IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.net
Tue Oct 29 21:05:50 EST 2002

Bob LeChevalier wrote: 

>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>>>Then you cannot say with certainty that God did indeed choose "ALL
>>>>of mankind" if you read that in a Bible which is not 100% accurate.

>>>Nothing can be said with certainty.  You might be a butterfly dreaming
>>>you are "Jd" and posting on the Internet.  There might be no Bible at
>>>all, and it might be a figment of your imagination, or you might be a
>>>figment of mine.

>>Uncertainty is a law of quantum mechanics devolped by Heisenberg.
>>Scientists operate within the realm of probabilities and therefore
>>restrict themselves from certainty. 

>The "butterfly dreaming" thing came from some ancient Chinese

Heisenberg was German as were many of the guys who developed the
laws of physics.
>>>If the Bible is true, then I see no basis for a claim of selective
>>>grace.  If the Bible is not true, then it may or may not matter, but I
>>>choose to have faith anyway.
>>Faith in something that may not be true?
>If there were proof that it is true, then it would not be faith.

Faith is proof by biblical definition.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

Luther was also German.  He was more concerned with the "substance"
of faith than that of sub-atomic particles.

>>Unbelief which comes by doubt and uncertainty may very well be
>>predicated on the rejection of the existence of truth. Truth also
>>comes via the spoken word, for if it were not so, Jesus would have
>>to had written his thoughts down with pen and ink.  Instead, he

>Unfortunately the spoken word that is not written cannot be testified
>to.  My understanding is that the Talmud that you anti-Semites condemn
>started as nothing other than the remembrance of the spoken word that
>had been passed down for centuries, finally being written down so that
>it might not be lost in the Jewish diaspora.  The Old Testament that
>we have is those oral traditions which was written down at the time of
>the Babylonian captivity, and after the return for the same reason.

That's basically irrelevant.  Down through the centuries God has
sent his men to speak His word.  Lastly God sent His Son, upon whom
they who knew the Talmud passed the death sentence...
"Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your
fathers killed them.  Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds
of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their
sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them
prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and
persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from
the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation." 
- Jesus  (Luke 11:47-50)

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried
out, saying, "Crucify him, crucify him". Pilate saith unto them,
"Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him". The Jews
answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,
because he made himself the Son of God".  (John 19:6-7)

Also it's irrelevant due to the fact that not even all Jews
themselves adhere to the Rabbinical form of  Talmidism any more than
all Christians adhere to the Popery of the Papal decrees.  

Your view that the Talmud is a type of codification of the oral
Torah is off  by one order of magnitude in that the earliest
document of rabbinic literature is the "Mishnah" not the Talmud.

Your problem is that you're uncertain when you should be certain,
and certain when you should be uncertain. 

>>The Hebrews in the wilderness were  preached to as were the folks in
>>Jesus' day...

>Yep.  And some of the oldest parts of the Talmud are the record of
>those teachings (and the rest of the Talmud is the commentary trying
>to figure out what those teachings meant)

>>For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the
>>word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
>>them that heard it.  (Hebrews 4:2)

>Which is why many or even most of the Talmudic interpretations might
>not be acceptable to Christians.

Of course not.  You may not attribute the fact that Christians would
never pass the death sentence upon the Son of God to hindsight
because they wouldn't have passed the death sentence upon the other
prophets that God sent down through the centuries either.  To not
accept traditional Talmudic interpretations is no more a crime than
denouncing Papal decrees.

>>... which should immediately make anyone interested in truth ask the
>>question "what is the gospel?" if they previously thought that the
>>"gospel" is only relevant to NT teachings.  Obviously, the element
>>of certain truth is contained within the phraseology "word preached"
>>and is not limited to NT theology (or scientific review which is
>>limited by uncertainties). Otherwise, how could many of the OT
>>characters have aquired the status of "saints" as is revealed in
>>both OT and NT scriptures?

>I don't think any OT characters are considered "saints".  They are
>considered "patriarchs" or "prophets".

Spoken as a true victim of Popery.  I've heard that some saints get
voted into sainthood by the "council of divines" 500 years or so
after they've died.

>>>>>>>Of course there have been plenty of evangelists who seem to have been
>>>>>>>speaking of God in order to access the till of donations.

>>>>>>Well, you could say the same for "scientists" i.e. they are only
>>>>>>spreading rumors so they can get more and bigger research dollars
>>>>>>from Uncle Sam via the tax payers.

>>>>>If you don't like it, make sure you never use any modern medicine, or
>>>>>a computer, or anything else which would probably not exist without
>>>>>those Uncle Sam Research dollars.

>>>>Well if you don't like evangelists, you don't think the Bible is
>>>>100% accurate,

>>>I didn't say that, but it is correct.
>>Are you certain?

>"don't think" is not a statement of certainty.  I see no reason to
>believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, and considerable reason to
>doubt that it is.

I don't doubt that you do.

>>>>maybe you should swallow copious amounts of pills of every sort
>>>>before your feet hit the floor every morning and patiently wait for
>>>>me to fire up my computer and send you some truth.

>>>I have no particular reason to believe that you have any "truth".

>>Hmmm... let's see.  I'll bet that's one thing you're certain about,



Good.  I doubt that you're ready to kill me just yet.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net