Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Analyze Chromosomes 2 and 4: Discover Largest "Gene Deserts"
National Human Genome Research Institute ^ | 06 April 2005 | Staff

Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes, researchers supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reported today.

In a study published in the April 7 issue of the journal Nature, a multi-institution team, led by [load of names deleted, but available in the original article].

"This analysis is an impressive achievement that will deepen our understanding of the human genome and speed the discovery of genes related to human health and disease. In addition, these findings provide exciting new insights into the structure and evolution of mammalian genomes," said Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of NHGRI, which led the U.S. component of the Human Genome Project along with the DOE.

Chromosome 4 has long been of interest to the medical community because it holds the gene for Huntington's disease, polycystic kidney disease, a form of muscular dystrophy and a variety of other inherited disorders. Chromosome 2 is noteworthy for being the second largest human chromosome, trailing only chromosome 1 in size. It is also home to the gene with the longest known, protein-coding sequence - a 280,000 base pair gene that codes for a muscle protein, called titin, which is 33,000 amino acids long.

One of the central goals of the effort to analyze the human genome is the identification of all genes, which are generally defined as stretches of DNA that code for particular proteins. The new analysis confirmed the existence of 1,346 protein-coding genes on chromosome 2 and 796 protein-coding genes on chromosome 4.

As part of their examination of chromosome 4, the researchers found what are believed to be the largest "gene deserts" yet discovered in the human genome sequence. These regions of the genome are called gene deserts because they are devoid of any protein-coding genes. However, researchers suspect such regions are important to human biology because they have been conserved throughout the evolution of mammals and birds, and work is now underway to figure out their exact functions.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002.

In the latest analysis, researchers searched the chromosome's DNA sequence for the relics of the center (centromere) of the ape chromosome that was inactivated upon fusion with the other ape chromosome. They subsequently identified a 36,000 base pair stretch of DNA sequence that likely marks the precise location of the inactived centromere. That tract is characterized by a type of DNA duplication, known as alpha satellite repeats, that is a hallmark of centromeres. In addition, the tract is flanked by an unusual abundance of another type of DNA duplication, called a segmental duplication.

"These data raise the possibility of a new tool for studying genome evolution. We may be able to find other chromosomes that have disappeared over the course of time by searching other mammals' DNA for similar patterns of duplication," said Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., director of the Washington University School of Medicine's Genome Sequencing Center and senior author of the study.

In another intriguing finding, the researchers identified a messenger RNA (mRNA) transcript from a gene on chromosome 2 that possibly may produce a protein unique to humans and chimps. Scientists have tentative evidence that the gene may be used to make a protein in the brain and the testes. The team also identified "hypervariable" regions in which genes contain variations that may lead to the production of altered proteins unique to humans. The functions of the altered proteins are not known, and researchers emphasized that their findings still require "cautious evaluation."

In October 2004, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium published its scientific description of the finished human genome sequence in Nature. Detailed annotations and analyses have already been published for chromosomes 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, X and Y. Publications describing the remaining chromosomes are forthcoming.

The sequence of chromosomes 2 and 4, as well as the rest of the human genome sequence, can be accessed through the following public databases: GenBank (www.ncbi.nih.gov/Genbank) at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI); the UCSC Genome Browser (www.genome.ucsc.edu) at the University of California at Santa Cruz; the Ensembl Genome Browser (www.ensembl.org) at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute; the DNA Data Bank of Japan (www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp); and EMBL-Bank (www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/index.html) at EMBL's Nucleotide Sequence Database. [Links in original article.]

NHGRI is one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NHGRI Division of Extramural Research supports grants for research and for training and career development at sites nationwide. Additional information about NHGRI can be found at www.genome.gov.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: chromosomes; crevolist; dna; evolution; genetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-398 next last
To: Thatcherite; sakic

Yes. I accept God for who the Bible says He is, and love Him for it. He is not only infinitely merciful, but infinitley just. I agree with the U.S. Supreme court that capital punishment for certain juveniles is necessary (though He also reveals in Ezekiel 33 that He does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from thier ways and repent.. In the part of the law you name, it is not clear to me that the "children" to be stoned to death are not in their 20s anyway.

Is that any less just than our current system that takes childern from parents just for spanking them in public? That does not allow the parents to discipline an unruly child so they grow up wild and police have to shoot them later?

