claim of commitment to materialism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the physical realm. One thing really needs to be made clear: This belief is a starting premise. It cannot be reached through empirical evidence, as proving this claim necessitates absolute knowledge that there is no supernatural anywhere, and that no supernatural force has every interacted with the physical realm. Even one instance in which the supernatural has interacted with the physical realm would completely invalidate the premise. However, it is upon this premise that today’s materialistic science bases all of its thinking, and this is a big part of why scientists have such a hard time accepting the supernatural fairly into their study. Doing so would put so many sacred calves in jeopardy, especially the concept of Darwinism. Contrary to what some would say, however, it would not jeopardize such things as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, since these laws were accepted under a scientific frame of mind that there was a supernatural.
Yet has there been any instance of supernatural interaction that would invalidate the premise? Actually, there is such evidence, both direct and implied. The implied includes irreducible complexity of life and the exquisite design found in all areas of nature. The direct includes eyewitness accounts in which individuals as well as masses of people witnessed divine acts and divine presence. There are eyewitness accounts that survive to this day that tell us of the beginning of the world, of a flood from the hand of God that covered the whole world, of a visitation of God a Mount Sinai, of the incarnation of God in the form of man at Bethlehem, and of the raising of the dead in the first century AD. Nonetheless, there are those who refuse to accept this evidence. As it is written:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers dies, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 53:1)
Permalink
10.12.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:23 am by Administrator
I’ve seen in the news lately that the US Congress is now recognizing the Turkish killing of Armenians during WWI as being genocide. Of course, I have done no real research into the matter, and so really have no disagreement with the turn of events one way or another. But it’s interesting where the US is standing in relation to our condemnation of the Ottoman Empire’s actions.
The United States is a leader in a worldwide policy of oppression and mass murder. This campaign has killed more people than every single American war put together. Because of this policy, an average of 46 million people are killed worldwide, with over one million of those being in the US itself (as of 1996). This policy is marketed as part of the package of personal freedom and is called quite deceptively “the right to choose”. Everyone knows what I’m talking about, and by now I’ve already polarized my readers.
It’s obvious what side I’m on from the language I used above. In this entry, I’d like to present the reasons for my position. They are many.
First off, it is often asked, “Is the unborn fetus actually human?” This has a certain ring to it that’s similar to the question of whether or not Africans were human. This is extremely ironic, since those who identify themselves as “pro-choice” also tend to identify themselves with the civil rights movement. As for the actual question, even if there is no easy scientific way to decide, there is a common sense method of settling it. Say there is an old building that is being taken down via controlled demolition. The explosives team is all set and the countdown has already started. Then someone shouts out of nowhere that there is someone still in the building. Immediately, any sane person manning the procedure would cancel the countdown. If there’s any risk at all that the actions are going to kill a human being, no person in his right mind would just blast through anyway. Yet in the case of abortion the argument goes, “Well, we don’t really know sure, so we might as well do it anyway.”
There is also the argument that a fetus is really only an extension of the mother up until some point, and that the point where the child can live on his own, without her support, is the point where that person becomes a human individual. After using the same argument as my first, I must asked how this can be used as any sort of guideline, since scientists have for years been confident that some day we’ll be able to have “test tube” babies that are outside the biological womb from conception to “birth“. One must also take into consideration that a newborn child is unable to survive without parental care. The same goes for severe anemia patients and the frail elderly. If this argument were applied fairly, then involuntary euthanasia should enjoy the same acceptance as abortion.
The vast majority of abortions are carried out because having a child would be a “nuisance”, a “burden”, ect. Why is it then that so many people who are “pro-choice” are also pro-social security and pro-welfare? Why do they want government assistance? Is not someone who benefits from government aid leeching off of society and being a nuisance? Furthermore, if a child is a burden, then why is it all right to kill that child earlier and not later?
It is argued that abortion should be made available to rape victims. To me, this makes no sense. If a crime is committed where someone assaults, say, a street vendor, should the witness be put to death? In the case of abortion, it’s even more than that. Should one of the victims be put to death? Moreover, very very very few of total abortions are a result of this crime.
The very phrase “a woman’s right to choose” is so extremely arrogant and elitist. Why is the child not given a voice in the matter? It sounds very much like the old mentality that Africans were just property. It also ignores the fact that many of those children who are put to death are female. Did those women have the right to choose life?
There was a time when children were routinely sacrificed to various gods for various perceived reasons. In the Old Testament, there is mention of the detestable practice of burning children alive in sacrifice to Moloch. Today, we still have child sacrifices. It’s called abortion. It’s “necessary” in order to ensure women’s liberty. It is a tribute to the goddess of America, the Roman goddess Libertus, after whom the Statue of Liberty is modeled.
Why are so many people blind to the fact that abortion is a form of paganism and tyranny? Why are so many people blind to the fact that the woman’s true right to choose is the right to choose whether or not to go out with that guy? It’s because this is America. In America, liberty has a special meaning, a meaning that lies in the origin of the goddess Libertus. For those curious, check out the website aoreport.com. You’ll either be shocked or humored, but it’s up to you which one it’ll be.
This is only a small sample of the arguments that can be raised against abortion. For further reading see:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2706543/k.AE15/DA375.htm
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
http://creationwiki.org/Abortion
Also check out http://www.aoreport.com/mag/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=47
Permalink
