4Questions

id@synapse9.com
PF Henshaw NY NY

2 Whose message is it - Was God ignorant of science when he wrote his book, or was the absence of science in the Bible the fault of his spokesmen? Maybe God was simply overcome by the power of his metaphors, and didn't mention science because science is value free. Perhaps science just doesn't deserve mention in a treatise on the human values? Then again, maybe Genesis was actually state-of-the-art science 3000 years ago, a record of the loftiest ideas of the first humans in history who were our intellectual and spiritual equals. Given any answer to the above, why treat the ancient words as the last word! Maybe the problem is that many current readers of the book don't realize they are themselves transposing all the old words, substituting modern meanings, each and every time they scan the lines, having almost no hope of finding the original meaning by fixating on their own present readings. The obvious solution is for people to read the old books, however they choose, and then speak for themselves. People who imagine otherwise, that they are speaking for some other time or person, are perhaps more in need of deprogramming than worship. Still, what are we to do with the profound thrill of devotion to things beyond ourselves which we can never know?

1 Needless Killing - Are the mass killing of 'enemies' in an unnecessary war and the stockpiling nuclear weapons the moral equivalent of the unnecessary killing of the unborn? I don't think constitutional laws can be written to ban either; they're moral issues. I mainly intend to point out that progressives and conservatives both have high stakes moral positions that are actually quite similar.

Would we accept as a compromise that to allow either you need to have a clear of necessity? Would we compromise on making abortion safe but uncommon in order to eliminate nuclear weapons and clarify the moral requirements for going to war? 11/24/04