The "slaves" were not the sort of slaves that Americans once kidnapped from Africa. A better translation would be "bond servatns". After 7 years they were supposed to be let go, unless they decided they wanted to stay with their master for life. There are a lot of people out there today who are too plain stupid to successfully navigate the modern world on their own. They would be better off if they attached themselves to some well to do person and became their household bond servant.

The reason this God does not seem cruel or harsh is 1) I am not brainwashed by liberal propaganda and 2) Jesus took the penalty for sin that I deserved. God is not strict on us but lax on Himself.


301 posted on 04/15/2005 7:27:01 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
This is a tired argument and your "theory" is just that. Wild speculation and innuendo, assuming this that the other thing draw conclusions only to what you want to believe.

So, I take it you also doubt the theory of electromagnetism? The theory of gravity?

May I suggest that you find out what the word "theory" means, in the scientific sense. Evolution (and gravitation and electromagnetism) are theories because they are the best descriptions that explain the known facts and predict new ones. Scientists are not given to "wild speculation and innuendo"; if you want that kind of stuff, you need to go to DU or some conspiracy website or something. We scientists, we're driven to find out how the world works. When we speculate, we set up experiments to prove or disprove our speculation. And we are ruthless about trying to debunk ourselves.

302 posted on 04/15/2005 7:54:40 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
If these "scientists" weren't so hellbent on trying to prove this theory maybe they could devote their time, energy and resource's to something useful like curing diseases like cancer and diabetes I think that would be a much more noble task.
303 posted on 04/15/2005 9:45:20 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
electromagnetism? The theory of gravity?

Those can be proven and replicated in a lab. Man evolving from a single cell organism however is speculation and could never be replicated nor proven.

304 posted on 04/15/2005 9:48:40 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
If these "scientists" weren't so hellbent on trying to prove this theory maybe they could devote their time, energy and resource's to something useful like curing diseases like cancer and diabetes I think that would be a much more noble task.

Um, what is it, exactly, that you think we do? That we're spending BILLIONS of YOUR tax money doing? There are a few people working specifically on refining--not proving, but refining, the theory of evolution, but most of us are just using the theory to understand exactly what is going on at the molecular level. If we didn't have the unifying theory of evolution as a basis, most of the rest of our work--like curing cancer and diabetes--wouldn't be possible. It would be like trying to develop a new television technology while ignoring the theory of electromagnetism.

305 posted on 04/15/2005 10:26:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

oh bs.


306 posted on 04/15/2005 10:33:47 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Those can be proven and replicated in a lab. Man evolving from a single cell organism however is speculation and could never be replicated nor proven.

Really? How do you replicate gravity in a lab? How do you "prove" electricity? Have you ever studied physics? (Or any science, for that matter?) No one really understands gravity or electricity.

Apparently, you think that the word "theory" is a synonym of "supposition." It is not. In science, a theory is the unifying explanation for all of the known facts, and it can be used to predict other facts which are testable. You cannot do better than a theory in science.

All I can say is, I'm sorry you feel your faith is not strong enough to stand in the light of what we know about the world. God didn't disappear just because we discovered evolution.

307 posted on 04/15/2005 10:46:23 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The very notion of "further evolutionary advancement" is not in alignment with God's design. The only metric which God applies to His species is survival. By that metric, we have a long way to go before approaching that of "superior" species such as cockroaches and snails.

The survival metric is not a straight line. Sometimes a specific feature is good for survival, sometimes it is not so good--a changing environment demands adaptabiliy to maximize survival. We are "evolutionarily advanced" only to the extent that we are adaptable to our changing environment.


308 posted on 04/15/2005 10:48:20 PM PDT by hemi dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I think the best analysis here...is that its like going into a grocery store and buying materials for a cake...there are always the same basic 3 ingredients...cake mix, eggs, and water...and then there are the "others" which you mix in as well for the different taste.


309 posted on 04/15/2005 10:53:03 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I'm sorry just feel your trolling. I'm done with this thead, keep believing you nonsense and keep trying to come up with the answer of, where did the first spark of life come from? Who created it?


