Secular law is fundamentally based on scientific principles

No.
Law... of ALL variety... is based on the values of the culture that gave it life.

This assumes far more than I'm willing to grant. There is a *real* authority on the bible? Who may that have been. Considering what I know of the history of the assembly of what we understand of as the "bible", I'd say that you're on shaky ground in this assertion. Further, what about the Jews? The Mormons? The Muslims? They all root from the same branch and yet they all pretty much hate each other. Which is the authority that I will ahve to recognize? Would that be Mohamed? Jesus? Moses? Joseph Smith?

And that's just if I accept their various frames, which - as a scientist - I cannot because there is zero evidence leading me to that conclusion. I mean, if you're just going to accept someone's word on the "authority", they you mine as well drink the same koolaid as the blokes in Heaven's gate or any number of whacked out cults which all have the only revealed truth.

In other words, where's your criteria by which you make such a bold assertion that I have no right to prerogative?

deny the existence of the only real authority on the Bible

For someone acquainted with the lingo of the SubG, you really haven't penetrated even the most banal of our beliefs. I'm speaking of course, of YHVH-1, who is central to the epidermis of our structure of wool gathering. And of course there's the central tenet of the Fightin' Jesus(tm) and the quite clear assertion that what pisses the institutionalized SubG off is that the bible has been misinterpreted.

I mean, really. Get a pamphlet or two and learn a couple of things about the outer rituals and first order belief structures, dude. Spouting off stuff that is trivially falsified is just bad form.

leaving you stranded intellectually, on the subject of it's meaning.

I'm sure that many deep scholars of religion would say that it is hardly an "intellectual" experience or phenomena and so "stranded intellectually" is literally an oxymoron when applied to religion and the super natural - just sayin'.

The law can, in a limited way, define murder. Science,by definition I think, cannot do so.

Why? Social science? Theory of law? Political science (the "master" science as one of James' associates and sometimes substitute blogger would characterize it as).

Seriously. Secular law is fundamentally based on scientific principles and I would wager few who aren't whacked out on Peyote would argue otherwise. The entire interrogative nature of our court system and resolution of law is nothing but an animated revelation of the scientific method. Stating that "science" has nothing to say about murder is lunacy. Pull the other one, while you're at it.

Take some time and read Darwin's Cathedral for just a taste of what non-Dawkins driven evolutionary theory is capable of encompassing. Or you can amuse yourself for a nice week or month (depending on your proclivaties) with the most excellent Freudian adventure told as a discussion between three intellectuals in Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Which, besides one of the most rockin' titles in the history of this planet, has a most plausible, yet entirely bogus, explanatory theory on much of what most would refer to as religion.

I have no "prerogative". Ha!

The nerve ;)

Or participating in this part of your Opus Dei regime of self flagellation?

WR is even more narrow than Hal, if possible. He cannot see how his religion, or lack of same, affects this thread. First of all, I would expect an atheist to champion abortion, separation of church and state (divide and conquer), support Obama to the hilt no matter what his qualifications and sins, and reject any and every conservative argument virtually without exception. I would expect a challenge at every turn pivoting on disbelief.

Thus, it becomes possible to terminate a totally useless discussion. I am so glad that there are so few atheists around.

Really? Then I'll just take it that y'all have no prerogative to comment on Biology since y'all aren't trained in science and don't believe in evolution.

Man, who knew that all we had to do was leave respective areas to their own kind?

If this *really* is your opinion on the subject and not just snark, then I think the above follows. Therefore, the abortion issue is solved. Y'all can think it's murder, while secular law and science can say otherwise.

Hal;
Yes, you have, and so it is no longer your prerogative to comment on the Bible,since it is rightly divined only by the Holy Spirit.....
So...Tell us what bob sez.

Man, you are late to the party. I've already done so in a previous comment.

You claimed that "abortion was not practice at the time". This is demonstratively false as it was *known* to be practiced long before this time. You're now claiming that there was a strong anti-abortion culture in Judea and that Roman culture had not permeated Judea at the time of Christ. Further, you're even making the stronger - and completely unsupportable - claim that opposition to abortion by a movement that didn't even exist at the time period under consideration somehow reaches back in time and sets the cultural standards for a different religion.

Bravo! Pretzel logic in its purest form

This line of reasoning is pure BS!

I suppose asking you for proof of your assertion that the Romans over-ran Hebrew culture and it's values, will be met by the same level if iding as we've seen fromm you in the past?

Or was it rather, the reverse? I seem to recall there being this little chruch in Rome... then as now... and further, that they have somehting against Abortion.

You're over your head, Hal.

What a wonderfully typical right-wing response. Can't analyze an idea, you can only stereotype a speaker.

After all, you can simply read your new testament to find out how widespread the adoption of roman culture was.

This line of reasoning is pure BS!

Um, you do know that Palestine - you know, where all the new testament happened - was part of Rome, don't you? Or are you going argue that somehow the Roman empire didn't include Palestine?

Again, Hal. the context seems to ahve given you the slip. Go back up and read where I spoke of the cultural values. THe Romans may have domintae dthe land, but not the culture in question.

Do try to keep up.