Evidence for God from Science

Actually it isn't Wiccan where this comes from.
What legal profession may this come out of, and when you can answer that question, you can answer the next one you asked.

faithinware wrote:Actually it isn't Wiccan where this comes from.
What legal profession may this come out of, and when you can answer that question, you can answer the next one you asked.

It's not exclusively Wiccan but it certainly is Wiccan as well.

The question you were asked was not dependent on that assertion. What is the basis you propose for evaluating what is harmful and what is not?

You made the assertion. The onus is upon you to defend it.

It is the in the Doctor's creed my friend.
On the bases if ask a doctor if it is harmful or not.
If a doctor says, its not harmful. Then I would think it's not harmful.

faithinware wrote:It is the in the Doctor's creed my friend.
On the bases if ask a doctor if it is harmful or not.
If a doctor says, its not harmful. Then I would think it's not harmful.

So, all Doctors would hold to the same standard? Or is it one particular doctor you have in mind?

faithinware wrote:Actually it isn't Wiccan where this comes from.
What legal profession may this come out of, and when you can answer that question, you can answer the next one you asked.

My first thought was the Hippocratic oath, but then I found this. You may find it of interest:

http://www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.html

Yes, Doctors are the only legal profession that have "Do no harm".

I never thought Wiccan or Janism was a legal profession.

Could be wrong though.

faithinware wrote:Yes, Doctors are the only legal profession that have "Do no harm".

I never thought Wiccan or Janism was a legal profession.

Could be wrong though.

Do all doctors agree as to what does harm or not?

Doctors will give a patient risks. And statistical valid information. If your talking about treatment of something.

I would agree that chopping someone up, or burning them at the stake, causes harm. Would you?

If your appendix bursts, do you go see your Priest, or do you go see a doctor? Not all doctors agree on everything, just like not all ministers agree on everything. Or all preists. We are human after all. And the correct answer to a question when one doesn't know is "I just don't know". And that is what Dawkins stands for. Integrity.
As a scientist I find that humbling.

Dawkins and humility have little relationship, semantic or otherwise.

I certainly agree that chopping someone up causes harm. Including the unborns. The Hippocratic oath (at least the one in my Greek textbook) prohibited euthanasia and abortion, because those things caused great harm. Why don't I hear the doctors talk about that?

Turgonian wrote:

faithinware wrote:...since humans are animals, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Humans are far more than animals. They have art, religion, reason, morality, and a soul.

My SS class was covering the Doctrine of man when the question about the differences between animals & man came up. I'm not convince from the Bible that Animals will not have an eternal state. Even Soloman in Ecc admits that he does not know. Thus I decided to do some search in the forum for ideas & I rest upon this thread.

I wonder if all the differences we do see between animals & man, I wonder if they are due to our fallen/sinful state. Perhaps if we've not fallen & our relationship with God unbroken, we would not have need of a religion or rituals of worship that so define human. For all you know, the animals may be still in constant fellowship with God just like Adam & Eve was in Eden.
What is morality? It is but the expression of what God has placed into us. This expression may have exhibited itself only after man's eyes was open to the knowledge of good & evil. Why does human feel ashame when we are naked but the animals don't?
What is culture? Can it be define as the manner a group of people chose to live different from others because of how we adapt to our surrounding, our weakness & strength...all of which is a result of the fallen state of man & the world? Would the world have only 1 culture if Adam & Eve have not fallen?

Ultimately, what does it mean when the Bible says that we're created in the image of God. What does it entails? Ability to love? to think? If so, animals exhibit that too.
If I were to draw 3 circles, each one smaller than the other & the smaller is inside the bigger. The biggest being God, inside it the 2nd largest being the image of God & that is man & inside it the smallest being animals. What does the smallest circle contains that is shared by man. What does it not contain that defines a man & what does the largest circle (God) contains that differentiate God with man.
Could not the smallest circle encompass an eternal soul / spirit? While a higher order of intelligence being excluded from it define man as it being the image of God?

I wish I know the answer. As of now, I don't see any clear verses from the bible that state that we won't see animals in heaven. Some argue that there won't be, because Jesus did not die for the animals. Then I would say that perhaps Jesus didn't die for them is due to the fact that the animals have not fallen in the 1st place.

What do u'all think?

ONLY humans were created with a spirit, to respond to God and to love Him freely. The animals had no choice in the matter. No, they do not have morality; they have instinct. 'Morality' consists of 'morals' -- do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, etc.
If animals are like unfallen simple humans, eating them would be very wrong. And it isn't.

Will there be animals in heaven? I think there will be animals on the new earth, in any case -- but still without a soul.