310 posted on 04/15/2005 10:57:23 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
The "slaves" were not the sort of slaves that Americans once kidnapped from Africa. A better translation would be "bond servatns". After 7 years they were supposed to be let go, unless they decided they wanted to stay with their master for life. There are a lot of people out there today who are too plain stupid to successfully navigate the modern world on their own. They would be better off if they attached themselves to some well to do person and became their household bond servant.

So if your child was a "bond servant" it would be just fine. I notice that you failed to address that "God" said it was okay to beat your "bond servants". If your child was a bond servant it must be encouraging to your child that it would be okay with you for your kid to be beaten by his master.

311 posted on 04/16/2005 3:31:05 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
I wouldn't brag about it. Next you'll be tossing up pea soup over people.
312 posted on 04/16/2005 6:02:58 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: sakic

Do you beleive that schools should be allowed to give corporal punsihment?

What about caning of delinquint youths by the government such as is practiced in Hong Long?


313 posted on 04/16/2005 5:41:48 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
In general, scientists are very aware of the limits of knowledge in their field. However, the media filter makes things sound very strange and there are people with a political agenda who will use anything to get their way.

It's good to know many scientists are.

In the case of organisms growing arms and legs, Ichneumon's post documents the fossil evidence of this occurring.

I have seen many of his postings but I am looking for creatures with partially formed arms or legs that have no apparent purpose and all I ever saw him come up with is that one bird with a claw that becomes a wing or something. A lot of his posts are other theories supporting this theory. But I will keep on looking.

The problem for anti-science is that there is an enormous amount of fossil evidence.

It's not the evidence I have a problem with although dating things is based on a large set of assumptions as well, it is in the interpretation, and the common characteristic = common ancestry is something I find troubling even though the dating of the fossils seems to bolster it.

So they've chosen to pick on something well documented, like the development of flagella or eyes (there are over 3500 different kinds), but have ignored truly complex structures like the brain.

I agree with you on this. It is easier to argue that a leg or an arm or brain is irreducibly complex than it is a flagella, and the refutation made by Miller(as weak as it was) that part of the flagella could exist as a smaller component with a different purpose, is not so easy to do with an arm, which would require probably millions of years to develop, and would not really have any other purpose except some sort of aberration for most of that time until it became a fully functioning arm(you think we would see fossil evidence of partial arms,etc. but would even see that stuff now, but all species seem completely formed).

Evolutionary biology is still the best explanation.

It may be the best one currently, but may not be correct. It is very difficult to piece together what happenened millions of years ago with an incomplete view of the past. Even when a plane crashes today, we can barely find out what happened even with our black boxes and technology because we weren't there and noone survived to tell us.

If we're lucky, we'll be here long enough to see a pill that can grow someone a new kidney.

I hope so. Maybe someone with mutate a brain big enough to figure that out.
314 posted on 04/17/2005 12:41:14 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Ahban; sakic
Yes. I accept God for who the Bible says He is, and love Him for it. He is not only infinitely merciful, but infinitley just. I agree with the U.S. Supreme court that capital punishment for certain juveniles is necessary (though He also reveals in Ezekiel 33 that He does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from thier ways and repent.. In the part of the law you name, it is not clear to me that the "children" to be stoned to death are not in their 20s anyway.

Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 specify putting to death those who curse their parents. Deuteronomy 21:18 specifies putting to death by stoning children who are "stubborn and rebellious". (No mention of serious crimes being required in either case). Do you obey God's law in this matter? If not then why not? Would you obey God's law and support your neighbour if he asked you to help him stone his children to death for being stubborn and rebellious as God requires? Would that be OK if the children were in their 20's?

The "slaves" were not the sort of slaves that Americans once kidnapped from Africa. A better translation would be "bond servatns". After 7 years they were supposed to be let go, unless they decided they wanted to stay with their master for life. There are a lot of people out there today who are too plain stupid to successfully navigate the modern world on their own. They would be better off if they attached themselves to some well to do person and became their household bond servant.

The Africans taken as slaves to the New World were not largely kidnapped; they were largely purchased in the markets implied and endorsed by implication in Leviticus 25:44-46. I take it that you see yourself as the "protector" of such a poor inadequate who ought to have the sense to decide to be a bond-servant. I think you need to read Exodus 21 1-10 a bit more carefully. Also Leviticus 25 44-46, and Exodus 21 20-21. Buying and selling slaves as permanent property? Sex slavery? Holding families hostage against a time-expired bond-servant "deciding" to become a slave? Beating slaves? (which was also endorsed by Jesus in the Bible). Would you do those things? Would you be happy with your neighbour obeying God and doing those things?

