The Church's position on abortion...

[_subgenius]

Why do you avoid expressing explicitly wether or not you believe the Church's version of events vis a vis the Flood?

you are off topic, which you like to be when you are shown to be incorrect, disingenuous, or just plain old wrong.

[_Drifting]

Why do you avoid expressing explicitly wether or not you believe the Church's version of events vis a vis the Flood?

you are off topic, which you like to be when you are shown to be incorrect, disingenuous, or just plain old wrong.

Oh my God, you're scared of publicly disagreeing with the Church's position on the flood!

[_bcuzbcuz]

"cannot cure the world's ills" ? exactly how do you recognize a world's ill in order to cure it?

you spoke about mutual cooperation and ...how does that equate to "Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part" ?
and your admission of being "I was obviously unbalanced, emotionally wrought and illogical." seems to contradict any notion of you "doing [your] part"...unless the mutually cooperative part you were playing, in order to have society "work", was to be unbalanced, distraught, and illogical.

That I contradict myself is nothing new. For years I held diametrically opposed concepts of reality while I was a faithful LDS member. My taking a step back from Mormonism in no way cured me of that trait.

My measuring stick of what constitutes "world ills" was fostered and nurtured during my growing up in the church. While I no longer see any "purpose" or "meaning to life" that a Mormon or Christian would call valid, I still strive to create meaning in my personal actions. To me, killing another human is wrong, war is insanity, nothing more than murder condoned by the state, yet I have no problem with medically approved abortion. I ardently oppose the death penalty but signed a DNR for my brain damaged foster child. I took care of, nurtured and loved that same child for 15 years and when I die no one will remember nor will it matter that I did so.

Now I have a question for you. If you were to be assured that absolutely nothing you did mattered at all or had any consequence outside of the consequences of the law, would that change any of your behaviors or manners in dealing with your fellow humans?

[_bcuzbcuz]

for example Sclaiger and Petavius established a chronology of the ancient world, as was all the fad in the Renaissance...but it was not without flaw and dispute.//Arcilla and Houdin for example establisjed that many ancient texts (which only dealt with one or two centuries) may have been fraudulent. This is an interesting comparison to make amongst those who claim that the "ancient text" of the Bible is surely a myth but other "ancient texts" surely are not....this notion of created and falsified ancient history was even supported by Sir Isaac Newton (read "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended").
The fact remains that the chronology put forth by Scaliger and Petavius has never been independently verified, and yet is still assumed mostly correct.
We see this controversy and rather inaccurate chronology as never being really unified amongst the scholars...see Morozov, Formenko, Blair, and Kammeier

Scaliger and Petavius worked with a very incomplete material.

In fact when one looks at the comparison method of dynasty you see such similarites that one can not reasonably stick with the traditional view of chronolgy (well, one can if they suffer from the same myopia as Drift). This methods clearly confirms that ancient history consists of multiple recounts of the same events scattered in many locations at various times.
see the following example of this:
[/quote]

These comparisons are nothing more than unscaled imaginary lines. They're even worse than the chronologies they claim to disprove.

I remember a grade 10 Socials class where the teacher asked how we would know a coin, dated 44 BC, was a fake. The answer is as equally clear as when coins depicting a certain emperor are discovered, they do not prove the date of the event but the earliest "possible" date of the event. Sort of like when I find a 1943 zinc coated U.S. penny, it does not mean I am living in 1943.

The earliest coin finds in Crete, which I have photos of, are easily dated. They don't need outside correlation, they simply are. Similarily, pottery found in digs, deeper than the coins, are therefore older, especially when the type of pottery, the methods used, as well as the art and paints used, are of a lesser technological skill levels, dating is not dependent upon someones assembly of a chronology but simply the finds themselves.

The finds on Crete go back to more than 5000 BCE. I have photos of early stone age tools, and then bronze age tools, along with swords and daggers, with gold handles that date to 2700 BCE. The chronologies of Scaliger and Petavius fade in comparison.

[_bcuzbcuz]

for example Sclaiger and Petavius established a chronology of the ancient world, as was all the fad in the Renaissance...but it was not without flaw and dispute.//Arcilla and Houdin for example establisjed that many ancient texts (which only dealt with one or two centuries) may have been fraudulent. This is an interesting comparison to make amongst those who claim that the "ancient text" of the Bible is surely a myth but other "ancient texts" surely are not....this notion of created and falsified ancient history was even supported by Sir Isaac Newton (read "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended").
The fact remains that the chronology put forth by Scaliger and Petavius has never been independently verified, and yet is still assumed mostly correct.
We see this controversy and rather inaccurate chronology as never being really unified amongst the scholars...see Morozov, Formenko, Blair, and Kammeier

Scaliger and Petavius worked with a very incomplete material.

In fact when one looks at the comparison method of dynasty you see such similarites that one can not reasonably stick with the traditional view of chronolgy (well, one can if they suffer from the same myopia as Drift). This methods clearly confirms that ancient history consists of multiple recounts of the same events scattered in many locations at various times.
see the following example of this:
[/quote]

These comparisons are nothing more than unscaled imaginary lines. They're even worse than the chronologies they claim to disprove.

I remember a grade 10 Socials class where the teacher asked how we would know a coin, dated 44 BC, was a fake. The answer is as equally clear as when coins depicting a certain emperor are discovered, they do not prove the date of the event but the earliest "possible" date of the event. Sort of like when I find a 1943 zinc coated U.S. penny, it does not mean I am living in 1943.

The earliest coin finds in Crete, which I have photos of, are easily dated. They don't need outside correlation, they simply are. Similarily, pottery found in digs, deeper than the coins, are therefore older, especially when the type of pottery, the methods used, as well as the art and paints used, are of a lesser technological skill levels, dating is not dependent upon someones assembly of a chronology but simply the finds themselves.

The finds on Crete go back to more than 5000 BCE. I have photos of early stone age tools, and then bronze age tools, along with swords and daggers, with gold handles that date to 2700 BCE. The chronologies of Scaliger and Petavius fade in comparison.