315 posted on 04/18/2005 2:08:12 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Evolution doesn't say. Evolution starts when life originates and proceeds from there. There is no scientific theory about the origin of life. There are several competing hypotheses about how life originated, but these have not yet risen to the level of theory. In short, the best scientific answer is "we don't know, but we're working on it."


316 posted on 04/18/2005 4:50:02 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Please state the theory of gravity and how it can be "proven" in the lab. HINT: you can't prove any theory in the lab. All you can do is subject a theory to further tests and gather more evidence in its favor.


317 posted on 04/18/2005 4:54:42 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Before I answer first you answer my questions to sakic in #313.


318 posted on 04/18/2005 6:47:14 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Ahban

I have no problem with the corporal punishment of delinquent youths by schools or states as long as a judicial process is followed in determining the need for such punishment in which the youths have the opportunity to defend themselves. Such punishments should be proportionate to the crime. We aren't talking about that; we are talking about capital punishment for minor offences (instructed by the Bible) and slaveholding (endorsed by the Bible). Are you supporting these practices? If not why not?


319 posted on 04/18/2005 11:16:56 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

You do well to consider the scriptures, and look to them. When studied with faith, they bring life and peace.

Leviticus 25:44-46 was not an endorsement of slavery, but an effort to limit it. This is clear if you read the surrounding verses. The scriptures serve as tutor for mankind, bringing him from a state of barbarity to a state of enlightenment. The main point of the passage you cite, when surrounding verses are considered, is that you are not to treat your fellow Hebrew (your neighbor) like that. Jesus then showed us that our neighbor is anyone who is around us. Mankind is tutored by God at a rate we can handle it.


I will have to address your points on capital punishment tomorrow. This morning I wold like to address your points on corporal punishment.


The slaves that you say Americans bought fair and square were mostly kidnapped, and as such do not compare with a 'bond servant" agreement.

You seem to think it fine for the State/Schools to beat on children but not OK for a Master that the parent has chosen to do the same. Wild children have to be disciplined for their own good and the good of society. On that we agree. What choice does the parent have about their government? In these days of complusory attendence laws what choice do they have in schools (unless they homeschool). At least they can pick their master.

I see the Bible's solution as less statist and more free than the socialist position that the state should have a monopoly on force. The more power parents (and their chosen masters have) to use force to discipline then the less force the state will need (and the less power it need have).

Perhaps you live among civilized, secular people who do not need a caning to stay out of trouble. Good for them, but you should not assume that the whole world is like them.

As for "slavery" being unchristian, it is in a way. Philemon is a good study on that, he was a run away slave and Paul teaches the next lesson on how "slaves" ought to be treated. The Bible tutors humanity to the final step.

Frederick Douglass was a former slave, and a CHristian. He observed that while the Bible permitted men to be masters it did not permit them to be bad ones. If he can content himself with that and still have faith in God, despite living as a slave, then Thatcherite is surely without excuse in his efforts to condemn his Maker.


320 posted on 04/20/2005 8:48:30 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Ahban

Still waiting for your capital punishment points so I can respond to everything at once.


321 posted on 04/23/2005 12:11:20 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

The Law was given as the ideal. In a just society, that is what the law would look like. I wish that we were good enough that we could handle law that just. We are not there yet, and may never be.

Who is in a better position to know the wickedness of a young man, his parents, or 12 strangers. Who would be most likely to condemn him to death, his parents or 12 strangers? It is clear that parents would be 1) better informed than strangers on whether their child was worthy of death and 2) less likely to call for death than strangers even in those situations where the strangers have equal knowledge.

The intent of the law was therefor not to kill more young people, but rather to strengthen the lawful authority of the parent. That would be a good thing. Right now, children can defy their parents openly, knowing that the state will intervene on the side of their foolishness if the parents even spank them in public. We now have children that grow up wild and rebellious, worthless to themselves and others. These are the kind that agents of the state will later have to kill or imprision- we have over 2 million like that right now. Isn't that enough?

When respect for parents is greater, respect for all authority and the law also becomes greater. The point of the law is to save life, even when it calls for ending it.

If we implemented all of the Old Testament Law in our current state we would be required by the Law to kill large numbers of people that God would rather spare alive that they may have more time to repent.

I support that Law as the Ideal. I believe in working for a society that is virteous enough to support such a virteous law. The closer we can get to that, the more our laws can be modeled on the ideal.

I believe the law in this case is based on the idea that the parents are upstanding citizens, and not crack-heads or something. No one would follow the lead of such a person. Still, if good people have an out of control sociopath on their hands it would be good if we could kill them before they killed a number of innocent people. I have seen some kids that you just know are going to wind up killers if they don't get killed first. Both outcomes happened in the cases I am thinking of.

THe biggest lesson of the Bible is that though the Law is stern and just, Mercy and Grace can trump it. Remember that every Christian is a person who has confessed that they are worthy of death- that they have broken the Divine Law. It is only by His substitution, bearing in His Own Body the penalty meant for me (and you, if you care to believe it) that the eternal penalty for our sins has been paid. You should not be surprised when people such as us say that the law should be hard and just, nor should you be surprised when we plead for mercy toward the lawbreakers. It is not a contradiction, rather we realize the purpose of the Law is not to perfect us, or to give us grounds to demand that God accept us as equals in righteousness. Instead its purpose is to make us aware of our failings and need for Him.


322 posted on 04/23/2005 6:46:05 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
I don't find your answer clear. The bible doesn't say that we aren't to do this until we have an ideal, just society. It says we are to do it now so you seem to be prevaricating.

Do you agree or not that stubborn and rebellious children must be stoned to death as the bible instructs? The bible does not limit the requirement for such punishment to parents so your argument about parents being the best judges is based on a false premise. If you see your neighbours children being stubborn and rebellious you should organise a stoning party. If your neighbour sees your children being stubborn and rebellious he should do likewise, and you should support him. Why aren't you obeying a clear Biblical instruction (I assume you aren't)? Don't you believe in doing what the Bible says?

If we implemented all of the Old Testament Law in our current state we would be required by the Law to kill large numbers of people that God would rather spare alive that they may have more time to repent.

Who are you to judge who God wants to spare? God has spoken clearly on this matter through the Bible and I believe that you are not obeying its instructions. You give no good reason why not (unless perhaps you don't believe that the Bible is inerrant?)

Alternatively perhaps you might agree with me that we should not use the Bible as a Law Text.

323 posted on 04/26/2005 1:33:34 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Leviticus 25:44-46 was not an endorsement of slavery, but an effort to limit it.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Jesus himself endorsed the beating of slaves, even when they make an honest mistake so that they won't make it again. It may interest you to know that Darwin's most heated arguments with Captain Fitzroy (the fundamentalist Christian captain of the Beagle) were about slavery not biology. Darwin thought it to be a disgusting practice that demeaned the humanity of both slave and slaver, whilst Fitzroy supported it, claiming Biblical support.

I note that you fail to address the Biblical instruction to hold bond-servant's family hostage against the decision of a bond-servant to become a permanent slave. I also note that you fail to address biblical endorsement for sex-slavery.

The slaves that you say Americans bought fair and square were mostly kidnapped, and as such do not compare with a 'bond servant" agreement.

I have checked this with an academic historian who specialises in this subject and your statement is simply untrue. The overwhelming majority of slaves shipped from Africa to the New World were bought in African markets from African slave-holding chiefs. Sometimes these would be surplus population from the chief's tribe. Kidnapping in such huge numbers would have been dangerous, expensive, and difficult, compared with simply buying the slaves in African markets.

I do however find your "fair and square" phrase bewildering. Slavery disgusts me even when it is practiced in forms that are permitted by the bible, such as the legitimate purchase of non-Hebrews in slave markets. It is only you that should see the buying and selling of human beings as something that could be "fair and square".

I don't disagree in principal with corporal punishment as I have already stated. But I find the idea that a bond-master or slaver can be the sole arbiter of such punishment for bond-servants or slaves completely unnacceptable. Evidently you don't, so we are worlds apart on that one.

The Bible states that if such beatings result in death delayed by more than 24 hours from the punishment then no offence has occurred. This sounds like an invitation to make extremely violent bloody beatings to me, as long as the poor wretch clings to life for 24 hours. A sadist's charter. F Douglass may have said that the Bible doesn't require masters to be bad masters, but it doesn't seem to require them to be good either if the life of a slave is to be viewed so cheaply.

Still at least you seem to be true to your faith and your Holy Book on this one. Evidently you view slavery as an entirely acceptable human state.

324 posted on 04/26/2005 1:55:51 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Bible Law says that if a master beats a slave and the slave dies within a day then the master is guilty. You use that to accuse God of being unjust. Those of us who are able to examine things in perspective understand that this rule was given in times where slaves could be beaten to death with no consequences whatsoever. This law was meant to limit punishment of slaves, not promote it. You instead take this to mean that God should be condemned for advocating that masters be allowed to use any force at all. There were thousands of captive aliens in Israel. There were bond servants who stole from their masters and beat their fellow servants. Perhaps you think the U.S. military should not have been allowed to use force to manage the tens of thousands of prisioners in our various wars.

Warfare slaves aside, how does one control an anti-social individual who does not have the skill set to successfully navigate civilized society? The Bible says he can become a bond servant to a master (of his choosing if he is an Israelite) who has authority to punish him. Other than that it is about like a seven year contract in the armed forces. At the end of the seven years perhaps he has learned enough to go out on his own, or maybe he realizes that he needs the structure and likes things with his master.

Secular humanists (such as yourself apparently) say that is too inhuman. Instead we must lock this same individual in a cage for seven years, taking more of his freedom than slavery ever could, with other more hardened criminals. After seven years of learning/getting beatings from them rather than a responisble member of the law abiding community, we release the now hardened criminal on an unsuspecting public until he murders someone and the police have to shoot him.

God is just, and his ways are above our ways, praise His Holy Name. Will you continue to mis-use the scriptures in a vain effort to condemn God, or will you use them to find forgiveness and healing from the condemnation that a just God must put on you?


325 posted on 05/01/2005 8:59:12 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
As I believe that the scriptures were written by men, not God, I can hardly be condemning God for the words of men.

I note that you ignore nearly all of the points that I have made, preferring to concentrate on the least odious practice of bondservice. Elsewhere you argue against numerous positions that I have not taken up. You then terminate your screed with a thinly veiled reference to the threat of eternal damnation hanging over me if I don't see things your way.

But there is yet hope. You concede that Biblical Law was framed to be appropriate for the Bronze Age goatherds of the time, and you urge me to "examine things in perspective". I agree, this is exactly the way that Biblical Law should be viewed. It probably was a step forward on the morals of the time. Moral Relativism in fact. Can I urge you in turn to "examine things in perspective" and to ponder whether creation tales and histories that were also appropriate for Bronze Age goatherds should trump the evidence available to modern science.

326 posted on 05/03/2005 1:22:34 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Ok, then let me re-phrase it, you are trying to condemn the scriptures, which have led countless souls to God across the ages, including mine, in a vain effort to excuse yourself from having to heed their witness. And yes, I believe that if you continue to harden your heart then you will get your heart's desire- eternal seperation from God who created and loves you.

BTW, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of ingnoring my more salient points as well.

I do agree that the natural universe is also a witness to God, and that the creation account must be interpreted in the light of what the natural world tells us. I am an Old Earth Creationist for example.

If the laws of the Old Testament were a "step forward" then they cannot be "Moral Relativism" in the classical definition of that term. A "step forward" implies that there is an objective moral order. Relativism implies that there is not, that it is all a matter of personal preference.


327 posted on 05/03/2005 7:27:50 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Ok, then let me re-phrase it, you are trying to condemn the scriptures

Hold it right there, no I'm not. I'm condemning explicit slavish adherence to the most simple-minded literal interpretation of the scriptures, ie making an idol of the Bible.

328 posted on 05/03/2005 7:30:31 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite


In the scriptures it says "all scripture is inspired by God". Even if men wrote it down, the scripture testifies of itself that it is "God-breathed". Do you believe that all scripture is God-breathed?


329 posted on 05/03/2005 8:29:12 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Ahban

No I don't. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure this conversation is going to go too much further. Our worldviews are so far apart that I feel that we are barely communicating.


330 posted on 05/03/2005 8:31:42 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; Ahban
Our worldviews are so far apart that I feel that we are barely communicating.

Then you should not have the temerity to lecture on the Bible and idols.

331 posted on 05/03/2005 8:48:19 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Fair enough. Do you share the Biblical view that slavery, beating slaves to death, and the execution of children for minor offences are OK?


332 posted on 05/03/2005 8:53:50 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Those of us who are able to examine things in perspective understand that this rule was given in times where slaves could be beaten to death with no consequences whatsoever.

So which has changed over time -- God or morality? Are there things acceptable at some periods of history but not at others?

333 posted on 05/03/2005 9:00:34 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Do you share the Biblical view that slavery, beating slaves to death, and the execution of children for minor offences are OK?

I do not answer loaded questions especially when they are unreferenced. In any case, Lot fathered children by his daughters, David had a man killed to get his wife, the Bible does not say that those things are OK. If you wish to further discuss this start up a thread with your questions on the religion forum and I'm sure you'll be answered quite adequately.

334 posted on 05/03/2005 9:19:53 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

There is plenty of reference to the Biblical background to those questions in this thread. Clearly you have the right to choose to decline to answer if you wish.


335 posted on 05/03/2005 9:29:48 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
There is plenty of reference to the Biblical background to those questions in this thread.

Well, if you didn't understand my answer, here it is for the plain child... No. Now if you want to know why ask it on the religion forum in a non loaded fashion, such as "What is the biblical view on slavery?"

336 posted on 05/03/2005 9:34:16 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Failure to answer the question noted.


337 posted on 05/03/2005 9:35:31 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Apologies. I missed the word "No" in your response. Why don't you endorse the Biblical position then?


338 posted on 05/03/2005 9:37:03 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

So it has to be fusion not fission. It has to be humans evolved from apes not apes from genetically flawed humans.

Evolution I see is their god and interspecies chromosome comparisons are their icons.

I think today I will go shopping for tarot cards to help me understand today's so-called science.


339 posted on 05/03/2005 9:37:13 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Failure to answer the question noted.

You must be blind. The "No" is fairly clear.

340 posted on 05/03/2005 9:37:13 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; AndrewC

Apologies x 2. I then sent my apology to myself.


341 posted on 05/03/2005 9:37:44 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Why don't you endorse the Biblical position then?

Sorry about the last response, your clarification was not posted when I answered.

Because "that" is not the Biblical position.

342 posted on 05/03/2005 9:39:17 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

That's OK the fault was my carelessness.

What view do you take for example of the Exodus 20 20:21 that say that if the death of a beaten slave is delayed by a day from the beating then no offence has occurred.

And what is your view on the stoning of "stubborn and rebellious" children?


343 posted on 05/03/2005 9:43:19 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

There are, of course, our friends in the Middle East still operating by these rules.

They would argue that denying the absolute truth of any part of the scripture would make it all fall down like a house of cards.


344 posted on 05/03/2005 9:46:27 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Because "that" is not the Biblical position.

Interestingly that is not amongst your fellow Christian Ahban's responses. He appears to see those things as the Biblical position AFAICS in this thread. At the very least he has never unequivocally denied it (as you have).

345 posted on 05/03/2005 9:50:04 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
And what is your view on the stoning of "stubborn and rebellious" children?

You twist the words of the Bible.

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Deu 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

You imply little kids, but what little kids are drunkards? And son is not children.

346 posted on 05/03/2005 9:54:46 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; AndrewC

To avoid recapitulating everything and to understand where I am coming from you could read the posts between ahban and myself starting at #315.


347 posted on 05/03/2005 9:55:00 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

OK, so this is alright if the children are adults then? A parent should stone their rebellious and stubborn adult children?


348 posted on 05/03/2005 9:56:12 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
He appears to see those things as the Biblical position AFAICS in this thread. At the very least he has never unequivocally denied it (as you have).

I'll let him speak for himself, but I put "that" in quotes for a reason.

349 posted on 05/03/2005 9:56:35 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
A parent should stone their rebellious and stubborn adult children?

I don't do dances. Read. "son" <> "children". Timothy McVeigh was rebellious.

350 posted on 05/03/2005 9:58:56 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-398 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson